Marc Stephens Open Letter to U.S. Congress and NJ Legislature regarding $76M lawsuit against City of Englewood

Marc Stephens Open Letter to U.S. Congress and NJ Legislature regarding $76M lawsuit against City of Englewood

On April 21, 2017, in the case titled Marc Stephens vs City of Englewood, et al, Marc Stephens submitted a letter to the Members of Congress regarding his $76 million lawsuit filed 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 civil complaint alleges False Arrest, Conspiracy, falsifying evidence, False imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, legal malpractice, and several other cause of actions. Marc Stephens is requesting congress to investigate.


Marc Stephens

271 Rosemont Place,
Englewood, NJ 07631

April 21, 2017

U.S. Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr. 

2-10 North Van Brunt St.
Englewood, NJ 07631

U.S. House of Representatives
2370 RHOB
Washington, DC 20515


Re: Federal Civil Lawsuit pending with U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit

To the current elected members of Congress:

I write to respectfully ask that you please review the apparent corruption in my case, no. 16-1868, titled Marc Stephens vs City of Englewood, et al.

A. What is the issue?: Judge William J. Martini of the U.S. District Court in Newark, intentionally sabotaged our case by overlooking our evidence filed on record and granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The case is straight forward, and Martini’s decision to dismiss our complaint is a clear violation of our constitutional rights to a trial by jury.

Pursuant to Canon 1: “[A] Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law and should comply with the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Adherence to this responsibility helps to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and injures our system of government under law. The Canons are rules of reason. They should be applied consistently with constitutional requirements, statutes, other court rules and decisional law, and in the context of all relevant circumstances”.

Pursuant to Canon 2A. “An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code”.

Pursuant to the Supreme Court of the United States in Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 US 238 - Supreme Court 1980 at 242, "The neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that life, liberty, or property will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of the facts or the law." “[It] is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is”, Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 - Supreme Court 1803 at 177.

According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the law states, the court is not allowed to weigh the evidence. That is the responsibility of the Jury. “[T]he court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000).

The above is applicable to all Judges by application of Article VI of the United States Constitution which reads, “[T]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”. According to, Stone v. Powell, 428 US 465 - Supreme Court 1976 at 526, "Federal courts have a constitutional obligation to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold federal law."

Court records reveal that Judge Martini has a very long history of intentionally sabotaging cases, and has deliberately violated other litigant's personal liberties and/or has wantonly refused to provide due process and equal protection to all litigants before the court, or has behaved in a manner inconsistent with that which is needed for full, fair, impartial hearings.

On January 23, 2002, Martini was nominated for a judgeship of the United States District Court of New Jersey by President George W. Bush, was confirmed on November 14, 2002 and received his commission on November 19, 2002.

In 2004, and most recently in 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals removed Judge Martini from three cases for “usurping the jury’s role”, “unwillingness to conduct a fair trial”, and for “Bias toward the Defendant”. See United States v. Douglas Kennedy, 11-1145 (3rd Cir. 2012), and United States v. Bergrin, 682 F.3d 261 (3d Cir. 2012).  In regards to Martini's actions, the court wrote that "(w)hen a judge openly questions the integrity of the government’s evidence collection practices, undermines the professionalism of the prosecutor, and accuses the Government of prosecuting in bad faith — all without evidence of governmental misconduct — a reasonable observer could very well find neutrality wanting in the proceedings." United States v. Douglas Kennedy, 11-1145 (3rd Cir. 2012).

I filed a Motion to Recuse Judge Martini in which the Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit is currently scheduled to review, along with my briefs to reverse the decision, and send the case to trial. A Copy of the Motion to Recuse is attached - 8 pages.

B. What is Marc Stephens vs City of Englewood about?: Our civil complaint is regarding the false arrest and malicious prosecution of Tyrone Stephens, a minor at the time. Marc Stephens, who is the older brother and guardian of Tyrone, has claims against the City of Englewood for damages, and two lawyers for legal malpractice.

C. What did Judge Martini rule?: Judge Martini erroneously ruled that “[T]he 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”, see Opinion ECF no. 82, page 7, and that the defendants’ officers have absolute immunity, and are allowed to lie and provide false evidence to a grand jury, see Opinion ECF no. 82, page 8.

D. What does the evidence show?: The evidence show that the Englewood Police Department did not have four main pieces of evidence implicating Tyrone. Martini ruled that we did not submit any evidence, which is outrageous. All documents in Federal Court are tracked and filed via ECF, and available to the public.

I put the following evidence in front of Martini, which proved the Englewood Police Department ‘did not’ have four main pieces of evidence implicating Tyrone. [Click the page links below.  In the top left section of the exhibit you can click to enlarge the image]

(1) the alleged photo identification by Natalia Cortes

• Natalia Cortes stated to the officers on November 2, 2012, that she could not identify the attackers, ECF Doc.72-2, pg [22] [23]. Tyrone Stephens was falsely arrested as the ski-masked suspect.

• Marc McDonald testified that Natalia Cortes did not identify attackers on Nov. 2, so they conducted a photo array with Detective Cubillos on November 13, 2012, ECF Doc.72-3, pg [121].

• Detective Cubillos and Marc McDonald’s Photo array eyewitness identification worksheet for Natalia states the following: “Did the witness identify any photo as depicting the perpetrator?” The answer checked is No, see defendants, [SA186].

• Natalia Cortes testified she did not identify Tyrone by name, picture, or as a possible suspect on November 2, 2012, ECF Doc 72-3, pg [93] [94] [95] [96] [97]

• Marc McDonald testified that after speaking with the victims and witness Natalia Cortes on November 2, 2012, the Englewood Investigators “All we really knew was at that particular point was—was Derric Gatti”, and they received a tip the following week on Monday, November 7, regarding Kirk and Justin Evans, ECF Document 72-3, [page 19], paragraph #2, and ECF Document 72-3, [page 113], paragraph 14-25.

• Marc McDonald testified no victims or co-defendants identified Tyrone, only Justin Evans, ECF Doc. 72-3, pg [53], #7-12.

(2) the statements made by Justin Evans

• Marc McDonald testified that he and Desmond Singh coerced Justin Evans to implicate himself and Tyrone, ECF Doc. 72-3, page [32] [33] [34] [35] [36], #24-32.

• Marc McDonald admitted that they “suggested the names” to Justin Evans in regards to Tyrone Stephens allegedly being involved, “I gave you all of them”, ECF Document 72-2, page [59]. Desmond Singh admitted that they suggested and gave up Tyrone’s name when he states to Justin, “You’re doing good but the more names we give you..”, ECF Document 72-2, page [70].

• Justin Evans testified that he implicated Tyrone Stephens because, “I thought he was one of the people that said I was involved or told them”…and it was “out of revenge”, ECF Document 72-4, page [8] [9].

(3) inconsistencies in testimony regarding Tyrone’s alibi

• Judge Gary Wilcox ruled that Defense Witness Tyrone Roy was credible, see Exhibit 16 (page 91, paragraph 12-14), and 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].

(4) the statement Tyrone allegedly made to Jaquan Graham while in a holding cell

• Marc McDonald testified the victims stated they were attacked on October 31, 2012 in the parking lot of 7 eleven at 10pm, and that Tyrone stated he was at McDonalds, ECF Doc. 72-3, page [25] [26] [28].

• Marc McDonald confirmed that Tyrone was in front of McDonald’s at 10pm and defendant Nathaniel Kinlaw confirmed that he saw Tyrone in front of McDonalds at 10pm, "Kinlaw said he saw you..that was at 10:00 he said", ECF Doc. 72-2, page [91].

Judge Martini also ruled that officers can lie in court, “Second, even if Tyrone did offer such evidence, “[i]t is well settled that police officers are absolutely immune from § 1983 suits for damages for giving allegedly perjured testimony…” Blacknall v. Citarella, 168 Fed.Appx. 489, 492 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)), see Order ECF no. 82, page 8.

I submitted in my motion for reconsideration that the Supreme Court and the Third Circuit states, “[A] police officer who fabricates evidence against a criminal defendant to obtain his conviction violates the defendant's constitutional right to due process of law”. Halsey v. Pfeiffer, 750 F. 3d 273 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2014 at 279.  Martini responds by threatening to file sanctions against me if I submit another motion to correct the clear errors of fact and law.

In Conclusion: The officers did not have probable cause to arrest Tyrone because testimony proved the incident occurred in the parking lot of 7-eleven at 10pm and testimony proved Tyrone Stephens was located almost a mile away at McDonalds at 10pm. All Englewood Investigating Officers knew this before their investigation started.

Judge Martini is clearly exhibiting a bias in favor of the defendants by intentionally overlooking our evidence submitted on record, weighing the evidence, and forcing us to Appeal.

This type of abuse of discretion is the equivalent of a criminal act. Martini is violating our rights in order to protect officers who clearly broke the law by fabricating victims and witnesses sworn statements, police reports, and giving intentionally false testimony in court. Tyrone Stephens, who was a minor, spent 1 year and 35 days in jail for a crime he did not commit.

Due to having a $76 million lawsuit filed against the City of Englewood, the Englewood Police Department is trying to destroy Tyrone’s credibility in the media by placing him at the scene of crimes based on “non-predictive information” provided by their so-called “Police Informant”.

Every time we defeat a fabricated case filed by the Englewood Police Department, within days, they are arresting and filing new charges against Tyrone., which is a local news outlet, was created specifically to support our case. Not one major New Jersey news outlet such as,, or the Suburbanite wrote a single sentence about our $76M lawsuit filed against the City of Englewood, Englewood Police Department and several detectives, and two lawyers. Yet, these same news outlets are quick to write “multiple articles” about the arrest of Tyrone alleging that he was involved with armed robbery.  In regards to this case, at the time of Tyrone’s arrest he was a “straight A student”. Tyrone's grades were negatively impacted in Q1, due to being removed from school based on false charges. Copy of Tyrone’s report card [1]. Even while incarcerated, Tyrone maintained good grades, Copy of report card [2].

In an article titled, “For 2 Titans of U.S. Court in Newark, Bad Blood”, The New York Times covered the inappropriate conduct of Judge Martini. In another article titled, “U.S. Court of Appeals removes federal judge from two cases, including Paul Bergrin's trial”, goes into detail about the actions of Judge Martini, who is said to be, by some prosecutors and others, unfairly 'defense-friendly' in general.

In 2014, Martini made the news again this time for dismissing a federal case filed against the NYPD for illegally spying on at least 20 mosques, 14 restaurants, 11 retail stores, two grade schools, and two Muslim student associations in New Jersey.  Author, Leonard Levitt, of NYPD confidential wrote, “The reaction of the city’s mainstream media is the only thing ‘wackier’ than U.S. District Court Judge William J. Martini’s ruling last week that the NYPD’s widespread spying on New Jersey Muslims did not violate their civil rights”.

In 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, 'reversed' Judge Martini's ruling stating that the NYPD violated constitutional rights.  The New York Times cover the story in a article titled, "Lawsuit Over New York Police Surveillance of Muslims Is Revived".

Despite substantial evidence of Judge William J. Martini violating citizens rights on multiple occasions, he maintains the privilege to “sit on the bench in Court”, while my brother, who is innocent, lost all of his privileges as a citizens while he “sits on a bench in the Courtyard of State Prison”.

Honorable Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo, along with Anthony Joseph Scirica, and Dennis Michael Fisher of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit will be ruling on our case, which will be submitted, on the briefs, on Tuesday, May 2, 2017.

All I ask from the Members of the United States Congress, and New Jersey Legislature, is to keep an eye on this case, and/or take any appropriate actions necessary to safeguard our case. Thanks for your time.

Respectfully Submitted,

Marc Stephens

Appellant - Plaintiff
Brother and Attorney in Fact for Tyrone Stephens
marcstephens3@gmail. com

Marc Stephens Reply Brief - A Must Read!

Marc Stephens Motion to Recuse Martini - A Must Read!

Video of the Evidence EXPOSING Judge Martini and the Detectives, see Below - Watch it Now!

Video of the Day


Wayne's Interior Design