|
|
Post by casualreader on Jul 1, 2009 14:03:58 GMT -5
Freehold Voice Dudes and Dudettes: While all of you are focused on the borough response to the editor of the News Transcript -- no one has posted the latest accusation against Officer Colaner and the Borough Police Department. It appears as if the newspaper is digging into the case and doing some research. The whole Colaner issue grows more troubling by the day. Below is the link and story. Casually Wishing to Avoid Being a Victim of Police Brutality newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2009/0701/front_page/008.htmlResident seeks damages in 2007 police incident BY CLARE MARIE CELANO Staff Writer FREEHOLD — Attorneys representing a private citizen and Freehold Borough are working toward a resolution of a claim that was filed against several Freehold Borough police officers on Feb. 11, 2008. According to a complaint filed by Melvin Love, of Center Street, he was outside his mother's house talking to two friends on June 6, 2007, when Patrolman (now sergeant) Christopher Colaner and Patrolman Christopher Otlowski drove by and "taunted" him. The complaint states that Love responded to the officers' "taunts" by gesturing to them with his middle finger. Shortly thereafter, the complaint states, Colaner, Otlowski and several other officers returned to the premises. The document states that Colaner, Otlowski and unnamed police officers approached Love and said, "You want to give us the finger." The complaint claims the officers then "grabbed him (Love), threw him through a fence and Maced him." Love was then arrested and brought to police headquarters where he was charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. He was processed and released, according to the complaint. According to attorney Thomas Mallon, of Freehold, who is representing Love, the case is still pending, but is nearing resolution. Attorney Joseph Morris, of the firm McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney and Carpenter, LLP, of Morristown, is representing the borough's insurance carrier in this matter. Love's complaint states that he sustained bodily harm as a result of what he called the officers' unlawful, malicious physical abuse. It states that he also suffered damages in the form of lost wages and medical expenses and claims he will suffer additional damages in the future in an amount yet to be determined. Colaner has also been named in a civil lawsuit filed by Freehold Township resident Migdalia Irizarry, who accused the officer of improper conduct during a motor vehicle stop that occurred in Freehold Borough on Jan. 29, 2008. Irizarry's lawsuit remains pending. |
|
|
|
Post by casualreader on Jul 1, 2009 14:40:02 GMT -5
I mean giving a cop the middle finger is a dumb thing to do but I don't know that you should be beat up for it. But, the main question for me is how many more cases are there involving Colaner? Or the police department for that matter?
Is the prevalence of these cases worse in Freehold Borough?
Once again I ask the discerning residents of Freehold Borough to correspond with me at casualreader2@yahoo.com
Send me any dirt you have on this fine borough.
Casually Investigating
|
|
adefonzo
Junior Member
If I can see further than some, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of giants
Posts: 308
|
Post by adefonzo on Jul 1, 2009 15:53:47 GMT -5
I mean giving a cop the middle finger is a dumb thing to do but I don't know that you should be beat up for it. But, the main question for me is how many more cases are there involving Colaner? Or the police department for that matter? Is the prevalence of these cases worse in Freehold Borough? Once again I ask the discerning residents of Freehold Borough to correspond with me at casualreader2@yahoo.com Send me any dirt you have on this fine borough.Casually Investigating I see some things have not changed...and there are those who say that I am a negative energy towards this town!! |
|
|
|
Post by ddigler on Jul 1, 2009 16:22:25 GMT -5
I read the article above and several things came to mind.1) Very convenient timing..what took so long.2)the attorney maks his living chasing lawsuits against police..see his own website.3)when will the Transcript do all this due dilligence and research the people making these claims?? My guess is that it wont appear so one sided, how bout the accusor's history?ever arrested, history of violent behavior?ever had personal problems with officers or department? my guess is no one will touch it.....
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 1, 2009 16:40:40 GMT -5
I read the article above and several things came to mind.1) Very convenient timing..what took so long.2)the attorney maks his living chasing lawsuits against police..see his own website.3)when will the Transcript do all this due dilligence and research the people making these claims?? My guess is that it wont appear so one sided, how bout the accusor's history?ever arrested, history of violent behavior?ever had personal problems with officers or department? my guess is no one will touch it..... Very good questions |
|
adefonzo
Junior Member
If I can see further than some, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of giants
Posts: 308
|
Post by adefonzo on Jul 1, 2009 21:29:52 GMT -5
I read the article above and several things came to mind.1) Very convenient timing..what took so long.2)the attorney maks his living chasing lawsuits against police..see his own website.3)when will the Transcript do all this due dilligence and research the people making these claims?? My guess is that it wont appear so one sided, how bout the accusor's history?ever arrested, history of violent behavior?ever had personal problems with officers or department? my guess is no one will touch it..... To be fair...the article states that the lawsuit was brought in February of '08...what took so long is likely the legal system in and of itself...which can be dragged out by the courts or the lawyers. The timing of the article, however, does mysteriously coincide with the recent other accusations against Sergeant Colaner. As to the attorney's history...I can't say I am surprised. With all due respect to the like of Richard Kelsey, KA19, and countless other lawyers who work honorably within the law, there are countless others ambulance chasers who are constantly out just to make a name for themselves and create as much publicity as they possibly can. And as for the News Transcript doing a follow up about the accuser...well...don't hold your breath. |
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jul 1, 2009 22:16:29 GMT -5
I agree with Ddigler that the Transcript did not do any research. In fact, there is not even the obligatory throw away line that "... phone calls to the attorneys for the police department were answered at the time this article went to press..." Interestingly, while the article mentions the PD's attorney, it fails to say that they ever attempted to reach out to them.
And getting all information from the Complaint and the prosecuting attorney who wrote that complaint will only yield information pointed in one direction. And Complaints are not written by third party's but by paid advocates. Having this as the main source may be the only information available during the litigation, but there has to be an attempt to look like you tried to get other information.
I do think the newspaper had a duty to report this story. But, this story is from just one point of view, and therefore the NT failed in another duty to investigate the matter. And I think that is an overall problem with the NT on many many articles.
Lastly, the timing of this article is funny. They publish a letter attacking them... so they could counter that letter with this story.
|
|
|
|
Post by ddigler on Jul 2, 2009 18:37:34 GMT -5
Kudos to the council, chief of police and the pba on what I consider a well written letter to the editor.I'll stick to major newspapers if I want one sided reporting thank you.Shame on you NT for another disgraceful display of poor journalism.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 2, 2009 21:27:18 GMT -5
Kudos to the council, chief of police and the pba on what I consider a well written letter to the editor.I'll stick to major newspapers if I want one sided reporting thank you.Shame on you NT for another disgraceful display of poor journalism. I am glad someone agrees. I swore my letter writing days were over, but I just could not help myself with this. It backs up your sentiments. |
|
|
|
Post by ddigler on Jul 3, 2009 19:48:51 GMT -5
Just a few minutes on the NJ Dept. of Corrections website told me all I need to know about this new accuser....shame the reporter didnt take 5 mins to report the whole story.I guess you could say Melvin has a few axes to grind.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jul 7, 2009 15:40:59 GMT -5
I read the article above and several things came to mind.1) Very convenient timing..what took so long.2)the attorney maks his living chasing lawsuits against police..see his own website.3)when will the Transcript do all this due dilligence and research the people making these claims?? My guess is that it wont appear so one sided, how bout the accusor's history?ever arrested, history of violent behavior?ever had personal problems with officers or department? my guess is no one will touch it..... To be fair...the article states that the lawsuit was brought in February of '08...what took so long is likely the legal system in and of itself...which can be dragged out by the courts or the lawyers. The timing of the article, however, does mysteriously coincide with the recent other accusations against Sergeant Colaner. As to the attorney's history...I can't say I am surprised. With all due respect to the like of Richard Kelsey, KA19, and countless other lawyers who work honorably within the law, there are countless others ambulance chasers who are constantly out just to make a name for themselves and create as much publicity as they possibly can. And as for the News Transcript doing a follow up about the accuser...well...don't hold your breath. The case reads like a loser. No self-respecting lawyer would sign his or her name to it. The "news" is in the sensationalism surrounding the accusation, but more prominently shaded by the color of the accuser's skin. This is the type of stuff hard-working, family men and women have to put up with every day when they put on a badge and put their life on the line to protect us. They are harassed and agitated by a criminal element looking for confrontation for the purpose of filing lawsuits. It beats working I suppose. It's bad enough that everyday citizens don't provide the respect, courtesy, decency, and civility they should to police officers -- but then those officers must stay safe, keep you safe, and stay out of the line of fire -- quite literally, of these types of schemes and ruses propagated by criminals, gutless lawyers, and a weak judiciary. It is no wonder our neighborhood police are so guarded themselves. They do a remarkable job under circumstances few even understand. This case is a loser. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 18, 2009 17:08:32 GMT -5
njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com/2009/11/freehold-borough-pays-65000-to-man-who.htmlWednesday, November 18, 2009 Freehold Borough pays $65,000 to man who gave officers "the finger" On July 15, 2009, Melvin Love, of Freehold, New Jersey, accepted $65,000 as full settlement of his excessive force claim against the Borough of Freehold (Monmouth County) and several members of its police department. Love's civil lawsuit, filed in February 2008, arose out his encounter with Freehold Borough Police Officers Christopher Colanear and Christopher Otlowski on June 6, 2007. Love alleges that while he was talking to two friends outside his mother's home, Colanear, Otlowski and other unnamed officers drove by and "taunted" him. In response to the officers, Love "gestured to them with his middle finger." This gesture, according to the suit, angered the officers who allegedly threw Love "through a fence and maced him" and then arrested him for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and drug possession. The case is captioned Love v. Freehold Borough et al, Case No. 3:08-cv-00749-FLW-DEA . Love's lawyer was Thomas J. Mallon of Freehold. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a provision requiring both Love and the Borough from disclosing the terms of the settlement. Fortunately, however, such "confidentiality clauses" do not trump the public's right to know under the Open Public Records Act. None of Love's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $65,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Borough of any of the police officers. All that is known for sure is that Freehold and its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Love and his lawyer $65,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps Freehold's decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and Freehold wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 20, 2009 7:24:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Nov 20, 2009 9:56:21 GMT -5
njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com/2009/11/freehold-borough-pays-65000-to-man-who.htmlWednesday, November 18, 2009 Freehold Borough pays $65,000 to man who gave officers "the finger" On July 15, 2009, Melvin Love, of Freehold, New Jersey, accepted $65,000 as full settlement of his excessive force claim against the Borough of Freehold (Monmouth County) and several members of its police department. Love's civil lawsuit, filed in February 2008, arose out his encounter with Freehold Borough Police Officers Christopher Colanear and Christopher Otlowski on June 6, 2007. Love alleges that while he was talking to two friends outside his mother's home, Colanear, Otlowski and other unnamed officers drove by and "taunted" him. In response to the officers, Love "gestured to them with his middle finger." This gesture, according to the suit, angered the officers who allegedly threw Love "through a fence and maced him" and then arrested him for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and drug possession. The case is captioned Love v. Freehold Borough et al, Case No. 3:08-cv-00749-FLW-DEA . Love's lawyer was Thomas J. Mallon of Freehold. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a provision requiring both Love and the Borough from disclosing the terms of the settlement. Fortunately, however, such "confidentiality clauses" do not trump the public's right to know under the Open Public Records Act. None of Love's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $65,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Borough of any of the police officers. All that is known for sure is that Freehold and its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Love and his lawyer $65,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps Freehold's decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and Freehold wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened I guess that shows you what I know -- LOL. I called the case a loser. It shows you how crappy the NJ legal system is. It is clear the case was settled for less than the cost of litigation -- and it was further settled to avoid the "cost" of bad exposure for the Borough. The combined costs of those two items far exceed the payout -- which is why towns settle. The only problem is -- every time they settle, they encourage more suits and complaints. Thus, driving up there costs and bad publicity in the long run. In addition, settling the case essentially throws the police under the bus. I can tell you this - that case would NEVER settle in Virginia -- and, more importantly, would never be brought in Virginia. But hey -- some lawyer just made a handsome sum off a crap case. Some crappy plaintiff just made some cash in a case he brought on contingency. So -- now you get to see yet another reason and way NJ taxpayers get screwed by a system that is broken. |
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Nov 20, 2009 10:14:55 GMT -5
I guess that shows you what I know -- LOL. I called the case a loser. It shows you how crappy the NJ legal system is. It is clear the case was settled for less than the cost of litigation -- and it was further settled to avoid the "cost" of bad exposure for the Borough. The combined costs of those two items far exceed the payout -- which is why towns settle. The only problem is -- every time they settle, they encourage more suits and complaints. Thus, driving up there costs and bad publicity in the long run. In addition, settling the case essentially throws the police under the bus. I can tell you this - that case would NEVER settle in Virginia -- and, more importantly, would never be brought in Virginia. But hey -- some lawyer just made a handsome sum off a crap case. Some crappy plaintiff just made some cash in a case he brought on contingency. So -- now you get to see yet another reason and way NJ taxpayers get screwed by a system that is broken.
* Moreto said the money being paid to settle the matter was not an admission of guilt on anyone's part, but was a "business decision to prevent the continuous legal expenses from increasing."
* Moreto said if a similar incident occurs he would "expect our officers to do exactly what (officers) Chalfin and Turner did that day. Just as we defended them, we would defend every officer who goes out and provides the professional law enforcement services this organization and this township want and deserve."
* In commenting on the settlement Mayor Andrew Lucas said, "We are thrilled that our police officers have been completely vindicated in this matter. They are exemplary officers that represent our fine police department, which was recognized just last evening by the state of New Jersey as being one of only 18 out of more than 500 in the state that has achieved accreditation. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 20, 2009 13:25:52 GMT -5
With yet another frivolous law suit and our police department being dragged through the mud, I have to ask readers to please show support for our department.
Write a letter to the papers, go to the PD website and submit a compliment, go to a council meeting and tell it to the governing body, write about here, thank the cop you see on the street, donate to the PBA.....just do something and let them know that the good residents of this town appreciate the job our department does for us.
Compliments go a long way and the police deserve it.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Dec 9, 2009 16:42:31 GMT -5
|
|
