10
06/09
Chapter 5 NJ ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE: CHIESA, HOLLINGSWORTH, MILGRAM, DOW
LAST UPDATED: Dec 28, 2016
Total Visits: 140,462
Total Hits: 6683,033
NAVIGATION NOTES
- The log-in at the top is for the site administrator.
- 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.
UPDATES: PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NARRATIVE BODY IS BELOW THE UPDATES.
While Ann Milgram may have moved on, the statute of limitations are on hold, as her crimes are related to a suspicious death/murder case.
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. Brian J. Nadeau, Unit Chief, of the Washington, DC Field Office, forwarded our communications to the Newark FBI Field Office for action.
April 7, 2012: According to correspondence from Lt. McGrath dated 3/26/12, the case (#2005 10192) was referred to the OAG’s Division of Criminal Justice for action.
January 26, 2012: On this date I received a letter from Robert E. McGrath, Lt, Records and Identification, from the Office of the Attorney General (Paula T. Dow). Lt. McGrath informed me that Gov Christie referred my correspondence to the OAG’s Division of Criminal Justice, “where it will be reviewed.” Lt. McGrath’s letter to me is dated December 22, 2011, and is post-marked January 24, 2012.
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 23, 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 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.
September 17, 2010: Sent to Judge Herman and Francis as noted below, a new probable cause hearing/review has been set for October 5, 2010. Changing their minds again, Judges Herman and Francis will not/not decide probable cause, nor will they hear the complaints. They assigned that responsibility to another municipal court 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 indictable 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: Judge George M. Boyd canceled the probable cause hearing scheduled for August 17th, 2010 because of jurisdictional concerns. The 61 criminal complaints have been referred to the Administrative Office of the Courts for assignment to the proper jurisdiction for the probable cause hearing. Court Administrators are refusing my request to confirm they have all 61 criminal complaints.
July 28, 2010: A probable cause hearing is set for August 17, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., in the Monroe Twp. Municipal 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 Vicinage 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: Citizens criminal complaints were filed on June 2, 2010, against Dep Attorney General Hollingsworth, in the Sayreville Municipal Court.
February 13, 2010 Update: Following a New Jersey Supreme Court ORDER issued by Chief Justice Stuart Rabner on November 2, 2009, we are preparing individual criminal complaints against each of the public servants involved in this case, to be submitted to the Sayreville Municipal Court, for legal action in a “trial court.” Apparently the Superior Court, Appellate Division, for Middlesex County, didn’t realize that we were filing in the wrong court for over three years, as they never informed us our motions were being filed in the wrong court. How is that possible?
SUMMARY:
Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth used her office to protect Middlesex County, NJ, public servants from being investigated for criminal events surrounding the suspicious death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter. In concluding that allegations against Dr. Frederick J. DiCarlo (Assistant County Medical Examiner), Eric M. Aronowtiz (First Deputy County Counsel), Bruce Kaplan and William Lamb (County Prosecutor’s Office), and Garbowski, Brennan, Sprague, and Nobles (Sayreville Police Department) had no merit, Hollingsworth ensured that the alleged murderer of Joyce would not be investigated for her suspicious death. This chapter, as in the ones preceding this chapter, clearly show that allegations against Hollingsworth for Official Misconduct and Pattern of Official Misconduct are well supported. Other criminal charges that could be developed against Hollingsworth include hindering apprehension and hindering an investigation. Despite numerous requests to Governor Jon Corzine to order an investigation of Hollingsworth, Governor Corzine has chosen to remain silent regarding this law and order issue. Efforts will now be made with Gov Chris Christie, presuming the Governor’s Office does not remain corrupt, as well.
DISCUSSION:
CHARGES AGAINST DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL DENISE HOLLINGSWORTH (Office of the Attorney General, NJ)
OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT
(TITLE 2C:30-2)
NEW JERSEY CODE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
AND
CRIME OF PATTERN OF OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT
(TITLE 2C:30-7)
NEW JERSEY CODE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Official Misconduct (Title 2C:30-2)
It is alleged in this writing that Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth has committed the crime of OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT and PATTERN OF OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT. The statute upon which this crime is based, and Hollingsworth’s violations, reads, in part, as follows. Please note that Hollingsworth may also be guilty of other criminal charges such as hindering apprehension, false swearing, and conspiracy, among others.
2C:30-2. Official Misconduct. A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with purpose to obtain a benefit for himself or another or to injure or to deprive another of a benefit:
In this case, Hollingsworth’s action benefited, in a non-pecuniary manner (to our knowledge), the following individuals by ignoring direct and relevant evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there was merit to the specific 2C charges submitted to the Office of the Attorney General in February and March 2008, by Carolyn Ausley (sister of the decedent) and Bill Strouse (brother of the decedent). Further, Ausley and Strouse were injured and deprived of the benefit of knowing beyond a reasonable doubt the cause and manner of the death of their sister, Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter, the decedent in this case, in accordance with New Jersey law. The following public servants were charged in separate complaints submitted to the Attorney General.
Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D., Asst. Medical Examiner, Middlesex County, NJ
Bruce Kaplan, Prosecutor, Middlesex County, NJ
William Lamb, Assistant Prosecutor, Middlesex County, NJ
Eric M. Aronowitz, First Deputy Counsel, Middlesex County, NJ
Sayreville Police Department:
Det-Sgt Sprague, Middlesex County, NJ
Det Noble, Middlesex County, NJ
Lt. Brennan, Middlesex County, NJ
CAPT Garbowski, Middlesex County, NJ
b. He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.
Using her office and her official functions, knowing that such act was unauthorized, Hollingsworth knowingly and purposely ignored over 651 pages of relevant and direct evidence provided to her by Ausley and Strouse, with the intent to protect from investigation and prosecution, the above mentioned public servants, and in turn, protect the alleged murderer, from being investigated for the suspicious death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter. In this case, and based upon the complaints submitted by Ausley and Strouse in February and March 2008, she also refrained from performing her duty to objectively review the extensive direct and relevant evidence submitted to her. Direct and relevant evidence reviewed by Hollingsworth clearly showed that the public servants charged above had violated numerous sections of the New Jersey Criminal Code of Justice 2C.
In order for Hollingsworth to be found guilty of official misconduct, the State must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That the defendant was a public servant at the times and dates alleged in the indictment, and
(2) That the defendant committed an act relating to (his/her) office knowing that it was unauthorized, or committed the act in an unauthorized manner, or that the defendant knowingly refrained from performing an act which (he/she) was required to perform as part of (his/her) office. The State must prove that the defendant knowingly refrained from performing a duty which was imposed upon (him/her) by law or was clearly inherent in the nature of (his/her) office. This provision refers to a public servant who knowingly refrains from performing an official non-discretionary duty which is imposed upon (him/her) by law, or which is clearly inherent in the nature of (his/her) office. The duty to act must be so clear that the public servant is on notice as to the standards that (he/she) must meet. In other words, the failure to act must be more than a failure to exhibit good judgment. In addition, the State must prove that the defendant knew of the existence of (his/her) non-discretionary duty to act prior to the incident in question.3
Hollingsworth knowingly and purposely refrained from conducting an objective review and analysis of over 651 pages of direct and relevant evidence that showed beyond a reasonable doubt that the charges against the Middlesex County public servants mentioned above were fully supported, with the intent and benefit of protecting those individuals from criminal investigation and prosecution. This duty to provide an objective review and analysis was non-discretionary and was clearly imposed upon her by law and was also clearly inherent in the nature of her office. There is no doubt that Hollingsworth clearly knew what the minimum standards were for conducting the four (4) reviews/investigations of public servants, and; the most egregious decision not to initiate necessary action to begin an investigation of Joyce’s alleged murderer for his role in the suspicious death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.
For example, Hollingsworth read that the Sayreville Police reported a suspicious death to the Medical Examiner’s Office. She also read that the Sayreville Police reported a suspicious death to the County Prosecutor and she also read that no crime scene was established nor was there a crime scene investigation. Hollingsworth also read that the Medical Examiner directed both the Sayreville Police and the County Prosecutor to conduct suspicious death investigations. It is clear that Hollingsworth knew that there should have been a crime scene investigation conducted.
Hollingsworth reports she found no merit to that complaint/charge-in other words, it was okay with her that a crime scene was not established and that a crime scene investigation was not conducted in a suspicious death case by either the Sayreville Police or the County Prosecutor. Also, direct evidence shows that the alleged murderer was never Mirandized, no less interviewed, and; neither Ausley or Strouse were interviewed. As if that is not enough, the Sayreville police Hospice Death/Suspicious Death report does not question the fact that neither they, nor any medical help, were called to the scene for more than one hour after the alleged murderer admits Joyce died. Why wait an hour to call for help? To make sure she is dead, of course. This was not an issue, reported Hollingsworth.
Hollingsworth overlooks falsification of official records and public documents. For example, Dr. DiCarlo falsified public records. Direct and relevant evidence, in the form of Certificates of Death and changes to the Certificates of Death on official county/state forms were provided to Hollingsworth for review. In justifying the changes to the Certificates of Death, Dr. DiCarlo had to specify his justification for changing the manner and cause of death for Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter. In the certificate submitted to Hollingsworth as relevant evidence, DiCarlo certifies that he made his decision based upon his conduct of an autopsy. In other official documents provided by DiCarlo and submitted to Hollingsworth, DiCarlo admits he did not conduct the mandatory autopsy and only completed an External Examination, as you read in previous chapters. Hollingsworth read the law, knew the requirements, knew that DiCarlo falsified the Certificate of Death, and yet ruled there was no merit to the complaint/charge of Falsification of Public Records or failure to conduct the mandatory autopsy. A pattern is developing.
For example, the Prosecutor failed to conduct a mandatory investigation in compliance with the State Medical Examiner Act. When Dr. DiCarlo learned of the suspicious death report directly from the Sayreville Police, he ordered an investigation be conducted by the County Prosecutor. Two letters from Kaplan and William Lamb clearly state that the Prosecutor’s Office did not conduct the mandatory suspicious death investigation ordered by Dr. DiCarlo. As noted in Hollingsworth letter of June 9, 2008, the County Prosecutor waited 80 (eighty) days before deciding that he believed an investigation was unnecessary. This 80-day period, said Hollingsworth, was based on the date that the Medical Examiner completed his investigation, such as it was, on January 16, 2006 (October 29, 2005 – January 16, 2006), as discussed in the chapter on the Medical Examiner.
The Medical Examiner Act requires the Prosecutor to conduct an investigation in all suspicious deaths. Lamb asserts in both of his letters available to Hollingsworth, that no investigation was conducted. According to Hollingsworth June 9, 2008, letter, per Lamb’s correspondence (the chapter on the County Prosecutor goes into great detail in this area), this was decided at the time the “autopsy” was completed (an External Exam was completed on October 31, 2005, per the Medical Examiner; an autopsy was never conducted). Lamb is lying. When Ausley and Strouse stated that no autopsy was conducted, why didn’t Hollingsworth ask the Medical Examiner for a copy of the official autopsy and dispel that allegation? Again, Hollingsworth states in her letter of June 9, 2008, that the Prosecutor’s Office waited 80 days before deciding that an investigation was not necessary. A pattern is becoming more clear.
For example, Eric M. Aronowitz, First Deputy County Counsel for Middlesex County, swore or affirmed in New Jersey Superior Court that an autopsy had been conducted and all necessary toxicology tests had been conducted on the decedent, both contradicted by direct and relevant evidence from the NJ State Toxicology Lab and correspondence from Dr. DiCarlo. Complaints/charges against Aronowitz included false swearing and the direct and relevant evidence to support those charges was available to Hollingsworth to review.
Such evidence was in the form of official county documents made available to Hollingsworth. The chapter on Aronowitz goes into greater detail regarding Aronowitz’s false swearing and false affirmation. In reviewing those documents, Hollingsworth concluded that the charges had no merit-that Mr. Aronowitz was not guilty of false swearing. However, direct and relevant evidence reviewed by Hollingsworth tells a completely different story. Hollingsworth’s investigation is “secret” so we cannot determine if she asked Aronowitz to explain his false swearing in court documents, documents we provided Hollingsworth to review. A pattern is obvious.
(3) That the defendant’s purpose in (committing the act) (failing to perform the act) was to benefit (himself/herself) or another, or to injure or deprive another of a benefit. The law requires that (the act in question) (the defendant’s failure to perform a required act) be done either to benefit (himself/herself) or another, or to injure or deprive another of the benefit.
It should be noted that the actions of these public servants directly benefited the alleged murderer who is a former Dunellen Police Officer who is alleged to be responsible for the suspicious death of Joyce, yet he was never investigated by law enforcement-something which Judge Travis L. Francis wondered about in his published opinion in the case to obtain Joyce’s specimens taken during the External Examination for independent laboratory testing by Ausley and Strouse (you may have read about his statement in an earlier chapter).
Benefits received by the alleged murderer by not being investigated include the following, among others: his financial situation would remain undisturbed-he was deeply in debt and unemployed; he would not have to sell his house to pay for 24/7 care scheduled to begin what turned out to be the day after Joyce’s death, and could use that money for his own purposes; Joyce’s step-daughters both deny and acknowledge that the alleged murderer abused one of them and Joyce as well; though Ausley and Strouse alleged that the care giver killed their sister, the care giver was never Mirandized; no one would learn that an “estate transfer” of the deed to the house from Joyce’s name to that of the care giver’s name occurred before Joyce’s death, thus raising the question of the legality of the transfer of the “estate” and the subsequent (future) benefiting of the proceeds of sale as the alleged murder; the crime of “negligence” committed by the alleged murderer, who was Joyce’s primary and legal care giver in that he had a legal duty to care for her, in accordance with the legal agreement, and he abandoned her and unreasonably neglected to care for her or failed to permit to be done any act necessary for the physical or mental health of Joyce, with the result being her intentional death. Perhaps an investigation would conclude that the care giver caused Joyce’s premeditated death, as the care giver acknowledged that his plan for Joyce was to die.
Early on, the care giver’s plan was for Joyce to die. At one point he commented to Strouse “The plan for Joyce is to die”. As noted by Judge Travis L. Francis, New Jersey Superior Court, the alleged murderer did not show any interest whatsoever in the four specimens taken from Joyce until Ausley requested custody in the Appellate Division, for independent laboratory testing at her own expense. The alleged murderer was the only one to object to the release of the specimens, as noted by the NJ Superior Court. The alleged murderer clearly received these benefits from Hollingsworth with the intent to protect him from investigation and prosecution. And to this day, all of these public servants have been successful. Hollingsworth has been successful in using her office to aid these criminals.
Additionally, Hollingsworth knows that to find merit in one is to find merit in all. And to find merit in one is to raise a question of integrity and forthrightness for all prior cases investigated by these public servants, as well as cases investigated since then-in other words, finding merit in any of these charges/complaints places the entire Middlesex County judicial system under suspicion for corruption. And now, the Office of the Attorney General is involved in the cover-up and corruption as well, by the direct actions of Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth, who, like the other public servants, should be investigated and prosecuted for Official Misconduct and any other applicable crime. But who would investigate all of them? Would there be another cover-up?
Irreparable harm not only befell Ausley and Strouse for the loss of their sister, but the same harm befell Joyce’s two daughters, Deby Bath and Candace Boehler (maiden name), who lost their mother. Because an autopsy was never conducted, the family will never know the true cause and manner of death beyond a reasonable doubt. Ausley and Strouse also have to go through the rest of their lives knowing that a possible murderer walks free, simply because of public servants protecting a former police officer who called in a favor of the “blue wall”.
These public servants should be investigated. Ausley and Strouse demand that these public servants, including Hollingsworth, be investigated and prosecuted for all crimes associated with the allegations made herein, and those identified in over 651 pages of direct and relevant evidence submitted to the Office of Attorney General in February and March 2008. If necessary, Ausley and Strouse can provide a complete copy of all material previously submitted. It is perhaps timely, also, that Governor Corzine and Attorney General Milgram be investigated for ignoring Ausley and Strouse’s multiple pleas for help.
Ausley and Strouse demand, once again, that the State of New Jersey investigate Joyce’s care giver for the suspicious death of their sister, Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter, who died a suspicious death on October 29, 2005.
1 Title 2C:27-1. Definitions. In chapters 27 through 30, unless a different meaning plainly is required: b.”Government” includes any branch, subdivision or agency of the government of the State or any locality within it; g. “Public servant” means any officer or employee of government, including legislators and judges, and any person participating as juror, advisor, consultant or otherwise, in performing a governmental function, but the term does not include witnesses.
2 An “act” may be unauthorized because it is declared to be such by statute, ordinance, rule, regulation or otherwise.
3 The New Jersey Penal Code – Volume II: Commentary (2C:30-2). Subsection b, the “omission to act” phase of this offense, has reference to a public servant who consciously refrains from performing an official non-discretionary duty, which duty is imposed upon him by law or which is clearly inherent in the nature of his office. In addition, the public servant must know of the existence of such non-discretionary duty to act. Thus, such duty must be either one that is imposed by law, or one that is unmistakably inherent in the nature of the public servant’s office, i.e., the duty to act is so clear that the public servant is on notice as to the standards that he must meet. In other words, the failure to act must be more than mere breach of good judgment. In the absence of a duty to act, there can be no conviction.
In February and March 2008, Ausley and Strouse submitted four criminal complaints and charges (651 pages) to the Office of the Attorney General, against certain public servants in Middlesex County. The submitted complaints and charges eventually ended up in the Office of Attorney General with Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth for review. Regarding her letter of June 9, 2008, written under the “Division of Criminal Justice” letterhead, Hollingsworth, a Deputy Attorney General in the Prosecutors Supervision & Coordination Bureau, draws several conclusions.
Hollingsworth’s conclusions are based on the 651 pages of information Ausley and Strouse submitted to the Office of Attorney General in February and March 2008. Hollingsworth also states that she contacted the Middlesex County public servants against whom the charges were made. Hollingsworth concluded that she “… saw no merit in your allegations of a conspiracy or other criminal misconduct involving local and county officials.” Her conclusion of “no merit” is not supported by the direct evidence submitted for review. One has to believe she knowingly and purposely ignored that evidence to enable her to draw the conclusions she did, with the intent of protecting the public servants charged.
In a subsequent letter dated July 28, 2008, writing under the auspices of the Office of the State Medical Examiner, Deputy Attorney General Hollingsworth adds “… that based on our review of your allegations against Aronowitz, there is no actionable conduct that would warrant criminal prosecution.” Mr. Aronowitz is the Attorney who represented the Medical Examiner’s Office and the County of Middlesex when Ausley petitioned for the release of the four specimens taken from Joyce during DiCarlo’s External Examination. Hollingsworth also incorrectly concludes that she “saw no merit in your allegations of a conspiracy or other criminal misconduct involving local and county officials.” Hollingsworth is multi-talented and gets around quite a bit. One has to believe she knowingly and purposely skipped over direct and relevant evidence to enable her to draw the erroneous conclusions she did, with the intent of protecting the public servants charged.
There is a glaring factual disagreement with the findings and conclusions drawn by Hollingsworth and the direct and relevant evidence submitted by Ausley and Strouse. Further, it is interesting to note that charges against the Sayreville Police Department were reviewed by Hollingsworth, as opposed to the NJ State Police; it is interesting to note that charges against the Assistant Medical Examiner were reviewed by someone in the Prosecutors Supervision & Coordination Bureau, as opposed to the State Medical Examiner; it is also interesting to note that the charges against Eric M. Aronowitz, the First Deputy Counsel for Middlesex County, were reviewed under the auspices of someone from the Office of the State Medical Examiner.
While Ausley and Strouse remain utterly confused as to who should have reviewed whom regarding the criminal charges previously submitted, we are sure that the evidence we submitted was direct, relevant, and material to the charges. Hollingsworth’s conclusion that “there was no evidence to support a finding of criminal wrongdoing” is simply wrong. Each charge was matched to Title 2C New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice.
In response to Hollingsworth June 9, 2008, letter, we offer the following information and assessment from her prejudiced review of direct and relevant evidence. It is quite clear from her conclusions that Hollingsworth’s intent is to protect the public servants from Middlesex County at the risk of her career. We have to wonder why? Well, one reason is, if you find culpability with one, you find it with all in this case.
Leading one astray is an art that Hollingsworth has perfected. Hollingsworth’s reframing of our charges and complaints, intentional as it is, cannot hide the facts from a careful reader. Unfortunately, no one else will read the material and it is therefore essential that Ausley and Strouse continue seeking an audience with those who will objectively assess the submitted information and render a fair conclusion based on the direct and relevant evidence provided. Perhaps there is a reason why Hollingsworth failed to take the time to explain her rationale for her conclusions.
Hollingsworth mistakenly begins her response to our allegations and charges making reference to Ausley’s and Strouse’s concerns about how Bruce Kaplan, the Middlesex County Prosecutor “handling” of allegations of criminal conduct of Joyce’s care giver, the person we alleged to have killed our sister. A review of our charges and complaints shows that four separate charges and complaints were submitted to the Office of the Attorney General, only “one” of which was against the Prosecutor’s Office for failing to conduct the mandatory investigation required whenever a suspicious death is reported and especially when directed to conduct such an investigation by the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office. Remember, the investigation Hollingsworth admits did not take place is MANDATORY under the NJ State Medical Examiner Act. And Hollingsworth concludes failure to conduct this mandatory suspicious death investigation is not a violation of law?
For example, Ausley and Strouse were never interviewed by Hollingsworth, or anyone-regarding the complaints submitted to the Office of the Attorney General. Ausley and Strouse were not informed as to the process any review would take, nor the timeframes involved. Hollingsworth contacted neither Ausley nor Strouse after she spoke with persons against whom the criminal charges were made. Ausley and Strouse never received any explanation as to why their charges lacked merit when the actions of the public servants were matched against the NJ Criminal Code of Justice violations.
In particular, Hollingsworth notes in her June 9th letter that the Sayreville Police Department “conducted thorough interviews with all parties ….” This is not true based upon the relevant and direct evidence available in the case. For example, Ausley was not interviewed at all, and Strouse was not “thoroughly” interviewed-there was never a formal interview of Strouse. Nowhere in the Sayreville Police Reports of Investigation is a record of a “thorough interview”, no less a Miranda interview, with Joyce’s care giver, the alleged murderer. Further, as noted in the material reviewed by Hollingsworth, the Sayreville Police Department did not establish a crime scene nor did they conduct a crime scene investigation for a crime of suspicious death-amongst everything else documented in the charges submitted by Ausley and Strouse. What Hollingsworth is saying is that it is not necessary to establish a crime scene and conduct a crime scene investigation in the case of a suspicious death, contrary to what the State Medical Examiner act mandates and contrary, of course, to police investigative protocol. Though Hollingsworth is familiar with the State Medical Examiner Act she chose to ignore its requirements. Thorough interviews were not conducted with all parties and the record supports that interviews were not conducted with all parties.
Hollingsworth notes that the Sayreville Police Department even consulted with Dr. Frederick DiCarlo. But Hollingsworth forgets to mention that Dr. DiCarlo directed the Sayreville Police Department to conduct an investigation of the suspicious death. Hollingsworth also forgets to mention that on the evening of October 29, 2005, the evening of Joyce’s suspicious death, that the Medical Examiner’s Office also directed the Prosecutors Office to conduct a suspicious death investigation, mandated by the State Medical Examiner Act, which Hollingsworth is thoroughly familiar with. Why would Hollingsworth forget to mention that little fact? Well, such facts do not fit the outcome she is seeking, which is using her government position to protect the public servants from Middlesex County.
Hollingsworth comments that Dr. DiCarlo, the Assistant Medical Examiner for Middlesex County, “provided a very comprehensive External Examination Report supporting his findings on cause and manner of death.” This is so far from the truth that Clarence Darrow is rolling in his grave. The External Examination report referred to by Hollingsworth clearly does not support DiCarlo’s findings on cause and manner of death. In fact, a certificate of death produced shortly after the completion of his final report indicates the manner and cause of death to be “pending”. That certificate of death was subsequently changed 3 more times by Dr. DiCarlo-one has to wonder why? The State Medical Examiner Act requires that the only way to determine the cause and manner of death beyond a reasonable doubt when a suspicious death is reported is to conduct an autopsy. Dr. DiCarlo admits he never conducted an autopsy; Hollingsworth confirms his statement, as does that of Ausley/Strouse attorney Jack Venturi. Based on the four specimens taken during the External Exam by Dr. DiCarlo, Michael Berkland, D.O., an independent Forensic Pathologist, determined that at the time of Joyce’s death, she “was in a prolonged state of fasting and starvation and was dehydrated.” Additionally, Dr. DiCarlo changed Joyce’s certificates of death several times, including at least one time wherein he falsified the certificate of death, as clearly demonstrated by the direct evidence submitted by Ausley and Strouse, and intentionally ignored by Hollingsworth.
Contrary to what Hollingsworth reports, Dr. DiCarlo did not consult with Joyce’s physicians on her medical history. DiCarlo’s report indicates he reviewed Joyce’s treatment records made available to him by the alleged murderer. In his report, DiCarlo does not provide any definitive conclusions which support his findings on the cause and manner of death of Joyce, again contrary to what Hollingsworth says in her letter of June 9, 2008. Since no autopsy was conducted, DiCarlo has no direct or relevant evidence of his own to rely upon, as required by the NJ State Medical Examiner Act.
Not surprisingly at this point, Hollingsworth notes that the Prosecutor’s Office waited until the Medical Examiner and the Sayreville Police department completed their investigations (January 19, 2006) before “determining that there was no actionable criminal conduct to pursue.” If we believe what Hollingsworth says, we note that the Prosecutors Office waited 80 days after the alleged suspicious death to decide if they would conduct an investigation of the suspicious death. The Prosecutors Office has two crime units whose job it is to jump in up front and conduct a crime scene investigation. What happened to those two units in this case? And why would a prosecutor wait 80 days to make such a decision, when the crime scene is right before him? What happened to the crime scene while he waits 80 days to hear from others? The Prosecutor knowingly and purposely decided not to investigate the crime scene because doing so would in all likelihood expose the former Dunellen police officer to tight scrutiny in the case.
Contrary to what Hollingsworth reports the Prosecutor said during her review (such as it was), is a statement from the Prosecutor’s Office, regarding when they made the decision not to conduct an investigation. William Lamb, an assistant prosecutor, wrote in a letter dated May 16, 2006 (read the chapter on the Prosecutor), that the Prosecutors Office decided not to conduct an investigation of Joyce’s suspicious death “at the time of the Sauter autopsy”. Of course, this is a lie, because no autopsy was ever conducted. This Lamb statement also contradicts what Hollingsworth stated just above. An external examination was conducted on October 31, 2005, by DiCarlo. Prior to receiving the lab reports from the NJ State Toxicology Lab, DiCarlo knowingly and purposely released Joyce’s body to the care giver–the alleged murderer, who immediately had her cremated. Why would DiCarlo release Joyce’s body to the alleged murderer? Hollingsworth doesn’t even question some of these very obvious actions. This is knowing and purposeful on her part.
Hollingsworth concludes that she “saw no merit in your allegations of a conspiracy or criminal misconduct involving local and county officials.” Again, finding one culpable is to find all culpable, which now includes herself. Ausley and Strouse provided significant direct and relevant evidence which supports the allegations of conspiracy and criminal misconduct. The direct and relevant evidence, as you’ve read in the other chapters, is evidence produced by Middlesex County and NJ State employees. How can such evidence not have merit?
Findings and conclusions on Aronowitz were missing from Hollingsworth’s review of June 9, 2008. In response to a followup letter dated July 28, 2008, Hollingsworth provided the Aronowitz addendum. Hollingsworth notes that there is no actionable conduct warranting prosecution of Aronowitz-that is, Aronowitz’s false swearing in Superior Court is not “actionable conduct.” The clearest of all direct and relevant evidence was ignored by Hollingsworth so as to support Aronowitz. In supporting Aronowitz and the others, Hollingsworth benefits the public servants in Middlesex County and harms Ausley and Strouse.
CRIME OF PATTERN OF OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT
(N.J.S.A. 2C:30-7)
Ausley and Strouse allege in this case that Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth committed the crime of PATTERN OF OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT. This is in addition to a charge of Official Misconduct under 2C:30-2. This charge reads very similar to the charge of Official Misconduct. The statute upon which this crime is based reads as follows:
2C:30-7. Crime of pattern of official misconduct.
3.a. A person commits the crime of pattern of official misconduct if he commits two or more acts that violate the provisions of N.J.S.2C:30-2 or Section 2 of P.L.2003, c.31 (C.2C:30-6). It shall not be a defense that the violations were not part of a common plan or scheme, or did not have similar methods of commission.
b. Pattern of official misconduct is a crime of the second degree if one of the acts committed by the defendant is a first or second degree crime; otherwise, it is a crime of the third degree, provided, however, that the presumption of nonimprisonment set forth in subsection e. of N.J.S.2C:44-1 for persons who have not previously been convicted of an offense shall not apply. Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:1-8 or any other law, a conviction of pattern of official misconduct shall not merge with a conviction of official misconduct, official deprivation of civil rights, or any other criminal offense, nor shall such other conviction merge with a conviction under this section, and the court shall impose separate sentences upon each violation of N.J.S.2C:30-2 and section 2 and 3 of P.L.2003, c.31 (C.2C:30-6 and C.2C:30-7).
Denise Hollingsworth, Deputy Attorney General, employed as a public servant in the New Jersey Office of Attorney General at the relevant time, committed a pattern of official misconduct. Hollingsworth committed at least four (4) acts that violate the provisions of the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice Title 2C:30-2, as documented in her hand, in official correspondence to Ausley and Strouse dated June 9, 2008.
Specifically, Hollingsworth committed an act relating to her office which constituted an unauthorized exercise of her official functions, knowing that such act was unauthorized or she is committed such act in an unauthorized manner; or she knowingly refrained from performing a duty which was imposed upon her by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of her office.
It is undisputed that Hollingsworth was a public servant employed in the Office of the Attorney General at the relevant time in which she committed the violation under this section. It is also undisputed that she committed these acts relating to her office knowing that it was unauthorized, or committed the acts in an unauthorized manner, or that Hollingsworth knowingly refrained from performing an act which she was required to perform as part of her office, and that Hollingsworth’s purpose in committing the act and/or failing to perform the act was to benefit others, or to injure or deprive others of a benefit.
As a public servant in the Office of the Attorney General Hollingsworth was assigned to review criminal charges submitted in February and March 2008, by Ausley and Strouse. The complaints she was assigned to review were made against (1) Eric M. Aronowitz, First Deputy Counsel, Middlesex County. Mr. Aronowitz is charged with False Swearing and Official Misconduct, among others; (2) Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D., Assistant Medical Examiner, Middlesex County; Dr. DiCarlo is charged with Falsification of Public Records and Official Misconduct, among others; (3) four personnel from the Sayreville Police Department including Captain Garbowski, Lt. Brennan, DET-SGT Jeffrey Sprague, and DET Amy Noble, are charged with failure to establish and conduct a crime scene investigation in a suspicious death investigation case, and Official Misconduct, among others; and (4) Bruce Kaplan, Prosecutor, Middlesex County is charged with failure to conduct a mandatory suspicious death investigation and Official Misconduct, among others. The fact that Hollingsworth conducted a review of sorts and drew conclusions over her signature as a representative and public servant employed by the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General is undisputed.
The Office of the Attorney General was requested by Ausley and Strouse to initiate a suspicious death investigation against the alleged murderer, Joyce’s care giver, the former Dunellen police officer whom the aforementioned Middlesex County public servants protected in the course of committing numerous 2C and State Medical Examiner Act violations. The Office of the Attorney General failed, despite repeated requests, to respond to any requests from Ausley, to conduct an investigation of the care giver for the suspicious death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.
The four criminal charges were assigned to Hollingsworth by the Office of the Attorney General presumably on certain criteria, such as the nature of one or more of the criminal charges. Though she should have recused herself because of prior involvement two years earlier in the same case, Hollingsworth accepted the assignment. As such, it is undisputed that the violations committed by Hollingsworth were committed as acts directly relating to her office while constituting an unauthorized exercise of her official functions, knowing that such act was unauthorized, or that she committed such act in an unauthorized manner. The acts in question were incomplete, not at all objective, and were completely biased reviews of direct and relevant evidence submitted by Ausley and Strouse in support of their criminal charges against the Middlesex County public servants and others identified above. Those charges now include Hollingsworth.
Hollingsworth’s conclusion that the charges had no merit are unfounded. By concluding that none of the charges and allegations submitted by Ausley and Strouse had merit, Hollingsworth used her office to condone a validity of her conclusion that she cannot support based on over 651 pages of direct and relevant evidence she had to review, much of which was documentation prepared by the Middlesex County public servants themselves, such as false Certificates of Death and False Swearing in NJ Superior Court, as recorded in Court transcripts and Judicial opinions, all of which she had to review. Because she had all the direct and relevant evidence, and had an opportunity to interview Ausley and Strouse (which she did not do), by omission, she completed an unauthorized exercise of her official functions. What is equally important is that Hollingsworth did so purposely and knowingly, and knew that the act she committed was unauthorized in line with her official functions.
Additionally, Hollingsworth knowingly refrained from drawing proper conclusions based upon over 651 pages of direct and relevant evidence she had before her. This duty was imposed upon her by law and was clearly inherent in the nature of her office as an investigator. For example, Hollingsworth knowingly refrained from an objective review of Certificates of Death, an official non-discretionary duty which is imposed upon her by law, or which is clearly inherent in the nature of her office, in particular for this investigation.
For example, Hollingsworth had before her copies of Certificates of Death for Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter, which were changed at least four times. Pointed out to Hollingsworth in a conversation with Strouse was an official change to the manner and cause of death falsely certified by Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D. Specifically, Dr. DiCarlo certified on official documents and public records that he changed the manner and cause of death of the decedent based on an autopsy he said he completed. In fact, an autopsy was never completed on Joyce, as Dr. DiCarlo attests that he only completed an External Examination on Joyce.
Further, Hollingsworth notes that the Prosecutor’s office said they decided-80 days after Joyce’s death-not to conduct an investigation at the time of the autopsy, when in fact, they knew an autopsy had not been conducted. Though Hollingsworth had all the documentation before her that undisputedly showed that an autopsy had not been conducted, she acts, in her conclusion, as if an autopsy had indeed been conducted, thus perpetuating another lie and fabrication. All of this to protect the aforementioned Middlesex County public servants.
Hollingsworth’s duty to act was so clear in terms of how her investigation was to be conducted, that she was obviously on notice as to the standards that she must meet. Based on her purposeful and knowing refraining from and omitting from her investigation direct and relevant evidence submitted by Ausley and Strouse, Hollingsworth exhibited a failure to act that was more than a failure to exhibit good judgment. These non-discretionary duties and responsibilities to conduct a complete, proper, objective investigation, within established criteria and protocol, were known by her, prior to the filing of these charges and complaints. In other words, she knew the outcome she wanted to achieve, and as a result, she knowingly and purposely chose and interpreted available information to ensure she was successful.
As a direct result of Hollingsworth’s knowing and purposeful decision not to perform required acts, significant benefit was received by not only Middlesex County public officials, and not only the alleged murderer who was never investigated for Joyce’s suspicious death, but the entire judicial system from Middlesex County to the Office of the Attorney General-all cleared of any wrongdoing by Hollingsworth. Each of the “entities” charged by Ausley and Strouse identified above all contributed individually and jointly at various times to benefit Joyce’s care giver. Additionally, Hollingsworth’s actions also put the cap on the benefit, not only for the care giver, but also to protect Middlesex County public servants who put their careers on the line, risked jail time, loss of job and loss of pension, not to mention the integrity of the entire Middlesex County judicial system for cases tried prior to Joyce’s suspicious death, and since Joyce’s suspicious death. Imagine what will happen when scores of attorneys and others learn of these criminal acts on the part of these public servants-they will want all their cases reviewed for obvious possible indiscretions. And now, of course, the Office of the Attorney General is implicated as well.
Irreparable harm was caused to Ausley and Strouse, sister and brother of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter, as well as to Deby and Candace (now has different last name) because they will never know the true cause and manner of Joyce’s death. They will never know the true cause and manner of Joyce’s death because, in the State of New Jersey, whenever a suspicious death is reported, the only way to determine the manner and cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt is by conducting an autopsy-which DiCarlo admits was not conducted and which the county has been unable to provide documentation for. Irreparable harm has also befallen Ausley and Strouse in that throughout the four years since theirs sister’s death every effort they made to bring to justice the alleged killer has been turned back on them, as if they were common criminals themselves. It seems no amount of evidence can be submitted in the NJ judicial system that can penetrate the blue wall, from Middlesex County to the Office of the Attorney General. It is also very sad for Ausley and Strouse that possibly through threat and intimidation from the alleged murderer, both Deby and Candace have turned against their aunt and uncle and the family is now splintered.
Hollingsworth contributed directly to this harm by failing to use the direct and relevant evidence submitted to her to restore order and justice in the judicial system of the State of New Jersey. By ignoring evidence Hollingsworth acted purposely with respect to the nature of her conduct because it was her conscious objective to exonerate all of the accused public servants. She was successful, to date.
Hollingsworth knew that if she ignored the direct and relevant evidence submitted by Ausley and Strouse, and relied upon conversations with the accused public servants, she could shape the circumstances such that it would be practically certain that she would achieve the result she needed to achieve, which was the exoneration of all the public servants accused in this case by Ausley and Strouse.
Neither Ausley nor Strouse have any idea how much, if any, money changed hands regarding the corruption which has taken place in this case. Ausley and Strouse can only suggest that Joyce’s alleged murderer’s relationship with identified public servants is based on his former employment with the Dunellen police department, which is a borough of Middlesex County. The blue wall is alive and well in New Jersey.
Since September 2008, Ausley and Strouse have written Governor Jon Corzine’s office five (5) times asking for him to intervene in this case and order the suspicious death investigation to be initiated. Ausley and Strouse also asked Gov Corzine to investigate Hollingsworth for official misconduct. As of October 28, 2009, Gov Corzine has been non-responsive to their pleas for help. What does this suggest?