Thread: Freehold New Jersey gives money to invaders and their groups

Freehold Borough settles U.S. suit with immigrants
Agreement ends litigation that began in 2003
BY CLARE MARIE CELANO
Staff Writer
http://newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2 ... e/001.html


A lawsuit brought upon Freehold Borough by day laborers in Freehold has finally been settled. Members of the Borough Council were expected to discuss the particulars of the settlement at their meeting on Nov. 13.

The lawsuit was filed by members of the Monmouth County Residents for Immigrants Rights, El Comite De Trabajadores Por El Progreso Y Bienestar Social, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, Casa Freehold and the United Day Laborers of Freehold in December 2003. It alleged that day laborers were denied the right to solicit employment in public places in Freehold and were subjected to discriminatory law enforcement and housing code enforcement.

Stan Organek, a member of the Monmouth County Residents for Immigrants Rights, provided the News Transcript with news of the settlement on Monday morning.

The agreement, according to a press release Organek distributed, is wide reaching and covers areas such as solicitation of employment, property maintenance code enforcement and law enforcement in the borough.

Former New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Daniel O'Hern was appointed by U.S. District Judge Anne E. Thompson to facilitate an agreement between the parties. Alan Levine of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund was lead counsel representing the plaintiffs along with attorney Renee Steinhagen of New Jersey Appleseed and Julio Gomez of Latham and Watkins.

Freehold Borough retained its own counsel.

According to the press release, the agreement will be monitored for two years by a court-appointed monitor with the court retaining jurisdiction for the duration of the agreement.

According to the terms of the agreement, the borough will not interfere with the lawful use of public property including the pick-up and discharge of day laborers. The borough will not unlawfully hinder the exercise of free speech including the solicitation of employment by day laborers. Also, no residential code enforcement inspections will take place without a resident being advised of his or her rights and without informed consent being given by the resident. A police officer will not accompany code enforcers on inspections. The borough will also provide the plaintiffs' attorneys with civil complaints resulting from code inspections. A compliance officer will provide the plaintiffs' attorneys through the court appointed monitor with reports of compliance to this agreement.

In addition, according to the press release, the borough has also agreed to install video recorders in its patrol cars and will retain all data pertaining to racial profiling and with interference with the lawful use of public property. It will also retain records on the use of dogs and non-vehicular video recording. The plaintiffs' attorneys have the right to inspect and copy any documents relevant to compliance with this agreement.

According to the press release, the borough agrees to reimburse the fines of those Latinos who were convicted of loitering and/or officer's discretion dating back to Jan. 1, 2002.

The issue of officer's discretion being the basis for the issuance of summonses was the object of controversy among the parties who filed the lawsuit. The lawsuit stated that a violation known as officer's discretion does not exist in federal, state or local law, and if it did it would be "patently unconstitutional."

Police said the officer's discretion summons allowed a resolution to be reached in municipal court that would not leave a person with a criminal record. Generally, it took the place of a disorderly persons summons, police said.

The Borough Council eventually repealed the ordinance that provided for the officer's discretion summons.

The borough also agrees to reimburse fines for those convicted in housing code inspections, other than violations for overcrowding, where no opportunity was given to correct the code violation. The borough has also agreed to reimburse fines for convictions made on the basis of anonymous complaints not founded on articulable suspicion.

According to the press release, the borough will also agree to establish a Latino Persons Fund for $33,000 for fine reimbursement. In addition, the borough will pay the plaintiffs' attorney fees of $245,000, in addition to its own attorneys legal fees.

In a statement issued on the afternoon of Nov. 13, Mayor Michael Wilson and the Borough Council said, "We believe that this resolution of the lawsuit is one that protects the interests of Freehold Borough and all of its residents. Unfortunately, the people who most benefited from this lawsuit were the plaintiffs' lawyers, who received eight times as much as the fund established for the clients they were representing. We are happy to put this matter behind us and to move on with the business of the borough. The borough will continue to be what it always has been through its long history - a welcoming and diverse community in an increasingly segregated state."

The press release provided by Organek quoted a Freehold day laborer named Pablo Lopez as saying, "We now look forward to a much improved relationship between the Borough of Freehold and its Latino residents. It has been the plaintiffs' desire from the very beginning to find a place for the day laborers to gather for the purpose of seeking employment - whether on Throckmorton Street or some other location - and we hope the community gets behind this effort. This has been a long and difficult process, but we are very pleased with the outcome. We are saddened that this lawsuit was necessary. We now look forward to a much improved relationship with the Borough of Freehold."

Tell Freehold Borough how you feel about this!
Phone: 732-462-1259
Fax: 732-409-1453

This is extremely disturbing!