Kim Kardashian mentioned in $76 million civil lawsuit against City of Englewood, Englewood Police Department, and Two Lawyers

Kim Kardashian mentioned in $76 million civil lawsuit against City of Englewood, Englewood Police Department, and Two Lawyers

In August 2014, Marc Stephens, and his brother Tyrone Stephens, filed a federal civil rights complaint against the City of Englewood, Englewood Police Department, Det. Marc McDonald, Det. Desmond Singh, Det. Claudia Cubillos, Det. Santiago Incle Jr., Det. Nathaniel Kinlaw, Nina C. Remson Attorney At Law, LLC, and Comet Law Offices, LLC.

The complaint alleges False Arrest, Conspiracy, falsifying evidence, False imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, legal malpractice, and several other cause of actions. Marc and Tyrone Stephens are seeking over $76 million in damages.

The lawsuit stems from an incident which occurred on October 31, 2012, in the parking lot of 7-eleven in Englewood, New Jersey, at 10:00pm.

On November 3, 2015, Federal Judge William J. Martini of the U.S. District Court for the State of New Jersey dismissed the plaintiffs’ civil complaint with prejudice stating that the officers had probable cause to arrest Tyrone Stephens.

Martini states in his opinion and order the following, “The record shows that Englewood police officers had probable cause to arrest Tyrone. Specifically, the officers had four main pieces of evidence implicating Tyrone in the October 31 Incident: (1) the alleged photo identification by Natalia Cortes; (2) the statements made by Justin Evans; (3) inconsistencies in testimony regarding Tyrone’s alibi; and (4) the statement Tyrone allegedly made to Jaquan Graham while in a holding cell”.

Martini also stated that plaintiffs Marc and Tyrone Stephens did not submit any evidence, and that police officers are allowed to lie and fabricate evidence to the court and grand jury.

The plaintiffs’ evidence is in fact on court record, and to think that police officer can falsify evidence in court is outrageous. Judge Martini clearly abused his discretion, and is jeopardizing the integrity of the Federal Court system.

Marc Stephens points out in his brief that witness Natalia Cortes ‘did not’ identify Tyrone during the criminal investigation conducted by the Englewood Police Department.

The alleged photo identification by Natalia Cortes

On November 2, 2012, at the Englewood Hospital Defendant Desmond Singh asked Witness Natalie Cortes the following:

Desmond Singh: “If you saw the actors again, would you be able to identify them?

Natalia Cortez: “I’m not really sure because it was really dark and most of them had hoods on and like that one in the bike had the ski-mask on”, see Ex. 6 (page 7 line 23) & (page 8 line 1-3), ECF Document 72-2, page 22-23.

On November 8, 2012, Tyrone Stephens was falsely arrested as the suspect riding the bike with the ski-mask.

On February 26, 2013, State witness Natalie Cortez “testified” at Tyrone Stephens’s probable cause hearing that she did not identify Tyrone Stephens by name, picture, or as a possible suspect on November 2, 2012, see EXHIBIT 18, page 14-22. ECF Document 72-3, page 93-97.

Jordan Comet: But there are three parts to this. There’s an identification by knowing the person by name. There’s an identification of a picture. And then there’s the –I’m not sure, I really don’t know maybe possibly. Those are the three parts that were looking at here.

Jordan Comet: First question is, did you pick out anyone from a picture, looking at them and saying, oh, I know that person, his name is whatever, either on 11/2 or 11/13 2012?

Natalia Cortez: No. I didn’t know anybody’s name. I just saw by face.

Jordan Comet: When you looked at their faces, did you say I saw that face at 7-eleven on October 31, 2012?

Natalia Cortez: No.

Jordan Comet: And finally, third, did there come a point where you wavered and said, I’m not sure, this person might have been there, I really don’t know?

Natalia Cortez: Yeah. Jordan Comet: And how many faces did you say that about?

Natalia Cortez: I think one or two.

Jordan Comet: And the crucial question is, do you know whether one of those faces that you said might have been there was my client?

Natalia Cortez: No….I’m saying, no, it wasn’t him.

Prosecutor: You said that you were interviewed at the hospital correct?

Natalia Cortez: Yes. Prosecutor: And you think that the date, November 2, 2012 sounds correct?

Natalia Cortez: Yeah. Something like that.

Prosecutor: And you said that you were showed a photo identification book? A collection of pictures?

Natalia Cortez: Yes

Prosecutor: Did you point to any of the pictures when asked if they were there?

Natalia Cortez: I pointed, like, one or two pictures.

Prosecutor: Did you say how sure you were at that point?

Natalia Cortez: All my answers were pretty much, I’m not so sure. It might have been, but I’m not really sure since it was really dark. And like I said, everybody had either hoodies or like, some type of hat on.

Prosecutor: Did you know Tyrone Stephens before you looked at the photo book on November 2? (The prosecutor is asking Natalia this question because she saw Tyrone sitting outside of the Judge’s court room and said, “Oh, I know him”)

Natalia Cortez: I remember him by face because we went to high school together. I mean, like, we really didn’t talk or, like, anything. But I remember seeing him in high school. And that he played sports and everything.

Prosecutor: Did you recognize any of the pictures that you pointed out as being Tyrone Stephens?

Natalia Cortez: No.

Prosecutor: Do you remember the identification in the hospital.

Natalia Cortez: I remember they showed me.

Prosecutor: Do you remember what you said that day very well?

Natalia Cortez: I remember them showing me the books and what I said. It was—Not Really.

Prosecutor: I don’t have any further questions.

It is without any doubt, that witness Natalia Cortes ‘did not’ identify Tyrone Stephens as the suspect.

To make matters worse for the defendants, and Judge Martini, defendants Det. Marc McDonald, Det. Desmond Singh, and Det. Nathiel Kinlaw actually confirmed that at ‘10pm’, Tyrone Stephens was located, almost a mile away from the incident, at ‘McDonalds’, ECF document 77-6 page 55-56.

Tyrone Stephens: Kinlaw said he seen me! Kinlaw just said he seen me!

Det. McDonald: “Kinlaw said he saw you and other people…when Kinlaw saw you on the Ave at this particular time you weren’t at home..”

Marc Stephens: Were you there?!

Tyrone Stephens: No I was not there at all! I was not there! I didn’t see any fight, anything! Kinlaw seen me at McDonald’s. I pulled up at McDonalds.

Marc Stephens: Kinlaw said he saw him on the Ave, at, look like 10 o’clock. Where was this altercation at? The 7-Eleven on the ave.?

Det. McDonald: up the street.

Tyrone Stephens: That’s it right there! I was in front of McDonalds. I just hopped out of a car. I walked in McDonalds and said what’s up Kinlaw.

Tyrone Stephens: If Kinlaw just said that he seen me, you just said it on here, you heard Kinlaw say that he seen me. He seen me at McDonalds, and he was talking to a little kid Willie. I think he was with Ron, right there at McDonalds. If you say that’s the time, than how could I be at two places at once?

Det. McDonald: That was at '10 O’clock' he said that.

Detective Marc McDonald also ‘testified’ that the victims and witness Natalia Cortes stated the attacked occurred at ‘10pm’, see Exhibit 16 (page 16, paragraph 19-25) and that Tyrone stated he was at ‘McDonalds’ at ‘10pm’, (page 16, paragraph 1-3), ECF Document 72-3, page 28.

Prosecutor: First of all what was the time that the victims said the attack occurred?

McDonald: On or about 10pm. Prosecutor: And what day did they say the attack occurred?

McDonald: October 31, Halloween.

Prosecutor: Where did Tyrone say that he was at that time?

McDonald: He stated he was initially at McDonald’s.

As the evidence reveals, the police officers at the Englewood Police Department, without a doubt, conspired to frame Tyrone Stephens.

In addition, Judge Gary Wilcox ruled that based on the timeline Tyrone Stephens should have been at ‘McDonalds’, or home, during the time of the incident at ‘7-eleven’, see Exhibit 16 (page 91, paragraph 14-25) (page 92, paragraph 1), ECF Document 72-3, page 65-66.

Judge Gary Wilcox: “I heard the brief testimony of Tyrone Roy. I found Tyrone to be credible as a witness. And clearly the reason Tyrone Roy was called is to establish time line, indicating that, again, he and another friend, Anthony Mancini, picked up Tyrone at his house at approximately 9:40, 9:45. At approximately '10pm' they went to McDonalds. They ate food there for about ten or 15 minutes. And then Anthony drove Tyrone Stephens home. So, I think the Juveniles argument here is that, again, the time line, and again, the act was alleged to have occurred at 10:13pm-- that Tyrone at that time, would have been at McDonald’s or home”.

The only reason Judge Gary Wilcox found probable cause against Tyrone Stephens during the criminal proceedings, is because Detective Marc McDonald willfully gave ‘false testimony’ that all of the victims and witness Natalia Cortes identified Tyrone as the suspect who attacked the three victims at 7-eleven, Ex. 16 (Page 14, paragraph 15-20), ECF Document 72-3, page 27.

Prosecutor: Can you tell me who she identified?

Det. McDonald: She identified.. Tyrone Stephens.

The Court (Judge Wilcox): Who identified?

Det. McDonald: Natalia Cortez.

Prosecutor: Did she say that these individuals had participated in the attack?

Det. McDonald: Yes

Martini is clearly in ‘error of facts’ and ‘error of law’ when he dismissed the case with prejudice stating the officers had probable cause based on (1) the alleged photo identification by Natalia Cortes; (2) the statements made by Justin Evans; (3) inconsistencies in testimony regarding Tyrone’s alibi; and (4) the statement Tyrone allegedly made to Jaquan Graham while in a holding cell”.

All statements made against Tyrone Stephens are ‘irrelevant’ because the incident occurred at ‘7-eleven at 10pm’, and the ‘testimony’ shows Tyrone was located at ‘McDonalds at 10pm’. Tyrone, who was 17 years old at the time, spent 1 year and 35 days in the Bergen County Jail for a crime he did not commit.

Tyrone was released after his brother and guardian Marc Stephens fired all three law firms and took over the case as ‘Attorney-in-Fact’ using common law.

Judge Conte, of the Superior Court in Hackensack, would not allow Marc to fully argue the case in court. So, in order to put his argument and evidence on court record, Marc applied for a firearm and used New Jersey’s Firearm Laws to free Tyrone.

In New Jersey, you cannot own a firearm and live with someone that has pending felony charges.

On November 6, 2013, Marc Stephens filed testimonial evidence with the Superior Court, and the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office in Hackensack proving that the Englewood Police Department framed Tyrone.

On November 15, 2013, at his firearm hearing in front of Judge Jerejian, Marc Stephens testified that several officer from the Englewood Police Department framed his brother Tyrone, and put the evidence in front of the prosecutor Ryan McGee, who was the same prosecutor handling Tyrone’s criminal case.

Two weeks later Judge Conte dismissed all charges filed against Tyrone with prejudice.

On December 13, 2013, Tyrone was released from the Bergen County Jail.

On August 26, 2014, Marc and Tyrone Stephens filed their civil complaints.

On November 3, 2015, Judge Martini dismissed their case granting all defendants motion for summary judgment and entering judgment in favor of defendants.

On January 13, 2016, Judge Martini issued an order denying Marc’s first motion for reconsideration. In his order Martini stated ‘again’ that the Englewood Police Department had probable cause because Natalia Cortes identified Tyrone.

On March 31, 2016, Martini denied Marc’s second motion for reconsideration, and threatened to file sanctions against Marc if he filed another Motion.

On April 4, 2016, and not in fear of Martini’s threat, Marc filed a third motion for reconsideration, which is still in front of Judge William J. Martini.

On April 6, 2016, Marc Stephens filed a ‘notice of appeal’ with the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit regarding the civil lawsuit against the City of Englewood, Englewood Police Department, all defendant officers, Nina C. Remson Attorney at Law, and Comet Law Offices, LLC.

Lawyer Adam Kenny, who represents the City of Englewood, and Englewood Police Department, opposed Marc Stephens’ motion to expedite the appeal, and to remove Judge Martini from hearing the case.

Despite taxpayers footing his legal fees, Mr. Kenny argued that the case should not be expedited, and that Marc Stephens does not have any claims against the City of Englewood and the officers.

“Tyrone Stephens is the only plaintiff prosecuting an action against Englewood and/or the five members of its police department..” “Marc Stephens’s only claim in this case are…against the two attorneys, Ms. Remon and Mr. Comet. It is anticipated that Marc Stephens will misrepresent his status to this court since he repeatedly did so to the District Court”, says Adam Kenny of Weiner Lesniak LP.

Marc Stephens pointed to his ‘notice of tort claim’ filed with the City of Englewood, and the State of New Jersey on court record. Marc also pointed to his summons and complaint on record which clearly has the City of Englewood, Englewood Police Department, and all officers as defendants, see Marc’s Summons.

Marc Stephens closed his brief stating, “As proven below, Mr. Adam Kenny’s false statement is for pure entertainment purposes as if he is auditioning to be a writer for Keeping up with Kim Kardashian”.

Marc and Tyrone Stephens, who are representing themselves, are awaiting the decision from the United States Court of Appeals – 3rd Circuit regarding their motion to expedite, motion to recuse Judge Martini, motion to proceed on the original records, and for a decision regarding jurisdiction.

Copy of Marc Stephens’ Reply brief and Motion to Remove Judge William J. Martini

Video of the Day


Wayne's Interior Design