Robert Franco Claiming the Courts are UNJUST

Cynthia Feiler-Jampel
3308 French Drive
Bridgewater, New Jersey 08807
Phone: (908) 393 9353
synjam@mac.com

Somerset County Prosecutor’s Officer
40 North Bridge Street
P.O. Box 3000
Somerville, New Jersey 08876

April 30, 2007


Re: Somerset County Prosecutor’s Office Case File #0609-2031
(Robert and Randi Franco)




Dear Mr. Forrest and
Sergeant Detective Fodor,

I received your letter dated April 26, 2007, much to my discouragement and loss of faith, I understand that your Assistant Prosecutor did not find a criminal prosecution to be warranted concerning the alleged theft by Mr. and Mrs. Franco. I attempted to find out who the Assistant Prosecutor is, who made that determination and had there been an investigation. I believe there was not, since Norman Tauger, Larry Goldspiel nor I, were called in to the victims / witness advocacy. The letter I received is nothing more than a form letter, I received the same one concerning Judge Gasiorwaski another individual who managed to allegedly steal money from me through the guise of another attorney.

YOUR OFFICE HAS DENIED MY DUE PROCESS OF LAW



I am taking notice and I am aggrieved that you and your office have violated: TITLE 18
4. Misprision of felony
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

In the late afternoon of April 30, I called the Prosecutor’s Office to find out who the Assistant Prosecutor was, but Sam, the person looking for the name, couldn’t even find the file/ name ”Robert Franco” listed. She asked me if it was a new claim or a juvenile matter. Was there an investigation?

I find it unfathomable that after the clear evidence of the person who directed the check to me, he giving a recorded statement saying that the check was meant for me and then changed to Randy Franco albeit she spells her name Randi ,along with the statement from Norman Tauter stating that Robert Franco set him up to cash the check and then my testimony along with an audio tape of Robert Franco himself addressing the change of the check to Randi, and finally Sergeant Fodor sending me to the Bridgewater P.D. to complain about Mr. Franco, stating a terrorist threat, resulting in the ultimate, the Assistant Prosecutor doesn’t think this rises to a crime, my understanding is diametrically opposing. Why did Sergeant Fodor waste the time of the Bridgewater P.D. if he felt there was no concern ? I think that is a crime in itself.



Wasting police time - section 5(2) Criminal Law Act 1967
(Archbold 28-224)
The offence of wasting police time is committed when a person
0. causes any wasteful employment of the police by
0. knowingly making to any person a false report orally or in writing tending to:
0. show that an offence has been committed; or,
0. give rise to apprehension for the safety of any persons or property; or,
0. show that he has information material to any police inquiry.
It is a summary only offence carrying a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment and/or a level 4 fine.
Proceedings may only be instituted by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions: s.5(3). Consent may be granted after charge but must be before a plea of guilty is entered or summary trial. Consent must be obtained before proceedings are started by way of summons.
Examples of the type of conduct appropriate for a charge of wasting police time include:
0. false reports that a crime has been committed, which initiates a police investigation;
0. the giving of false information to the police during the course of an existing investigation.
The public interest will favour a prosecution in any one of the following circumstances:-
0. police resources have been diverted for a significant period (for example 10 hours);
0. a substantial cost is incurred, for example a police helicopter is used or an expensive scientific examination undertaken;
0. when the false report is particularly grave or malicious;
0. considerable distress is caused to a person by the report;
0. the accused knew, or ought to have known, that police resources were under particular strain or diverted from a particularly serious inquiry;
0. there is significant premeditation in the making of the report;
0. the report is persisted in, particularly in the face of challenge.
There are statutory offences which involve wasting police time and which should be used instead of section 5(2) when there is sufficient evidence. For example:-
0. perpetrating a bomb hoax - s51(2) Criminal Law Act 1977;
0. false alarms of fire - s.49 Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;
0. fraudulent insurance claims based on false reports of crime - deception.
There is an overlap between the offence of wasting police time and other, more serious offences. Regard must be had to the factors outlined in General Charging Principles, above in this chapter and Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences, above in this chapter, which help to identify conduct too serious to charge as wasting police time, when consideration should be given to a charge of perverting the course of justice


What rises to the level of a crime in Somerset
County?

I find it very questionable that several weeks prior to receiving Detective Fodor’s letter, Mr. Franco had been telling people he wasn’t even investigated. Why did he know this before I was notified? I am the complainant.

Unless there is a reversal of your initial decision, I feel that his matter should be brought into the public domain by what ever legitimate means there are available. As this is a matter of general domain/ public interest.

Please answer my requests for resolution.

Cordially,


Cynthia Feiler-Jampel