Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Six Months Later - And Da Safety of Manalapan Women Is ?????

It has been just over six months since Manalapan Township Committeewoman Queen Michelle Roth had her now-infamous YouTube moment. During a meeting of da Manalapan Township Committee, in da middle of da business of da township, da Queen made a statement that is now front and center of a defamation case brought by da decorated and esteemed Manalapan Police Chief Stuart Brown. In that extraordinary statement, we were all told by da Queen about an apparent investigation being handled by da township labor attorney, who is on da township payroll, paid with YOUR TAX DOLLARS.

That was over six months ago. What has happened with that investigation - which was ordered by da township using YOUR TAX DOLLARS to uncover how many women have been allegedly threatened or subject to da alleged "rage" of Chief Brown?

Thanks to embedded sources within Manalapan Town Hall, as for this investigation that has lasted now over six months, what has been determined thus far into any irregularities regarding da Chief into alleged wrongdoing against women?

So far --- NOTHING!

Allow us to repeat this --- NOTHING!

To be fair, let's start first by going back to that fateful September evening when da Queen gave her crocodile-tear-filled read from a written statement mea culpa of allegedly how women in da vicinity of Chief Brown should hypothetically be in fear of their lives. Let's break down what she said - and this is on da record:

"Sexual harassment, verbal abuse and abuse of power by Manalapan Police Chief Stuart Brown are a big problem. Bringing this problem public creates a safer working environment for all the women of town hall and protects our residents and our township. The public need to know that Chief Brown has a history of verbally assaulting and threatening women. Chief Brown’s attack last September on me was not the first time he was threatening to a female employee of Manalapan … It is this governing body’s responsibility to make sure that this despicable behavior stops and that no other woman becomes a victim of Chief Brown’s rage."

She continued, "Those who came forward to defend the chief at the last meeting were probably not aware of the full scope of the serious issues we face with Chief Brown and his repetitive abusive behavior toward women. I say this because I cannot fathom anyone, male or female, who would support and defend someone who is abusive to women. Defending individual rights and keeping people free from harassment and intimidation, especially by a police chief who has sworn to uphold the law, is the responsibility of every elected official. I will continue to protect all the women employed by Manalapan against Chief Brown’s abuse, his demeaning language and threatening behavior. I do not want any other women to be victims of Chief Brown’s rage.”

Note da Queen's words, said during da business of a Manalapan Township Committee meeting very carefully:

"The public need to know that Chief Brown has a history of verbally assaulting and threatening women."

Is there a predator in our midst?

Without giving any evidence whatsoever, da Queen says da Chief has "a history of assaulting and threatening women." Not much "gray" area here. She claims clearly and distinctly that Chief Stuart Brown "has a history of verbally assaulting and threatening women."

Should da Queen be believed?

"Bringing this problem public creates a safer working environment for all the women of town hall and protects our residents and our township"

Is da Chief dangerous?

This basically says that, according to da Queen's statement, there must indeed be a problem, therefore, by exposing light to it and bringing it out into da open, women within da vicinity of Chief Brown now know he "has a history of verbally assaulting and threatening women."

Is this true? Can it be true? Why would da Queen say this if it weren't true?

"no other woman becomes a victim of Chief Brown’s rage."

Again, not much "gray" area here.

"keeping people free from harassment and intimidation, especially by a police chief..."

This statement, as it was said, basically says that "harassment and intimidation" by da Chief must have happened before.

Does da Chief single out women and intimidate them?

"I will continue to protect all the women employed by Manalapan against Chief Brown’s abuse"

Of course, we're all still waiting for this "abuse" to materialize.

Now, you don't have to believe datruthSquad if you don't believe da Queen actually said this. If you have any doubts as to what da Queen said, how she said it, and her demeanor, vocal inflection, and mannerisms of her speech, all you need to do is watch da video for yourself, which was posted on YouTube! This way, if some other website tries to spin da truth, or make up their own, you'll be able to judge da actual events for yourself!

Now, before we go to da investigation, let's give da Queen da benefit of da doubt here. Let's say for da sake of argument she is 1000% accurate. If she is correct, then what she did on that fateful September, 2009 evening took remarkable courage and strength and should be commended for her actions as da protector of women in all of New Jersey. Standing up to da bully - that's what legends are made of.

However, if this was, as some have alluded to, merely a publicity stunt to kick start a failing political campaign, or merely an action to tarnish da image and reputation of da Chief, then da door has been opened to a lawsuit that Manalapan taxpayers would have to pay for - since da statements came at a Township meeting, on Township time, at Township taxpayer expense.

Now, as for that "investigation...."

ISSUE 1: We have been told that an attorney representing Manalapan at taxpayer expense was supposed to be handling this investigation against da Chief, which, by da way, da Chief allegedly never knew about, which is a violation of his rights if indeed he did not know - and he has claimed just that. That investigation started before da Queen's mea culpa on September 9, 2009. That investigation was allegedly designed to seek out other women who she claims along with Tara Tiara have been subject to da "rage" of Chief Brown.

So, that investigation, being overseen by a paid-with-taxpayer-money township lawyer, has been going along for almost 7 months at da very least - that we know about.

What ever happened to that investigation?

What were da results?

Are there other women da Chief allegedly subjected to his alleged "rage?"

Interesting questions indeed. As for answers --- so far --- THERE ARE NONE!

DaTruth is, an investigation with da purpose of keeping Manalapan women safe has been going on for nearly 7 months --- with absolutely no word whatsoever on what results have been uncovered. Does this mean no other women, other than da Queen or Tara Tiara, feel they have been subject to da Chief's rage in da last 29 years of his Manalapan employment?

DaTruth is, a number of people have posted in our comments section that they believe this whole sordid affair could have been nothing more than a publicity stunt by da Queen to get da favor of da women's vote during her severely failed State Assembly election bid - da one she lost by a landslide. Was it a publicity stunt? Could it have been? Unfortunately, we do not know, but we can only hope and pray it wasn't, because hypothetically, if it was, women - any woman - will have a much harder time proving harassment if someone were to hypothetically cry "wolf."

Now, to be fair, both da Queen and Tara Tiara have both claimed they were just two of da subjects of Chief Brown's alleged "rage." However, as this blog has noted previously, Manalapan Township Deputy Mayor Susan Cohen has publicly stated on da record that da events as da Queen allegedly remembers them were not, according to Deputy Mayor Cohen, exactly as things happened, since she was an eyewitness.

Cohen said specifically that da Queen "left out key facts" and "gave an inaccurate account of the 2008 incident."

And, she too is, like da Queen, on da Township record.

Now, when it comes to da protection of women, Committeewoman Susan Cohen has a rock-solid reputation. She told da Asbury Park Press last September - and this is important -- "Cohen, however, testified in the disciplinary hearing (against Chief Brown) that both the chief's and Roth's voices had been raised at the 2008 meeting. She said in a phone interview that Roth left out key facts and gave an inaccurate account of the 2008 incident."

Now, this in itself not only muddies da waters, but it would seem casts a giant shadow on da entire case being brought by da Queen and her court against da Chief.

Here's where da severe problems are:

ISSUE 1: What if da Queen is telling da 100% truth?

Let's say da Queen is 100% right and da Chief did everything she said exactly as she said it, and her claim that "Chief Brown’s attack last September on me was not the first time he was threatening to a female employee of Manalapan." If that is da case, then why has this gone on for so long? Why has this investigation not been fast-tracked? If da Queen is correct, then for da last six months plus, and actually since 2008 - women have been in danger due to a snail's pace-like investigation. Why hasn't anyone spoken out about this? Are there other women who da Chief has threatened? Why have they not come forward? Do we know if these women exist?

ISSUE 2: What if, as Cohen alleges, that "Roth left out key facts and gave an inaccurate account of the 2008 incident."?

If this is accurate, then da problems here are much deeper, not only for da Queen, but for Manalapan taxpayers. You see, if what Cohen alleges is true, then a number of questions must immediately be raised. One - was perjury involved? Two - could this impact da case brought by Chief Brown and cost Manalapan taxpayers money in a settlement or actual legal victory by Brown? Three - why would Cohen say what she said against da Queen, and put her reputation on da line, if she weren't telling da truth?

ISSUE 3: Da investigation into sexual harassment against women by Chief Brown.

One would think that every minute this drags on means that women are in danger and living in fear. If a known child molester were in our midst, wouldn't people in da vicinity both want to know and more important, have something done about it? Right now - NOTHING IS BEING DONE - and potentially, if Roth is accurate, not one women is safe, and remains unsafe until this is resolved in da open.

ISSUE 4: What if da almost 7-month investigation turns up absolutely nothing, despite da Queen's claims to da contrary?

Well, if we were Chief Brown, one might suspect da name of da town of Manalapan might change to "Brown-ville" or "Stu-city," because da settlement alone might be extreme.

DaTruth is, Manalapan residents, and especially da women of Manalapan should demand from da boy-Mayor and da Township Committee what in da world is taking so long - how much this has cost - and what conclusions have been made at taxpayer expense!

Da longer this goes on - da longer Manalapan women are not safe. We have a right to know why this has dragged on for so long - what da findings are - and if truly Manalapan women aren't safe to be walking da halls of Town Hall.

It's time for answers - and we should demanding it at every meeting until we get them. And, Mark Rosman, it's also time for you to do one of those award-winning unbiased investigations you have become known for - and we have come to expect from you as a true reporter of Manalapan events.

If da Queen is accurate, then there would be no doubt women in Manalapan could be living in fear. Da People of Manalapan must have and deserve answers - and they deserve them now!

And that's daTruth.


Anonymous said...

save it for the courtroom, Stu. or better yet, save it for the disciplinary committee hearing.

Anonymous said...

I almost forgot about this. Maybe that was their plan all along?

Anonymous said...

Looks like Fred is still obsessed with Stu. Pathetic. Get a career, Fred. Apparently someone has brought charges against Fred (what a shock) for his securities misbehavior, and he wants to blame Stu for that, too. Pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Looks like XXXX M. XXXXX is getting pretty nervous about those securities related charges. You can always tell how hopeless XXXX feels by the frequency with which he mentions Stu. LOL. He's a lot like Larry XXXX in that regard.

George said...

Here's why this is so sad. Forget about if Chief Brown is innocent or guilty because I'm not going there. You have an investigation that everyone knows about into sexual harrassment. It's been over six months as the Squad says. How can any woman feel safe if this investigation isn't being done? I think this is pathetic. If he's innocent, let people know. If he's guilty, let people know. But to sweep this aside means that no woman will get the benefit of the doubt. If Roth did this as a stunt, she deserves to be kicked out of office. But we need to know one way or the other.

Anonymous said...

George is right. What happened to this investigation. Usually when an investigation no longer gets discussed, that means there was nothing found. Women have been in fear ever since Roth told everyone the Chief was some kind of predator. We need to know what is happening here.

And yes, I really hope this wasn't some kind of publicity stunt for Roth's election plans. If so, the state needs to step in and investigate her actions.

Anonymous said...

Why would Michelle lie?

Harlan said...

i think the poster who mentioned a disciplinary hearing was referring to the possibility that a lawyer representing a client in a lawsuit is not ethically permitted to anonymously comment on the matter as though the comment was being made by someone disinterested in the matter's outcome. Stated differently, i bunderstand the poster to be suggesting that if Stu id datruthsuad, he is guilty of misleading conduct in violation of NJ lawyer ethics rules.

Anonymous said...

I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't anyone have the right to speak about things, including lawsuits even if they are involved in them? Unless there's a gag order or something? I would think the first amendment protects them about this.

Harlan Fisk Rabinowitz said...

time will tell. the rules regarding lawyer ethics in the context of anonymous internet blogging are in a very dynamic environment. today, any conduct of a misleading nature by a lawyer may make him or her a future poster child for a more stringently disciplined profession.

Anonymous said...

" a lawyer representing a client in a lawsuit is not ethically permitted to anonymously comment on the matter as though the comment was being made by someone disinterested in the matter's outcome. Stated differently, i bunderstand the poster to be suggesting that if Stu id datruthsuad..." Duh. That's why only XXXX M. XXXXX, the person fined for securities law violations and XXXXX "I hate Italians" XXXX are the only two people still dumb enough to think Stu is datruthsquad. Most well adjusted people have figured this part out already.

'Harlan" Is Full of Hot Air said...

If this years' old canard about this blog had even an ounce of reality behind it, legal actions would have been brought long ago.

Anonymous said...

I would find it very unbelievable that the chief of the Manalapan police is some type of person with anger issues or a threat to women. He has been chief and on the force for nearly 30 years. If there was a problem, I would have to think it would have come out much sooner.

The thought that any person would use women for political gain sickens me. I would hope that Michelle Roth didn't do that. If it is ever proven that she didn, then she should resign her political job at once.

Anonymous said...

Yes, women in Manalapan are much safer thanks to Michelle Roth.

BTW, anyone want to buy a bridge? I have this really nice one that connects to Brooklyn for sale. Cheap!

Anonymous said...

The Chief is as much as a threat to women as the husband of Michelle Roth never said "Because I Hate Italians."

Anonymous said...

what really cracks me up is the constant attacks by XXXX M. XXXXX who has been fined for fraud, against an attorney with a spotless record, claiming the attorney with the spotless record is somehow or other going to have a disciplinary problem. Harlan Fisk Rabinowitz, more widely known as XXXX M. XXXXX just finds new ways to make a fool of himself every day. Ya think making up fake mutual fund companies to violate securities laws just might qualify as "any conduct of a misleading nature by a lawyer?" Moron.

harlan said...

"'Harlan" Is Full of Hot Air said...
If this years' old canard about this blog had even an ounce of reality behind it, legal actions would have been brought long ago.

Thursday, March 04, 2010"

They were, and you got EFF to help you block the facts from coming out, But when the disciplinary process starts, the First Amendment won't be your fig leaf.

Anonymous said...

Questioning the ethics of Stu Moskowitz isn't the issue here, nor should it be.

The issue, and I think the Squad makes a very good case (he/she probably is a lawyer) is that a person (Chief Brown) was not only alleged, but was said to be in no uncertain terms a threat to women - "The public need to know that Chief Brown has a history of verbally assaulting and threatening women" is what Roth said. This is either true or it isn't. The investigation the Squad alludes to has gone on for seven months. What happened to it? Watergate was solved sooner.

If the Chief is indeed a threat to women - fire him. If he isn't, Roth should resign for putting residents at unease, defaming the chief of police, and causing irreperable harm ot the town.

So, which will it be?

Anonymous said...

yeh, Fred questioning Stu's ethics, while Fred himself is scrambling to defend the disciplinary charges brought against him!! Talk about transference!! Questioning Stu's ethics -- especially when it's done by Manalapan's most dishonest attorney, XXXX M. XXXXX is like Obama questioning McCain's experience and military service.

To the eponymous sullier of a fine justice said...

Re: "But when the disciplinary process starts, the First Amendment won't be your fig leaf."

What's the holdup? You've been threatening and ruminating about this for years.

Harlan said...

Anonymous, pretending to be someone other than Stu. Hmmm, sounds a lot like what got Spitzer PO'd at XXXX's company.

BTW, make sure to get your copy of Lloyd Constantine's new book about Spitzer.

Anonymous said...

Now Fred wants to make Eliot Spitzer the bad guy for shutting down his mutual fund fraud. Typical.

To the Administrator said...

You do realize you're boring all of us to death with Fred's endless, psychotic, obsessive, repetitive,nonsensical,illogical, idiotic and absurd daily threats and attacks on Stu, don't you? I know that's Fred's goal. To stop people from reading this site and learning the truth. NJ.COM finally wised up to him, why haven't you? The first amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to bore people with nonstop defamation against someone, especially on a private blog site.

Anonymous said...

there are many lawyers in NJ who might commence such a process, XXXX not being a NJ lawyer nor a client or former client of Stu's, thank heavens, and having never even threatened to be a complainant in such a matter. only someone like stu would shtoop so low.

Anonymous said...

So, let me make sure I understand you, Fred. You have posted at least a dozen posts with the nonsense that Stu is going to have a disciplinary hearing against him for posting -- a ridiculous enough proposition -- but now you're saying that it's STU that's going to bring those charges against himself. Sure. Ok. Fred, you're a very sick little man. LOL. Very sick. Go home, Fred. You're a silly man. A ridiculous person. I know you need attention, you always have. But wasn't the SEC fining and suspension enough attention for you? Why is it you have this drastic need to embarrass yourself? Most people want positive attention. You thrive on making a fool of yourself. That's not healthy Fred.

friend of XXXX said...

try to understand english stu: only you would complain to the disciplinary authorities about XXXX, which of course, as you know, you did, even though you made a laughing stock of yourself by lying to public officials. XXXX wouldn't do it against you, because he's not evil and doesn't have any desire to destroy you. but he apparently believes that opposing counsel in a lawsuit where you are posting anonymously might find it appropriate to nail your behind to the wall.

Anonymous said...

It would seem to me that there is someone who keeps posting here things about the lawyer for Chief Stu Brown whose sole agenda is to deflect away from the topic and accuse others of crimes that don't exist.

I agree with the DTS on this. After what is about 7 months, for absolutely no information to be brought forth makes Roth's case smell too fishy for me.

Maybe if the town lawyer's investigation isn't going anywhere, maybe the state attorney general would like to try. Then maybe she could also look into the actions of Roth and others while she's at it.

Anonymous said...

Asking the state to come in might just be the right idea. It's not like the Feds don't already know where Manalapan is. They've raided town hall and the WMUA before. By the time they've turned over the third rock, they'll probably find something really good.

Hal from Linden, NJ said...

I'm not familiar with all of the players here. But if someone is or was a lawyer who has been investigated and charged with some crime by the SEC, and that's the person leading attacks, that doesn't say too much about that person's side in this.

Also, Manalapan residents, don't feel too bad. Linden politics ranks up there with yours. The only thing we don't have is someone like the datruthSquad to uncover the corruption like you people do.

TaxpayerandIvote said...

What is so surprising about the lack of public information regarding a personnel issue such as a harassment investigation? What was surprising was a Township Official making a strong public statement about a personnel issued directed at a public employee. The Council could not make any statements about how much we were paying the lawyers in the suit against the former Township Attorney, but they let one of their own go to town talking about a personnel issue.

Anonymous said...

"The Chief is as much threat as the husband of Michelle Roth never said 'because I hate Italians'"

That is some quote. Is that an actual sentence? This is not your typical typo, which happens all the time. This seems to have been written by someone who dropped out of school in the third grade. How can anyone take your comments seriously if you can't write a simple sentence! Please stop commenting and go back and complete the third grade so we can all figure out what the hell you are talking about. Idiot.

Anonymous said...

" go back and complete the third grade so we can all figure out what the hell you are talking about. Idiot."

Come on, Larry. Are YOU really the person who should be criticizing someone else's writing skills? Tell us why you closed your office, you know, the one where you were trying to make a living as a professional writer. Bob Woodward, indeed. LOL.

Anonymous said...


You discuss how fine a guy Rosman is, yet in the column to the right, you we're calling them the "snoozepaper" with "bozo-torials less than 2 years ago. What up widdat? Can a newspaper go from lining the birdcage straight to pulitzer prize material just because one "Lady" retired? Maybe you and Stu Brown have similar views on women, whatcha say?

Anonymous said...

If the "lady" you are referring to is the person who "retired" then you may need a refresher course on Facts 101.

The jury is still out on whether she truly did "retire," but there is no evidence to support your definition of "lady."

Anonymous said...

Kathy, stop blaming everyone else for your failure. You were fired by Mark because you embarrassed the newspaper printing the Roths' press releases and being personally obsessed with Stu. That's not Stu's fault. That's not Mark's fault. It's your fault. And you've learned nothing from your failure. That's the sad part.