Medina.complaint

Lora B. Glick, Esq.

The Maglione Firm, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW

186 Clinton Ave., 2nd

Fl

Newark, New Jersey 07108

Ph: (973) 645-0777; Fax: (973) 645-0377

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Moraima Medina

MORAIMA MEDINA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF UNION CITY, BRIAN

STACK, Individually, as Mayor of the

City of Union City, and as Senator of

District 33 of the State of New Jersey,

CHARLES EVERETT, Individually

and as Police Chief of the City of Union

City, LT. RAYMOND VAZQUEZ,

Individually and as a former Sergeant

of the Union City Police Department,

PHIL IACOVELLI, Individualy and as

Deputy Director of the City of Union

City Department of Public Works,

MARK ALBIEZ, Individually and as a

Legislative Aide and employee of the

City of Union City, CARLOS

VALLEJO, Individually and as an

Employee of the City of Union City,

Police Officer ANTHONY ONORATO,

Individually and as an employee of the

Union City Police Department, ABC

CORPORATIONS (#1 thru #10), JOHN

DOES (#1 thru #10) and JANE DOES

(#1 thru #10),

Defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CIVIL ACTION NO.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Document Filed Electronically

The plaintiff, Moraima Medina, residing at 109 Hamilton Street, Apartment 209, Newark,

New Jersey 07108, complaining of the defendants, says:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, Moraima Medina (“Moraima”), is a citizen of the United States of America

of Hispanic race and national origin, and at all times relevant to this Complaint was a resident of

Newark, New Jersey in the County of Essex.

2. Defendant, CITY OF UNION CITY, is a municipal corporation and corporate body

politic of the State of New Jersey, established to provide, inter alia, essential government

services for the health, safety and welfare of all its citizens.

3. Defendant, BRIAN STACK (“Stack”), at all relevant times herein set forth, was the

Mayor of the defendant, CITY OF UNION CITY, and a State Senator for District 33, and acted

in his official and individual capacities.

4. Defendant, Union City Police Chief, CHARLES EVERETT (“Everett”), at all times

during the events herein set forth, was employed as Police Chief of the Union City Police

Department by the Defendant CITY OF UNION CITY, and acted in his capacity as an agent,

servant and/or employee of the city and/or individually.

5. Defendant, PHIL IACOVELLI (“Iacovelli”), at all times during the events

herein set forth, was employed as Deputy Director of the City of Union City Department of

Public Works, and acted in his capacity as an agent, servant and/or employee of the city and/or

individually.

6. Defendant, MARK ALBIEZ (“Albiez”), at all times during the events herein set

forth, was employed as a Legislative Aide by the Defendant, City of Union City, and acted in his

capacity as an agent, servant and/or employee of the city and/or individually.

7. Defendant, LT. RAYMOND VASQUEZ (“Vasquez”), at all times during the events

herein set forth, was employed as a police sergeant for the Union City Police Department by the

Defendant, City of Union City, and acted in his capacity as an agent, servant and/or employee of

the city and/or individually.

8. Defendant, ANTHONY ONORATO (“Onorato”), at all times during the events

herein set forth, was employed as a police officer for the Union City Police Department by the



9. Defendant, CARLOS VALLEJO (“Vallejo”), at all times during the events herein set

forth, was employed as a “Confidential Assistant” and the “registrar of Vital Statistics” by the



10. Defendant(s) John Does (1-10), Jane Does (1-10) and/or ABC CORPORATIONS (1-

10), inclusive, represent other individuals and/or entities unknown to the plaintiff at this time,

who participated in the causes of plaintiff’s damages and who will be specifically identified

through discovery.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. This suit arises under the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States

and is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with pendant state law claims.

12. This Court has jurisdiction over plaintiff’s federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1331, as an action arising under the Constitution of the United States, and 28 U.S.C.

§1343(a)(3), to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured by the

Constitution of the United States, and over plaintiff’s pendant state law claims pursuant to 28

U.S.C . § 1367.

13. This Court has authority to award costs and attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1988.

14. Venue is properly laid in the District of New Jersey, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1391(b), because all defendants reside in this district, and the events giving rise to these claims

occurred in this district.

SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS

15. Plaintiff Moraima is a resident of the City of Newark and is a former Newark Police

Officer.

16. On July 19, 2011, Moraima met with Joseph Blaettler (“Blaettler”) of East Coast

Private Investigations of New Jersey to explore a possible employment opportunity with his

company. Moraima had heard of Blaettler through one of Blaettler’s current employees who

suggested they meet. The two met briefly at a Starbuck’s in Morristown, and Blaettler advised

Moraima that he was interested in hiring her. Blaettler then asked her to do a “ride-along” with

him on the following day, July 20, 2011. Moraima agreed. At no time during their interview did

Moraima learn of the subject matter of Blaetller’s investigations.

17. On July 20, 2011, Moraima arrived in Union City promptly at 7:00 a.m., as requested

by Blaettler, in the area of 21st St. and Kennedy Blvd.

18. Blaettler called her on the telephone and asked her to meet him near 37th

St. between

New York Ave and Palisade Ave. There was limited parking, but she found a space on 37th

Street and Palisade Ave.

19. Blaettler then called her again and asked her to exit her vehicle and take a walk

through the city hall parking garage to see if there was a gold Envoy parked there. At that point,

Moraima still had no idea of the subject matter or targets of Blaettler’s investigation.

20. Moraima did as she was asked. However, when she walked out of the parking

garage, she saw that her car had been surrounded by uniformed police officers, including the

defendants, Vasquez and Onorato, and several others dressed in civilian attire, including

defendant Albiez.

21. Moraima approached them and asked if she could be of service.

22. Defendant Everett asked to see her identification. He then asked her what she was

doing and she stated that she was meeting someone.

23. At that point, defendant Vallejo, a person whom Moraima did not know and had

never seen before, approached defendant Everett and yelled, “That’s her!”.

24. Defendant Everett, and defendant Iacovelli, who was also present, then began to

question Moraima, asking questions such as, “Who do you work for?” and “What are you doing

here?”

25. During this time period, defendant Everett kept walking away in order to talk on his

cell phone. After one of these occasions, he returned and repeatedly stated to Moraima, “Tell us

who you work for and we will let you go” and “Tell us you work for Joe [Blaettler] and we will

let you go.”

26. Shortly thereafter, defendant Everett placed a bewildered Moraima under arrest for

driving while suspended. Everett also told Moraima that she was “NEVER to go into Union City

again!”

27. Several uniformed police officers, including defendants Vasquez and Onorato, John

Does #1-3 and Jane Does #1-3, walked Moraima to the police station where they proceeded to

lock her up in a jail cell. Her vehicle was also impounded and searched.

28. Defendants Everett, Vasquez, Onorato, John Does #1-5 and Jane Does No. #1-5

caused a criminal complaint to be issued against Moraima for fourth degree stalking under

N.J.S.A. 2C:12-10b and bail was set at $25,000.00. See, true copy of Complaint attached as

Exhibit A.

29. These defendants also caused Summonses to be issued against Moraima for owning

an unregistered vehicle in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:3-4, driving while suspended, in violation of

N.J.S.A. 39:3-40, blocking a crosswalk, in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-138 and driving an

uninsured vehicle in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:6B-2. See, true copies of Summons Nos. 0910-H-

604121, 0910-H-331298, 0910-H-604123, and 0910-H-604122, attached as Exhibit B.

30. On September 12, 2011, the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office downgraded the

stalking charge against Moraima to harassment under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4.

31. On September 30, Moraima retained the law firm of Caruso, Smith, Edell, Picini, P.C.

and Wolodymyr Tyshchenko, Esq. to defend her against the false charges lodged against her.

32. Mr. Tyshchenko was successful in moving to transfer the case to the Secaucus

Municipal Court and trial commenced in that venue before the Honorable Kathleen A. Walrod,

J.M.C. on April 11, 2012. On that date, opening statements were taken and one witness, Union

City Police Officer Peter Del Russo, was sworn in and testified on direct and cross-examination.

At 3:47 p.m., Judge Walrod adjourned the trial for continuation on a new date to be determined

by the court.

33. However, on May 11, 2012, Mr. Tyshchenko received a notice from the Secaucus

Municipal Court that, unbeknownst to him, Judge Walrod submitted a request, which was

granted, to transfer venue to the East Newark Municipal Court “based upon Court’s knowledge

of newly named witnesses.” See, true copy of Change of Venue Notice attached as Exhibit C.

34. Mr. Tyshchenko never received notice that Judge Walrod intended to abort the trial,

nor did he give his consent to conclude the trial prior to verdict. Also, neither Mr. Tyshchenko

nor Moraima ever received notice of the identities of the “newly named witnesses” or the

specific nature of the Court’s “knowledge” in relation to said witnesses, despite Mr.

Tyschchenko’s having made three separate written requests to the Court for same.

35. On June 5, 2012, Moraima appeared with counsel for her first day of trial at the East

Newark Municipal Court. However, upon arriving, she was told that venue was again being

transferred, this time to the Jersey City Municipal Court, due to a conflict of interest involving

the municipal prosecutor for East Newark, who is also corporate counsel to the City of Union

City.

36. On August 28, 2012, Mr. Tyshchenko filed a Notice of Motion to Dismiss the

criminal case against Moraima based on double jeopardy grounds.

37. On October 26, 2012, after full briefing and oral arguments of counsel, the Honorable

Carlo Abad, J.M.C. rendered an oral decision granting Moraima’s motion to dismiss on double

jeopardy grounds. The judge reasoned that Moraima’s trial was aborted without her consent, that

there was no manifest necessity to abort the trial, and that Moraima was not given an opportunity

to be heard on the issue prior to the trial’s being aborted. The judge issued a written Order that

same date memorializing this ruling.

38. The municipal prosecutor, Joseph J. Talafous, chose not to pursue an appeal.

39. On November 19, 2012, Mr. Tyshchenko received correspondence from James M.

LaBianca, Esq. (“LaBianca”) of DeYoe, Heissenbuttel & Buglione, L.L.C., dated November 16,

2012, advising that he represents “the legal interests of Carlos Vallejo.” The correspondence

contained a Notice of Municipal Court Appeal. See, LaBianca correspondence dated November

16, 2012 attached as Exhibit D.

40. The Notice of Municipal Appeal was not filed within the 20-day time period

permissible under New Jersey Court Rule 3:24. To have been filed within time, the Notice of

Appeal should have been filed on or before November 15, 2012. Moreover, this 20-day time

period may not be enlarged for any reason, pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 1:3-4c/

41. On November 19, 2012, Mr. Tyshchenko placed a telephone call to LaBianca as

he was confused about his substituting in to represent defendant Vallejo as well as his standing to

file a Municipal Appeal. When Mr. Tyshchenko advised that he had received the November 16,

2012 correspondence from LaBianca, LaBianca responded, “Who? Who is Carlos Vallejo?”

Mr. Tyshchenko stated that he had received LaBianca’s November 16, 2012 correspondence

about a municipal appeal. LaBianca then stated that he “represents Union City and the Union

City Police Department” and that he filed the appeal in an attempt to shield those entities from

civil liability should Moraima filed suit against them. He stated further that he was specifically

asked to file the appeal for the defendant, City of Union City and was retained by the City of

Union City to do so.

42. On November 20, 2013, LaBianca sent a letter to the Criminal Division Manager of

the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, with a copy to Mr. Tyshchenko, which

contained a Certification Application for Appointment as Private Prosecutor. See, LaBianca

correspondence dated November 20, 2012 and Certification Application for Appointment as

Private Prosecutor attached as Exhibit E.

43. On December 14, 2012, Moraima’s attorneys, Mr. Tyshchenko and Steven J.

Kaflowitz, Esq. filed a Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Municipal Appeal because (1) it was not

timely filed; (2) defendant Vallejo, as a private citizen, has no standing to file an appeal when the

Municipal Prosecutor declined to do so; and (3) LaBianca’s application to be appointed as

private prosecutor must be rejected as improperly filed under State v. Storm, 141 N.J. 245 (1995)

and because LaBianca has an inherent conflict of interest due to his admitted purpose in filing his

application is to protect the defendant City of Union City from civil liability – not to see that

justice be served. Said motion is presently pending before the Honorable Sheila A. Venable,

P.J.Cr., in the Hudson County Superior Court.

THE DEFENDANTS’ DEALINGS WITH JOSEPH BLAETTLER

44. Blaettler is a former Deputy Police Chief for the defendant, City of Union

City, who, after retiring from that position, became a private investigator and formed his own

firm known as East Coast Private Investigations of New Jersey, L.L.C.

45. Since becoming a private investigator, Blaettler has worked tirelessly to expose

widespread corruption in the defendant City of Union City as perpetrated by the defendant Stack.

46. As a “distressed city” the defendant City of Union City receives State tax dollars to

balance its budget, provided it follows certain guidelines set for the by the New Jersey Division

of Community Affairs (“DCA”). Since 2009, Blaettler has been uncovering numerous abuses of

the system, including, but not limited to:

(a) On October 2, 2009, Blaettler wrote to Susan Jacobucci, Director of the DCA,

notifying her that defemdant Everett was working off-duty details in violation of a labor contract

under the “distressed city” program that forbids government management employees from

working overtime. Blaettler requested that the DCA put an immediate stop to this practice. Two

years later, defendant Everett was forced to resign over this issue when he was caught billing for

hours he did not work. The story was reported on News 12 and various other media outlets.

Blaettler was quoted and interviewed on television in this regard. On the day of Moraima’s

arrest, defendant Everett knew the story was about to break as he had been confronted by Walt

Kane of News 12 a week or two prior;

(b) On July 12, 2010, Blaettler wrote to the New Jersey State Attorney General advising

of the impropriety of defendant Stack’s appointment of Jose Martinez, a Union City Police

Detective who resided in West Caldwell, New Jersey, to the position of Union City Office of

Emergency Management Coordinator (“OEM1”). Martinez’ appointment to this position was in

direct violation of the New Jersey Office of Emergency Management Directive No. 102, which

requires that the person appointed this position be a resident of the City of Union City. Also,

Martinez was an open supporter of defendant Stack, having made monetary contributions to

Stack’s campaign. Although Martinez was eventually demoted to Deputy Emergency

Management Coordinator (“OEM2”, Blaettler informed the Commissioner of the DCA on

February 4, 2011 that Martinez’ salary had never been adjusted and that he continued to receive

the salary of an OEM1, even though someone else held that position.

(c) Blaettler was instrumental in uncovering information which led to a news story

released by Fox 5 News segment “Shame, Shame, Shame” which revealed that defendant Stack’s

ex-wife was using a city-owned vehicle that had been confiscated by the Union City Police

Department under federal forfeiture laws, that she received free gas and insurance on the vehicle,

and that she paid no rent on a building she used to run a non-profit daycare center. Blaettler was

also interviewed for the story;

(d) On June 8, 2011, Blaettler filed an ethics complaint against defendant Stack and

defendant Albiez for misrepresentation and misappropriation of State funds, based on the fact

that Albiez was employed by the State of New Jersey (not the City of Union City) as a Senatorial

Aid to defendant Stack, yet, both Albiez and Stack represented that Albiez was a “spokesperson”

for Stack in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Union City and the City of Union City itself,

Albiez was listed under Stack’s “Office of the Mayor” on the City of Union City website, and

occupied office space in the City of Union City’s City Hall;

(e) Blaettler also was investigating defendant Vallejo, whose entire family was employed

by the City of Union City and who was also a contributor to defendant Stack’s campaign. At the

time, surveillance of Vallejo revealed that he was utilizing a city-owned vehicle to run errands

for defendant Stack and the Brian Stack City Civic Association during regular work days;

(f) After Moraima’s arrest, Blaettler continued to investigate corruption within the

defendant, City of Union City, under the control of defendant Stack. He filed an ethics

complaint against defendant Stack for false swearing, after Stack signed a certification to receive

$13 million in state aid under the “distressed cities” program while knowingly having failed to

comply with the program’s agreements. Specifically, Stack knowingly asserted that he had in

place a “pay-to-play” ordinance which limits campaign contributions from vendors doing work

for the City of Union City to $2400.00, when in fact he did not. Absent this ordinance, he was

permitted to accept $7200.00 in campaign contributions from vendors, which he did for over a

year. Because of Blaettler’s investigation, defendant Stack was forced to put the required “pay-

to-play” ordinance in place.

OTHER KNOWN INSTANCES OF CORRUPTION

47. Defendant Stack has a well-publicized reputation for running a politically corrupt

municipal government in the defendant City of Union City. Said reputation is highlighted by

various lawsuits which have been instituted in this regard.

48. Recently, Matteo Perez, former attorney for the Union City Housing Authority and

Library Board, filed suit against defendant Stack, alleging that Stack awarded city contracts

based on contributions made to his nonprofit organization; controlled federal housing

assignments and section 8 vouchers; and instructed the city planning board to only approve

projects that Stack had cleared the first. See, “PolitickerNJ” news article dated July 12, 2013,

attached as Exhibit F.

49. Moreover, in a federal lawsuit entitled Palisade Towers, LLC, et al. v. Brian Stack,

et al., Civil Action No. 07-1272, the plaintiffs’ set forth in frightening detail just how defendant

Stack improperly manipulated the Union City Zoning Board to suit his own purposes.

5 0 . The plaintiff first obtained information relating to Stack’s various campaigns for

reelection and the various political action committees that generated substantial income on

his behalf. He then cross-checked the list of donors against the decisions of the Zoning

Board to see whether any of the successful applicants before the Zoning Board had made

donations to the Mayor's campaign. The results were striking and virtually dispositive on the

issue of whether Stack was peddling his influence. With few exceptions, all successful

applicants had made substantial donations to Stack’s reelection campaigns or his political

action committees. The names of the contributors, their addresses as well as the date and

amounts of the contributions and the result of their applications for site plan approval are

included in Exhibit G attached hereto.

51. In some cases, the timing of the donations was particularly suspicious -raising

more than an appearance of impropriety. For example, at least eight (8) of the donors made

contributions within two months before or after their approvals. Havana Corners

Construction, for example, received their approval to construct a six story building on January

2,2006. Substantial contributions were made to the Stack Campaign fund on February 28,

2006 and March 3, 2006. The Resolution approving Rocha Construction's application to build

a 10 story 45 unit building was approved on May 5, 2005. Two weeks earlier on April 21,

2005, Rocha Construction contributed $7,200 to the Mayor's Campaign. The Park Hudson

Group received their approval to build at 4007 Park Avenue on June 29, 2006. On February

8, 2006, they "donated" $7,200 to the Stack Campaign fund. Orestes DoCampo was the

beneficiary of a Zoning Board Resolution dated July 14, 2005 permitting him to build a six

story 28 unit building. His donation to Stack’s campaign was given on April 25, 2005.

Notably, Anthony Lam's approval was granted in April, 2004. Within two months, Mr. Lam

donated $2,000, to Stack’s campaign. Thereafter, Lam made contributions as follows:

$2,000 on August 24, 2004, $2,000 on April 15, 2005; and an additional contribution of

$2,400. Cesar Ramos was approved for a seven (7) story 40 unit project on October 13, 2005

and made his donation of $2,600 on October 19, 2005. G.B.T.C. was approved to construct a

ten (10) story 56 unit building on November 17, 2005. The donation was made on February

13, 2006 for $6,000. R. Cribeiro received approval to build 3611-23 Park Avenue on July 13,

2006. The donation was made on March 6, 2006 for $2,400. Exhibit "D" sets forth the names

of the applicants for Zoning Board approval for the calendar year 2005 and 2006, the amount

of their donations, the dates of their contributions and the result of their applications for site

plan approval.

52. Although the Palisade Towers, LLC lawsuit alleged the manipulation and control

over the Zoning Board by Stack for personal and political benefit, there are numerous other

lawsuits which have been filed against Stack, some of which contend that Stack, harasses and

retaliates against city employees who refuse to make monetary contributions to his political

action committees, generally called "Gala Events" which involve the sale of tickets to raise

money for his campaign.1

In Chasmera v The Union City Board of Education, for example, it

is alleged that Ms. Chasmera was denied tenure after three years of impeccable performance.

Why? Ms. Chasmera alleged that one of her relatives was campaigning for Mayor Stack's

opponent at the same time that she failed to make contributions to the Stack campaign.

53. The allegations, as well as the documentary evidence presented above have

been corroborated by at least two former members of the Zoning Board in testimony under

oath. in the Hudson County Superior Court matter of New Jersey Schools Construction

Corp. v David Lopez, Docket No. HUD-L-6174-04. An excerpt from the deposition

which was incorporated in a moving Memorandum of Law is attached hereto as Exhibit H.

54. The Lopez case is particularly disturbing. In Lopez, the applicants (Lopez and his

family) owned a parking lot which was vacant for 12 and 1/2 years. It was valued at

approximately $350,000. With the acquiescence (if not the active misfeasance) of the Zoning

Board, the applicants were able to purposely inflate the value of their property, by means of

egregious conduct, forcing the taxpayers to pay over a million dollars more for the property

that it was actually worth. The Lopez' were substantial contributors to Stack’s various

campaigns and as Medina's testimony showed, his application was approved at the direction of

Stack.The Zoning Board heard the Lopez Brothers' variance application on September 11,

2003. As detailed in David Spatz's August 8, 2003 memo to the Board, the application

required ten (10) variances, including a use variance, a parking variance and numerous bulk

variances. The only witness who testified on behalf of the application was the Lopez Brothers'

architect, Alan Feld. Mr. Feld unequivocally stated that he testified only as an architect not as

1 Most of the lawsuits involved civil rights violations, the Law Against Discrimination or

tort defamation cases.

a planner. Thus, there was no testimony offered from a licensed planner on this application

which sought both a use variance and numerous bulk variances. The sixteen page hearing

transcript is stark evidence of the perfunctory manner in which the application was presented,

reviewed and approved. The transcript reveals that little to no testimony was provided as to

why most of the variances were requested, much less needed - other than to fulfill the Lopez

Brothers' desire to develop every square inch of the previously vacant lot with a non-permitted

use that was not inherently beneficial.

FIRST COUNT

(First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Violations)

55. Plaintiff, Moraima Medina, incorporates the averments of Paragraphs 1 through 54 as

if fully set forth herein.

56. Moraima has a right, protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution, to freely associate and assemble with other like-minded individuals

such as Joseph Blaettler.

57. Moraima has a right, protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution, to participate in politics and gather information about the workings of her

government, and to use that information to express herself on issues of political and governmental

concern.

58. Moraima has a right, protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution, against false, baseless and arbitrary arrest, detention, and prosecution on

criminal charges, and against arbitrary deprivations of her liberty and property.

59. The actions of the defendants in this matter, in falsely and maliciously charging

Moraima with criminal offenses, violate those rights, in that those actions were baseless, and were

undertaken to chill and discourage Moraima from exercising her rights of political participation as well as

her right to freely assemble an associate, and as punishment and in retaliation for doing so.

60. The actions of the individual defendants were taken under color of state law.

61. The actions of the defendants constituted a policy, practice, procedure or custom of

the City of Union City, in that they were undertaken to preserve and concealed from public

discovery in proper activities by city officials, and in particular defendant Stack, will in

furtherance of a collective decision on behalf of all defendants to tolerate the improper conduct

of its elected officials, appointed officers and employees.

62. The actions of the defendants were willful, deliberate and malicious, and were

intended to retaliate against Moraima for the exercise of her rights.

63. The actions of the defendants deprived Moraima of her rights under the First and

Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution and her rights under the procedural and

substantive due process components of the Fourteenth amendment to the United States

Constitution.

64. As a proximate result of the defendants’ conduct, Moraima has been injured in that

she was deprived of her aforesaid rights, was falsely arrested, charged and prosecuted without

adequate basis; and was caused to suffer physical, mental, and emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Moraima Medina, demands judgment in her favor and against

the defendants, CITY OF UNION CITY, BRIAN STACK, CHARLES EVERETT, LT.

RAYMOND VAZQUEZ, CHARLES IACOVELLI, MARK ALBIEZ, CARLOS VALLEJO,

ANTHONY ONORATO, ABC CORPORATIONS (#1 thru #10), JOHN DOES (#1 thru #10)

and JANE DOES (#1 thru #10), as follows: (A) for compensatory damages; (B) for punitive

damages; (C) for attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and (D) for costs and other

appropriate relief.

SECOND COUNT

(Civil Rights Conspiracy Under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))



66. The individual defendants, particularly Stack, Everett, Vallejo, Albiez and Iacovelli,

conspired against Moraima to deprive her of the equal protection of the laws by chilling or

discouraging her right to freely assemble and freely associate as well as her political and

information gathering activities as a United States citizen.

67. In furtherance of that conspiracy, the aforesaid individual defendants agreed to file

and prosecute false and baseless criminal complaints against Moraima, purely in retaliation for

her lawful association with Joseph Blaettler as well as her lawful political, information-gathering

activities.

68. In addition, all of the individually named defendants, John Does (#1 thru #10) and

Jane Does (#1 thru #10) participated in, and advanced, the conspiracy against Moraima by failing

to make timely discovery of materials relevant to Moraima’s defense to the criminal charges

against her; spoliating or destroying evidence relevant to that defense; and by creating, after-the-

fact, reports and other materials that supported the state's position in the criminal case against

Moraima.

69. Defendants’ actions were motivated in significant part by political animus against

Moraima, based on their observations of her associating with Joseph Blaettler.

70. These actions were taken under color of state law and embodied a policy, practice,

custom or procedure of the defendant, City of Union City.

71. As a proximate result of defendants’ actions, Moraima was deprived of her rights

under the federal Constitution, as set forth above, and has suffered physical, mental and

emotional injury.







appropriate relief.

THIRD COUNT

(State Law – False Arrest)



73. Moraima was arrested, detained and charged against his will.

74. Moraima’s arrest was without legal authority or legal justification.

75. Defendants’ actions in subjecting Moraima to arrest, detention and charge were

deliberate, willful and malicious.

76. The individual defendants’ actions will in falsely arresting Moraima were taken in

their capacities as officials or employees of the defendant, City of Union City, and are thereby

attributable to the City.

77. As a proximate result of defendants’ actions, Moraima was injured in that she was

subjected to false arrest and improper detention and suffered physical, mental and emotional

injury.







appropriate relief.

FOURTH COUNT

(State Law – Malicious Prosecution)



79. The criminal proceedings against Moraima were initiated by the defendants.

80. Defendants’ initiation of criminal proceedings against Moraima was actuated by

malice.

81. The criminal charges against, and prosecution of, Moraima were brought against her

without probable cause.

82. The criminal prosecution of Moraima terminated favorably to Moraima, with the

dismissal of all charges.

83. Defendants’ actions in subjecting Moraima to arrest, detention and charge were

deliberate, willful and malicious.

84. The individual defendants’ actions in falsely arresting Moraima were taken in

their capacities as officials or employees of the defendant, City of Union City, and are therefore


85. As a proximate result of defendants’ actions, Moraima was injured in that she was

subjected to false arrest and improper detention and suffered physical mental and emotional

injury.







appropriate relief.

FIFTH COUNT

(Civil Conspiracy)



87. The individual defendants conspired as set forth above to subject Moraima to false

arrest and detention and to malicious prosecution.

88. The actions of the individual defendants were taken in their capacities as elected

officials, appointed officers, or employees of the defendant, City of Union City, and are therefore


89. As a proximate result of the defendants’ actions, Moraima was injured in that she was

subjected to false arrest and improper detention and suffered physical, mental and emotional

injury.







appropriate relief.

SIXTH COUNT

(State Law – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)



91. The aforesaid conduct on the part of defendants was intentionally designed to harass,

injure and otherwise damage Moraima and constitutes intentional infliction of emotional distress.

92. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful, unconstitutional and malicious acts

and omissions of the individual defendants, Moraima has suffered damages, including, but not limited to,

economic loss, physical injury, psychological and emotional trauma, and severe emotional distress, anxiety

and embarrassment.







appropriate relief.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

The plaintiff demands a trial by jury as to all issues.

THE MAGLIONE FIRM, P.C.

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Moraima Medina

By: /s/ Lora B. Glick

LORA B. GLICK, ESQ.

Dated: July 19, 2013

Medina.complaint

Career

Transcript of Medina.complaint