NJ patients complain about medical marijuana email

GEOFF MULVIHILL , The Associated Press
POSTED: Wednesday, December 19, 2012, 2:01 PM

TRENTON, N.J. - The New Jersey Department of Health apologized Wednesday to medical marijuana patients for sending them an email that disclosed the email addresses , and in some cases, the names , of all the program participants.

The department said in a statement that it is working to avoid repeating the mistake.

The email, sent Tuesday, was the latest complication for the new program. The Health Department sent the email to advise patients that their required appointments preceding marijuana purchases will be made by Greenleaf Compassion Center in Montclair, not the state…..

Tony NYC suburb welcomes NJ's first pot dispensary

By GEOFF MULVIHILL, Associated Press – 4 hours ago 

MONTCLAIR, N.J. (AP) — Across New Jersey, most communities approached about hosting one of the state's first legal medical marijuana dispensaries in out-of-the-way industrial zones have just said no, after outpourings of public opposition.
Montclair is a different story.

The cosmopolitan suburb a half-hour train ride from Manhattan has not only allowed Greenleaf Compassion Center — which last week received the state Health Department's first license to begin providing pot to patients — but also let the business set up in the middle of the town's main drag, and with no fuss.
For plenty of people in the way left-of-center town, the situation is a source of both pride and nonchalance…..

18 NJ patients register to use medical marijuana

The Associated Press
Published: Wednesday, Aug. 15, 2012 - 9:58 am

TRENTON, N.J. -- There hasn't been a mad rush for patients to register for New Jersey's medical marijuana program.

State Health Department officials say that since registration opened on Aug. 9, 18 patients have signed up for permission to use the drug, which is otherwise illegal…..

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/15/472834 … rylink=cpy

NJ patients can now register for medical pot

GEOFF MULVIHILL, Associated Press
Updated 4:10 p.m., Wednesday, August 8, 2012

New Jersey patients with doctors' recommendations to use marijuana to treat certain health conditions can register for identification cards beginning Thursday as the state prepares for its first legal dispensary to open next month.

….The law was signed in January 2010, but no patients have obtained legal cannabis yet.

Patients with only a handful of conditions — including glaucoma, multiple sclerosis and terminal cancer — qualify. And they must have recommendations from doctors they have been seeing for at least a year and who have registered with the state.

So far, about 150 doctors have signed up.

Under the process, doctors who think patients would benefit from pot will enter those patients into a state computer system and get an identification number that the patients will use to complete the process.

A registration card good for two years will cost $200. Patients on public assistance programs such as Medicare or Medicaid will have to pay just $20…..

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/NJ-p … z230M2uJsv

N.J. lawmaker wants answers on delay in medical marijuana program

Published: Monday, July 16, 2012, 8:15 AM     Updated: Monday, July 16, 2012, 8:17 AM
By The Associated Press

TRENTON — A New Jersey lawmaker is calling for legislative hearings on why it's taking so long for the state's medical marijuana program to get running.

Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, a Democrat from Trenton, called for hearings last week.,,,,

8/16/2011 – Criminal defense attorney William Buckman of Moorestown, NJ has filed an appeal to the state’s highest court for John Ray Wilson. The 38 year old man was convicted on the second-degree felony of “manufacturing” marijuana for growing seventeen cannabis plants.  Last month an appellate court upheld Wilson’s 5-year prison sentence, saying that he could not claim that the plants were for “personal” use.

John Wilson lives without healthcare and battles the symptoms of multiple sclerosis. His conviction in January 2010 came just as the Garden State’s compassionate use law was passed. However, it was the first medical marijuana law in the country that continues to prohibit home cultivation.

In a press release today Buckman said, “New Jersey already has some of the most draconian laws in the nation with respect to marijuana, costing taxpayers outrageous sums to incarcerate nonviolent, otherwise responsible individuals– as well as in this case — the sick and infirm.”

Local cannabis advocates have supported John, demonstrating in front of the Somerset County Courthouse throughout his trial.

Ken Wolski, the Executive Director of the Coalition for Medical Marijuana New Jersey said, “This case has shocked the conscience of the community. Wilson was unable to present his only defense to the jury–that he used cannabis to treat his multiple sclerosis (MS).”

NJ Governor Chris Christie lifted his suspension of the medical marijuana program in July. But the six Alternative Treatment Centers are not likely to open until 2012. The ATCs have millions of dollars in backing from powerful groups of investors.  They will farm thousands of cannabis plants and the sell the products to registered patients, including those with MS.

Wolski pointed out, “These ATCs were not available to John in 2008. Cultivation was the only way that he could afford to gain access. We hope that the Supreme Court will provide justice in this case.”

During his trial, Wilson testified that he told the NJ State Police that he was going to keep all of the marijuana. Wilson also described his medical condition to officers as they searched his home.

Bill Buckman is a member of the national NORML Legal Committee and the immediate past president of the NJ Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. He is a fierce trial lawyer who won a landmark case against the NJ State Police surrounding the the issue of racial profiling in traffic stops.

“As it stands, the case now allows a person who grows marijuana to be exposed to up to 20 years in jail, even if that marijuana is strictly for his or her own medical use,” said Buckman, “No fair reading of the law would ever sanction this result.”

CMMNJ – http://www.cmmnj.org

William Buckman - http://www.whbuckman.com

Support John Ray Wilson on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/pages/Support- … 4540271138

Daily poll: Is the Christie administration dragging its feet on medical marijuana clinics?

Published: Thursday, April 05, 2012, 5:27 AM
By The Associated Press

Richard Caporusso says in a lawsuit that Gov. Chris Christie's administration has been implementing rules for medical marijuana that are "designed with the intent" to interfere with the program. He's calling for courts to take over the program or force the state to speed up implementation.

Caporusso's doctor, Jeffrey S. Pollack, joined him as a plaintiff on behalf of other would-be medical marijuana patients and their doctors.

A law to allow medical marijuana for patients with certain conditions was signed in January 2010 in one of Jon Corzine's last acts as governor. Implementing the program was left to the administration of Christie, who says he believes marijuana may help certain patients but has long harbored doubts about the specifics of New Jersey's law, which is considered the most stringent in the nation.

Since he took office, there have been delays in setting up the regulations for the industry. Rules that were initially to be in place by July 2010 were finally approved in December 2011.

And the rules his administration put in place are not popular with advocates for medical marijuana, who say the illegal drug can alleviate pain and nausea associated with conditions including glaucoma, Crohn's disease, multiple sclerosis and other health problems.

The rules are the only ones among the 16 states that have a law to allow medical marijuana to limit its potency…..

http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2 … _term.html

You have to wonder: Are the authorities and courts high? John Ray Wilson, it appears, is going to prison for growing 17 marijuana plants behind his home in Franklin Township. An appeals court last week tossed out a last-ditch attempt at overturning his conviction.

Now, 17 plants — some as tall as an NBA player — are a lot of pot, but Wilson suffers from multiple sclerosis, had no health insurance, his lawyer says, and grew the weed to help him alleviate the symptoms of his illness. Okay, so maybe he overplanted.

We know what you’re going to say: No one person could possibly smoke that much pot.

Heck, Wilson could have thrown a party, invited Cheech and Chong, Spicoli, Bill Maher and all of San Francisco — and still would have had a few doobies left over. So, Wilson must’ve been dealing.

But there’s no evidence of that.

Wilson was acquitted of maintaining or operating a drug-production facility (a possible 20-year offense), but found guilty of manufacturing and possessing the drug.

At his trial, Wilson was not allowed to tell the jury that he grew the pot to relieve his symptoms, nor was he permitted to present an expert witness on the benefits of marijuana.

He appealed those points, but lost.

Of course, had New Jersey passed a medical marijuana law sooner, Wilson wouldn’t have had to resort to backyard farming in 2009.

The court followed the law to the letter, but at some point, someone must step in and stop the craziness of this case. Because it’s totally bogus, dude.

This case has been overkill from the start: After agents in a helicopter spotted the plants, cops swarmed the neighborhood.

Wilson is not another drug dealer we need swept off the streets. He’s a nine-year MS sufferer who couldn’t wait for the state to stop dragging its feet and now faces several months in jail.

One more thing: When Wilson is incarcerated, the state (meaning taxpayers) must pay for his expensive MS treatment.

There are remedies, of course. The governor could issue a pardon. The attorney general’s office could reassess its position on jail for Wilson. Either one would make us feel a lot more mellow.

Related Editorial: Marijuana mercy: Pardon John Ray Wilson
http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2 … hn_ra.html

The state Attorney General’s Office believes we have to get John Ray Wilson off the streets. He was caught growing marijuana behind his Franklin Township home — enough to make him, in the eyes of the law, a pot producer, a drug distributor. Heck, some of the plants were taller than an NBA point guard, cops say.

After a helicopter spotted the weed, police swarmed Wilson’s neighborhood and arrested him. He was charged with maintaining or operating a drug-production facility, a first-degree crime, along with other offenses, and could face up to 20 years in prison.

Whew! Another hard-core drug offender swept from New Jersey’s streets with help from the National Guard. We can all sleep soundly tonight.

Except that Wilson has multiple sclerosis and was growing the marijuana, he says, to treat his condition. He’s hardly the Gotti of Ganja, the Dillinger of Dope, the Cannabis Kid.

Wilson was caught growing 17 plants. That makes him subject to prosecution as if he were dealing, but attorney James Wronko insists "there’s no evidence of that whatsoever." Wilson, he says, is a novice and "had no idea" how many plants he needed to make enough pot for personal use.

Sens. Nicholas Scutari and Raymond Lesniak (both D-Union) have asked Gov. Jon Corzine to pardon Wilson, who declined an offer to plead guilty in return for a three- to nine-year sentence and is scheduled to go on trial Dec. 14. The senators want Corzine to throw out the first-degree charge, so Wilson can enter pretrial intervention on the lesser offenses. They have called the charges "inappropriate" and an "inhumane application" of the law.

Dude, they’re right, this is totally bogus.

With the Legislature probably close to passing a bill that permits medical marijuana use, pardoning Wilson from the serious charge makes sense. Otherwise, the state could spend tens of thousands of dollars to try this case and possibly throw this guy in prison, where it will cost us even more money.

What are we, high?

________________________________________________________________________

These folks need voting out of office !!

These folks need to be charged with criminal act's of assault and battery !!

They need to be hauled into court for practicing medicine w/o a lic.

any more charges ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/18/nyreg … .html?_r=1

As a former undercover narcotics detective with the New Jersey State Police, I might be the last person you'd expect to see supporting a new marijuana decriminalization bill in the state Assembly. But my experience on the front lines of the so-called "war on drugs" is exactly what led me to support fundamental changes to failed prohibition policies.

And I am not alone in this belief. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a nonprofit education organization of 50,000 police officers, judges, prosecutors and others also understands that prohibiting marijuana doesn't prevent people from using the drug but it does create a number of additional problems.

Keeping marijuana illegal afflicts thousands of people every year with criminal records they don't deserve. Less obvious but of concern to users and non-users alike, is that the time police spend arresting people for marijuana distracts from the time they could be using to prevent or at least investigate violent crimes.

In the United States, our overburdened police departments are unable to solve four of 10 murders, six of 10 rapes, seven of 10 robberies and nine of 10 burglaries. Yet each year our prohibition laws result in our police taking time out to make more than 800,000 arrests for marijuana offenses. The policy of prohibition therefore constitutes a grave threat to public safety.

Thankfully, an increasing number of lawmakers are taking a serious look at changing the state's marijuana policies. State Assemblymen Reed Gusciora, D-Mercer, and Michael Patrick Carroll, R-Morris, along with 15 additional co-sponsors, introduced a bill this month that would remove criminal penalties for adults possessing fewer than 15 grams of marijuana.

Besides allowing police officers to focus on more important things, this bill would free up space in our overcrowded jails and save taxpayer dollars that could instead be used to fund schools, roads and health care.

Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron says New Jersey spends $183 million enforcing its marijuana prohibition laws every year. In 2009, a good portion of that money was spent arresting more than 22,000 people in New Jersey for possessing small amounts of marijuana.

The bipartisan support for the decriminalization bill is encouraging, but its passage will hardly be a slam-dunk. Consider what has happened with the state's medical marijuana policy.

In late 2010 Gov. Jon Corzine signed a popular medical marijuana bill into law. In his campaign to succeed Corzine, current Gov. Chris Christie expressed support for medical marijuana "in concept."

That concept appears to embody the goal that medical marijuana will never be available in the Garden State. The Christie administration continues to erect roadblocks to the law's implementation. Christie wants federal assurance that medical marijuana workers would be immune from federal prosecution - a guarantee everyone knows Washington would never make.

Christie's effort to forestall medical marijuana flies in the face of decades of law-enforcement experience and scientific research.

In my 26 years with the New Jersey State Police, I worked with talented people who fought the drug war courageously. We arrested many people for marijuana and seized enough of the stuff to fill warehouses. But the fatal flaw to prohibition is that no level of law enforcement skill, commitment and resources - or increased arrest numbers - can ever end an activity that is popular and extremely profitable.

When former law enforcers are calling for changes to the marijuana laws, there's simply no excuse for politicians to continue the status quo.

While some might be afraid of the newness of change, no one can claim what we've been doing is working. Four out of 10 Americans - some 100 million people - admit to having used marijuana.

But marijuana prohibition has worked exceptionally well for one sector: the gangs and cartels that control its currently illegal distribution and profits. The Mexican drug cartels reportedly make up to 70 percent of their profits from marijuana sales alone, and the Justice Department says that they have already set up shop in 230 U.S. cities.

Legalized regulation of marijuana would deal a stronger blow to these criminal syndicates than law enforcement crackdowns ever have or will.

While decriminalizing possession of marijuana in New Jersey won't stop the black market - only legalized regulation can do that - it is still a big step toward correcting the misguided policy of prohibition.

New Jersey should join the 14 other states that have chosen to impose a fine instead of jail time for marijuana possession.

Jack Cole is a retired New Jersey State Police narcotics detective. He is co-founder and board chairman of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. The group's website is www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — Advocates say they will consider suing the state if Gov. Chris Christie continues to stand in the way of implementing a law that legalizes marijuana for medical use.

But they're not enthusiastic about that possibility.

"I would hope that would be a last option. A court case can drag on for years and our concern is patients having access now," said Roseanne Scotti, New Jersey director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

Christie has not yet responded to a memo released Thursday by the U.S. Justice Department that says marijuana dispensaries and licensed growers in states with medical marijuana laws could face prosecution for violating federal drug and money-laundering laws.

Christie's spokesman, Michael Drewniak, says the governor is awaiting advice from Attorney General Paula Dow, who is still reviewing the letter. Christie has been especially concerned about whether state employees could be prosecuted for their role in regulating medical marijuana, and the first-term Republican governor recently said he wanted some assurances before moving forward.

"The federal government is saying medical marijuana is against the law. Until I get that assurance, I cannot ask people to do things that they might get prosecuted (for) by federal prosecutors," Christie said in June. "What happens if they get arrested and I ordered them to do it? That's wrong."

But advocates and legal experts say Christie, who spent seven years as the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, is well aware of the federal law and knows federal authorities would never give a blanket assurance that they won't prosecute a hypothetical case in the future.

"He knows better as a former U.S. Attorney," said Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, who co-sponsored the bill. "He knows they are not going to pick on the strictest law in the country."

In her letter to the Justice Department on behalf of the governor, Dow specifically asked whether state employees could be prosecuted.

The Thursday memo by Deputy Attorney General James Cole reiterated what was in a 2009 memo, in which the Justice Department told prosecutors they should not focus investigative resources on patients and caregivers complying with state medical marijuana laws. The new memo does not give states cover from prosecution, but notes the broad discretion local U.S. Attorneys have in their states.

Paul Fishman, the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, has not commented on the memos.

But a person familiar with Fishman's thinking said it was extremely unlikely that he would prosecute state employees who are complying with the state's regulatory framework. The person spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk about the matter.

Sam Kamin, a constitutional law professor at the Sturm College of Law at the University of Denver, notes the latest memo focuses heavily on the size of the operation, going so far as to define a caregiver as "individuals providing care to individuals ... not commercial operations cultivating, selling or distributing" marijuana.

"If you are running a large-scale, for-profit operation — this is a scary memo," Kamin said, adding that the waters are more murky for smaller-scale operations.

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized the medical use of marijuana, with programs in various phases of development. New Jersey adopted a law to allow medical marijuana in January 2010, just before Christie took office.

While Christie says he supports medical marijuana access for patients who need it, he's expressed problems with the law New Jersey passed, though it's considered the most restrictive among the states that allow medical marijuana.

His administration upset activists because it took months to come up with regulations for the industry — and they're still not finalized. Lawmakers have even threatened to nullify Christie's proposed regulations, saying they violate the intent of the law.

This year, six nonprofit groups were awarded licenses to grow and sell pot to patients with conditions such as terminal cancer, glaucoma and multiple sclerosis. Some patients say the drug eases pain and nausea. But so far, none has been legally sold because the state has not created a registry of patients who can, under state law, use the drug.

Some of the groups licensed to grow buds have said they realize they would be violating federal law and are willing to risk prosecution to launch their businesses. The organizations that are allowed to grow and sell marijuana to patients with certain medical conditions are not-for-profit but the size of the operations is unclear since they haven't been allowed to start dispensing the drug.

State Sen. Nicholas Scutari, another sponsor, said that if he doesn't hear from the governor soon, he'll send Christie an official request asking him to take a position. But beyond that, a lawsuit may be the only remedy.

"All the deadlines have passed," Scutari said, "and the governor sent this letter looking for guidance so he wouldn't have to do anything."

New Jersey governor will pay for personal use of the state helicopter.

Watch Video

Prepared by:

Thomas J. Cafferty, Esq.
Nomi I. Lowy Esq.
Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
1100 Valley Brook Avenue
Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071
(201) 896-4100

FOREWORD

Open Records

 
I.
STATUTE -- BASIC APPLICATION

  A.
Who can request records?

  1.
Status of requestor.

  2.
Purpose of request.

  3.
Use of records.

  B.
Whose records are and are not subject to the act?

  1.
Executive branch.

  2.
Legislative bodies.

  3.
Courts.

  4.
Nongovernmental bodies.

  5.
Multi-state or regional bodies.

  6.
Advisory boards and commissions, quasi-governmental entities.

  C.
What records are and are not subject to the act?

  1.
What kind of records are covered?

  2.
What physical form of records are covered?

  3.
Are certain records available for inspection but not copying?

  D.
Fee provisions or practices.

  1.
Levels or limitations on fees.

  2.
Particular fee specifications or provisions.

  3.
Provisions for fee waivers.

  4.
Requirements or prohibitions regarding advance payment.

  5.
Have agencies imposed prohibitive fees to discourage requesters?

  E.
Who enforces the act?

  1.
Attorney General's role.

  2.
Availability of an ombudsman.

  3.
Commission or agency enforcement.

  F.
Are there sanctions for noncompliance?

 
II.
EXEMPTIONS AND OTHER LEGAL LIMITATIONS

  A.
Exemptions in the open records statute.

  1.
Character of exemptions.

  a.
General or specific?

  b.
Mandatory or discretionary?

  c.
Patterned after federal Freedom of Information Act?

  2.
Discussion of each exemption.

  B.
Other statutory exclusions.

  C.
Court-derived exclusions, common law prohibitions, recognized privileges against disclosure.

  D.
Are segregable portions of records containing exempt material available?

  E.
Homeland Security Measures.

 
III.
STATE LAW ON ELECTRONIC RECORDS

  A.
Can the requester choose a format for receiving records?

  B.
Can the requester obtain a customized search of computer databases to fit particular needs?

  C.
Does the existence of information in electronic format affect its openness?

  D.
How is e-mail treated?

  E.
Is software public?

  F.
How are fees for electronic records assessed?

  G.
Money-making schemes.

  H.
On-line dissemination.

 
IV.
RECORD CATEGORIES -- OPEN OR CLOSED

  A.
Autopsy reports.

  B.
Bank records.

  C.
Business records, financial data, trade secrets.

  D.
Contracts, proposals and bids.

  E.
Collective bargaining records.

  F.
Coroners reports.

  G.
Election records.

  H.
Gun permits.

  I.
Hospital reports.

  J.
Personnel records.

  1.
Salary.

  2.
Disciplinary records.

  3.
Applications.

  4.
Other.

  K.
Police records.

  1.
Accident reports.

  2.
Police blotter.

  3.
911 tapes.

  4.
Investigatory records.

  a.
Rules for active investigations.

  b.
Rules for closed investigations.

  5.
Arrest records.

  6.
Compilations of criminal histories.

  7.
Victims.

  8.
Confessions.

  9.
Confidential informants.

  10.
Police techniques.

  11.
Mug shots.

  L.
Prison, parole and probation reports.

  M.
Public utility records.

  N.
Real estate appraisals, negotiations.

  O.
School and university records.

  1.
Athletic records.

  2.
Trustee records.

  3.
Student records.

  4.
Other.

  P.
Vital statistics.

 
V.
PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING RECORDS

  A.
How to start.

  1.
Who receives a request?

  2.
Does the law cover oral requests?

  3.
Contents of a written request.

  a.
Description of the records.

  b.
Need to address fee issues.

  c.
Plea for quick response.

  d.
Can the request be for future records?

  B.
How long to wait.

  1.
Statutory, regulatory or court-set time limits for agency response.

  2.
Informal telephone inquiry as to status.

  3.
Is delay recognized as a denial for appeal purposes?

  4.
Any other recourse to encourage a response.

  C.
Administrative appeal.

  D.
Court action.

  1.
Who may sue?

  2.
Priority.

  3.
Pro se.

  4.
Issues the court will address:

  5.
Pleading format.

  6.
Time limit for filing suit.

  7.
What court.

  8.
Judicial remedies available.

  9.
Costs and attorneys' fees.

  10.
Fines.

  11.
Other penalties.

  12.
Settlement, pros and cons.

  E.
Appealing initial court decisions.

  1.
Appeal routes.

  2.
Time limits for filing appeals.

  3.
Contact of interested amici.

  F.
Addressing government suits against disclosure.

Open Meetings

 
I.
STATUTE -- BASIC APPLICATION.

  A.
Who may attend?

  B.
What governments are subject to the law?

  C.
What bodies are covered by the law?

  1.
Executive branch agencies.

  a.
What officials are covered?

  b.
Are certain executive functions covered?

  c.
Are only certain agencies subject to the act?

  2.
Legislative bodies.

  3.
Courts.

  4.
Nongovernmental bodies receiving public funds or benefits.

  5.
Nongovernmental groups whose members include governmental officials.

  6.
Multi-state or regional bodies.

  7.
Advisory boards and commissions, quasi-governmental entities.

  8.
Other bodies to which governmental or public functions are delegated.

  9.
Appointed as well as elected bodies.

  D.
What constitutes a meeting subject to the law.

  1.
Number that must be present.

  2.
Nature of business subject to the law.

  3.
Electronic meetings.

  E.
Categories of meetings subject to the law.

  1.
Regular meetings.

  a.
Definition.

  b.
Notice.

  (1).
Time limit for giving notice.

  (2).
To whom notice is given.

  (3).
Where posted.

  (4).
Public agenda items required.

  (5).
Other information required in notice.

  (6).
Penalties and remedies for failure to give adequate notice.

  c.
Minutes.

  (1).
Information required.

  (2).
Are minutes public record?

  2.
Special or emergency meetings.

  a.
Definition.

  b.
Notice requirements.

  (1).
Time limit for giving notice.

  (2).
To whom notice is given.

  (3).
Where posted.

  (4).
Public agenda items required.

  (5).
Other information required in notice.

  (6).
Penalties and remedies for failure to give adequate notice.

  c.
Minutes.

  3.
Closed meetings or executive sessions.

  a.
Definition.

  b.
Notice requirements.

  (1).
Time limit for giving notice.

  (2).
To whom notice is given.

  (3).
Where posted.

  (4).
Public agenda items required.

  (5).
Other information required in notice.

  (6).
Penalties and remedies for failure to give adequate notice.

  c.
Minutes.

  (1).
Information required.

  (2).
Are minutes a public record?

  d.
Requirement to meet in public before closing meeting.

  e.
Requirement to state statutory authority for closing meetings before closure.

  f.
Tape recording requirements.

  F.
Recording/broadcast of meetings.

  G.
Are there sanctions for noncompliance?

 
II.
EXEMPTIONS AND OTHER LEGAL LIMITATIONS

  A.
Exemptions in the open meetings statute.

  1.
Character of exemptions.

  a.
General or specific.

  b.
Mandatory or discretionary closure.

  2.
Description of each exemption.

  B.
Any other statutory requirements for closed or open meetings.

  C.
Court mandated opening, closing.

 
III.
MEETING CATEGORIES -- OPEN OR CLOSED.

  A.
Adjudications by administrative bodies.

  B.
Budget sessions.

  C.
Business and industry relations.

  D.
Federal programs.

  E.
Financial data of public bodies.

  F.
Financial data, trade secrets or proprietary data of private corporations and individuals.

  G.
Gifts, trusts and honorary degrees.

  H.
Grand jury testimony by public employees.

  I.
Licensing examinations.

  J.
Litigation; pending litigation or other attorney-client privileges.

  K.
Negotiations and collective bargaining of public employees.

  L.
Parole board meetings, or meetings involving parole board decisions.

  M.
Patients; discussions on individual patients.

  N.
Personnel matters.

  O.
Real estate negotiations.

  P.
Security, national and/or state, of buildings, personnel or other.

  Q.
Students; discussions on individual students.

 
IV.
PROCEDURE FOR ASSERTING RIGHT OF ACCESS

  A.
When to challenge.

  1.
Does the law provide expedited procedure for reviewing request to attend upcoming meetings?

  2.
When barred from attending.

  3.
To set aside decision.

  4.
For ruling on future meetings.

  B.
How to start.

  C.
Court review of administrative decision.

  1.
Who may sue?

  2.
Will the court give priority to the pleading?

  3.
Pro se possibility, advisability.

  4.
What issues will the court address?

  5.
Pleading format.

  6.
Time limit for filing suit.

  7.
What court.

  8.
Judicial remedies available.

  9.
Availability of court costs and attorneys' fees.

  10.
Fines.

  D.
Appealing initial court decisions.

  1.
Appeal routes.

  2.
Time limits for filing appeals.

  3.
Contact of interested amici.

 
V.
ASSERTING A RIGHT TO COMMENT.

Statutes

Landlords say Newark man refuses to pay rent, trashes apartments, then ties them up in court

NEWARK — He looks like an attorney in his crisp gray suit, white shirt and red patterned tie.

Not only does he dress the part, Mark Newton knows the law. In fact, an exhaustive Star-Ledger review of his court filings shows that for at least 19 years he has made Superior, chancery, federal and municipal courtrooms his virtual offices, representing himself in hundreds of court battles — though he has no license to practice law.

His specialty? Avoiding eviction. And he is relentlessly effective.

Interviews with landlords and neighbors and an examination of court documents provide a portrait of a man waging an almost continual war of attrition, fighting one eviction after another for years on end, filing lawsuits, complaints, subpoenas, asking for judge recusals and seeking postponements. He sometimes has multiple cases going simultaneously in different courts, always acting pro se, meaning he is his own "lawyer."

Neighbors, judges, landlord’s family members and attorneys all have found themselves in Newton’s crosshairs. If there is a more active pro se litigant in New Jersey, no one has heard of it. Mark Newton is the pro se king.

"He learned to work the system in such a way that he could take me to several different courts,’’ said Karyn Stewart, who claims she spent $5,000 in attorney fees trying to evict Newton. "There’s probably not a landlord in Essex County who doesn’t know Mark Newton. Somebody has got to put a stop to him.’’

The Newton system, according to court documents and dozens of interviews with adversaries, goes something like this: The 51-year old Newark man moves his family into an apartment or house, and soon stops paying rent. He then complains about unsavory living conditions that, landlords say, he created. At some point, his attack escalates and conditions in the rented apartment or house
worsen, lawyers and landlords say. Newton continues to complain. Next, lawyers and landlords say, he calls code enforcement and accuses landlords of renting substandard housing.

From there, the legal battle is on.

It starts in municipal court, where landlords must answer Newton’s alleged code violations. Eventually, the fight moves to eviction proceedings in the Landlord/Tenant Section of state Superior Court.

Newton, in a brief interview — the only one he would grant for this story — said he has done nothing wrong and that the fault lies with landlords who rent substandard apartments. He also said judges and lawyers are against him.

"I’m not liked by a lot of lawyers and judges," Newton said. "Judges don’t like it when you’re pro se."

THE RECUSAL

It is a late January morning in Superior Court, Judge Mahlon Fast presiding.

The day’s proceedings involve an attempt by Wells Fargo to evict Newton from 80 St. Paul Ave. in Newark where he has lived rent-free for nearly two years, according to testimony. To the lay observer, this might seem like a routine eviction from a foreclosed Newark house. Wells Fargo was assigned by the owner of the house, U.S. Bank National Association, to service the property, and it filed eviction papers when Newton stopped paying rent.

But Newton is about to use one of his many strategies. If he were writing a book, this one might get its own chapter.

The tenant asks to address the bench.

"It’s not a pleasant thing to do," he tells Judge Fast, making the observer think he’s almost embarrassed when he asks the judge to step aside because he doesn’t think he can get a fair hearing.

Judge Fast does so reluctantly, so a new judge will have to be appointed. It’s not the only time this has worked for Newton. Court records show he got Judge Fast to recuse himself nine years ago, and he also won a request for Judge Francine Schott to step aside in 2003.

Not that challenging judges is the only tactic in his bag of tricks.

Newton files motions to transfer cases. He files appeals, many of which have gone to the state Appellate Division. He seeks adjournments.

Subpoenas are also an effective legal weapon, and so is arguing he has not been properly served with court papers. Sometimes he just doesn’t appear, sending word he and his wife, Andrea, are sick or have a family trip, court records show. In many eviction battles, Newton also files harassment complaints and other actions against landlords, keeping them tangled up in court.

In tracing Newton’s history, The Star-Ledger found a man who, for at least the past 19 years, doesn’t seem to do much that doesn’t involve a courthouse. Records from landlord- tenant court show he and his wife have fought at least seven evictions, filing 113 complaints against landlords, neighbors and others in Newark municipal court — some of them multiple complaints against the same person. Most, if not all, were either dismissed or the person they complained about was found not guilty.

That’s not to say Newton always comes away empty-handed.

In 2007, he received a $14,000 settlement from Rosa Velarde, a real estate agent from Elizabeth. In his complaint, according to Superior Court records, he said Velarde agreed to rent him an apartment on Oakland Terrace in Newark, then backed out after taking Newton’s damage deposit. Newton sued and accepted a cash settlement. In other eviction struggles, Newton has received some rental abatements for repairs he said he has made, but he was still evicted when he didn’t pay rent.

For their part, Newton’s former landlords say they have spent anywhere from $5,000 to $60,000 in attorney fees and up to four years in court trying to get him evicted.

By now, a reader may wonder why people keep renting to Newton.

In two instances, adversaries say, Newton was already a tenant when landlords purchased rental property. One landlord said he didn’t trust his instincts and regrettably took the word of someone else. Another landlord said she just didn’t do any checks with previous landlords. Wells Fargo bank won’t comment. Nor will judges and other court officials.

Attorneys say once landlords have gone up against Newton, they don’t forget him.

"He’ll use every legal maneuver that he can possibly think of to try and tie up a case until the litigants that are against him give up," said attorney Vincent Sanzone, who faced Newton in a case involving a landlord. "He has a lot of time and resources to tie people up."

What’s more, according to Superior Court records, Newton defends himself at little or no cost because he applies for — and is granted — indigent status, meaning he doesn’t have to pay to file law complaints that cost $200 a pop and fees associated with his defense.

On recent fee-waiver applications, Newton says he has no income and his benefits from the Essex County Division of Welfare have been terminated. He says he owns a 1997 Plymouth mini-van that he drives to court. He also drives a white Ford Explorer. He says he has four dependents, and that his rent is $500, which he’s not paying because he’s in court with the bank.

The Newtons sometimes come to court as a team.

Newton’s wife, who, according to records is 42, sometimes represents herself and sometimes argues alongside him. An emergency assistance application shows the Newtons have two sons and a daughter. One son, Qadir, 19, sometimes accompanies his father in the current landlord tenant case, wearing a suit to court and Converse sneakers or shoes. He assists his dad, retrieving papers for him from a bag teeming with documents.

MASSEY VS. NEWTON

Robert Sciarrino/The Star-LedgerMark Newton, right, reacts as his photograph is taken in open court. He along with his wife Andrea and his son, appeared in Superior Court in Newark before Judge Ned Rosenberg in February.

"It was just a mess," said Deletrice Massey, talking about how she inherited Newton and his wife as tenants in July 1994. "He took me through a lot."

Newton was already a tenant in the rental property she bought in 1994 across the street from her home on Montrose Terrace in Irvington. In Superior Court documents supplied by Massey, the previous owner testified that Newton owed him rent when he sold the house to Massey. She said Newton continued to be a deadbeat, taking her through municipal court in Irvington on code violations and harassment charges and then a maddening series of procedural delays in Superior Court.

"It was a good thing I had an understanding employer," she said.

Massey eventually obtained an order of eviction after nearly a year, but Newton and his wife were able to get it delayed on appeal repeatedly, court records show. When her attorney finally got the appeal lifted, Massey said Newton moved his stuff out in May 1995.

Several days later, on June 4, her house caught fire.

Superior Court records show Newton’s wife, who was Andrea Rutty at the time (she is now known as Andrea Newton), was charged with criminal mischief in connection with the fire.

Rutty told the court on April 17, 1997, that she was smoking a cigarette and dropped it on the back porch where there were papers and boxes. But according to the report from the Irvington Fire Department, a "poured accelerant" helped cause a deep burn between floorboards on the porch.

In addition to the criminal mischief charge, both Newtons were charged with endangering the welfare of their 2-year-old son, identified as "QR." On the same day she admitted to smoking the cigarette, Rutty and Newton entered into a plea bargain in which she told the court that she neglected "QR" by failing to seek medical attention when she noticed he wasn’t eating as he should have been. Newton also pleaded guilty to that charge, telling the court he, too, noticed his son wasn’t eating well, that the boy was small and bony and that he did not supervise him as he should have.

As part of the plea bargain, Rutty was sentenced to three years in prison for endangering the welfare of a child and criminal mischief. She served one year and was released in December 1998, according to the state Department of Corrections.

The deal also stipulated that child endangerment charges against Mark Newton would be dismissed at sentencing.

During his interview with The Star-Ledger in March, Newton said there are two sides to every story, but he’s not comfortable talking to the press, adding that he doesn’t think it’s beneficial. He said he was very busy, explaining he had to prepare for several court cases.

And he is in court a lot. Consider this snippet of his schedule:

Newton was in Superior Court March 7 defending himself against a terroristic-threat complaint brought by a neighbor. The proceedings were adjourned because Newton requested additional discovery. He was back two days later, this time with Wells Fargo. Then, on March 11, he was in municipal court for a harassment charge he filed against the neighbor who had accused him of making a terroristic threat.

He also has four civil lawsuits in play — three in Superior Court and one in chancery court, records show. A recent case in which PSE&G wanted to cut off his service was dismissed so the issue of his not paying a $2,263.30 bill could be taken up with the state Board of Public Utilities.

In the interview, Newton wouldn’t discuss such matters as his employment or education or how he gained his legal knowledge. But on one rental application, he said he was a paralegal and self-employed.

He said circumstances in past landlord-tenant cases do not always involve habitability. Landlords are against him, and their objective is to slander him, he said.

NEWTON vs. YOUNG

Saed Hindash/The Star-LedgerEddie Young, a Newark landlord, is one of several landlords who have had trouble evicting Mark Newton from an apartment.

Eddie Young, who owns an insurance agency in Newark, tried to fight back when his problems with Newton began in August 1999. He gathered a list of landlords, including Stewart and Lori Williams, who rented an apartment on Brookdale Avenue to Newton in 1996 and said her stomach churns now just thinking about the Newton experience. Young wrote a letter pleading to the presiding judge of the civil division for help, arguing the tenant was abusing the landlords and the court system. His attorney wrote to the prosecutor’s office as well.

"I’ve never had a tenant like this in 40 years," said Young, who is now 71. "It was the worst mistake I ever made when I rented to him."

After Newton moved into Young’s four-family Newark apartment building at 77-79 Smith St., Young said Newton redefined the art of not paying rent. Young said he filed to evict in October 1999 and found himself in Newton’s legal web for more than three years.

Records from landlord-tenant court in Superior Court are kept at most for two years and are then destroyed, according to the judiciary’s record retention schedule.

But most landlords interviewed for this story — including Young — kept copies of their records. Letters from Newton to Young show he was complaining that his place was not fit to be lived in and needed repairs. After several months, Young said, Newton began destroying the unit, breaking windows, chiseling a hole in the bathroom floor, damaging the toilet and cutting the gas line to the stove.

"This guy knows the law better than a lawyer," Young said. "I was in court with this guy four to five times a month. This is what he does."

Young said he received less than half the rent he was due and was in court for nearly two years. His loss, however, was far greater, he said, because he coughed up a combined $60,000 for three lawyers — two for landlord-tenant court and one for an assault complaint when he alleged Newton attacked him during an inspection of his apartment.

"This guy is the Teflon tenant," said Sanzone, the attorney who represented Young on the criminal charge.

A settlement was reached for Newton to move out on Sept. 18, 2000, but Newton filed a motion to have the agreement dismissed. According to court documents supplied by Young, Newton contended Young had reneged on a promise to give him a positive reference for another landlord. But the court records show the tactics went nowhere, though they did consume several months of court time.

"I would die and go to hell before I give a good reference to him," Young said he told Judge Fast back then. "Look at what he did to me and the people before me. This guy is rotten to the core."

Newton was evicted in January 2001, according to court papers supplied by Young, but the legal battles did not end there. Young was trying to get back rent, and Newton filed a lawsuit against Young, Young’s wife and the insurance agency, claiming they rented him a shoddy apartment and wouldn’t repair it. Young eventually dropped his suit and, he says, Newton didn’t get damages either.

Since his experience with Newton, Young said he tells anyone wanting to rent as a landlord that they should remember Mark Newton’s name.

NEWTON VS. MIZELL

Brian Mizell said he found out about Newton too late: when he walked into Young’s office looking for homeowners insurance.

"I got him now," Mizell said he told Young somewhere around 2006.

Young welcomed Mizell to the club, then said: "I hope you’re not working, because you’re going to spend a lot of time in court."

Try four to five years, said Mizell, plus $40,000 for attorney fees.

Mizell said he didn’t own the home at 77 St. Paul Ave. in Newark. He said it belonged to his aunt, who rented to Newton in 2004. Mizell got involved when his aunt began to tell him her troubles. After Newton moved in, Mizell said the tenant did the same things to his aunt’s apartment as Young alleges Newton did to his. In a lawsuit against Mizell, Newton said the county welfare division inspected the apartment eight months after he moved in and found it uninhabitable. He said Newark officials came to the same conclusion in 2007.

"He’s the one that made it that way," Mizell said. "He was an outright nuisance. He had all day to do it."

Mizell alleged Newton changed locks, wrecked the place — putting holes in the wall and breaking windows — and then called the city’s code enforcement office. He also alleged Newton poured water into the oil tank for the boiler, caused flooding by clogging up the toilet with rags, and removed washers from pipes underneath the sink to create more leaks. Mizell found himself in municipal court, then in Superior Court trying to evict Newton. He wound up in appellate court, too.

"It was years before I saw that apartment again," he said.

At least he had the satisfaction of seeing Newton leave. Mizell’s aunt, Christine, died while the case was in progress.

The case was heard by Judge Ned Rosenberg who ruled against Newton.

Newton appealed but Judge Susan L. Reisner of the Appellate Division of Superior Court denied the motion.

"According to the record provided to us, they (the Newtons) have lived in the apartment since 2005 without paying rent," Reisner said. "Further, in a written opinion dated Nov. 19, 2008, Judge Rosenberg determined, after an evidentiary hearing, that the Newtons were responsible for the uninhabitable conditions of the apartment.’’

When Newton vacated 77 St. Paul Ave., he and his family moved across the street to the home now owned by the bank at 80 St. Paul Ave.

The bank contends in court records that Newton has not paid rent since July 2009. His defense, court records show, is that the house is defective, uninhabitable. But this time the neighbors are opposing him, too.

SHABAZZ-HENRYS VS. NEWTONS

Robert Sciarrino/The Star-LedgerKiewanda and Andy Shabazz Henry stand in from of their Newark home. The couple and their young children live next door to Mark Newton, house on left, who constantly files harassment charges against them.

Andy and Kiewanda Shabazz-Henry make no apologies for their antagonism toward the Newtons, whom they call squatters. After Wells Fargo filed to foreclose on the home owned by Melvin Batts Jr. and Tara Glanton in March 2008, the Newtons, according to the Shabazz-Henrys, moved in next door to them in August or September of that year, at 80 St. Paul Ave.

The Shabazz-Henrys have complained to anybody and everybody who’d listen — the Newark Police Department, Newark City Hall, West Ward Councilman Ronald Rice Jr., PSE&G, Newark’s municipal court. They contend the Newtons have no right to be there.

"He knows we’re onto him," Andy Shabazz-Henry said. "Mark knows that we know what he’s doing. Mark knows nobody in the court system communicates with each other, and that’s why he’s able to get away with what he does."

It comes at a cost for the Shabazz-Henry family. Newton, they said, has filed harassment charges, causing the Shabazz-Henrys to miss work and appear in court 15 times since 2008.

In turn, the Shabazz-Henrys have filed counter claims. The complaints from both sides get dismissed as frivolous, according to the Shabazz-Henry family. Since May 2010, records show, Newark police have answered nearly 64 calls of service to both houses. Rice said residents fear the same retaliation the Shabazz-Henrys are experiencing and they are concerned about the look of the home. Black plastic bags cover the front windows. Rice and the Shabazz-Henrys say wooden boards are nailed on side windows and surveillance cameras monitor the front porch.

"These guys are potentially professional squatters," Councilman Rice said. "I wish I could throw these people out and I can’t. I’ve done everything that I can do legally regarding this property in trying to get rid of this guy."

In court papers, Newton said his family is not squatting. He said they are in the bank’s house legally, having signed a rental agreement for $500 a month with Batts and Glanton in January 2009.

A month later, on Feb. 17, the bank claimed the house at a sheriff’s sale, but the Shabazz-Henrys said they remember seeing the Newtons move into the house in 2008 when there was a "for sale" sign on the lawn. The bank will not comment.

Robert Sciarrino/The Star-LedgerKiewanda and Andy Shabazz Henry stand in from of their Newark home. The couple and their young children live next door to Mark Newton, house on left, who constantly files harassment charges against them.

Newton also wrote that he has withheld rent because he does not know whom to pay. He said that after the sheriff’s sale, the bank claimed it was the owner but, at the same time, Batts, the former owner, kept showing up asking for the rent money. Newton said he stopped paying when the bank would not improve living conditions at the house and tell him who owned it.

In interviews with Batts and Glanton, the two former owners said they never had a rental agreement with Newton and have never attempted to collect money from him after the house was foreclosed on. Glanton has submitted a notarized letter to Newark city officials stating as much.

She said the utilities were shut off when she moved out in August 2008, and she was surprised to see the Newtons in the house after she came back two months later to collect mail. At that time, she said there were lights on in the home. In her letter to the city, she requested the water department remove her name from the account. Batts, meanwhile, is in prison, convicted on a drug possession charge. Even though Newton says he has a rental agreement that began in 2009, Batts, Glanton and the Shabazz-Henrys are adamant that he moved into the house in 2008.

Newton’s right to be in the house is not clear, but one thing is: The bank had to deal with the same habitability defense Newton used with other landlords. Newton said the roof leaks, the furnace doesn’t work, and so on. He even called the city’s code enforcement division complaining there was no heat this past December, according to a letter Brian Blake, the bank attorney, sent to Newton that month. Prior to Newton moving into the house, records show there were no calls of service to code enforcement about the house, according to Karim Arnold, deputy director of Newark’s department of neighborhood services.

Blake said in the letter to Newton that he wouldn’t let the bank’s contractors into the house for two straight days to address his complaint about no heat in December. He also said the bank would ask the court to reject his habitability defense, because he has not allowed access to the property. In court records, the bank alleges Newton did not pay rent from July 2009 to October 2010 and owed $8,500 in back rent when the eviction complaint was filed on Oct. 28, 2010. The amount, however, is actually higher now because Newton still hasn’t paid.

Newton, however, wrote to the attorney in August 2010 that his family would need $7,500 to relocate. By November, the figure had increased to $25,000. He wrote that the figure covers losses from his home getting broken into by Newark police and time he spent preparing to defend against what he believes were frivolous complaints from the bank. If the bank was agreeable to his $25,000 offer, Newton wrote, he wanted half the money in advance so he could find suitable housing.

The bank has moved forward to evict him, but Newton isn’t budging. In fact, he sued Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg, the law firm representing the bank. He also filed for injunctive relief against the bank to avoid eviction.

And the entanglements go on.

The Shabazz-Henrys have been arrested on allegations from Newton’s son, Qadir, that the married couple broke into the Newtons’ home in June 2010.

Richard Roberts, the Shabazz-Henrys’ attorney, called the burglary allegations ridiculous.

"I intend on presenting the entire history of Mr. Newton to the prosecutor’s office in the hopes that his actions or activities of the last 20 years can stop once and for all," Roberts said.

Newton, meanwhile, was arrested on allegations he made a terroristic threat against Kiewanda Shabazz-Henry on Mother’s Day last year and spent three months in jail. While he was locked up, Newark police, at the request of Councilman Rice, searched the home to see if the Newtons were squatters.

Newton, in a complaint, said the police department stole security monitors, surveillance cameras, video equipment and the rent money he owes the bank. All of this he blames on the bank because he said it has been conspiring with the Shabazz-Henry family, Rice and the police department to get him evicted. Newark police would not comment while the case was in litigation, said Sgt. Ron Glover, a Newark police spokesman.

LOSSES, AND A VICTORY

In February, all parties in Wells Fargo vs. Newton were back in court, this time before Superior Court Judge Rosenberg. Newton came before Rosenberg because Newton had asked Judge Fast to recuse himself.

But Rosenberg, who had already evicted Newton from the Mizell house three years earlier, may not have been the judge he wanted to see.

When Newton learned Rosenberg would preside on Feb. 28, he filed a lawsuit in federal court against the judge, claiming Rosenberg had ruled unfairly in past cases. His complaint, however, was swiftly dismissed as frivolous.

The dismissal still didn’t stop Newton. Back in Superior Court on Feb. 28, he asked Rosenberg to step down.

"Litigants can’t go judge shopping," Rosenberg said, rejecting Newton’s request. "That’s what’s been happening in this matter."

Newton, wearing a taupe pinstripe suit this time, began to pack up his papers.

"You should not be hearing this matter," he said several times, angrily. "You make your own rules against this family."

A bad day at the office for Mark Newton: Rosenberg also denied his request to transfer the landlord-tenant case to the law division.

But Newton wasn’t out of moves.

When he returned to Superior Court on March 9, he was able to stop the hearing from proceeding when he raised an issue about conflict of interest with the bank. Rosenberg took a short recess, then said Newton had an argument that needed review.

Newton lost that argument, too, but he prevailed against the bank on April 26 when the judge dismissed the eviction complaint. Rosenberg told Blake that his client, Wells Fargo, is not listed on documents to show that it has an interest in the home where Newton resides. He said every tenant has a right to know whom they are supposed to pay rent to and Wells Fargo’s name does not appear on city records.

"Wells Fargo is your client. Where are they?" Rosenberg asked. "You are familiar with the defendant (Newton)," he said, telling Blake that Newton is a "tenacious pro se" and this is the third time the bank has been in court trying to evict him. The case had been dismissed twice by different judges.

It is unclear what the bank will do next. They could go to mediation or try the case again.

In the meantime, Newton is still in the house.

In recent weeks, Newton added a new case to his files. On April 7, he was in chancery court seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent the publication of this story.

The motion was denied.

View Mark Newton on the move in a larger map

Attorneys were shocked to learn that the undercover driver worked for the same agency that investigated the crash

PHILADELPHIA — Authorities are investigating why a New Jersey state trooper who struck another vehicle on I-295 with an unmarked police car was permitted to use a false name on accident reports.

Undercover Detective Sgt. William Billingham has since been suspended without pay and charged. However, many questions remain unanswered about the accident on March 22, 2009, that sent the trooper and Philadelphia resident Clayton Tanksley, 46, to area hospitals.

Sources said Billingham was part of a clandestine state investigation when authorities accepted the undercover identification, and he was taken to Cooper University Hospital in Camden with six broken ribs.

Tanksley was treated at Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center in Camden and released that day. He tried to recoup his medical costs and hired an attorney.

Marlton attorneys Charles H. Nugent and Jeffrey Pooner had been searching for the driver to serve a civil lawsuit.

The attorneys, however, said they were shocked to learn recently that the mysterious driver worked for the same agency that investigated the crash.

Nugent said Tanksley's SUV, which had been going about 55 m.p.h. in Lawnside, was struck with such force from behind that the impact flipped it on its roof.

Afterward, investigators for the law firm could find no trace of the driver.

"It certainly looks suspicious," Nugent said during an interview Monday, a day after the Newark Star-Ledger reported details of the accident. "It was a cover-up."

According to police reports, both vehicles were going south when the crash occurred about 2:30 a.m. Tanksley is listed as one driver, but the other driver was listed as William J. Gillespie, 51, of Clementon.

A bogus Vineland company was the documented owner of the Nissan Altima, an undercover state police vehicle.

Billingham told investigators, "I apparently fell asleep," according to a state police accident report.

Although undercover authorities are permitted to use false identities to protect an investigation, later they must file corrections to reports.

Paul Loriquet, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Office, said he could not comment on whether protocol had been followed. The matter is under investigation, and Loriquet said he could not disclose details.

"We're obviously concerned," Loriquet said.

Nugent said that when his office requested documentation, the state police turned over a two-page report with Gillespie's name.

Tanksley, an actor who appeared on The Cosby Show under the name Clayton Prince, has more than $30,000 in unpaid medical bills.

Neighbors at the Clementon address couldn't recall a William Gillespie.

"They said they never heard of him," Nugent said. "It's like he disappeared into thin air."

Jason Laughlin, spokesman for the Camden County Prosecutor's Office, said the state police sent the case to his office on Oct. 29, 2009. It was noted that Billingham, an 18-year veteran of the state police, is related to Sheriff Charles H. Billingham.

Laughlin said his office consulted with the Attorney General's Office.

"Because of the situation with Sheriff Billingham, we wanted to avoid even the appearance of bias or conflict of interest," Laughlin said.

By January 2010, the case was sent to the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office. Officials there filed a complaint in March of this year. William Billingham was charged with reckless driving and causing bodily injury. He appeared in Lawnside Municipal Court, where, his attorney said, he pleaded not guilty. The attorney declined additional comment.

Meanwhile, Billingham also was suspended from the state police. Acting Maj. Gerald Lewis, a spokesman for the agency, said the case remained under investigation. Lewis said he could not discuss details other than to say that efforts were being made to make sure Tanksley and his insurance company had the proper information.

Nugent said additional reports from the state police include diagrams that refer to the vehicles as the Tanksley Mitsubishi and Billingham Nissan, but that the information had initially been withheld.