A Full Investigation by the FBI is a necessity to halt the corruption and fraud in

the New Jersey Judiciary including its

Office of Attorney Ethics

Disciplinary Review Board

& Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct

The following list of violations is just the tip of the ice berg involving the Judiciary itself in addition to David E. Johnson, Jr., the Office of Attorney Ethics & the Disciplinary Review Board.

• Take unlawful jurisdiction of out-of-state persons without notice or due process and by omission ignore all grievances.

• Refuse to take action against stolen or misplaced filed court documents, altered court records & non-existent orders they claim or infer exist. 

• Refuse to investigate ex parte hearings even though they are registered on the Court's automated system as well as noted in an officially signed court order as well as an attorney's affidavit.

• Refuse to allow due process hearings on bona fide filed motions.

• Allow judges who are material fact witnesses to take over cases; refuse to acknowledge or hear legitimate motions, administrative grievances including official appeals related to this unlawful practice by deliberate, malicious omission.

• State false facts in opinions as well as stating false facts that oppose their own false fact statements. Example of an estate matter: She received more than she was entitled to receive as a matter of law;" then later, "She didn't receive anything because there was nothing to receive." Both statements were made without an estate accounting.

• Allow attorneys to forge their client's signature on settlement checks. Refuse to acknowledge the copies of a fraudulently forged check by deliberate and malicious omission.

• Refuse to allow clients accountings from their own attorney

• Refuse to allow alleged litigants copies of signed court orders officials claim exist.

• Refuse to allow immediate family members of a deceased person copies of Estate Accountings officials imply exist.

In one complex case the courts and other officials did all of the above; and when the aggrieved person fought back, they showed exactly how they can and will retaliate. As a last resort, and after numerous other requests, the following letter and complaint was sent to Stephen W. Townsend, Clerk of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. As of September 17, 2006, there continues to be 'no response.' Wonder why?

First Amendment & Common Law Rights Violations

COVER LETTER

Dorothy Mataras

March 6, 2004

Re: Mataras vs. David E. Johnson, Jr., Director of Office of Attorney Ethics -- Grievance

Dear Mr. Townsend:

Where grievances are filed against disciplinary officials that do not arise out of their processing of a specific ethics case, R. 1:20-7(j)(2) provides that the grievance will be transmitted to the Clerk of the Supreme Court who will direct its processing. The grievance is related to our Common Law and First Amendment Rights. Kindly process the enclosed. 

Taking all of Mr. Johnson’s Investigative report as true implicates numerous court documents that directly relate to both my son and me. These documents would not only fall under the category of ‘public right to access’ but also our Common Law and First Amendment Rights.  

It should be without question that we could not have had the foreknowledge that the DRB would ratify Mr. Johnson’s Investigative report. We’ve already followed the rules requiring that we incorporate our grievance against Mr. Johnson when we filed our appeals with the Disciplinary Review Board as per Court Rules related to his false statements and defined them under the term “The Big Lie.” Nevertheless, the DRB ratified all of Mr. Johnson’s report and omitted any references to our allegations against Mr. Johnson. Thus we’re forced to consider everything he said as ‘true’ as opposed to our allegations although the disciplinary system in general is in violation of the Rules and Laws related to grievance procedures. Thus the Pressler Comment to R. 1:20-7(j)[1] does not apply in this instance due to the numerous violations in the disciplinary grievance system.  

What Mr. Johnson reported and the DRB ratified, gives rise to our on-going requests and demands for copies of documents that must be in existence or filed with the courts. Are they or aren’t they?  

Sincerely,

 Dorothy Mataras

 Enclosures 

COPIES TO:

Paula T. Granuzzo, Esq.

Judge Richard J. Williams

Joseph L. Trapp, Administrator of Investigations

Patrick J. Monahan, Jr., Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct

GRIEVANCE AGAINST DAVID E. JOHNSON, JR., ESQ.

DIRECTOR OF OF THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY ETHICS

Grievants

DOROTHY MATARAS

&

ERIC MATARAS

Address and Phone Numbers suppressed

Complaining about:

 DAVID E. JOHNSON, JR., ESQ.

An Attorney at Law in New Jersey

Admitted to the Bar in 1971

DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY ETHICS

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Office of Attorney Ethics
RJ Hughes Justice Complex, PO-963, Trenton, NJ 08625

Offices at: 840 Bear Tavern Road, West Trenton, NJ 08628

Phone: 609/530-4008 -- Fax: 609/530-5238

David E. Johnson, Jr., (hereinafter referred to as “Director”) is an attorney-at-law in New Jersey as well as a Judiciary employee with the title of “Director” for the Office of Attorney Ethics (hereinafter referred to as OAE).

 Pursuant to R. 1:14. Codes of Ethics in the Rules Governing the Courts of NJ -- The Rules of Professional Conduct and the Code of Judicial Conduct of the American Bar Association, as amended and supplemented by the Supreme Court *** shall govern the conduct of the members of the bar and the judges and employees of all courts of this State.

The Mataras’ allege David E. Johnson violated the following:

 Code of Conduct for Judiciary Employee, Canons 1 & 3

• Canon 1 (A) Mr. Johnson violated the Constitutions and laws of the United States and the State of New Jersey by failing and refusing to carry out his assigned duties.

• Canon 1 (G) He refused to enforce or otherwise carry out properly issued rules and exceeded his authority.

• Canon 3: He does not observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the courts may be preserved; he gives the appearance of impropriety

• RPC  8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation)

COUNT 1

VIOLATION OF N.J.S.A. § 47:1A-5[1]

      David E. Johnson as Director of the Office of Attorney Ethics allegedly also functions as a custodian of the OAE. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. § 47:1A-5 f. he has refused to produce the required access form as follows:

“shall provide space for the name, address, and phone number of the requestor and a brief description of the government record sought. The form shall include space for the custodian to indicate which record will be made available, when the record will be available, and the fees to be charged. The form shall also include the following: (1) specific directions and procedures for requesting a record; (2) a statement as to whether prepayment of fees or a deposit is required; (3) the time period within which the public agency is required by P.L. 1963, c. 73 (C. 47:1A-1 et seq.) as amended and supplemented, to make the record available; (4) a statement of the requestor's right to challenge a decision by the public agency to deny access and the procedure for filing an appeal; (5) space for the custodian to list reasons if a request is denied in whole or in part; (6) space for the requestor to sign and date the form; (7) space for the custodian to sign and date the form if the request is fulfilled or denied.”

       Grievants herein have made numerous requests for access to specific court records (public records) that were allegedly filed in the courts. The court records requested relate to Eric & Dorothy Mataras. Mr. Johnson, in an official report, has either made direct references to said records, or inferred they existed. See Exhibit A1-A4 attached hereto and made a part hereof as if set forth at length for copies requested from Mr. Johnson and others.

        Grievants also made numerous requests for access to copies of specific documents exhibited in their attorney grievances and that Mr. Johnson concealed by omission in his official report. Many of the exhibits are copies of legitimately filed official court documents which Mr. Johnson deliberately concealed.

         Pursuant to N.J.S.A. § 47:1A-5g (see footnotes 1 & 4) Mr. Johnson was required to promptly comply with the request to provide a copy of a government record. Instead of complying with the law, he has consistently denied requests in violation of the requirements. Attached hereto and made a part hereof as if set forth at length is Exhibit B, a copy of Mr. Johnson’s latest letter dated February 17, 2004 letter to Dorothy Mataras. Also included is Exhibit C1&2, Dorothy’s February 28, 2004 response to Exhibit B

         Mr. Johnson has violated not only the Court rules to effectuate the statute, but the Mataras’ Common Law and First Amendment Rights to access by not providing a statement of rights to challenge his decision to deny access and the procedure for filing an administrative or other appeal.

COUNT TWO

ACTUAL FRAUD

The Mataras’ repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1-5.

The refusal to provide copies of court documents is in violation of N.J.S.A. § 2C:21-3, since Mr. Johnson is concealing a recordable instrument for which the law provides public recording; specifically, the official accounting in the Estate of Anthony Mataras, the deceased husband of Dorothy Mataras and father of Eric Mataras.

Mr. Johnson’s purpose was to deceive officials and financially injure both Mataras’ while providing loyalty to persons or parties instead of to the principles embodied in the Canons.

 COUNT THREE

ACTUAL MALICE

The Mataras’ repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1-8.

Mr. Johnson knew that many of his statements were not only false, but were made in reckless disregard of the truth. There is no other explanation since some of the attorney respondents confirmed the Mataras’ allegations. One such attorney is now a current Supreme Court Judge, John C. Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy informed the OAE that S. George Greenspan was Dorothy’s attorney. Stephen Pellino, Esq. is another respondent who confirmed Dorothy’s allegation against Greenspan. In addition, there’s a filed Certification on record in the courts that the Executor of Anthony Mataras’ estate certified that Mr. Greenspan was her attorney and Greenspan’s letter claiming he represented Ms. Mataris. (sic) Dorothy’s allegation against Greenspan was that he perjured himself via court filed certification that he did not represent Dorothy in the matter of Probate and that his defense attorney suborned perjury in the courts.

Instead of dealing with the allegations, confirmations by other attorneys and evidentiary documents Mr. Johnson copied the following from another source: “Plaintiff claims that she retained Greenspan to handle all matters arising from Anthony Mataras’ death but provides no evidence.”

Mr. Johnson also claimed that Greenspan received a Summary Judgment Order against Mataras. Where is it? To date, this order remains concealed although the Mataras’ have a common law right to a copy which Mr. Johnson refuses to supply. It was not annexed to Greenspan’s response in the copies that were sent to Dorothy.

One can only conclude that besides Dorothy, Judge Kennedy and Mr. Pellino have all made false statements to the OAE and only Mr. Johnson tells the truth by copying from another source. When he was requested to supply the Mataras’ with the exhibits supplied to the OAE to prove he had them in his possession, he refused and continues to refuse.         Mr. Johnson’s purpose was to deliberately deceive officials in a reckless disregard of the truth and to injure the Mataras’ while providing loyalty to persons or parties instead of to the principles embodied in the Canons for Judicial Employees. 

COUNT FOUR

MALICIOUS CONCEALMENT

The Mataras’ repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1-14.

With the malicious intend to defraud and injure Dorothy Mataras, Mr. Johnson continues to conceal his knowledge of a ‘final’ settlement check in the sum of $200,000 made payable to a law firm, an executor, and Dorothy Mataras. The endorsement of Dorothy’s name on the back of the check is not her signature, nor does it contain initials or the name of the person or attorney who signed her name. See Exhibit D (settlement check) attached hereto and made a part hereof as if set forth at length.

At a meeting with Colin Tams, an attorney for the Disciplinary Review Board, when asked by Dorothy if she could file a separate grievance related to the forgery of her signature because Mr. Johnson concealed the facts and the law, he informed her that it was not “unethical” for an attorney to forge her endorsement on a settlement check. If Dorothy attempted to file another grievance it would be dismissed because it was already decided even though there’s no mention of the allegations, disputed facts or the law. None of the respondents denied the forged endorsement.

It is Dorothy’s contention that Mr. Johnson violated RPC 3.3(a)(5 (lack of candor and fairness) when he chose to suppress the decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court, In Matter of Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, 125 N.J. 181 (1991)[2]. It was none other than Mr. Johnson himself who argued for the prohibition because it “safeguards against the transgressions of an underhanded lawyer would be insufficient because the funds would be entirely within the control of the attorney, who thus would be afforded a greater opportunity secretly to manipulate those funds.”

In the instant case, there was not only an opportunity to keep the true settlement from their client, Dorothy, it afforded them the occasion to commit perjury and suborn perjury claiming Dorothy was represented by another attorney, Robert B. Green. At no time did they submit any court records of Green’s participation in the settlement. They continued communicating with Dorothy after the settlement as evidenced by Exhibits attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Dorothy Mataras supplied the OAE with a copy of the forgery and confirming the forgery was respondent, Craig W. Miller, who also included a 2 page copy (one page for each side of the check). It was Miller, himself, who sent Dorothy a copy of the settlement check.

Mr. Johnson has selectively allowed attorneys to violate the rules and law as embodied in Matter of Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, 125 N.J. 181 (1991) thus allowing them to continue the practice of endorsing clients’ or non-clients signatures on settlement checks unimpeded.

Attached hereto and made a part hereof as if set forth at length is Exhibit #E Craig W. Miller’s letter to the Carella firm notifying them that Liberty Mutual included Dorothy’s name on the settlement check. John Agnello acknowledged receipt of the check. Miller provided exhibits of the check as well as copy of his letter in his response. Also attached as Exhibit F is Dorothy’s letter to Agnello as per his request for her signature on a bank card. Mr. Johnson refuses to give Dorothy duplicate copies of any of the evidentiary documents he had in his possession related to the forgery that absolutely proved the law firm continued representing both Mataras’.

Mr. Johnson concealed all references to the forgery including the requirements that Dorothy receive actual notice of the settlement from her attorney. To date, a Settlement Order remains hidden although it was the responsibility of the respondent attorneys to provide the information to Mr. Johnson and in turn, it was Mr. Johnson’s responsibility to ensure that he received appropriate exhibits from all respondents as it related to the allegations. IN RE GAVEL, 22 N.J. 248 (1956).

Mr. Johnson is in violation of the New Jersey District Ethics Committee Rules, Section 40.  He was required to submit a “Statement of Facts” relating to the issues, including those facts which are disputed and those which are undisputed. He was to refer “specifically to all relevant documentation and include copies as exhibits.” Instead, he omitted numerous official court records along with the concealment of the forgery. [3]

       In a willful and malicious falsehood of material fact, disregarding all of Dorothy’s allegations and evidence to the contrary, Mr. Johnson’s official Investigative Report states:

“Carella Byrne represented James Mataras, Executor of the Estate of Anthony Mataras in the wrongful death action. Robert B. Green represented Dorothy Mataras individually in that same action.”

       Annexed hereto and made a part hereof is Exhibit G1&2, the original retainer agreement proving that the firm also represented Dorothy Mataras individually and as g/a/l of Eric Mataras. Also see previously noted exhibits after September 15, 1992 proving that the Carella firm continued to represent Dorothy.

        It was Mr. Johnson’s responsibility to obtain the records from the respondents that would disprove the Mataras’ allegations. Quite simply, they should have produced a “substitution of attorney,” “Settlement statement” including Green’s name or Dorothy’s name, a transcript of settlement showing Green was in attendance, a dismissal Order with Green’s representing Dorothy, and an acknowledgment from Green himself. Also missing is any signed ‘release’ by either Dorothy or Green. Mr. Johnson continues to deny access to any of the essential documents to prove that Dorothy filed false statements instead of ignoring her allegations.

          Mr. Johnson’s purpose in concealing the forgery, lack of notice of settlement and other essential documents was to deceive officials, damage the administration of justice, and injure the Mataras’ while providing loyalty to persons or parties instead of to the principles embodied in the Canons.

COUNT FIVE

VIOLATING THE MATARAS’ FIRST AMENDMENT &

COMMON LAW RIGHTS[4]

 The Mataras’ repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1-28.

         The ‘gag rules’ were not instituted to protect Judicial Employees from making materially false statements or concealing unethical activities related to preferred attorneys while selectively holding others liable. Mr. Johnson continues to violate his obligations to the public and to the administration of justice as well as to the Mataras’ First Amendment and common law rights of access to court documents that directly impacted their lives.

           The Mataras’ grievances related to the concealment of various court documents that attorneys were claiming existed but remained hidden from both Mataras’. The logical remedy would have been to attach the essential court documents to his report; or otherwise provide copies of them. Mr. Johnson, nevertheless, violated the rules related to preparing an Investigative Report as noted in Count Four.

           To date, numerous Court Documents that should be available to the public remain concealed not only from the public but from the two people that have First Amendment and Common Law rights to them; namely, Dorothy and Eric Mataras.

Both Mataras’ also had Common Law rights to accountings by attorneys that originally claimed to represent them; yet these also remain concealed which is directly attributable to Mr. Johnson. He refused to acknowledge legitimate court documents proving Mr. Green did not represent Dorothy at settlement. See Exhibit No. H1-3 trial court transcript with Judge Napolitano, Judith A. Heim and Craig W. Miller. See Exhibit No. I1-2 Judge Napolitano’s Dismissal Order prepared by Miller’s law firm. Mr. Miller was aware that Green was not in the courtroom when settlement negotiations were transpiring nor was he in the courtroom when the settlement was put on the record.

Mr. Johnson deliberately concealed the on-going attorney-client relationship that Dorothy had with the Carella law firm as exhibited via letters to and from the Carella firm directly with Dorothy after the settlement on September 15, 1992. See Exhibit F Dorothy’s letter to Agnello enclosing her signature card. If Green was her attorney, the Carella firm attorneys would then be in violation of ethics’ rules unethically dealing with a represented person.

Mr. Johnson claimed Mark Mattia was Eric Mataras’ guardian ad litem even though an appellate court found that he was not. Because Mr. Johnson did find that Mattia was Eric’s attorney, he then refused to allow Eric an accounting of the copies of the necessary documents and accountings from his alleged attorney.

To name only a few of the missing documents Mr. Johnson is concealing are: Summary Judgment Orders against both Mataras’ pursuant to R. 4:42-1 signed by Judge Napolitano including a court transcript that contains the words:“plaintiff's competent evidence submitted did not raise a genuine issue as to a material fact.” Judge Napolitano’s signed order denying Dorothy’s motion for his recusal with a transcript detailing his reasons why he was not a fact witness to the matter. Any court documents that joined Eric Mataras as a litigant in New Jersey. A more detailed list is Exhibit A1-A4 attached hereto and made a part hereof as if set forth at length.

 Mr. Johnson’s purpose in denying the Mataras’ their Common Law and First Amendment Rights to court documents was to deceive officials and injure the Mataras’ while providing loyalty to persons or parties instead of to the principles embodied in the Canons.

 COUNT SIX

VIOLATION OF RPC  8.4(C)
(Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation)

 The Mataras’ repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1 to 37.

Attorney accountings for client funds are required to be maintained and attorneys are required to give their clients’ an official accounting. To date, both Mataras’ have been prohibited from reviewing these fundamental accountings by there own attorneys through fraud, malicious concealment and deliberate omissions by Mr. Johnson.

 Mr. Johnson’s on-going dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation was to deceive officials and injure the Mataras’ while providing loyalty to persons or parties instead of to the principles embodied in the Canons.

 CONCLUSION

Mr. Johnson, with the express purpose to obtain benefits for others injured and deprived the Mataras’ of their common law rights and monetary benefits. This act constituted an unauthorized exercise of his official functions. He knowingly refrained from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law and was clearly inherent in the nature of his office. His purpose in committing certain acts as well as failing to perform certain acts was to benefit others and to injure and deprive the Mataras’ of lawful benefits. The Mataras’ respectfully request that an immediate investigation be instituted against David E. Johnson, Jr.

The Mataras’ request that Mr. Johnson be ordered to supply them with copies of the court and other documents as noted on Exhibit A1-A4 that they are entitled to as a matter of law and under their Common Law and First Amendment Rights.

DATED: March 6, 2004

Dorothy Mataras                                                                     

Eric Mataras