Glassboro NJ Patrolman
Christopher B. Herner #960
Next Court Date: Monday, December 13, 2004
On October 25, 2004
Tim Chell Glassboro's municipal prosecutor,
asked the court for more time to prepare his case in support of the arrest of David String, a continuance so that his office can subpoena witnesses -- maybe Taco Bell crew members.
Tim Chell may believe that Taco Bell Crew members will testify under oath that they told Patrolman Jones, or Patrolman Herner that they wanted David String to leave the Taco Bell property. If a Taco Bell crew member makes such a statement under oath in court -- it will be a FALSE STATEMENT.
Tim Chell
Glassboro's municipal prosecutor:"The facts will be hashed out in court."We'll have to have a trial and hear all the facts before anyone should prejudge this case," Chell said. "If all the facts are that Taco Bell wanted the gentleman removed from the premises and he would not leave when asked to leave, it would be the state's position that he's guilty of loitering."
He said he also hopes to subpoena Taco Bell employees on duty that night to testify.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Taco Bell patron claims his civil rights were violated News Report - Click Here |
By GENE VERNACCHIO -- Courier-Post Staff
Tim Chell
Glassboro's municipal prosecutor:"The facts will be hashed out in court."We'll have to have a trial and hear all the facts before anyone should prejudge this case," Chell said. "If all the facts are that Taco Bell wanted the gentleman removed from the premises and he would not leave when asked to leave, it would be the state's position that he's guilty of loitering."
He said he also hopes to subpoena Taco Bell employees on duty that night to testify.
OUT OF THE BLUE -- Click on Play Button to hear Audio
Patrolmen Herner came up with the concept for
David to leave the "property" on his own -- out of the blue.
Our Comment:
-- David asked a car to order food for him
-- David walked up to the window to get the food
-- The Taco Bell crew asked David to move out of the way
-- The car paid for the food & handed David his food
-- David sat over at the table outside
-- Cops showed up & picked him up
-- No one called the police
Patrolmen Herner's Police Report
-- Patrolmen Herner did NOT state
that he talked to a Taco Bell Crew Member -- independently
Why does prosecutor Tim Chell even think that
"Taco Bell wanted the gentleman [David String]
removed from the premises"?
Why?
Because:
Patrolmen Herner's Police Report
is MISLEADING and may rise to the level of a FALSE REPORT
-- on this concept:
-- I advised him that the employees did not want him on their "property."
A False Statement
If Patrolman Herner sticks to his story and states in court under oath that "Taco Bell wanted the gentleman removed from the premises" -- as has been conjured up by Tim Chell -- we argue that Patrolman Herner would be making a FALSE STATEMENT under oath at trial.
We're Pro Per Inc. and we approve this message.
Police Report by Patrolman Herner:I advised him that
the employees did not want him on their "property"
and to leave the "area"
Police Report by Patrolman Herner:
Employee:-- Leave the area
-- Get away from the window
-- And leave the area
We assert that
a Taco Bell Crew Member may have asked David:"to move out of the way."
Our Comment:
"Leave the area."
-- Does that mean leave the window area for safety?
"Move out of the way" for safety reasons.
-- Does that mean leave the "property," the "premises"?
-- We say NO.
-- "Move out of the way" does NOT mean "leave the property."
Leave The "Property"-- In the Police Report, Patrolman Herner DOES NOT state directly that ANY Taco Bell employee told David to leave the "property."-- Herner DOES NOT quote ANY Taco Bell Crew Member as asking David to: "Leave the property."
-- Herner DOES NOT quote ANY Taco Bell Crew Member as telling Herner that they wanted David to: "Leave the property."
-- In fact, Herner DOES NOT state in his police report that he independently talked to ANY Taco Bell Crew Member at all that night.
Patrolman Herner
-- It is Patrolman Herner who uses the word "property."
-- It is only Patrolman Herner who creates the concept of leave the "property."
-- It is Patrolman Herner who embellishes a request from a Taco Bell employee for David to move out of the way -- away from the drive through window area for safety reasons.
Move away from the window.
That is a typical request made dozens of times a year or more to local students and others after the inside service is closed at Taco Bell.
Back to:
Police Report by Patrolman Herner:I advised him that
the employees did not want him on their property
and to leave the area.
Comment:
Here, Patrolman Herner is using a typical debate trick often used to confuse the reader by combining a FALSE STATEMENT along with a true statement in the same sentence:I advised him that
the employees did not want him on their "property" | FALSE |
and to leave the "area" | May be TRUE -- "move out of the way."
Back to:
Police Report by Patrolman Herner:Again I advised him to leave the propertyDavid String:
or he would be placed under arrest.This is a free country.
I know my rights.
I can be here.
We're Pro Per Inc. and we approve this message.
David String | U.S. Citizen | A Taco Bell Customer
We say -- How is it that a Taco Bell CUSTOMER is "loitering" while sitting down at the Taco Bell Picnic Bench to eat the tacos he just bought? The Glassboro police officers told David to leave the property. As an American citizen with the U.S. Bill of Rights in mind, David did not comply -- so the cops counted down 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 and arrested him and his tacos before he had taken his first bite. They handcuffed him, left his soda on the Taco Bell Picnic Bench, emptied his pockets, took his identification out of his wallet -- thus David provided identity information -- and drove him to the police station. At the police station the officers mentioned to David that he had the right to remain silent -- and he did. David spent the rest of the night in the Glassboro NJ lock-up. In the morning the police charged him with a citation and a criminal complaint.
New Jersey vs. String
David String
1. A citation for Glassboro Code Section 354-4 for "Loitering" at Taco Bell
-- not leaving the Taco Bell Picnic Bench when told to do so by the officers; and
2. Obstruction of Justice [NJS 2C-29-1A] for remaining silent while in police custody
-- although David "provided" identity information -- the police has his NJ I.D.
The Tacos
The officers also took David's Taco Bell tacos into police custody overnight, but they gave the tacos back to David in the morning. No citation was given to the tacos by the police officers, although a number of food critics have sited Taco Bell tacos in the past as "tasty."
Your Comments
You are welcome to send in ANY of your comments about David String and Taco Bell Picnic Bench case to us by eMail. Our Pro Per Inc. eMail: Rights@EdwardLawson.com |
We're Pro Per Inc. and we approve this message.
GLASSBORO CODE: Chapter 354 |
A citation for Glassboro Code Section 354-4 for "Loitering" at Taco Bell"Any person who shall refuse to leave after being ordered to do so by a police officer shall be guilty of a violation of this chapter."
-- We say that provision in the Glassboro NJ Code is unconstitutional!
-- We assert that the Glassboro NJ loitering Code Section 354-4 "Loitering" invests the Glassboro NJ police with too much unfettered discretion, rendering it unconstitutional.
A citation for Glassboro Code Section 354-4 for "Loitering" at Taco Bell
If the Glassboro Municipal Court -- Judge: J. R. Powell -- and Glassboro Prosecutor -- Timothy Chell 856-881-0383 -- continue to battle to protect this Glassboro code -- and if David String is willing -- we intend to make a federal case out of it and have it overturned at a higher court as unconstitutional and a violation of the U.S. Bill of Rights.
-- Pro Per Inc.
Next Court Date: Monday, December 13, 2004 at 2:30 PM
Glassboro Municipal Courthouse
1 South Main Street • Glassboro NJ 08028
• Send your comments by eMail to Rights@EdwardLawson.com |
A. Definitions. As used in this section, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated:
LOITERING -- Remaining idle in essentially one location, and includes the concepts of spending time idly, loafing or walking about aimlessly, and also includes the colloquial expression "hanging around."B. Certain types of loitering prohibited.PARENT or GUARDIAN -- Includes any adult person having care or custody of a minor, whether by reason of blood relationship, the order of any court or otherwise.
PUBLIC PLACE -- Any place to which the public has access, including any street, highway, road, alley or sidewalk. It shall also include the front or the neighborhood of any shop, store, restaurant, tavern or other place of business and public grounds, areas and parks, as well as parking lots or other vacant private property not owned by or under the control of the person charged with violating this chapter, or, in the case of a minor, not owned by or under the control of his or her parent or guardian.
(1) No person shall loiter in a public place in such a manner as to:
(a) Create or cause to be created a danger or a breach of the peace.(b) Create or cause to be created any disturbance or annoyance to the comfort and repose of any person.
(c) Obstruct the free passage of pedestrians or vehicles.
(d) Obstruct, molest or interfere with any person lawfully in any public place. This subsection shall include the making of unsolicited remarks of an offensive, disgusting or insulting nature of which are calculated to annoy or disturb the person to whom or in whose hearing they are made.
(2) No person shall loiter on the streets or in any public place or in or upon any private property not his or her own, within the limits of the Borough of Glassboro, being under the influence of intoxicating liquors.(3) No person shall loiter on the streets or other public places of said Borough, and no person shall, on said streets or in such public places or from any private property or in any private or public conveyances within said Borough, indulge in and utter loud and offensive or indecent language, or shall address or make audible any offensive remarks or comments upon any person passing along such streets or public places or in any public or private conveyances or upon private property.
(4) No person shall obstruct or interfere with any person or persons lawfully being in or upon such streets or public places or such private or public conveyances or upon private property.
C. Loitering by minors. No
parent or guardian of a minor under the age of 18 years shall knowingly
permit his or her minor to loiter in violation of this chapter.
D. Discretion of police. Whenever any police officer shall, in the exercise of reasonable judgment, decide that the presence of any person in any public place is causing or is likely to cause any of the conditions listed above, he or she may, if he or she deems it necessary for the preservation of the public peace and safety, order that person to leave the place.
Any person who shall refuse to leave after being ordered to do so by a police officer shall be guilty of a violation of this chapter.
-- We say that provision in the
local Code is unconstitutional!
A citation for Glassboro Code
Section 354-4 for "Loitering"
at Taco Bell
E. Violations and penalties.
(1) Notice of violation. Whenever any minor under the age of 18 years is charged with a violation of this chapter, his or her parent or guardian shall be notified of this fact by the Chief of Police or by any other person designated by him or her to give such notice.(2) Repeated violations. If at any time within 30 days following the giving of notice as provided above, the minor to whom such notice relates again violates this chapter, it shall be presumed in the absence of evidence to me contrary that the minor did so with knowledge and permission of his or her parent or guardian.
(3) Violations and penalties. Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall, upon conviction, be punished by one or more of the following: a fine not less than $100 and not more than $1,000; or by imprisonment not exceeding 90 days or by a period of community service not to exceed 90 days, or both, in the discretion of the court.
