By this time, I was realizing that lawyers were not trained to deal with the criminality of a Prosecutor's Office and I went through several lawyers trying to find one who could. I always explained to each before I hired them what I was up against, a corrupt Prosecutors Office. All would say they could deal with that, but in the end, they couldn't and sunk me deeper and deeper. The difference between police and lawyers? Good cops will risk their lives; good lawyers won't even risk their profession.

After many delays designed to keep me out of work, and therefore out of pay, the Final Restraining Order hearing was finally heard in May 1999, four months later! Both restraining orders were dismissed after Kozub erred while testifying and slipped that the date of the offense she was alleging (new offense date testified to was July 16th, yet the criminal complaint stated July 21st), as well as the time we broke up (now at least until June 1998 instead of April 1998) didn't match her earlier story! She even admitted that we were still "romantically" involved! Unfortunately my second lawyer didn't catch this and neither did I. However, at least I had an excuse; my Grandmother was dying in the hospitable. But her lawyer did and quickly asked for a recess. He approached us to negotiate a dismissal whereupon we both agreed to dismiss the TRO's against each other. This of course was ok for me since the one against Kozub wasn't being enforced anyway, and the one against me was being used to keep me illegally suspended.

December 1999: As I mentioned in the Drunk Driving story, I had begun a lawsuit. My lawyer for that suit finally had began to see what was going on and started to realize that I had done nothing wrong.  She finally realized that this was an attempt to derail the civil suit, which thanks to the idiocy of Reed and Chief Harper, was proceeding exceptionally well. During one conversation I told her that my instincts told me that the holding of the criminal complaints against me were being done on purpose and that the illegal suspension was blocking my pay and causing harm, as was its intent. I also told her that it was designed to interfere with the lawsuit.  First she made a Motion to Judge Wells who was the Assignment Judge for Burlington County. The argument was simple and inarguable; the suspension without pay was illegal because per the law, a police officer cannot be suspended without written charges and a hearing. However, Judge Wells disregarded the law and denied the Motion, stating "What would a hearing do for him anyway?" This was paramount to a flagrant denial of due process rights by the top Judge for the County! This would be one of many judicial examples of the complete degradation of the legal system in Burlington County from a complete lack of accountability and integrity. This would later be confirmed with the additional exposure of corruption by Mr. T. Rosenberg, Esq. and Palmyra Mayor Grall when it was revealed that Mr. Norcross, the apparent "political power behind the throne," was caught on tape admitting that in order to get rid of a bad lawyer, he arranged to make him a Burlington County Superior Court Judge:

"A lot of people don't like John Harrington," Norcross is heard saying of a Democratic attorney then being considered for a judgeship. "The best thing you do . . . Make him a f------ judge and get rid of him. . . . Let's get rid of Harrington, Harrington disappears, Harrington becomes a judge, whatever the case. We move on."

Courier Post

I told my lawyer to file a motion to have the complaints dismissed. She said she wasn't sure at could be done. But later she got back to me and was surprised that I was right. Lesson: listen to your instincts!

January 2000: I was in California at this time. I was lucky enough to get away by helping a friend move there. Judge Schlosser of the Superior Court in Burlington County heard the Motion. He agreed that enough time had passed and that Gerrow had to "fish or cut bait." He gave Gerrow until February 8, 2000 to either "indict or dismiss" ALL criminal complaints that had been pending against me. Court Order:

In case you are having problems reading the Judge's handwriting, here is what he wrote:

"In the event the matter is not presented to the grand jury for indictment on or before February 8, 2000, the complaints shall be dismissed"

Not maybe, not if you want, not get back to the Judge if you choose to do something else, no, it says the complaints SHALL BE DISMISSED! Failure to comply was a CRIMINAL act, yet the accused, James Gerrow, remains untouched by justice to this day.

Domestic Violence V

Oddly enough, my lawyer never told me about the conditions of the Order. This would be an example of the many layers of bad lawyering I would suffer. She had simply told me on the phone that the motion had been denied. I have yet to learn why she didn't tell me the conditions of the Order especially when it could have stopped the madness! But worse, I would not find out AFTER trial that the lawyer who represented me (Charles Nugent, Jr.)  at the criminal trial HAD THE COURT ORDER AND NEVER ENFORCED IT!

February 7, 2000: The day before the deadline, Gerrow had written a letter to the Judge asking if he could downgrade the complaints. The court order was clear; he had to either indict the complaints or dismiss them. Gerrow wasn't about the let these complaints go before a Jury, which is what would have happened if I was indicted. He knew that a jury would have thrown the complaints out and asked the Judge to lock him up! The Judge properly ignored the letter, if indeed it was ever even sent to him. Therefore, Gerrow was bound by the Order and by violating it, had now added another criminal charge for Contempt of a Court order yet again:

2C:29-9. Contempt.
a. A person is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree if he purposely or knowingly disobeys a judicial order or hinders, obstructs or impedes the effectuation of a judicial order or the exercise of jurisdiction over any person, thing or controversy by a court, administrative body or investigative entity.

So as of this date Gerrow and his subordinates had obstructed and/or violated TWO valid court orders (Restraining order/Order to Dismiss)! You have to wonder at this point why is this man not in jail! Well, this story will demonstrate that its who you know, not what you know.

June 5, 2000: I went to court in Edgewater Park Municipal Court ignorant of the Order to dismiss or that Nugent had it too. Also, during this time, my brother Joseph had slowly been losing his battle with lung cancer.

As you recall, Kozub alleged that I had entered her home, claiming that we were broken up and that she was seeing Lazarrotti. By now it should be clear that the record is/was irrefutable that this was all false. But since I didn't know about the order the trial commenced. Without digressing into too much detail, suffice it to say the trial was about as much a sham as there could be. Example: Several police officers who had been subpoenaed to testify for me and who were already named as witnesses in the Drunk Driving civil suit, had been ordered to NOT testify. How scared must they have been that they would get an illegal order in writing! And guess who issued the order? Reed. And guess what rank he was then? Acting Chief! And guess what tests he took to rise through the several ranks to get that title? NONE! And guess who  illegally moved him up through the ranks? Chief Harper!

Officer Parent court testimony:

Officer Parent: I don't--I kind of like addressed the situation with you earlier. I don't know how to handle this because you're kind of asking something that I was on duty and I have an order from my Chief [Reed] that I'm not allowed to comment. So I don't know what your pleasure is.

MR. NUGENT: Judge, evidently the Chief who has been here most of the time, has instructed his men to be as uncooperative with me as possible. To put it in one way as I can put it, and they are not to answer questions concerning anything they've ever done while on duty. I don't think that-and I know the men are scared that some action will be taken against them for testifying in favor of Mr. Baranoski because of the pending administrative and disciplinary charges pending against him right now as well as the lawsuits he had pending against Reed.

All three officers would incur the wrath of Reed for exposing the order. One even got a reprimand by VanSciver for telling my lawyer about it! A reprimand for exposing an illegal order!? All three were passed over by inept and lesser qualified officers who sided with Reed. One finally left the department all together after being repeatedly targeted.

At the "trial" I had presented numerous witnesses, most police officers, who all testified that there was no way there was an illegal entry of the house since Kozub and I had been exclusively dating. Even Kozub's close pal, Sgt. Maver, agreed! Aside from telling me he also told a co-worker:

Now, here is something to eliminate whether we were still romantically involved. During the Final Restraining Order hearing on May 6, 2000 BEFORE the trial, Kozub first agreed with her lawyer that the "night in question" was July 16, 1998 and then admitted we were still together and dating at least till June 1999! This is a huge difference from the April 1998 she claimed as our breakup! Also, the second link shows she tells the Judge she isn't even sure WHEN we broke up then which makes it more believable that I caught her in bed with Lazarrotti early in July as I always said but more importantly, while we were still going out! See Kozub FRO statements (Final Restraining Order hearing - copy of tape is available at Burlington County Courts for $10) :

http://southjerseyjustice.com.previewyoursite.com/FRO16th.jpg

http://southjerseyjustice.com.previewyoursite.com/FROJune.jpg

Let's look at another major conflicting statement by Kozub while under pressure of having to remember truth vs lies. The complaint by her, as do other statements, place the alleged offense date as July 21, 1999. But she stated during the Final Restraining Order hearing that it was July 16, 1999! This sounds minor, but they were trying to make it as far from the true end of the relationship as possible, which was the first week of July 1999! See Kozub FRO statement above.
 
But setting all the court intrigue aside, the most dramatic part of the "trial" was at the very end. It was clear to both Judge Faxon III and my defense lawyer that the trial was for Defiant Trespass, a petty disorderly person, and not Criminal Trespass since the original crime of Criminal Trespass that was alleged by Kozub was an indictable offense and as such could not be heard in municipal court. Judge Faxon III also made it clear that he thought the trial was for Defiant Trespass when he uttered the following unsolicited statement during closing arguments:

THE COURT: It's the statute under which he's charged which is defiant trespass, [emphasis added] 2C:18-3.a.

However, Mr. Gerrow, knowing that he could not prove the case against defiant trespass, told the court that he was prosecuting the offense of criminal trespass, to which my lawyer responded:

MR. NUGENT: Judge, may I point one thing out? I believe this is a 2C:18-3b offense [DEFIANT TRESPASS- added]. I don't think this Court has jurisdiction to consider under 2C:18-3a [CRIMINAL TRESPASS -added]. It is a fourth degree crime.

Judge Faxon III was legally required by Constitutional law to declare a mistrial. No one can be prosecuted without knowing the exact nature of the offense. Did Judge Faxon do this? Nope.

THE COURT: I'll consider that as an additional part of your argument, anything else?

Ironically, Charles Nugent, Jr. Esq. had actually ridiculed me for choosing to use Mr. Alterman before him! And yes, he too said the bad Prosecutor Gerrow would not be a problem for him. Uh huh....he wasn't ready for a bad Judge too!

The Judge took several days to "decide." I would submit that he took a few days not to decide, since there was little to debate in light of what was on the record already, but to discuss with Gerrow how to give him the conviction he wanted. This resulted in Judge Faxon III returning a verdict of guilty for the untried offense of criminal trespass! Worse, he then granted Gerrow's request to forfeit my position as a police officer! Bad Prosecutor helps domestic abuser cop take out good cop...nice.

So here we had a prosecution in defiance of a court order; a trial for the wrong offense; and a conviction for an untried offense! No, these aren't typo's or distortions of the truth. This is exactly what happened. The truth is stranger than fiction! Bad Prosecutor's, Bad Judges and Bad Cops...nightmare realized. So I am no longer a great cop, simply because of greater criminals! But one thing no one counted on was my tenacity.

Sadly, my brother lost his fight against cancer on June 14, 2000. Although we truly had our differences, he taught me its not how we live, but how we fight to live that we are remembered by. His example of such strength in the face of such a contestant as Death will be what I always remember about him, and which will always help aid me in the dark times as I must face.

February 23, 2001: This "conviction" was appealed to Judge Sweeney. He is the Assignment Judge for Burlington County. This means he is the top legal authority for the County. He took over for Wells. All I can say is that Type A personalities hire Type A, and Type B personalities hire Type C...the same must apply for the political appointment of Judges!  Unless of course you are Mr. Norcross and just want to get rid of someone, then you make him a Superior Court Judge as you will see. Wait till you see how worse this becomes.

Again, sidestepping a lot of legal jargon, the bottom line is that my lawyer, Charles Nugent, Jr. blatantly told Judge Sweeney that he defended me against the wrong charge:

Click here: ***Lawyer wrong charge***

At this point, just as Judge Faxon III was legally compelled to do, Judge Sweeney was lawfully obligated to vacate the conviction. No ifs, ands, or buts.  Not only did my lawyer admit that the offense I was convicted of was not what he planned his defense strategy on, even Judge Sweeney later concurred that even he was unsure what the trial charge was when Gerrow responded to the above statement by Nugent:

MR. GERROW: Judge, I heard that argument. And, at that particular point in time, I was—I was shocked, because – I’ll tell you why Judge. I think, in fairness, that notice that your Honor read clearly says what we’re doing. I – I picked –

THE COURT: Well, I don’t know – I – it says what you’re doing, I don’t know about how clear.

Finally, justice was going to be delivered and the nightmare ended right? Not even close. Judge Sweeney ruled that the trial was fine "as was" and upheld the "conviction!" Now there were two bad Judges and the second was the topmost judicial in the County. Yay me. I realized that while not overly intelligent, my adversaries were very well connected. Just to show how out of line Judge Sweeney was, here is some basic law 101. Its called the Constitution, maybe he slept that day in class?

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the fundamental right to be clearly informed of the nature and course of the charges in order to permit adequate preparation of a defense. See Sheppard v. Rees, 909 F.2d 1234, 1236 (9th Cir. 1990). The notice provision of the Sixth Amendment is incorporated within the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is fully applicable to the states. See Gray v. Raines, 662 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir. 1991).

The due process clause does not serve as an innocent bystander. It acts as the umpire and referee all rolled into one and calls "foul" where rules of fair play are broken. Society is obliged to prosecute those who break its rules, but society may not break its own rules in the prosecution process.

I think this is a good time to throw this in -

"They keep  talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it's worked  for over 200 years and we're not  using it anymore."      

Author Unknown

I was then forced to set aside this battle and take on the two remaining Contempt allegations that had been levied against me since I was told that the Prosecutors Office was seeking jail time. To make a nightmare tale shorter, suffice it to say that on October 2, 2002 I prevailed and BOTH charges were dismissed for lack of probable cause! This means that the Judge determined that they should never have been issued! I highly recommend that you obtain a copy of the video of this proceeding be purchased from the County Records clerk at 49 Rancocas Rd. in Mt. Holly.

Of course, my reward for winning? To be stalked by Kozub in her patrol car, which she has also admitted to doing, with no action being taken against her! See witness statement, click on the link>> Stalking

Imagine our suprise when we saw a Certification from Kozub claiming that the reason she was following us was because she was enroute to a call. Since she was last seen going into her neighborhood, this was clearly not true, but lets examine this lie too. Note: Judge Hogan, JSC who read her Certification found it to be contrary to the facts and dismissed it.

Click here: ***Certification Statement***

Kozub did panic, so bad that she had her neighbor call in the false call! Here is an arial shot of Kozub's house and the callers...they are seperated by one house!

Click here: ***3 Warren Way***

When I went to the neighbor's house under the guise of a news reporter covering potential 911 calls to police (the September 11th World Trade Center attack was generating a lot) I spoke to the caller, Mrs. Brennan:

Cllick here: ***False Call***