<BGSOUND SRC="soundsmith060602.mp3">
Welcome to the Cag's Data Base to arm you and your neighbors in your fight against our government


The telling of rampant criminal corruption in

New Jersey State and Municipal Government

 An audio tape of an conversation between Thomas Caggiano and Sussex County Soil Conservation District's Lawyer Mr. Brian Smith were a story of criminal conduct is described in detail with criminal codes. The recording is 16 minutes long and tells of non-conpliance with the Local Public Contracts Law by Stanhope and SCSCD in hiring professional engineers, two criminally submitted SESCPs certified ONLY by SCSCD and the illegal development, hundreds of non-reported offenses and that fact that Stanhope's Land Use Board has NO municipal engineer and all site plan / SESCP maps are illegal per the Map Filing Law all site plans and Maps MUST be approved by the official municipal engineer. The story of wide spread corruption is provided.

I, Thomas Caggiano went to SCSCD's lawyer's Mr. Brian Smith's office to obtain various documents I informed Mr. Smith I would submit a formal denial of access complaint with the General Record Council and he was to provide me a letter documenting what I had requested several times and that SCSCD refused to comply with the OPRA request.

I provided Mr. Smith the following letter and the tax map for Block 109 which shows the criminally developed 2 Lot minor subdivision with the lots of the 15 adjacent property owners completely surrounding the development who signed a petition to the Borough of Stanhope Town Council to comply with Land Development Codes, the site plan (and its grading profile) and restore the destroyed shade trees.

The result was a massive criminal conspiracy that continued at the May 30, 2006 Town Council meeting as those notes and the audio track of the corrupt Mayor Diana Kuncken, Borough Attorney Richard Stein, Govening Body and Town Administrator Ms. Teri Massood was obtained by replaying the town council tape on its recorder in the town hall under OPRA.

The criminally false certified plans were described to Mr. Smith, the criminal codes, the fact that Mr. Sedivy is under investigation by the State's Department of Consumer Affairs Board of Engineers and that Mr. Sedivy's four contracts reviewed none comply with the requirements of the Local Public Contracts Act and that Mr. Sedivy's contract should be terminated immediately pursuant to ays for inefficiency and .

Mr. Smith was advised that the Land Use Board has NO municipal engineer as Stanhope's municipal engineer is NOT allowed into the Land Use Board meetings and all site plans and Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plans approved by Mr. Cilo as a consultant are invalid as the Maps Filing Law specifically requires the approval of the official Municipal Engineer

Furthermore Mr. Smith was advised that Stanhope has for a week be unable even to find a valid contract for either Mr. Cilo or Mr. Keller

Listen to the presentation to Mr. Smith and replay the audio track as needed.

Hear the truth of the massive criminal conspiracy.

The Department of Community Affairs Codes and Standards did an investigation by Mr. Maher who was in my house for an hour and refused to leave my small foyer while 4 ft of evidence in many ringed binders which were catalogued and developed into separate functional areas filled the table with such titles as: Department of Enviornmental Protection, Department of Community Affairs, Department of Agriculture, Minutes, Site Photographs, File Maps, et al and made be walk back and forth between the foyer and the dining room down the hallway for the entire hour. I did manage to get Mr. Maher into the dining room but when he was in the room he refused to look at any of the documents on the table he was standing next to as I had Mr. Maher call his supervisor Mr. Gerarld Grayce and thereafter they ordered mre contact the Borough Engineer John Cilo Jr. as it was obvious from the photographs which were provided to the Town Council, Land Use Board, Code Enforcement Official and in more then 100 emails to HQ, Department of Agriculture and SCSCD's chairman Mr. Clifford Lundin and manager Ms. Straub and was convicted at their hands SIX times as the Stanhope Land Use Board refused me to even discuss the illegal development which is directly across the street where my mailbox is and the water in the spring in the canyon by the buried wetland was filled without draining and controlling the "under ground" stream once buried, the water came under the street and I got a sinkhole in my front lawn which was reported to the Town Council by 14 adjacent property owners when we informed the corrupt mayor, borough attorney, governing body and town administrator to comply with land development codes, the site plan and restore the destroy shade trees after the illegally issued certificate of occupancy without conditions was issued on Jul 10, 2002 and the property was sold by E.N.F. Developer Co. LLC with an existing 8' high single wall shown on no site plan which the Borough Engineer himself wrote the Town Council was NOT on the site plan!

Mr. Maher's report is a whitewash report for the Construction Code Official Thomas Pershouse who is a voting member on the Land Use Board and approves site plans (especially with critical slope variances and wetlands) which was for a two lot subdivision development with over 20,000 square feet disturbed. As Mr. Maher was provided the original site plan/Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan signed by the incompetent and totally corrupt then Borough Engineer John Cilo Jr., Mr. Maher informed me that since more then 5,000 sq ft was disturbed certification by the Sussex County Soil Conservation District was required which I informed him I knew which is why I went to SCSCD myself as indicated on the web site.

Mr. Maher knew he was criminally provided false information by Mr. Cilo, Mr. Pershouse and SCSCD's manager Ms. Straub that NO SESCP was required as he held a signed on in his hand in my home but never reported that in his report OR when he was contacted by the Sussex County Prosecutor's Office who conducted a criminal investigation. Over one foot of emails exists in his office which should be obtained by Ms. Farber the New Jersey Attorney General and Mr. Nobile the U.S. Attorney's Office as the emails provides the names of dozens of government officials who knew of the criminal activity and did not report it or actively participated as after-the-fact conspirators are direct participants in continued criminal activity as of the May 30, 2006 Town Council meeting and the May 8, 2006 Land Use Board meeting.

Criminal conduct continues in rampant fashion.

Below is Mr. Maher's "buried" report in the Department of Community Affairs that informs you the work on the lower wall in the conservation easement restricted deed area was AFTER the Lamicella's moved into their home.

If one reads the minutes of the Town Council meetings we describe exactly to the Mayor, Borough Engineer, Town Administrator, Construction Code Offical, Town Council who knew and directed the emplacement of the lower wall. Does anyone NOT know about the "WALL" that doesn't exist!

If so go to Cover-up and you'll see the corrupt Borough Engineer's John Cilo's photos provided to the Mayor and Town Council!

\

                                                                                                          10 East Drive

                                                                                                          Stanhope, NJ 07874

                                                                                                          Jun 2, 2006

Thru:  Brian Smith esq.

309 Front Street

P.O. Box 125

Belvidere, NJ 07823

To: Board of Supervisors

Sussex County Soil Conservation District - SCSCD

186 Halsey Road

Suite 2

Newton, NJ 07860

Subject: Visit of Jun 2 to Mr. Smith’s Office regarding OPRA requests and providing a marked-up tax map for Block 109 and a marked up site plan/SESCP and other data such as criminal codes and a letter from 15 property owners regarding the criminal conduct and illegal development and issuance of certificates of occupancy for 2 Oak Drive and 6 Oak Drive.

Dear SCSCD Board of Supervisors:

I have developed a web site that has no cookies, no java script, no java or codes that will adversely impact your PC and does not require a password as the data is now shared among the 120 State representatives,

Colleges, Universities, New Jersey agencies such as HQ, Department of Agriculture, Department of Criminal Justice, Sussex County Prosecutor’s Office, Office of Government Integrity, State Commission of Investigation, General Record Council, Department of Consumer Affairs, Department of Community Affairs, Borough of Stanhope, adjacent property owners, Society of Municipal Engineers, Society of Woman’s Engineers, Society of Professional Engineers, Star Ledger, Associated Press, Governor of New Jersey, U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Senator and Congressman, New Jersey Herald and various colleges and universities as I am in the initial stages as I noted in my letter to you of my case study analysis of municipal and state organizational structures, performance measurement systems, job descriptions, contracting procedures, obligations, disbursements, scope of work, technical issues, analysis of violations, governance and other matters. I provided Mr. Smith my thirty year professional background and college education at the undergraduate and graduate level and noted I have decades of experience in the “classified fields” which provides knowledge that Professional Engineers do NOT have access for national security reasons.

As noted I managed teams of engineers in all fields, had construction projects which required over 1,200 construction workers of all skills and do to the complexity and “classified knowledge” that the professional engineers in the Corps of Engineers nor their large AE firms could be informed, I designed systems which would perform missions without any PE knowing the “true’ facts as I was appointed as their technical international expert and just provide direction without question as none had the “need-to-know” and gave guidance to thousands of engineers, procurement specialists, program analysts, comptrollers, lawyers, administrators, informational systems analysts, construction workers of all trades, all engineering disciplines, chemists,  metallurgists, laboratory technicians, value engineering, manufacturing methods, quality control, safety, supervisors and all organizational as “THE POLICY CHIEF”.

Based upon my review, your Professional Engineer Mr. Sedivy’s Contract should be terminated immediately as I informed pursuant to 40A:11-15.i(a)(1) as his work product was inefficient and ineffective.

Furthermore the Board of Supervisors has on a consistent basis refused my request to provide “confidential data” as noted by Director Ricketts of the Department of Consumer Affairs to Director Monique Purcell who I have faxed large amounts of evidence of criminal conduct to Mr. Smith today.

The two Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plans approved by Mr. Sedivy regarding a single home in a two lot minor sub-division which had walls over 150 ft long up to eight feet high NOT shown on the two criminally false submissions by E.N.F. Development Co. LLC, Mr. Franklin Dawalt Jr., Mrs. Eleanor Dawalt, Mr. Wendell Inhoffer (PE), Ms. Judith Keith (PP) and others who are under investigation based upon the massive amount of emails I provided on a continuous basis to Mr. Sadley, Mr. Minch, Mr. Lundin and Ms. Straub which proved the criminal conduct, showed photographs of off-sites with detailed measurements of thickness, location and quantity were used by Mr. Lundin and Ms. Straub to convict me of criminal harassment as I continued to provide on a continuous basis proof of violations which could result in civil fines in the millions of dollars and criminal fines for providing willfully false data to SCSCD.

E.N.F. Development Co. LLC. never provided a complete application for either of the two criminally false submittals to the Land Use Board for its consideration. As the data was only provided to SCSCD, as the enforcement agent it was SCSCD’s responsibility to notify the appropriate criminal authorities of E.N.F. Developments criminal false submissions but instead SCSCD members had me convicted as I delivered copies of the site plan with a hand written note as noted in the Oct 22, 2003 Board of Supervisor’s minutes.

As the minutes state “on September 29, 2003 he came to the office with a hand written note.” And I was convicted. The note was written while sitting in SCSCD’s public parking lot and as noted on the note, I attached a marked up copy of the site plan which Ms. Straub refused to obtain even though her job description states she is to review a site plan. I continued for the development was illegal and criminal inspection reports were written and the shade trees were destroyed where E.N.F. Development Co. LLC thereafter installed an access point that was NOT allowed. As shown on Earth.Google.com, hundreds of unreported violations are evident which would result in millions of dollars in fines and incarceration. SCSCD protected the developer at all cost as it never contacted any of the seventeen property owners who wrote of violations, of mud in the garage, of mud on there property and SCSCD committed criminal conduct as it ignored all evidence including over 100 emails.

We the people have written our May 8, 2006 letter to stop the fraud and the continuous criminal conduct.

The Governor’s appointed representatives with Senate confirmation has just made a finding that the Borough of Stanhope acted illegally in “banning” me from inspecting records on the illegal development as Stanhope refused to provide as-built drawings, or in fact any requested document and refused to allow inspection of any Borough of Stanhope record. The Town Administrator Teri Massood who wrote the letters and the Stanhope Borough Attorney Mr. Richard Stein as well as the Stanhope Construction Code Official were all requested to stop development immediately in the Jan 8, 2002 letter I provided in vain to Ms. Straub twice. The lack of an SESCP was noted as well as other violations such as no wheel clearing as noted on the site plan for Lot 10 and Lot 12 ONLY from Oak Drive for as shown on the site plan, the trees are to be protected by the wetland so that privacy to the rear deck of 2 Oak Drive occurs and the rear deck on 6 Oak Drive was also to be built on the north side of the house to provide privacy to the deck on the adjacent 5 Valley Road;; however, the developer without any violations ignored all legal state and municipal requirements and just was allowed to keep building with criminally false inspection reports issued and the people’s letters to Stanhope Town Council and Sussex County Soil Conservation District and the executive secretary of the State Soil Conservation District ignored and has still willfully denied to contact any of the adversely impacted property owners. As shown on the Earth.Google.Com satellite image the required wheel clearing access points were never built as the site was overfilled, the trees roots were never protected, the properties and buffer zone marked on both criminally false SESCPS certified by SCSCD and never submitted to the Land Use Board with a fee  to be rejected shows 3 and 5 Valley Road adversely impacted, 8 Oak Drive adversely impacted, a sinkhole developed as water from the spring in the canyon on Lot 10 was diverted under the street to adversely my property with a sinkhole as witnessed by 14 property owners. All facts were continuously ignored for years by SCSCD and the Department of Agriculture despite hundreds of faxes and emails regarding the criminal conduct by the developer and  others.

In addition, Mr. Sedivy nor any SCSCD personal willfully refused to determine if any approved and certified plan ever exists and Mr. Sadley “certified a plan for something called Lot 12” incorporation without the contractor providing a fee for it to be consider by anyone in State government and had NO data as required by the “application requirements” had no % ownership affidavit and never received any required drainage velocity calculations. In accordance with Mr. Smith’s comments Mr. Sedivy did calculations in his head as no written calculations are made by Mr. Sedivy and the developer also never submitted any for Mr. Sedivy to even consider! Ms. Straub job description states “review site plan” which I provided an image on the 3 floppy disks I provided with photographs of violations and the site plan which after returning the floppy disks to me and place on her computer she deleted as well as the more then 100 emails I provided.

The State Department of Community Affairs investigator Mr. Maher was in my home for 1 hour going over evidence as did the State Committee of Investigations staff member Ms. Gore and Mr. Maher and his supervisor directed I take action. After informing the Borough Engineer and being threatened by the Borough Attorney Mr. Stein and Town Administrator Ms. Massood, I then with futility went the SCSCD as the Land Use Board stated  in their minutes that they could do nothing further and then refused to allow me to discuss the illegal on-going project in the Land Use Board meetings so I had no recourse but to continue to contact SCSCD and the Secretary of Agriculture as the Borough of Stanhope officials conspired to allow the criminal development to continue. My efforts with reporting the criminal conduct to Mr. Lundin and Ms. Straub who approved a knowingly false SESCP and another knowingly false criminal submittal by ENF was they had me convicted six times, fined thousands of dollars in legal fees, sentence to two years probation as their comrades and co-conspirators in the corrupt Borough of Stanhope continued their illegal threats of denying access without any charges and giving FINAL warnings as the criminal conduct continued month after month in our faces.

Fortunately the Governor’s appointees on the GRC haves started to put an end to this criminal conspiracy as it found the Borough of Stanhope acted illegally and the OPRA custodian is personally liable for perhaps fines in excess of $80,000 which will be referred to the Superior Court.

The corruption of the Borough of Stanhope’s Land Use Board and Town Council continued again in the meetings of May 8th and May 30th as even though the Director of Consumer Affairs has all four engineers under investigation and notified the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Department of Criminal Justice and the Director of the Department of Agriculture of its investigations of ALL PEs and that I have “confidential data” which she “referred to the noted authorities” the Sussex County Soil Conservation District and the Borough of Stanhope governing officials REFUSE to have it provide to them for their consideration of not only ineffiency of its own PE which is under investigation as well as all the developer’s professional but continue not to contact a single witness who reported mud in her garage and other property provided photos with them in the photograph standing on the mud and next to boulders.

The Stanhope mayor Diana Kuncken can see the boulders across the street on her neighbors property and the walls that do not exist on the site plan or the two criminally false SESCPs by Stanhope and refused on Tuesday after being provided proof of the criminal plans to even allow and discussion after the “five minutes” was “up” a closed session to review the “confidential data” which the Director of Consumer noted I had which she referred to criminal investigators. The Borough of Stanhope Governing Body was also told it was violating municipal laws as it “banned” the municipal engineer from the Land Use Board and hired the corrupt John Cilo Jr. as a consultant who has NO contract that the corrupt Town Administrator can find or for the municipal engineer either?  When I request to consider the removal of the Town Administrator Teri Massood who “manages” contracts that don’t exist and was told to stop the construction, the Borough Attorney Mr. Stein who was also told of violations and to stop construction stated the existing Chapter 2.2D doesn’t even exist?

Needless to say the words “corrupt” do not do the performance of government officials justice to their treasonous conduct which continues even when the Governor’s appointees finding is they are conducting their duties illegally.  Just wonderful.

I suggest my web site be reviewed and now listened to as sound files of what is actually being said by Stanhope’s corrupt Mayor and Borough Attorney can be heard as it is truly remarkable just being there and watching the criminals in actions.

Stanhope’s Land Use Board as noted to Mr. Smith has NO authority to approve any site plan or map or SESCP or master plan as per the Map Filing Law the MUNICIPAL Engineer is required to review, participate in the discussions and hearing and approve such maps. The Borough of Stanhope has developed new nomenclature to hire Mr. Cilo for who they can find No contact and call him “Land Use Board” engineer or “Board Engineer” as he is in really an incompetent and corrupt person as he is a liar, prepared criminally false inspection reports, ignores requirements for as-built drawing with a group of conspirators has two walls one in a conservation area built after an illegal certificate of occupancy is issued after the site is illegally developed with violations of codes (walls) shown on no site plan, write to the Governing Body himself NO walls exists on the site plan and continue to prevent detection and apprehension of its criminal conduct in all manners possible as they even deny its own codes exist and ignore mandatory codes, have no contracts complying with the Local Public Government Act, ban its municipal engineer from review procedures mandated in laws, and can’t even find contracts?  This is Stanhope.

I have attached three OPRA requests. Today SCSCD’s lawyer Mr. Smith informed me that SCSCD’s OPRA custodian refuses for a fourth time or is it the fifth as I lost count to comply with my OPRA request regarding the pre-existing education level or experience levels cited as required in the field inspectors job descriptions.

So for the record, I ‘ll try again with one for each field inspector.

Enter: thomascaggiano.com and follow the moving arrows.

A convicted person six times at the hands of Mr. Lundin and Ms. Straub who now have another site plan all marked up.  The last time I delivered one, I was convicted.  Hmmm Six Convictions. Not bad for giving

evidence of a continuous criminal cover-up of PEs all under investigation and no legal contracts awarded in accordance with the Local Government Contacts Law and site plans / Master Plan maps/ SESCPs “approved” by Stanhope in violation of the Maps Filing Law.  I gave up counting the laws violated. One of these years there will be lots of people going to jail with enormous fines and the site deed encumbrances removed, gutters properly connected to storm sewers, buried gypsum boards dug up, new large shade trees replanted. Just a few years MORE to go. You just need lots of patience.

On Aug 1, 2002, the New Jersey Herald Newspaper headline: Stanhope residents uphappy with new development. A group of residents told the (town) council Tuesday they think contractor Frank Dawalt is not complying with Borough regulations. The petition asks the council to ensure the construction complies with Borough regulations. Included in the letter is a list of concerns of which the main issues are soil erosion and flooding. “The seven foot wall is shoddily constructed”. The council could not take action on the residents’ concerns Tuesday because the matter is before the borough Land Use Board. Mr. Cilo who took a look at the property on Saturday and did not find it necessary to stop work” The illegally issued Certificate of occupancy without conditions was issued for Lot 12, 6 Oak Drive on Jul 10, 2002 and the property sold to the Lamicella on Jul 12, 2002 and was not under the authority of the Land Use Board. The work constructing the lower wall in the conservation easement and non-disturbance zone was conducted Jul 29, 2002 to Aug 15, 2002 was illegal as was the entire construction. The Town Council was the proper forum for 6 Oak Drive.

Aug 16, 2002 Mr. Caggiano writes a letter to SCSCD’s manager Ms. Straub complains that sediment over 7 inches deep on Valley Rd properties. Erosion control was non-existent. The developer had extensive non-compliance with the DEP permit (general conditions) an did not submit a Sedimentation Control plan to the State as  concurrent construction per NJ State Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act 2:90-1-14 Minor subdivision requires. I have hundreds of digital photos demonstrating the lack of erosion control and large loss of sediment from the walls; in some section 28 inch depth by 2 ft by 2 ft sections fell from the wall and into people’s properties below.

(There IS no such wall on the site plan or either of the two criminally false SESCPs certified for a single home NOT the project which were NEVER approved by the Land Use Board as NO application was submitted as the criminally false plans were obviously false as they had NO walls and a tree with a fence required to be saved that was already destroyed with three other trees to may room for an access point from East Drive that was not permitted as the access points were on Oak Drive and never built!)

At the Aug 26, 2002 Land Use Board public meeting, Mr. Roger Thomas “confirmed letters were sent to the NJ DEP and SCSCD requesting them to provide answers to Mr. Caggiano’s concerns. The Board has taken whatever action can be taken… Attorney Thomas noted nothing further can be done.

At the Sep 24, 2002 Town Council meeting, Mr. Heimberg questioned the wall. “Mr. Stein stated if there is a significant change, then the Engineer has no authority to approve that and has to advise the applicant he has go back to the Board to get approval for the change, which requires notice and a public hearing.”  WHAT WALL as none is on the site plan or two criminally false SESCPs certified ONLY by SCSCD's Mr. Lundin and never was either one approved by Stanhope's Land Use Board.

Mr. Caggiano alleged the State’s procedures for the rules and regulations regarding soil conservation were not followed by the builder. He further alleged that; therefore, the entire construction of the home is illegal at 6 Oak Drive. Mr. Caggiano stated he believes there were criminal actions which the Borough of Stanhope should be investigating. Mayor McNeilly stated they would take it under advisement.

 

On Oct 22, 2002, Ms. Dombroski of 3 Valley Road wrote a memorandum my garage was flooded with silt after a heavy rainstorm. My back yard has been flooded with silt after rainstorms. I am very concerned about the rock wall behind my house. (On the site plan there is no 8’ high rock wall)

 

On Oct 29, 2002 at the public Stanhope Town Council meeting, the minutes’ record is provided herein regarding two walls that were illegally constructed on Block 10902 Lots 10 and 12. Neither is shown on the fictitious SESCP with the SH#44 application. A single 8’ high wall existed when the certificate of occupancy was issued in violation of the State Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act (SESCA) and Stanhope Code 100-119 for Stanhope Block 10902 Lot 12 on Jul 10, 2002. During Jul 29, 2002 to Aug 15, 2002 the second lower wall not shown on the fictitious SESCP was built in the non-disturbance, drainage easement, conservation and buffer zone and shows the knowledge and complicity of the Mayor and Town Council.

“Mr. Caggiano stated the deed for 6 Oak Drive was signed on Jul 12, 2002 and he asked how the Borough Engineer could direct the (prior) builder (E.N.F. Development Co. LLC) to put the second (lower) wall in after the deed was signed. Mr. Caggiano contended that two applications were required to put up the second wall which traversed both properties (2 and 6 Oak Drive). The Mayor McNeilly stated he completed his review of this project and the Borough of stands behind its position on how this project is being handled. The Mayor suggested that if Mr. Caggiano disagreed, he needs to take it to another level”.

Well we now have the Governor’s support and his appointee’s on the Government Record Council’s finding was Stanhope violated State laws and the custodian willfully violated state laws.

Hmm, maybe I can get the Governor to expunge my six convicts where the judges did NOT allow witnesses to be called in my defense as I objected to the criminally false SESCPs on a continuous basis as Stanhope threatened me with criminal charges and as Mr. Lundin and Ms. Straub KNEW the SESCPs they certified for ONLY one home in two lot subdivision 11 months AFTER the start of the illegal development and three months AFTER the illegal certificate of occupancy was issued on 6 Oak Drive and Stanhope built walls in the restricted deed area, destroyed all four shade trees, never built wheel clearing access on Oak Drive and were told to STOP development on Jan 8, 2002 as NO required approved and certified SESCP existed which we have reported by 15 property owners. The Land Use Board and Town Council won’t even “accept the letter”.  What corruption.

SCSCD Mr. Smith please send me the number of times SCSCD’s custodian refused my previous requests concerning the pre-existing education levels or experience levels pursuant to the educational requirement qualification levels required in the field inspectors job descriptions and as defined as a government document in:

C.47:1A-10 Personnel, pension records not considered public document; exceptions: Data contained in information which disclose conformity with specific experiential, educational or medical qualifications required for government employment.

If Ms. Straub, the SCSCD OPRA Custodian elects to respond to this request, I still intend to file denial of access complaints for the previous denials of access so I require the data we agreed on you providing today.

To repeat, E.N.F. Development Co. LLC has a backhoe on Block 10903 Lots 13 and 14, no approved site plan, no approved SESCP, no silt fences, no hay bales, no stabilized access with wheel clearing, has cut down trees, is digging in an apparent protected area in the incompetently prepared plan and the Land Use Board has banned the Municipal Engineer Mr. Keller if he has a contract that the Town Administrator Teri Massood can’t find nor one for a consultant the corrupt Mr. John Cilo who is under three investigations and allowed the illegal development by ENF on Oak Drive, filed false inspection reports, allowed illegal certificates of occupancy to be issued, directed the emplacement of walls in a conservation area AFTER the deed was signed on 6 Oak Drive during Jul 27, 2006 through Aug 14, 2006 without any authority as stated by the Borough Attorney to the Town Council which allowed the illegal construction in a conspiracy.

On the web, go to thomascaggiano.com and latest addition is a sixteen minute mp3 sound file describing criminal conduct with SCSCD’s lawyer Mr. Smith on Jun 2, 2006:

Department of Community Affairs' Codes and Standards report by Mr. Maher. Criminally provided false information by Mr. John Cilo Jr. Borough Engineer, Mr. Thomas Pershouse voting member of Land Use Board and Construction Code Official who was told to stop work on Jan 8, 2002 by Mr. Cilo as he had NO Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (as well as the corrupt Town Administrator Teri Massood and the corrupt Stanhope Borough Attorney / Municipal Prosecutor who wrote me an illegal letter that I was banned from Stanhope under threat of criminal prosecution of harrassment and trespass as determined by the Governor's appointees on the Department of Community Affairs' General Record Council and Sussex County Soil Conservation District's corrupt manager Winifred Straub who had me convicted three times as Mr. Lundin its Chairman had me convicted twice.

This is a photograph taken of the single wall by Mr. Cilo after the property was owned by the Lamicella's after Mr. Cilo approved the site and the wall which in Mr. Cilo's own letter to the Town Council, Town Administrator and Borough Attorney is NOT on the site plan!

NOr is it on either of the two criminally certified SESCPs for a single home certified by the corrupt SCSCD chairman Mr. Lundin who groaned after I read Mrs. and Mr. Pawar letter to the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Lundin and Ms. Straub after he asked me. "Did the Borough Engineer admit the wall didn't me code?" and I replied;"YES".

The SCSCD Board of Supervisors' members, Mr. Lundin its chairman, and Mrs. Straub who ALL knew about the WALL that violated codes, not shown on its criminally false SESCP prepared by Wendell Inhoffer PE, Judith Keith PP and E.N.F. Development Co. LLC, Franklin Dawalt Jr. and Eleanor Dawalt ALL forgot to put that discussion in its approved minutes of the meeting!

And the criminals in the room had me convicted 5 times for sending them evidence of continuing conduct, fined thousands of dollars and two years probation and banned from visiting them in a public meeting have refused to allow me to present the confidential data I have as reported by the Director of Consumer Affairs that has its own incompetent Professional Engineer Mr. Sedivy who has apparently never been hired in compliance with the Local Public Contract Law requirements and get no contract amemdments to state what his individual tasks are, who does calculations in his head of required calculations by the developer that were never submitted lead by the SCSCD manager Ms. Straub who refused to get a site plan that is required to be reviewed by her in her own job description and had me convicted when I delivered a hand written letter as noted in the Board of Supervisors minutes but forgot to mention that the hand written letter states that the site plan is attached.

Below is Mr. Maher focusing all the Blame on the Borough Engineer but he never sends his report to the Department of Consumer Affairs Board of Engineers or Stanhope and does inform the Sussex County Prosecutor Office about the conversations which Mr. Maher as he held the signed site plan/soil erosion and sediment control plan in his hand and the Department of Codes and Stds Mr. Connelly, Mr. Mraw, Mr. Grayce and Mr. Maher ALL received dozens of emails in the foot tall box of emails in their building NEVER informed and criminal investigative agency or the HQ, Department of Agriculture or anyone in the Hughes Justice Complex which they are within a few blocks.

Their response was to block my email account so I could NOT send in any more evidence, as my email account was blocked by Stanhope and also blocked by SCSCD's Mr. Lundin and Ms. Straub.
I just harrassed them by sending them evidence of criminal conduct and was convicted five times and labeled a criminal by Stanhope and banned from the Sussex County Prosecutor's Office and told by the corrupt Office of Government Integrity that had reviewed the web site and not telephone the OGI, write them or fax them any any information as they, the OGI would NOT read it. I'll let you use the appropriate words.

My Reply to Mr. Maher's report

Subject: Complaint against Stanhope Construction Code Official Thomas Pershouse by Thomas Caggiano 10 East Drive Stanhope NJ 07874  973-347-4354

This complaint against the Construction Code Official / Stanhope Thomas Pershouse references the following documents:

  • Mar 4, 2003 letter from Mr. John H. Maher to Mr. Thomas Pershouse Re: 6 Oak Drive
  • Memorandum to CI-006-03 from John Maher, Subject Thomas Pershouse / Construction Official / Building Subcode Official / Stanhope Borough, Feb 26, 2003
  • Mar 14, 2003 letter Hilzer to Teri Massood, Borough of Stanhope Chapter 100-58-C
  • Stanhope Chapter 100-58-C faxed from Caggiano to Maher 3/13/03
  • Fax Nov 24, 2004 to Vaughn L. McKoy, Director, Division of Criminal Justice from Thomas Caggiano explaining criminal acts committed on project development. (attached) Subject: Protection Racket
    • The conduct of the Construction Code Official and evaluator John Maher were of complete negligence and  possibly criminal actions.

  • Ref b: Para 2: As noted the house was already constructed and the Lamicella’s were living in the house. A full certificate of occupancy without conditions was issued in violation of the State Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act (SESCA) based upon Mr. Caggiano’s appeal of a fraudulent Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan certified only by Sussex County Soil Conservation District for a single home on Lot 10. The plan certification was not submitted to the Land Use Board by the Sussex County Soil Conservation District (SCSCD) as required by the SESCA. The certification letter was submitted erroneously to the Town Administrator Ms Teri Massood, and although I had several meetings with her and advised her when I compared the site plan to the fraudulent SH#44 many false points were on the drawing; namely, the deck shown on SH#44 is at the same location of the site plan. Apparently Mr. Maher nor the Construction Code Official Thomas Pershouse never looked at the site plan for they would have discovered the deck is built on the wrong side of the rear of the house. The construction sequence before issuing a certificate of occupancy required the storm sewer lines and concrete junction boxes to be installed. These are enormous size items and were on Lot 10 after the illegally certificate of occupancy permit was issued in violation of the SESCA. In addition, the entire development of Lot 10 and Lot 12 was undertaken illegally as determined by the State Soil Conservation Committee in response to Mr. Caggiano’s appeal of SH#44 which was also invalid as it did not consider the subdivision. The ownership of the developer is unknown as the required SCC251 AP10 Application for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Certification submitted by ENF Development LLC for the Project Minor Sub-division, Project Location Municipality: Stanhope, Project street addresses: 2 and 6 Oak Drive, Block 10902, Lots 10 and 12 and its accompanying Ownership as required by the State Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act and Disclosure Affidavit required for Partnerships was not filed.
    • The undertaking of development violated the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act Section 4:24-53: Violations or Stanhope Municipal Code Chapter 100 Land Development to Eleanor M. Dawalt and ENF Development LLC for proceeding with the project on the development Stanhope Tax Map Block 10902 Lots 10 and 12  per State of New Jersey Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act Rules and Regulations Chapter 251, p.l.1975 Para 2:90-1.5 Procedure (a) and (b) and 2:90-1.5 Procedure (e). and Stanhope Land Development Codes which require SCSCD certification prior to undertaking development if a site plan is required.

    The Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan submitted for the subdivision and not certified by SCSCD was prepared by incompetent Professional Engineer Wendell Inhoffer, Professional Planner Judith Keith and approved by the Borough Engineer John Cilo Jr as critical slope variances were issued and Stanhope’s Land Development Chap 100; namely: Stanhope Chapter 100.63.1B.(6) Areas of 1,000 sq ft or more on slopes of 8% or greater .. shall have hay bales and silt fences installed in addition to the normal standards by the Soil Erosions and Sediment Control Standards and Sussex County Soil Conservation Standards” Do to the unprotected slopes boulders rolled down steep hills threatening the inhabitants of 5 Valley Road as boulders went into non-disturbance zone and onto their property some crashing into the Fleming’s rear fence over 50 ft away. The Flemings were so terrified they wrote a letter stating they could not have their grandchildren visit. It is unfortunate that Mr. Fleming a war hero died without seeing his grandchildren do to the threat of the steep unprotected slopes and a single wall that was failing.  Mr. Caggiano was present when Ms. Domsomki’s mother screamed at Town Council member Mr. Murphy and said: “ How could you do this to us, where were the inspectors?”  The minutes of the Town Council meeting when Mr. Murphy was challenged by Mr. Caggiano and only after repeated questioning and told there were three witnesses agreed he was screamed at by Mrs. Dombroski mother. The minutes only state: Mr. Caggiano ask questions a deliberate attempt to prevent apprehension, a criminal act.

    As the wall was close to the property line, a surcharged wall on no plan, its failure posed an immediate threat to their private property, general welfare and well being. The Uniform Construction Code TB 88-6 item 2 while not controlled by the height of the wall does required Construction Code Official approval prior to construction even if separated from the wall. The Analysis by Mr. Hilzer on Mar 14, 2003 is incompetent and negligent. In addition, all municipal codes are more severe then state standards and walls are the purview of the municipality under the exception of “local control” not the state.

    Mr. Thomas Pershouse is a voting member of the Land Use Board and would vote concerning approval of drastic grading changes and installation of walls not shown on a site plan, a lower foundation wall would require a variance and would never be approved by adjourning property owners as an 18 ft wide non-disturbance zone was defined do to drainage issues and high water tables. In addition Stanhope municipal code requires drainage control for a 100 year rain and the drastically overfilling reported by the Borough Engineer to be remedied was not. The house is built at the wrong elevation. There is no need for walls or fences. The fence did not meet Stanhope municipal code. An 8’ wall existed which a threat to children was playing in the rear area of Lot 12.  no variance was ever requested by the developer and the downspouts are illegally connected to the storm sewers directly without a recapture control system on Lot 12.

    On Mar 4, 2002 Mr. Maher informed the Construction Code Official to be more diligent. The house on Lot 10 is built at the wrong elevation, development violated the SESCA as no approved SESCP by Stanhope and SCSCD for the minor subdivision exists. Mr. Pershouse knows SH#44 which the Land Use Board received a copy of a certification but ENF Development Co. LLC never applied to the LUB for approval and it would have been instantly rejected for it is a criminal fraudulent plan as no walls are shown, 3 of 4 trees are erased and a letter exists in Stanhope Borough files written by Dawalt with a memorandum from Judith Keith that says the trees are not shown in the open area to be preserved, in the same letter Mr. Dawalt states the trees which are not on the plan are infected and in the same letter states they are but it was a mistake. The penalty for destruction of shade trees is a $1,000 fine and up to 90 days in jail. Mr. Dawalt, Ms. Dawalt, Wendell Inhoffer and Judith Keith submit criminally false reports and plans to state and municipal government. The mayor of Stanhope stated the trees would be replaced with the largest possible. The site is barren and in non-conformance with community standards as the tree roots were unprotected for months as no fencing was provided per the SESCA and then destroyed and a tree was shown on SH#44 that no longer existed at the time of preparation of the fraudulent SESCP.

    As noted in the Town Council minutes of Oct 29, 2002 the following is recorded:

    “Mr. Caggiano stated the deed for 6 Oak Drive was signed on Jul 12, 2002 and he asked how the Borough Engineer could direct the (prior) builder to put the second (lower) wall in after the deed was signed. Mr. Caggiano contended that two applications were required to put up the second wall which traversed both properties (2 and 6 Oak Drive). Mayor McNeilly stated he completed his review of this project and the Borough stands behind its position on how this project is being handled. The Mayor suggested that if Mr. Caggiano disagreed, he needs to take it another level.”

    The construction code official violated the Board of Adjustment resolution requirement to have as-built drawings prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

    The DEP Wetland Permit issued by the Land Use Regulation Program was negligently issued over the objections of the Stanhope Environmental Commission and Mr. Caggiano as localized, extreme conditions were noted in that a large marshland two blocks north of the location provided water and basements had collapsed in the past above Oak Drive and downhill of Valley Road, that a times a torrent ran in the canyon, the wetland extended over 150 ft with whitecaps and water flowed over the grass between 1 and 3 Valley Road. Despite protested Mr. Cattuna of LURP stated since no stream was indicated on a USGS map, he had no choice but to issue a permit. His analysis is false as protection of private property and tranquility is paramount and as reported to the executive secretary of the State Soil Conservation Committee on 1 Nov 02, sinkholes developed as predicted in 1999 and other adverse impacts of sedimentary and environmental laws and violation of procedures occurred.  The permit issued FWGP6 was issued 4/27/00 for Sussex County , Stanhope Borough, Block 10902,and lot 10.  The project manager was John Heilferty from our office.  The file no. is 1919-99-0001.1. Mr. Maher states he reviewed all records. If he reviewed the Board of Resolution he would have discovered the lower wall is built in a restricted deed, a non-disturbance zone and on a drainage easement. That no walls shown on the site plan or the fraudulent SH#44 which never approved by Stanhope and not available at the certificate of occupancy issuance. A search of the deeds would show a federal, state income tax fraud and county transfer tax fraud on the sale from Paulius to Eleanor Dawalt to ENF Development Co. LLC as Lot 10 was purchased for $40,000 and sold for under $200 and the tax assessment roles in the municipal building would show no decrease in assessed value.>

     As noted in Mr. Maher report, a lower foundation wall was built after the Lamicella’s were living in the home. On Jul 27, 2002 Mr. Caggiano, Mrs. Pawar, Mr. Pawar and Mr. Lamicella met with Mr. Cilo on the rear deck of Mrs. Pawar’s home. After lying three times that design had been reviewed and found adequate, I, placed a copy of the Land Development Chapter 100-58-C and had Mr. Cilo read it. The document was faxed to Mr. Maher on 3/13/03 and states rear walls cannot exceed 6 ft. While Mr. Caggiano is not a registered engineer he was a federal government employee, a Chemical Engineering graduate of City College of New York with graduate courses as Stevens Institute of Technology with over 200 credits, was the chief of an engineering branch responsible for billions of dollars of constructing explosives facilities through America, and an international technical advisor to the Corps of Engineers, a General Engineer, and a senior lever DOD Project Management Engineer with 30 years experience. An  on-site review of the single wall was conducted by Mr. Caggiano in the presence of Mr. Pawar and Mrs. Pawar. A single 8 ‘ high surcharged wall had sections as large as 3x3x3 ft fallen out, was built with toe out rather then toe in, and had too much earth between rocks. Photos taken by the Borough Engineer on Jul 27, 2002 show a single 8’ high wall failing and not meeting Municipal Code and were in fact

    The letter written by Mr. Cilo Jr on Jan 8, 2002 stated the municipal and state requirement for a Stanhope approved and SCSCD certified SESCP for the minor division; none has ever existed!

    The letter stated the site was drastically overfilled and to remedy the situation, stop construction. The condition was never remedied. There is no request or approval to change the site plan and grading profile. The sewer lines are installed at the wrong elevation, and I believe the houses are at the wrong elevation.

    It’s all illegal and once the criminals in the Town Council and Land Use Board are removed, Chapter 100 will be enforced and the illegal development removed; that is the houses, sewer lines, etc and the area rectified so it is safe for the adjacent property owners. That is the effect of the Construction Code Official NOT stopping!

    All the adjacent property owners suffered significant stress as illegal development and unreported violations went unreported and ENF Development Co. LLC violated too many laws to count ripping vines off power lines, having boulders rain down upon 5 Valley Road, destroy shade trees, have no wheel clearing, have sinkholes, the people suffered physiological harm, there were criminal trespasses and criminal nuisances constantly.  We signed petitions, letters, appeared at Town Council meetings, no letters were ever answered. We asked for hearing and were ignored. The Sussex County Prosecutor, Department of Criminal Justice, Office of Government Integrity and State Commission of Investigation were given CDs full of facts, false reports, false drawings, false invoices, photos of clear violations to no avail. Not a single violation was issued by either complete negligence or criminal conduct.

    Mr. Pershouse statement that it wasn’t necessary to stop the job is absurd, it was drastically overfilled. Things are built at wrong elevations.

    Mr. Pershouse states things were resolved before issuance of a certificate of occupancy? The fence on no plan was half built, there were no as-built drawings, the deck was built on the wrong side of the house, the sewer lines and concrete junction boxes were not installed, their was no approved SESCP approved by Stanhope and certified by SCSCD, the downspouts were illegally directly connected to drain lines without any variance, an 8’ wall was a felony and not shown on any site plan and Mr. Pershouse is a member of the Land Use Board and the identity of the developer by SCC251 AP10 Application for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Certification submitted by ENF Development LLC for the Project Minor Sub-division, Project Location Municipality: Stanhope, Project street addresses: 2 and 6 Oak Drive, Block 10902, Lots 10 and 12 and its accompanying Ownership as required by the State Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act and Disclosure Affidavit required for Partnerships was unknown as the paper work was never filed and he never re-inspected the insulation which failed the inspection and the power transformers to prevent brownouts on the Oak Drive houses was never installed by the power company?  I think he missed a few things? Either he is totally incompetent or a criminal!

    Mr. Cilo in his Jul 8th, 2002 letter had a site over filled with all the things wrong above and didn’t even realize he had a felony in the 8’ surcharged wall which was a threat to the inhabitants and private property, had trees destroyed, and no hay bales and sediment fences. Mr. Cilo is an incompletent and a criminal as he wrote false inspection reports without citing gross violations.

    Mr. Pershouse explained that all prior approvals were met? I suggest someone show him the above list of things that weren’t like the law as no Soil Erosion and Sediment Control plan approved by Stanhope and SCSCD has ever existed and there are no as-built drawings and the deck is built on the wrong side of the house!

    Mr. Pershouse is on the Land Use Board, Chapter 100 requires SCSCD approval if there is a site plan per Stanhope codes and State Codes require approval for over 5,000 sq ft disturbed and each lot has more then 5,000 sq ft disturbed and more then 17,000 sq ft disturbed on a minor subdivision!

    Ms Straub comment is false. As soon as I informed her a subdivision existed she knew the State Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act was violated as development was undertaken a violation of law and a certificate of occupancy was issued illegally without a permanent certified SESCP certified by SCSCD.

    Ms Straub’s statement that I complained is true. The development was illegal and every thing is criminal from Jan 8, 2002.

    John Cilo on Jul 10, 2002 attested to the retaining wall? It was a felony!

    2C:33-12.a Maintaining a Nuisance

    By conduct either lawful in itself .. Knowingly creates or maintains a condition which endangers the safety or health of a considerable number of people by exposing owners and visitors of 6 Oak Drive, 3 and 5 Valley Road to rocks and possible full collapse of large amount of heavily surcharged wall 1 wall that had no compressed footing, no toe-in, built with too much earth and not 2 over 1 construction and in violations of Stanhope Municipal Code 100-58C Walls

    Peter Schneider P.E< of SAG Soil Analysis Center reviewed the walls on Aug 15, 2002 that was after John Cilo Jr and the Borough of Stanhope invaded the Lamicella’s private property without any legal authority and installed a lower wall to hide the fact that an 8’ wall was failing and did not met code, was on no grading plan, not even the fraudulent SH#44 and was built only after John Cilo admitted the wall didn’t met code. Of course in Mr. Cilo official report he wrote: Mr. Caggiano is correct there is no wall on the plan!

    So he built another one violating every federal, state and municipal law in existence.

    He built in the lower wall without any notice to the Land Use Board or adjacent property owners, no fees are paid, the wall is built after a certificate of occupancy is issued illegally. No work is permitted at all. I called Mr. Schneider three times to correct his error; his response was Mr. Dawalt didn’t pay me to do that. What Mr. Dawalt paid him to do was help commit a cover-up of a crime by committing another crime. The report itself is a criminal act once I told him it was wrong.

    The single wall was failing as 3x3x3 foot sections fell out as observed by Mr. Pawar, Mrs. Pawar and Mr. Caggiano. Mr. Lamicella called the whole in the wall a bear cave! Other parts had toe out and not 2-1 construction. The wall was rebuilt and another emplaced completely illegally in a non-disturbance zone.

    The responsibility of the retaining wall is simple. It does NOT exist? Both the Borough Engineer and Construction Code Official are responsible for the travesty. If the surcharge collapsed, the Valley Road properties and inhabitants would be drastically impacted as large rocks traveled more then 80 ft and smashed into Mr. Fleming’s fence during development which was illegal as all times.

    If Mr. Pershouse had followed the Borough Engineer’s letter on Jan 8, 2002 the house wouldn’t have been built and now two houses will be destroyed as the entire development was illegal and its construction with overfilling, drainage controls is a continuing threat to the surrounding adjacent properties.

    Mr. Cilo should read the State Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act as SCSCD certification on a permanent plan IS required prior to doing any development or issuing any certificate of occupancy as stated by the State Soil Conservation Committee’s findings supporting Mr. Caggiano’s position.

    Mr. Pershouse allowed illegal development on a drastically overfilled site in violation of State and municipal codes, with fraudulent deeds.

    I recommend the Construction Code Official be fired immediately and criminal charges be investigated.

    The position taken by Mr. Maher that all allegations have been dismissed shows complete incompetence and negligence. It should be noted Mr. Maher and Mr. Grayce were sent more then 100 emails.

    It is believed as a minimum the following criminal acts occurred:

    2C:30-2.b Official Misconduct He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.

    2C:33-12.a Maintaining a Nuisance

    By conduct either lawful in itself .. Knowingly creates or maintains a condition which endangers the safety or health of a considerable number of people by exposing owners and visitors of 6 Oak Drive, 3 and 5 Valley Road to rocks and possible full collapse of large amount of heavily surcharged wall 1 wall that had no compressed footing, no toe-in, built with too much earth and not 2 over 1 construction and in violations of Stanhope Municipal Code 100-58C Walls

    2C:28-7.a tampering with public records or information wherein the actor’s purpose is to defraud or injure anyone.

    2C:29-1 Obstructing Administration of Law or Other Government Function

    By obstruction the detection or investigation of a crime

    2C:28-4.b False reports to Law Enforcement Authorities Fictitious reports

    2C:29-3 a.7 Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution

    Return to Main Index