28

02/09

CHAPTER 3 MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NJ, COUNTY COUNSEL, ERIC M. ARONOWITZ (DiCarlo; Falzon; Natarajan)

1:45 PM by newjer9. Filed under: CHAPTER 3- MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNSEL
LAST UPDATED:  Dec 28, 2016
Total Visits: 140,462
Total Hits: 683,033

  NAVIGATION NOTES

The “log-in” at the top is for the site administrator only. 

  • Please click on the link to the right under the heading “Categories” to access each chapter.
  • As we prepare each chapter, a new link under the heading “Categories” will be added (any updates made will be noted below and in the chapter itself).
  • To make comments, scroll or page down or control/end to the bottom of the document and select “Comments” The page will refresh and the cursor will return to the top of the document. Scroll or page down or control/end to the bottom again and enter your comments. Although your email address is required, it will not be viewable to the public; you may use just your first name if you like. Because of inappropriate postings, we have taken the liberty to screen all postings for appropriateness prior to posting.
  • To view the linked (See) documents, click on the numbers or letters underlined in blue located within the chapters.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NARRATIVE INFORMATION IS DOWN BELOW THE SUMMARY AND UPDATES

 

Summary

May 27, 2014:  We will begin writing the book now, since law enforcement, including the FBI, refuse to investigate New Jersey public servant corruption regarding this suspicious death case.

September 5, 2013:  The FBI office in Newark has been contacted regarding this corruption.  We are pending a response from them at this time.  Our complaint and over 100 pages of evidence, were sent by Brian J. Nadeau, Unit Chief of the Public Corruption Unit at the Washington, DC Field Office, to the FBI Newark Field Office.

March 18, 2013:  A complaint recently filed against Dr. Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D., with the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey (Mr. Paul J. Fishman), will bring into focus Mr. Aronowitz’s involvement in the criminal actions involving DiCarlo and all the other public servants, including Judges and Prosecutors.  Dr. DiCarlo was moved from being the assistant ME in Middlesex County, and appointed as the Bergen County Medical Examiner.  The Bergen County, County Executive (Kathleen Donovan) is aware of the allegations against DiCarlo.  So is the Bergen County Board of Chosen Freeholders.  Dr. DiCarlo can run, but he cannot hide.  Because their crimes are part of a suspicious death/murder investigation, there is no statute of limitation for either Aronowitz or DiCarlo.  Nor Ms. Donovan.

March 10, 2012:  See also the chapter on Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D., of the Medical Examiner’s Office, and Chapter 6 on the Governors.  Dr. DiCarlo is now the Medical Examiner in Bergen County, NJ. (Kathleen Donovan is the County Executive).  Why is that?

As you know is probably likely, as goes Dr. DiCarlo, so goes Eric M. Aronowitz, who hindered DiCarlo’s apprenhension by providing false information to law enforcement, including Middlesex County Superior Court, and Denise Hollingsworth , a Dep. AG (of the OAG), in this case.  The case against Dr. DiCarlo, in the Office of the Attorney Genral (OAG) is case # 2005-10192.  Write them and ask for the status of their review or investigation.  Let us know what response you get, if any.  Gov. Chris Christie may just be blowing smoke this time, or maybe it is because he is considering accepting someone’s vice-presidential offer, but I can assure you Christie has not acted out of the goodness of his heart in this suspicious death/murder case, in referring my letter to the OAG at this time.  You tell me.

At any rate, Mr. Aronowitz has much to be concerned about because if DiCarlo is invvestigated, charged, tried and convicted, Aronowitz is his co-conspirator, and down he goes as well.  The rest of the house of cards for all the others falls as well.

May 28, 2011:  In April 2011, we received a request from the Attorney General’s Office to send them correspondence relative to numerous letters sent to Gov. Christie regarding the appointment of a Special Prosecutor.  At Det. Davis’ direction (R&I), evidence in support of the criminal complaints was not/not provided at this time.

March 3, 2011: Though Judge Lawrence M. Lawson was proven to have violated Rules of the Court, among others, Judge Glenn A. Grant turned the other cheek and refused to respond to me, and refused to address the corruption under his nose.  Birds of a feather flock together.  For Judge Grant to respond in any other manner would mean a number of public officials would be investigated for corruption.  Now Judge Glenn A. Grant is part of the corruption.  Look for the new chapter on “The Courts” by the end of March.

February 7, 2011: Our response to Judge Lawson’s Opinion was mailed to Judges Lawrence M. Lawson, Glenn A. Grant, and Travis L. Francis today.  We also sent a copy of our response to Gov. Christie.  In addition to our analysis of Judge Lawson’s convoluted Opinion, we requested that a Special Prosecutor be appointed to conduct the investigation, as it is clear the Courts are unable to ensure a fair and impartial hearing wherein we are given the opportunity to present the evidence to support our charges.

January 25, 2011:  Without hearing the 60 other criminal complaints, Judge Lawson dismissed all of them.  In his opinion, received on January 22, 2011, he drew many false conclusions and defended all the defendants making a mockery of the probable cause hearing.  Judge Lawson refused to use the NJ State definition, in the law, for “autopsy”, and instead used a definition from Funk and Wagnalls and Blacks dictionary that suited his intended outcome, which was to refute virtually everything presented by us at the hearing.  His actions, including his animated antics behind the bench, are probably grounds for filing a criminal complaint of official misconduct against him, not to mention violations of his code of professional conduct.  A response is being prepared.

January 13, 2011:  Judge Lawson decided to hear only one of the 61 complaints on 1-11-11 and ended what turned out to be a non-probable cause hearing.  While the Court argued with virtually every statement we made, we were denied the opportunity to present any evidence in support of our statements, with the Court claiming this was not an “evidentiary probable cause hearing”.  We could not find anything in the Rules of the Court addressing the issue.  Judge Lawson is to provide us with a written opinion shortly.  The “Court” is now saying that four complaints not previously documented with the CDR1 or CDR2 will not be heard at all and that all of the “citizen complaints” initially filed by me on June 2, 2010 had to include all the evidence in support of the charges, something no other court told us and the filing court told us not/not to do.  We are as confused as ever as to why the Courts in NJ continue to act in this harassing and frivolous manner.  More to come.

December 27, 2010:  The probable cause hearing is set for January 11, 2011.  We understand the Court intends to hear all 61 criminal complaints in one day, though the Court will not confirm that.  When we asked in what order the complaints would be heard, we were told to consult the Rules of the Court.

October 23, 2010: On October 5, 2010, Judge De Vesa concluded that because of a “conflict of interest” the probable cause hearing previously scheduled in New Brunswick would be transferred to a different county.  A County of Middlesex Attorney (Benjamin D. Leibowitz, Esq.) representing “the County of Middlesex and its officials and employees” was present, and was permitted by Judge De Vesa to sit at the table with me for my hearing.  Interesting to note that the name of the person accused of the suspicious death of Joyce had only his first name on the letter/notice received from Middlesex County Superior Court–why can’t the Court get this straight?  It was reported in a telephone conversation  that the sworn affidavits previously reported as missing, have been located.  This continues the pattern of frivolous conduct and harassment, eh?  What would a reasonable person think?  I am pending notice of the probable cause hearing date and location.

October 7, 2010:  The letter I received from the Superior Court told me to report to 90 Paterson Street, in New Brunswick, for the scheduled Change of Venue hearing held on October 5, 2010, before Judge De Vesa.  The correct address of the Court House is 56 Paterson Street.  The change of venue hearing was held before Judge De Vesa on October 5, 2010, in the Superior Court, New Brunswick.  The outcome of the hearing will be published here as soon as it is received.  It was noted by Judge De Vesa that my sworn affidavits sent by the Monroe Twp. Municipal Court were missing from my 61 criminal complaints following receipt in the Superior Court, New Brunswick.  Superior Court personnel are looking for my sworn affidavits at this time.  The beat goes on in Middlesex County.

September 28, 2010: The probable cause hearing about to be scheduled before Judge DeVesa, as noted in the 9/20/10 update, has been canceled.  More to come.

September 20, 2010: Frivolous action?  Harassment? Fair hearing?  The probable cause hearing set for 10-5-10 in Monroe Twp. under Judge Boyd was canceled for a second time, citing the same Court Rule previously cited by Judge Boyd in transferring the 61 criminal complaints to the AOC.  The Superior Court informed me today that a new probable cause hearing will be set for Superior Court, Middlesex County, shortly, under Judge Frederick P. DeVesa, date TBD.  I just cannot seem to get out of Middlesex County and the appearance of bias, prejudice, and conflict of interest.

September 17, 2010: Sent to Judges Herman and Francis as noted below, a new probable cause hearing/review has been set.  Changing their minds again, Judges Herman and Francis will not/not decide probable cause, nor will they hear the complaints.  The assigned that responsibility to another judge, still in Middlesex County.  Here we go ’round in circles.  More to come.

September 9, 2010: Judges Herman and Francis will soon be conducting a probable cause review on all 61 criminal complaints.  Judge Herman, you may recall, received the 61 criminal complaints from Sayreville Municipal Court, and passed them down to Judge Boyd, who passed them up to the AOC, who passed them back to Judge Herman.  The court believes they have the 61 criminal complaints in the right place this time.  I am told I should be hearing something from the court regarding the status of the complaints fairly soon.  Yes, they are still in Middlesex County.  Yes, we are wary of Middlesex County ruling on criminal complaints against public servants in Middlesex County.  Time will tell.

August 27, 2010: On August 16, 2010, Judge George M. Boyd canceled the probable cause hearing scheduled for Aug 17, 2010, for jurisdictional concerns.  Judge Boyd transferred the 61 criminal complaints to the Administrative Office of the Courts for assignment at the correct level.  Court Administrators are refusing to confirm they have all 61 criminal complaints filed by me.

July 28, 2010:  A probable cause hearing is set for August 17, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.,  in the Monroe Twp. Nunicipal Court, Judge George M. Boyd, presiding.

July 15, 2010 Update:  On July 14, 2010, we learned that the Sayreville Municipal Court transferred the signed criminal complaints up the chain to Judge Herman in Viciniage VIII, who subsequently transferred the criminal complaints down the chain to Judge George Boyd in Monroe Twp., still in Middlesex County.

July 2, 2010 Update: Criminal Citizen Complaints were filed against Mr. Aronowitz on June 2, 2010, in the Sayreville Municipal Court.

February 13, 2010 Update:  On November 2, 2009, NJ Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner issued an ORDER stating that we were filing in the wrong court for the past 3 years, and specifically stated that our actions should have been filed in a “trial court”.  Following directions from the Sayreville Municipal Court, we are preparing to submit individual criminal complaints against all of the public servants involved in this case.

Mr. Aronowitz is as sharp as they come when it pertains to false swearing in NJ Superior Court.  In representing a public servant, he swore in NJ Superior Court that the ME (DiCarlo) conducted an autopsy on our sister Joyce.  At the time he made this false affirmation, he knew that only an External Examination had been conducted.  He also swore in court that all toxicology testing had been completed, as well.  Again he lied, as in reading the reports, he knew that not all testing was conducted that was required to be conducted in a suspicious death investigation.

Intentionally ignoring direct, relevant, and aggravating evidence, Mr. Aronowitz  caused irreparable harm to Carolyn and Bill.  His efforts were material to helping deflect the mandatory investigation of a corrupt Dr. DiCarlo, among others.  At  no time has Mr. Aronowitz retracted his false swearing and false affirmations, and he continues to represent his office and corrupt public servants, despite a motion to the Superior Court of New Jersey to have him and the Middlesex County Counsel’s office “disqualififed” from so doing.

Contrary to NJ law, he required that a court order was mandatory prior to the release of Joyce’s specimens; this, too, was a false affirmation on his part.  All of his decisions have been planned to help Dr. DiCarlo and the alleged murderer.  His actions are also designed to shield the Sayreville Police Department’s deliberate misleading investigation.  Mr. Aronowitz clearly should be charged criminally with False Swearing, Official Misconduct, Hindering Apprehension, Pattern of Official Misconduct, and Conspiracy, at a minimum.  Likewise, the Middlesex County Counsel’s Office should be disqualified from responding further in this case, with subsequent activity assigned to public servants in another county, or at the State level.

CHAPTER III

 

Complaint Against Mr. Eric M. Aronowitz,

First Deputy County Counsel for Middlesex County, NJ

for FALSE SWEARING

 

BACKGROUND

 

There is neither justice nor integrity in Middlesex County.  And that includes the office of the County Counsel.  Mr. Aronowitz is the First Deputy County Counsel for Middlesex County, NJ.  Based on his false submissions and affirmations before the Superior Court of New Jersey, which continue to this day, a reasonable person can only conclude that the office of the County Counsel is as equally corrupt as Mr. Aronowitz.  After all, Mr. Aronowitz’s immediate supervisor surely must be well-read into these allegations and must have spent sufficient time reading and analyzing the direct and relevant evidence in support thereof.  He is likewise culpable, wouldn’t you say?

 

Mr. Aronowitz Falsely Swore before Judge Travis L. Francis, P.J.Ch., in the New Jersey Superior Court, in a sworn statement dated September 29, 2006 ( See 19-20 ) .  As you know from reading the Site Introduction, and Chapters I and II, the Middlesex County Counsel’s Office played a critical role in the defense of Dr. DiCarlo and the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office. 

 

Specifically, Mr. Aronowitz’s False Swearing in Judge Travis L. Francis’ Superior Court set the stage for subsequent court actions on behalf of all the defendants in the case before the Superior Court of New Jersey.  Mr. Aronowitz’s False Swearing before Judge Francis ensured that Carolyn Ausley would not be believed by the court, and sure enough, the court did not believe Carolyn Ausley when she indicated that an autopsy had not been conducted by Dr. DiCarlo, and that Mr. Aronowitz lied about an autopsy being conducted in his letter of September 29, 2006.  Aronowitz’s False Swearing caused irreparable harm to Carolyn, as the Plaintiff in the case.

 

Mr. Aronowitz also lied about all tests being conducted that could be and that all information was reviewed.  Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth, following her review of more than 669 pages of direct and relevant evidence submitted to her by Bill and Carolyn, concluded that allegations against Aronowitz had no merit ( See H1, H2 ).  We have already shown you Hollingsworth’s conclusions are not supported by direct and relevant evidence and that her conclusions are, in fact, false as well.  Such conclusions on Ms. Hollingsworth part continue to provide direct and relevant evidence against her for allegations of Official Misconduct and Pattern of Official Misconduct, among others.

 

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS VIOLATED BY ARONOWITZ

 

The basis or foundation of this Chapter is supported by direct and relevant evidence provided by Mr. Aronowitz and Dr. DiCarlo, evidence you’ve seen previously in Chapter I regarding Dr. DiCarlo and Chapter II regarding the Sayreville Police Department.  Mr. Aronowitz’s first entered the suspicious death case ( See 19 ) when Carolyn requested that specimen’s ( See 70, 47 )   taken from Joyce during Dr. DiCarlo’s External Examination ( See 134-135 ) be released to her for testing at an independent laboratory, at her own expense        ( See 141, 353-354, 355-356, 364-365, 369, 370-371, 372, 380, 382, 605, 606, 621, 656-657 ). 

 

According to the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act, when a person who is eligible to receive the requested records makes such a request, the county is required to provide those records in a timely manner.  Carolyn, an adult sibling of Joyce, met all requirements to receive the requested records without hindrance, delay, or harassment ( See 16-17, A-1 ).  

 

Dr. Frederick J. DiCarlo, of the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office, had other ideas.  You will recall that Dr. DiCarlo first received the suspicious death report from the Sayreville Police on the evening of October 29, 2005 ( See 71-73 ).  Though Dr. DiCarlo neither immediately took charge of Joyce’s body, nor did he conduct a crime scene investigation as was required by the State Medical Examiner Act, he did direct the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office to conduct an investigation and he did direct the Sayreville Police Department to conduct an investigation. 

 

However, Dr. DiCarlo chose not to conduct a mandatory autopsy so as to protect a former police officer whom he knew had been alleged to have caused the suspicious death of Joyce.  Without an autopsy, DiCarlo knew, in the State of New Jersey, in a suspicious death case, you cannot state the cause and manner of death beyond a reasonable doubt.  As you read in Chapter I, however, that did not stop Dr. DiCarlo from falsifying Joyce’s Certificate of Death.

 

DICARLO ACKNOWLEDGED HE BROKE THE LAW

 

As you also read in Chapter I, Dr. DiCarlo admitted he conducted only an External Examination of Joyce’s body, and admitted he did not conduct an autopsy, though required to do so by law.  He removed four (4) specimens from Joyce and requested two of those four be tested by the New Jersey State Toxicology Lab.  There is absolutely no mention of cancer as a cause of death in the report from the N.J. State Toxicology Laboratory results ( See 70 ).  In fact, there is no mention of any cause of death in the Toxicology Report from the NJ State Lab.  Because Carolyn and Bill observed that Joyce was being starved, dehydrated, and over-medicated, and that she had lost what appeared to be 30-40 pounds, they knew in their hearts that she was slowly being murdered.  After learning that Joyce had been cremated before all testing and analysis had been completed, Carolyn and Bill knew that the answer, if anywhere, was solely in these four specimens.  Remember, Deputy Attorney General Hollingsworth concluded that Falsifying Public Records is not an offense and perfectly acceptable in New Jersey. 

 

REQUEST FOR THE SPECIMENS DENIED

 

Carolyn and Bill hired a Forensic Pathologist, Dr. Michael O. Berkland, D.O., to coordinate the conduct of independent testing of the four specimens to determine the true cause of Joyce’s suspicious death.  When Dr. Berkland requested release of the specimens under OPRA for independent testing ( See 353, 369, 605, 606, 621 ), Middlesex County refused, stating that a court order was necessary.  Mr. Aronowitz’s justifications for requiring a court order were totally outside the bounds of the law and completely unnecessary ( See 354, 16, 17 ) .  As a result, a long and expensive legal process began, one subsequently won by Carolyn in New Jersey Superior Court, and affirmed on appeal.  Not surprisingly, Aronowitz used his position in the County Counsel’s office to ensure that Carolyn did not receive the specimens without a court fight and to ensure that Carolyn did not received reimbursement for reasonable attorney fees she was entitled to under the law.

 

The following format is somewhat different than you’ve seen before.  As to the 2C criminal charge, we chose to present what a charge would look like as shown in the law, and plug in the direct and relevant information where it is applicable.  How Ms. Hollingsworth could conclude these facts and evidence are without merit is a wonderment for you to ponder.

 

 

FALSE SWEARING
(N.J.S.A. 2C:28-2a)

 

 

Our complaint charges Eric M. Aronowitz, First Deputy County Counsel of Middlesex County, with various counts of False Swearing in violation of 2C:28-2a, which provides in pertinent part as follows:

 

A person who makes a false statement under oath or equivalent affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth of such a statement previously made, when he does not believe the statement to be true, is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.

 

In the State of New Jersey, the offense of False Swearing has been defined as follows:

 

False Swearing is the assertion, under oath [or equivalent affirmation], of a false statement, or the swearing or affirming under oath [or equivalent affirmation] as to the truth of a previously made statement, when the person making the statement does not believe that the statement is true.

 

Aronowitz may well have committed other offenses that the Office of the Attorney General or the U.S. Attorney’s Office will discover in their investigation.  In considering the charges of the complaint, we allege that Eric M. Aronowitz committed the offense of False Swearing, at a minimum, by virtue of having made and/or affirmed or sworn to the truth of the following statements in evidence submitted by him to the SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APELLATE DIVISION, DOCKET NO. A-2765-06T5:

 

The Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office conducted an autopsy on the body of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter

 

AND

 

“Complete available toxicology testing was performed by Dr. DiCarlo.”

 

AND

 

“The fact is that the Sayreville Police Report did not report Ms. Sauter’s death as suspicious.”

 

ARONOWITZ’ COURT AFFIRMATIONS ARE RED HERRINGS

 

Mr. Aronowitz never saw an Autopsy Report.  Despite having full knowledge that the Middlesex County Medical Examiner certified to only completing an External Examination, Mr. Aronowitz ignored such evidence and still swore or affirmed in the Superior Court Of New Jersey, Appellate Division, that an autopsy had been completed on Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter (age 61).  In fact, no autopsy was ever conducted on the body of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.

 

New Jersey law further requires that proof be provided beyond a reasonable doubt as follows.  Eric M. Aronowitz knowingly and purposely made a false statement when he did not believe it to be true.  As noted above, and the following, Mr. Aronowitz’s belief that the statement was not true is established by direct evidence prepared by the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office and submitted in Superior Court by Carolyn Ausley (Plaintiff in the above-referenced docketed case).  That proof is a copy of the External Examination Report certified by the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office (Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D., Assistant Medical Examiner) and provided to Ms. Ausley under OPRA in lieu of an autopsy report.  Mr. Aronowitz read and reviewed the External Examination Report, as certified by Dr. DiCarlo, and thus knew that an autopsy had not been conducted, and yet swore before Judge Francis that one had been conducted. 

 

From his very first affirmation through today, though requested to produce the Autopsy Report, Mr. Aronowitz has been unable to provide a copy of the “Autopsy Report” he asserts exists.   (It is also interesting to note that the court system has yet to ask Mr. Aronowitz for a copy of the contested autopsy report.  What’s up with that?)  As provided in this law, such knowledge was established by proof (as shown above) on the part of Mr. Aronowitz that he knew the statement was untrue; or from proof of such facts from which it might reasonably be inferred that Mr. Aronowitz did not believe that the statement was true. 

 

Additionally, a reasonable person would conclude that when affirmed in court by Ms. Ausley that an autopsy was not completed, that only an External Examination was completed, Mr. Aronowitz would have requested the Medical Examiner to provide him a copy of the autopsy report to validate its existence.  It is not a defense for Mr. Aronowitz to “presume” that one was completed.  Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Mr. Aronowitz knew or should have known that an autopsy was not completed on Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter and thus, an autopsy report did not exist.  Since Mr. Aronowitz read the Toxicology Report, and read that Dr. DiCarlo certified that only an External Examination was conducted on Joyce, Mr. Aronowitz knew that his swearing in NJ Superior Court before Judge Francis, and subsequently Judge Susan L. Reisner, was false.

 

Based on the submissions to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, by Ms. Ausley, and the direct evidence provided by the Medical Examiner’s Office, it is clear that there were no misstatements of question or fact which are inadvertent in the sense that Mr. Aronowitz misunderstood what was requested or performed (autopsy v. external examination) or told to him, or that there was an unconsciously made slip of the tongue from the Medical Examiner’s Office, or Carolyn Ausley, or William H. Strouse, in Superior Court, for Mr. Aronowitz’s to affirm his statement.

 

The statement given by Mr. Aronowitz was given under oath or equivalent affirmation.  It must also be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was given under oath or equivalent affirmation by Mr. Aronowitz, or swore to the truth of the previously made statement while under oath or equivalent affirmation. Under this element, any device employed to demonstrate the special importance of the declaration, that is, the seriousness of the demand for honesty, constitutes an oath or equivalent affirmation. Mr. Aronowitz made his statements to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, before two Judges:  Judge Travis L. Francis and Judge Susan L. Reisner, on at least two separate occasions, in response to several motions made by the Plaintiff in the case, Carolyn Ausley.  In reading the opinions of the judges (Judge Francis and Judge S.L. Reisner) in the case, one sees how the judges continued to repeat Mr. Aronowitz’s FALSE claim that an autopsy was completed.  Because the Honorable Judges believed Mr. Aronowitz, perhaps this explinas why Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth concluded that such false statements in the Superior Court of New Jersey had no merit.

 

New Jersey notes that a document that purports to be made under oath or affirmation shall be considered as under oath if it is subsequently presented as being so verified regardless of any technical irregularities in the effectiveness of the oath for legal purposes.  The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, accepted Mr. Aronowitz’s written affirmations without question. Mr. Aronowitz’s affirmations to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, satisfy this requirement to the fullest.

 

ARONOWITZ’ STATEMENTS CONTRADICT RELEVANT EVIDENCE

 

Mr. Aronowitz knowingly and purposely made statements inconsistent with direct and relevant evidence, evidence which he knew existed.  In this case, Mr. Aronowitz made statements which are proven inconsistent with the facts, statements which were made under oath or equivalent affirmation.  Mr. Aronowitz knew his statements were not true because he never saw the autopsy report which he could not produce.  What is even more pertinent is that Mr. Aronowitz, as Counsel for the County, would have read each and every submission, and equally important, would have validated every statement made by the Medical Examiner’s Office and the Plaintiff.  Such submissions included only the External Examination Report and confirmed that an autopsy was not performed.

 

  

ARONOWITZ UNABLE TO PRODUCE AUTOPSY REPORT

 

The fact that Mr. Aronowitz is unable to produce a copy of the Autopsy Report he swore exists is evidence of False Swearing and the making of inconsistent statements. The fact that the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office, the Assistant Medical Examiner, Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D., certified that he only completed an External Examination on the body of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter is evidence of False Swearing on the part of Mr. Aronowitz.  The fact that when Ms. Ausley requested a copy of the autopsy report, under OPRA, she was only provided a copy of the certified External Examination Report—and so swore and affirmed in NJ Superior Court, is evidence in support of False Swearing on the part of Mr. Aronowitz.  And finally, Attorney Jack Venturi reported to Bill and Carolyn that his personal and professional friend, Dr. DiCarlo, in an extensive telephone conversation, told him that he—Dr. DiCarlo—did not conduct an autopsy ( See 648-649 ). 

 

ARONOWITZ COURT AFFIRMATION CONTRADICTS NJ STATE LABORATORY TESTING

 

Mr. Aronowitz knowingly and purposely also falsely swore that “Complete available toxicology testing was performed by Dr. DiCarlo.” Direct evidence provided by Dr. DiCarlo of the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office clearly shows that complete available toxicology testing was not/not performed by Dr. DiCarlo. 

 

The direct evidence shows that of the four specimens taken from the body of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter during the External Examination, Dr. DiCarlo only requested that two of the specimens be tested (blood and urine).  The two specimens not tested (liver and vitreous) were the two specimens that could have confirmed or denied the cause of suspicious death of the decedent.  Had those two specimens been tested in accordance with the Medical Examiner Act, the resultant reports would have been available to the Plaintiff under OPRA and the two years of litigation and harassment would have been unnecessary.

 

ARONOWITZ COURT AFFIRMATION CONTRADICTS SAYREVILLE POLICE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION AND MEDICAL EXAMINER’S CERTIFICATION

 

Mr. Aronowitz knowingly and purposely also falsely swore that “The fact is that the Sayreville Police Report did not report Ms. Sauter’s death as suspicious.”  This is a blatant false statement as supported by the Sayreville Police report available to Mr. Aronowitz upon initial filing by Carolyn Ausley in the docketed case ( See 71, 72, 73 ). 

 

Initial filings by the Plaintiff, Carolyn Ausley and reviewed by Mr. Aronowitz, clearly show that the Sayreville Police Department immediately initiated an investigation of SUSPICIOUS DEATH, on October 29, 2005—the date of Joyce’s suspicious death, when William H. Strouse reported the suspicious death to Lt. Brennan and SGT Sprague of the Sayreville Police Department.  Not only is the Sayreville Police report titled “HOSPICE DEATH/SUSPICIOUS DEATH”, but the report contents clearly indicate that a suspicious death was under investigation by the Sayreville Police and the County Medical Examiner’s Office.  This same report also shows that the Prosecutor’s Office had been informed of a report of a suspicious death (for example, see page 2 of the report included as item 14) and was directed to conduct the mandatory investigation required under the Medical Examiner Act—though the Prosecutor failed to do so.

 

We submit that these allegations are proven beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore, Mr. Aronowitz is guilty of False Swearing.

 

Though not developed here, there is sufficient direct and relevant evidence to charge Mr. Aronowitz with the following:

 

Conspiracy    2C:5-2

False Reports to Law Enforcement    2C:28-4a

Official Misconduct     2C:30-2

Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution    2C:29-3a

Hindering One’s Own Apprehension or Prosecution        2C:29-3b

 

What would it take to charge Mr. Aronowitz with any criminal code violations?  A county prosecutor, or a Deputy Attorney General, among others, would have to be willing to take the “case.”  Though all 21 New Jersey county prosecutors are aware of the direct and relevant evidence in this case, not one has stepped forward.  What does that suggest to anyone about the integrity of law enforcement in the entire state of New Jersey?  And remember, Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth, after reviewing all of the direct and relevant evidence and interviewing the county public servants, including Mr. Aronowitz, concluded that the allegations had no merit.

 

 

MATERIALITY

         

Mr. Aronowitz’s False Swearing was material to the case in which he knowingly and purposely made his false statements.  Throughout the litigation the Court referred to the lack of findings of foul play based on the autopsy that Mr. Aronowitz, serving as the legal representative for the County Medical Examiner, said was conducted.  Though Mr. Aronowitz was never able to produce such report of autopsy, the Court accepted his sworn affirmations as truthful, while ignoring direct evidence to the contrary, submitted by Carolyn Ausley, the Plaintiff in the case. 

 

Because of Mr. Aronowitz False Swearing, the Court made light of the statement of the Plaintiff, Carolyn Ausley that an autopsy had not been completed on the decedent, in violation of the Medical Examiner Act.  The court, following the lead of Mr. Aronowitz as County Counsel, discounted the multiple statements by the Plaintiff, Carolyn Ausley, who stated that an autopsy had not been performed.  Ms. Ausley  supported such statement by providing a certified statement from the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office, who certified that only an “External Examination” had been completed on the decedent, Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.

 

The autopsy report claimed to exist by Mr. Aronowitz was never produced.  The fact that the Court did not ask Mr. Aronowitz to submit direct evidence in support of his statement is not a defense in this case.  Since the Court made reference to the autopsy report as a reason not supportive of foul play, it is highly likely that if the Court knew that no such autopsy was conducted and no such report prepared, that their review, consideration, and conclusions—no less their effect on final opinions, it is reasonable that such false affirmations and swearing before the Court “… could have affected the course or outcome of the proceeding or the disposition of the matter ….” (2C:28-1.b.), and is considered perjury.

 

Likewise, Mr. Aronowitz succeeded in mis-leading the court by falsely swearing that all toxicology tests were completed that needed to be completed, and that the police department were not investigating a suspicious death—both statements proven false with direct evidence available to the Office of Attorney General and contained herein.  A reading of the Motions and Appeals in the case clearly show the reliance placed by the Court on the false statements of Mr. Aronowitz.

 

RETRACTION

 

At no time did Mr. Aronowitz retract any of his false statements in the course of the legal proceedings in the Superior Court of New Jersey.  The time to do that ended with the final order of the Superior Court in the case.  The fact of the matter is that Mr. Aronowitz continued his False Swearing post-litigation, through Ms. Ausley’s motion in Superior Court to recoup attorney fees, still asserting that an autopsy had been completed on Ms. Ausley’s sister, Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.

 

To retract means to take back or recant. According to 2C:28-1.d., the retraction must be “…made prior to the termination of the proceeding or matter without having caused irreparable harm to any party.”  There is no evidence that Mr. Aronowitz attempted to retract his falsification. The proceeding in Superior Court, including appeals and motions for attorney fees, is terminated.  There was no retraction of False Swearing on Mr. Aronowitz’s part in the course of the proceeding or matter in which it was made prior to the termination of the proceeding or matter.  As recently as March 2009, Mr. Aronowitz continues to falsely swear and affirm to the above statements in the Superior Court of New Jersey.

 

Under OPRA, Carolyn Ausley or William H. Strouse (as sister and brother of the decedent) are entitled to receive a copy of an autopsy report.  Middlesex County has yet to produce a copy of the autopsy report though it has been requested several times.  If an autopsy report exists, Mr. Aronowitz withheld a critical piece of direct evidence in the litigation brought before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.  If the autopsy report does not exist, then clearly Mr. Aronowitz is guilty of False Swearing.  The report does not exist.

 

IRREPARABLE HARM

 

Irreparable harm was done to Carolyn Ausley and William H. Strouse in that 1) without the results of the autopsy it was not possible to prove the cause of SUSPICIOUS OR UNUSUAL death of their sister, Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter—there is no peace of mind and no closure 2) the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, in believing Mr. Aronowitz, discounted the various affirmations of Carolyn Ausley throughout the entire litigation over a period of almost two years, in essence calling her a liar—at no time did the court ask to see a copy of the autopsy report, and 3) Ms. Ausley and Mr. Strouse incurred expenses of almost $15,000 for attorney fees that would not have otherwise been incurred had Mr. Aronowitz produced the autopsy report two years ago that he still says exists.  Neither Mr. Strouse nor Ms. Ausley can ever be made whole.

 

CONCLUSION

 

It is clear by these facts in evidence that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that  Mr. Aronowitz knowingly, purposely, and falsely swore before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division in that:

 

Mr. Aronowitz knowingly and purposely made false statements and affirmations before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division on several occasions,

 

Mr. Aronowitz did not retract his false statements and affirmations within the timeframes allowed by New Jersey Statute, and continued them through March 2009,

 

Irreparable harm was done to both Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse as a result of these false statements and affirmations made by Mr. Aronowitz, and Direct evidence used in support of these charges comes directly from Middlesex County Counsel and the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office.

 

It is clear that Mr. Aronowitz is guilty of False Swearing, at a minimum, before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.  Mr. Aronowitz should be punished to the fullest extent allowable under False Swearing, and all other applicable laws.

2C:28-1.  Perjury


      a.  Offense defined.    A person is guilty of perjury, a crime of the third degree, if in any official proceeding he makes a false statement under oath or equivalent affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth of a statement previously made, when the statement is material and he does not believe it to be true.


      b.  Materiality.    Falsification is material, regardless of the admissibility of the statement under rules of evidence, if it could have affected the course or outcome of the proceeding or the disposition of the matter.  It is no defense that the declarant mistakenly believed the falsification to be immaterial.  Whether a falsification is material is a question of law.

      c.  Irregularities no defense.    It is not a defense to prosecution under  this section that the oath or affirmation was administered or taken in an  irregular manner.  A document purporting to be made upon oath or affirmation at  any time when the actor presents it as being so verified shall be deemed to  have been duly sworn or affirmed.

      d.  Retraction.    It is an affirmative defense under this section that the actor retracted the falsification in the course of the proceeding or matter  in which it was made prior to the termination of the proceeding or matter  without having caused irreparable harm to any party.

e.  Corroboration.    No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section where proof of falsity rests solely upon contradiction by testimony of a single person other than the defendant.

 
2C:28-2.  False Swearing


      a.  False Swearing.    A person who makes a false statement under oath or  equivalent affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth of such a statement previously made, when he does not believe the statement to be true, is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.

      b.  Perjury provisions applicable.    Subsections c. and d. of section 2C:28-1 apply to the present section.

c.  Inconsistent statements.    Where the defendant made inconsistent statements under oath or equivalent affirmation, both having been made within the period of the statute of limitations, the prosecution may proceed by setting forth the inconsistent statements in a single count alleging in the alternative that one or the other was false and not believed by the defendant. In such case it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to prove which statement was false but only that one or the other was false and not believed by the defendant to be true.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

NAVIGATION NOTES

  • The “log-in” at the top is for the site administrator only. 
  • Please click on the link to the right under the heading “Categories” to access each chapter.
  • As we prepare each chapter, a new link under the heading “Categories” will be added (any updates made will be noted below and in the chapter itself).
  • To make comments, scroll or page down or control/end to the bottom of the document and select “Comments” The page will refresh and the cursor will return to the top of the document. Scroll or page down or control/end to the bottom again and enter your comments. Although your email address is required, it will not be viewable to the public; you may use just your first name if you like. Because of inappropriate postings, we have taken the liberty to screen all postings for appropriateness prior to posting.
  • To view the linked (See) documents, click on the numbers or letters underlined in blue located within the chapters.
Older Posts »