Friday, December 26, 2014

Reed Gusciora the Pooch Advocate

When it comes to the protection of animals this state Assemblyman Reed Gusciora sees no difference between animals and people.  He stated recently, “As a human society, we should not tolerate abuses against animals any more than we would against a person.” 

On a lower level there is some truth that animals should not be abused, but to compare a dog to a person shows a serious defect of his moral philosophy.  This same person who argues in effect that a person is just like a human being with animal personhood, sees no perversion in his moral philosophy when he promotes the killing of unborn babies which he believes has no personhood.  Under Mr. Gusciora philosophy of life the animal cannot be abused without the penalty of prison, but the human baby is worthless, and can be condemned to death at the whim of its mother.

Another example of Mr. Gusciora hypocrisy is his recently sponsored legislation requiring mandatory prison time for anyone convicted of causing or threatening to cause harm to a search-and-rescue or law enforcement dog. From the prospective of a criminal defense attorney this proposed law is filled with problems and poses a myriad of problems of prosecuting and defending such a charge.

This is not the first time that this Assemblyman has proposed a wacky law, in which cowardly state legislatures have jumped on the bandwagon, in the rush to political correctness.

Let’s hope Governor Christie has the courage to veto such a stupid law.  I trust Governor Christie understands and knows the difference between the natural law (the divine personhood of man made in the likeness and imagine of God), as opposed to the ancient heresy of Pantheism (all living orgasms are equal in the divine universe of nature in which God does not exist), which Gusciora embraces as his “new age religious heresy.”

Yes know one wants to see any animal abused, but why do these same advocates for animals have no compassion and have no interest in protecting their fellow human beings (unborn babies). 

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Little Known Right in New Jersey: All Indigent Defendants Convicted of a Disorderly Person’s Offense or Serious Motor Vehicle Offense are Entitled to a Court Appointed Attorney

Many indigent defendants convicted in municipal court are unaware that the cost of the appeal, the cost of transcripts and a court appointed attorney is available for all defendants convicted of a disorderly person’s offense, or serious motor vehicle violations.

After sentencing the municipal court judge will normally advise the defendant of this right.  The judge will usually just state that the defendant has the right to appeal, has twenty-days to file an appeal, and should retain a lawyer because the process is complex.

A very informative video about the process has recently been published on Youtube by the New Jersey Judiciary and can be found at:

All Defendants convicted in municipal court are urged to view this video even if they can afford the costs of filing an appeal, paying for transcripts and retaining a criminal defense attorney.

If you have been charged with a crime of disorderly person’s offense in New Jersey you should consult Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr. ( who has a reputation as a criminal defense attorney for hard work and successful results.

P.O. Box 261
277 North Broad Street
Elizabeth, N.J. 07207
Telephone (908) 354-7006
Cell      (201) 240-5716

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor and Association With Organized Crime, New Jersey-New York, Decision Revoking Waterfront Registration of Checker

This post is being submitted as a Public Service to the Man and Woman who work hard as Longshoreman, Checkers, and Maintenance man on the ports of New Jersey and New York, by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

The following is Waterfront Commission decision involving an alleged organized crime association with a checker which it is alleged that the association was inimical to the Waterfront Commission Act.  The decision is currently on appeal to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

The waterfront administrative law judge’s decision can be read at:

If you have been called before the Waterfront for an Article IV interview or Hearing before the Commission you must consult with an experienced Waterfront Commission Attorney, who has the experience in this specialized field of law.  Waterfront Commission rules, regulations and procedure are unique and going to an interview and/or a hearing with experienced counsel can result in serious consequences which might include, revocation of your license to work as a longshoreman, checker or maintenance man.

Waterfront Lawyer for New Jersey and New York, Waterfront Attorneys, Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor Lawyers, Waterfront Commission Attorneys, Waterfront Hearing Attorneys, New Jersey Waterfront Commission Attorneys

Friday, February 7, 2014

America on Probation or Prison an International Scandal

A  must read for anyone who is concerned about the prison population and what can be done about it can be found in the recent Op-Ed Column by Bill Keller, former editor of the Star-ledger and published in the New York Times, can be found by the link below:

Great article for anyone interested in the state of affairs in the United States as it relates to our love for prisons and putting people behind bars. 

There is no question that the “war on drugs” is a failure and has done nothing to stem the tide of people addicted to legal and illegal substances.  As long as the pharmaceutical companies are making billons of dollars in selling and pushing dangerous narcotics such as Oxycodone and Roxycodone and other dangerous and addictive drugs people will become addicted.  Chase them, catch them and jail them is not the answer, the answer is strong family structures, religion and the church, change in social values, jobs, and education.

Why spend the amount to house someone in prison for a year at the same cost as sending someone to vocational training, or college. ?

Problem of trying to solve every social ill by locking people up is futile and not moral.   The problem is compounded by the fact that jails are now a big business in the United States, and the more people locked up the more profits.  Today the jail business is a big business, and Wall Street and corporate America is now making enormous profits in locking people up.  The more people locked up regardless of the reason, the more merrier for them, and corporate profits. 

Who pays, we pay, of course.  An international scandal for the United States.  But of course we go to war to teach people about democracy and to do the right thing (sure).

277 North Broad Street
P.O. Box 261
Elizabeth (Union County), New Jersey 07207
Office Phone No. (908) 354-7006
Cell Phone No.   (201) 240-5716
Dated:  February 7, 2014

New Jersey Criminal Law Defense Attorney, Lawyers, and Attorneys, serving Union, Essex, Bergen, Monmouth, Ocean, Middlesex, Somerset and Mercer counties.

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

City of Linden Former Municipal Court Judge Louis DiLeo Sanctioned

Prepared as a Public Service to the People by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

The New Jersey Supreme Court in a ruling which hopefully will halt some of the current municipal court in New Jersey has ruled In the Matter of Louis M.J. DiLeo, D-66-12, that any judge in New Jersey who uses the court to violate the constitutional rights of any defendant by denying their due process rights may be held accountable and sanctioned by the New Jersey Supreme Court.  The conduct must be egregious and contrary to fundamental principals of due process and well established due process protections as afforded by the United States and New Jersey Constitutions.  This opinion not only applies to municipal court judges but all New Jersey judges who engage in such egregious conduct.   

In the DiLeo case the former judge engaged in egregious conduct in completely denying the defendants their constitutional rights to a fair trial.  In this case he not only denied their right to legal counsel, but acted as a prosecutor, in questioning the defendants, and allowing the police officer to do likewise.   The trial which was presided over by the former judge was in essence a backwater small town “kangaroo court”, as sometimes sadly depicted in the movies and sometimes in real life in parts of the United States. 

The Supreme Court in its ruling held that the undisputed facts in the DiLeo case clearly and convincingly demonstrate that Judge DiLeo committed egregious legal errors in his conduct of the proceedings involving the Kirkland brothers, the defendants in that case.

In this case, the justices adopted the objective standard set by Maine Supreme Court  In re Benoit, 487 A.2d 1158 (Me. 1985), namely, that there must be clear and convincing proof of objective legal error of the type that a “reasonably prudent and competent judge” considers the conduct “obviously and seriously wrong in all circumstances.”   In addition, the errors must be contrary to clear and determined law about which there is no confusion or question as to its interpretation,’ and that the error must be ‘egregious, made in bad faith, or made as part of a pattern or practice of legal error,’”

Following the standard adopted by the Louisiana supreme court in In re Boothe, 110 So. 3d 1002 (La. 2013) the court said that not every legal error, even if clear and unmistakable to a competent jurist, constitutes a violation of the Code, which necessarily leads to a determination of whether the judge should be sanctioned.

This is welcomed decision and was long overdue.  Although the majority of the judges in New Jersey strive and work hard to be fair and apply the law without bias or prejudice, hopefully this decision will give notice to any errant judge not to engage in such misconduct.

P.O. Box 261
277 North Broad Street
Elizabeth (Union County) New Jersey 07207
Office Phone Number (908) 354-7706
Cell Phone Number   (201) 240-5716

Union County NJ Criminal Law Attorneys

Friday, January 3, 2014

United States Supreme Court Holds that a Forced Psychiatric Examination Can Be Used Against Defendant to Defeat his Intoxication Defense

In a case which seems to have eviscerated the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent the Supreme Court in Kansas v. Cheever held that admissions made by a court ordered psychiatric examination can be used against the Defendant even if he does not agree to the examination.

In this case Mr. Cheever was charged with capital murder at his trial he raised the voluntary intoxication defense and offered expert testimony that his sever voluntary use of methamphetamines to defeat the requisite mental state to commit murder.

The Court distinguished the seminal case Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981), which held that if the defendant does not raise a mental capacity defense the state cannot force the defendant to undergo a psychiatric examination, and by doing so violates the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

P.O. Box 261
277 North Broad Street
Elizabeth (Union County) New Jersey 07207
Tel: (908) 354-7006

Quote of the Day: Truth suffers, but never dies. St. Teresa of Avila