Hello.

My name is John Menso. I am a single, forty seven year old Nassau County, New York resident, who has lived in the County since 1963. In 1972, at the age of eighteen, I joined the North Massapequa Young Republican Committee and cast my first vote in a Presidential election.

The next year I entered the voting booth and tugged the lever under the name of Denis Dillion. As the years went by I continued to tug the same lever because I was happy I lived in a community which was relatively free of violent crime. It pleased me to know that when a person is arrested and convicted in Nassau County, they generally do not walk away with a slap on the wrist.

Unfortunately, as a result of an encounter with District Attorney Dillion's staff, I was not able to tug the lever under Denis Dillion's name during this recent 2001 election.

My encounter with District Attorney Dillion's staff led me to question the methods his office uses to achieve such a high conviction rate.

Before I get into why, after twenty eight years of supporting him, I was unable to vote for District Attorney Denis Dillion during the 2001 election, let me briefly tell you about me.

Two days after graduating high school, I quit my partime job and went to work full time in the air conditioning and heating field. I spent ten years in the field before changing vocations and being sworn in as New York City Police Officer.

I spent the first ten of my twelve and a half year career in the 79th Precinct, which serves the community of Bedford Stuyvesant, Brooklyn. I had a great career going in the NYPD. After working only twenty three months in uniform, I was transferred to plain clothes, Anti Crime duties. After working approximately twenty six months in Anti Crime, I was transferred to the 79th Precinct Precinct Robbery Unit. Next thing I knew, I had a Detective Investigator shield in my pocket.

After conducting hundreds and hundreds of robbery investigations, The Commanding Officer of the 79th Precinct Detective Squad invited me to come work for him and help out with the sixty plus homicides he was attempting to cope with that year. My first homicide investigation involved a triple murder on the street. With help from veteran homicide investigators, three arrests were made and three were convicted of felonies.

After ten years in the 79th Precinct, I decided it was time to find a precinct closer to home. I ended up in the 109th Precinct Detective Squad, in Flushing. It was here where *I made a big mistake*. I violated my terms of employment by using marijuana which was discovered two days later during a random drug screening. I know, I'm a knucklehead, a bigtime knucklehead!! I threw away a great career and have no one else to blame, but myself. I knew the rules and I used poor judgement. Fortunately for me, in the State of New York, it is not a crime to use poor judgement. My only solace is, I was not fired for engaging in criminal behavior.

There are reasons I wanted to mention my background before getting into why I did not vote for Denis Dillion in the last election. I wanted whoever may read this article to know when it comes to conducting proper and thorough criminal investigations, I have a substantial background. I had a successful track record for lawfully conducting hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of criminal investigations.

I also wanted the reader to know I am not bitter toward the police. I am the one responsible for losing my job, not the police department. Fact is, today I admire hard working officers with integrity more than I did before I became a police officer at the age of twenty eight.

There is another reason for this prelude to the facts of my encounter with the Nassau County District Attorney's Office. I am going to accuse police officers of committing criminal acts against me and the People of the State of New York. It saddens and angers me to be placed in the position of having to make such allegations, but I sincerely believe this is the case.

I also believe that certain members of District Attorney Dillion's staff are willing to over look crimes committed by their own civilian and police witnesses, in order to cover up for their bungled and malicious prosecution of me.

"Bungled" and "malicious"...These are extremely harsh words, aren't they? Believe me, I'm not thrilled that I have to use them to describe acts committed by professionals who most of us consider respected and honorable members of our community...but if you read on, I believe you will find I am not exaggerating.

Here is why I was not able to vote for the Honorable District Attorney Denis Dillion in the 2001 election.

The event which led to my encounter with DA Dillion's staff occurred on July 4, 2000, at about 9:00 PM, when my dispatcher directed me to pick up a fare. As usual, he advised the customer it would take me only twenty minutes to arrive at her location. Unfortunately, it took me close to thirty five minutes to arrive at her location.

When I arrived she was fairly agitated and let me know by asking me, "are all cab drivers stupid? I gave the guy over the phone exact directions on how to find me and none of you cab drivers can get it right. Are all cab drivers stupid?"

I ignored her and pushed the record button on my tape recorder as I backed out of the dark, dirt road where I picked her up. As I started to drive away she asked me, "are you going to answer me? Are all cab drivers stupid?" I slowed the car and told her if she wasn't happy with our service she could find another one. She said, "fine", and I stopped the car, bidding her farewell. She then told me to take her to her destination.

In accordance with company policy, I asked her to pay me in advance. She adamantly refused while stating, "this is bullshit", three times in a row.

At this point, her eyes almost bug out of her head when she sees me fiddling around with the tape recorder. I ask her to repeat what she said and she stammered for a moment before replying, "you're full of it", three times in a row. I repeatedly requested she pay me and she refused, demanding I take her to her destination.

Then, when I attempted to contact my dispatcher, she started making allegations about my driving, even though I had only driven less than fifty yards before she agreed to find another cab service.

The transcript of our taped conversation appears later in this article.

I immediately call my dispatcher to request he call the police. While I was attempting to contact my dispatcher, the disorderly person who refused to pay me has now moved to the middle of the rear seat and is shouting over my right shoulder as I try to raise my dispatcher. I told her to sit back at least twice before sarcastically telling her, "why don't you tell him I ripped your leg off and threw it in the woods, what is wrong with you, Lady?", as she continued to shout how recklessly I was driving, toward the radio mike I was holding.

As she continues shouting over my shoulder, I feel a tug at my seat belt. She grabs the tape recorder, breaking the tape recorder's strap which I used to secure it in place next to my bucket seat. I tried to stop her with negative results.

I turned toward her and demanded she give it back as she holds it eye level by her face, fumbling with it and apparently trying to figure out how to remove the tape or erase it? I turn in my seat for a better angle to reach back toward her and as I reach for the recorder she thrusts it quickly toward my face. I flinch back for a moment before lunging at her and attempting to grab my recorder. She pulls the recorder down by her waist and this 206 pound woman (I weighed 160 lbs.) holds it in a death grip which I could not overcome. I tried to wriggle closer to her to get a better angle at defeating her grip and she head butts me. (no injury or substantial pain suffered by me)

At this point I elevated the use of physical force and clamped my teeth around her arm, figuring any reasonably sane person would let go. Again, she head butted me (glancing blow).

I then bit her lower arm while at the same time telling her to let go of my property. Finally she pulled her arm out of my mouth and after a few more moments of struggling, she let go of MY recorder.

I bolted from the car and waited several minutes for the police to arrive at the scene of a taxi/customer dispute on July 4th night. As I stood there, I felt uneasy when I realized I was in close proximity to the dark, dirt road where I picked the emotionally disturbed person up.

I decided to get back in the cab where I admonished her to keep quiet. I told her I was bringing her to the cab office and calling the police. I believe it was at this time I noticed the perpetrator had sustained a minor laceration to her arm as a result of wrenching her arm from my mouth instead of letting go of MY property.

I never intended to injure her, I wanted my property back before she caused more damage or destroyed the tape. During the approximately six minute ride to the cab office, the woman sobbed a bit but did not utter one word, now that I had my tape recorder back.

Upon arrival at the cab office, I immediately called 911 and requested the police respond to arrest the woman for "robbery." After completing this call, I noticed my dispatcher was no where to be found. The driver filling in for him informed me the dispatcher told him to watch the office before commandering the driver's car.

Minutes later, my dispatcher arrived back at the office. I asked him why he did not respond to me when I advised him to have the police respond to where I picked the person up. He told me he tried calling 911 and it was busy. I raised an eyebrow at his reply but let it go because, after all, he is my boss. He also informed me he attempted to respond to the scene by himself.

- He later admitted to me he did not call 911 because he felt he could handle the situation involving a disgruntled "customer," without police involvement - He has twenty seven years with the company and I was a new driver, who just started driving a cab approximately three months earlier. At the time, we work together twice a week.

The woman, who I later learned is Paula Nichols, of Pauley Drive, West Hempstead, NY, entered the cab office and started acting like a emotionally disturbed person, again. The cabbie whose car the dispatcher took was working the inside dispatcher's window and told her to calm down before talking to him. Nichols sat on the bench for a few moments and then made a phone call, part of which I eavesdropped on. She did not call 911. She in fact, called her friend, "Bill," at the location where I picked her up.

Her friend, William (Bill) Finetta, showed up at the cab office prior to any police officers arriving at the cab office. I later learned the location where I picked Nichols up is the Chestnut Vale Horse Stable, located at 1912 Route 106, Muttontown, N.Y. The stable is owned by William Finetta. I also learned Nichols owns three horses which she houses at the Finetta's stable.

I also learned that Nichols friend, Bill Finetta, who is a business owner in Muttontown, one of five upscale, affluent communities served by the Old Brookville PD, had placed a call to the OBPD 911 operator and informed him or her that his "friend" had been assaulted by a taxi driver.

He told the 911 operator he was going to the Hicksville cab office to pick her up and bring her to their headquarters. If Finetta truly felt Nichols was a victim, I would like to know why he did not immediately take his friend to the OBPD headquarters as he told the OBPD 911 operator he would? He arrived prior to the Nassau County Officer. Why didn't he whisk her away immediately? Probably because he knew I called the police and wanted to have Nichols arrested, as I told her I was going to.

Based on my call to 911, Officer Visterino from the Nassau County PD's, 2nd Precinct, arrived at the Hicksville cab office. I approached the officer and voluntarily gave him a brief summary of what had transpired. I also informed him I recorded the incident on audio tape before sheepishly telling him, "I used physical force. I bit her."

While I was speaking to Officer Visterino, Nichol's friend, Bill Finetta, was standing in close proximity to us, listening to me briefly explain what had occurred.

When I finished speaking to Officer Visterino, Nichol's friend, Bill Finetta, informed the officer, in my presence, that Nichols was incapable of hurting anyone because she was recovering from injuries to her shoulder and leg.

Paula Nichols was wearing an inexpensive, sleek, purple, plastic leg brace when she got into my cab.

Officer Visterino got out of his RMP and we walked over to the vicinity of the cab office where we started to listen to the audio recording of the event. At the same time, Bill Finetta was standing in close proximity and attempting to listen in on the recording. Because it was apparent to me Bill Finetta was there to advocate for his friend and patron, I asked the officer if we could be a little more discreet when listening to the tape. Officer Visterino turned the tape off and walked away from me and Finetta, heading toward the front door of the cab office.

At this point I decided to stay out of the officer's way and let him do his job. I walked over to my dispatcher's outside window while I waited for the Officer to review the tape. I was confident the audio tape, statements from my dispatcher and the apparent damage to my tape recorder (broken strap) would provide enough evidence for the perpetrator, Nichols, to be arrested. I was wrong.

After I gave Nassau County Officer Visterino the audio tape, I observed him enter the cab office, with Finetta close behind. I observed Visterino engage Nichols in conversation and Finetta was right there, apparently still advocating for his friend. While I could not hear what was being said, I did see how Visterino reacted to this conversation. He asked my dispatcher if he could use the office phone to call the Old Brookville P.D. He informed the OBPD 911 operator that he was at the Hicksville cab office with me and Finetta's friend.

Fortunately for Nichols, Visterino acted properly and referred this case to the appropiate police agency. Unfortunately for me, the private police agency he referred the case to was the same one Nichols friend, Finetta, pays to provide private police service to him and his business.

Old Brookville PD officers arrive, enter the cab office and engage in conversation with the Nassau County Police Officer and Bill Finetta. I immediately had a gut feeling that I may have a problem but still remained outside the cab office and waited for an officer to come and interview me regarding the matter.

While I was waiting for the police to interview me, I went to get a cigarette from my cab. The Old Brookville PD Sergeant, who I later learned is Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano, noticed this, ran out of the cab office and ordered me to return to where I was originally standing. He also ordered one of his officers to guard me while he went back inside with the Nassau County Officer, Paula Nichols and his employer, Bill Finetta. Also present was a county AEMT technician who had arrived to treat Nichols, the perpetrator, for a minor laceration to her left arm. She was later removed to a hospital where a doctor examined her and treated her cut with peroxide before she was released.

The Nassau County Officer who I voluntarily gave my tape recorder and audio tape to approached me and asked me for my social security number while pointing his finger at me, telling me I was wrong for injuring the woman. Even though he had not bothered to ask me for the details of the incident or taken the time to interview my dispatcher, he apparently felt he was within his rights to scold me. I was deeply impressed by his professionalism. After recording my social security number in his memo book and scolding me, Officer Visterino asked Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano of the Old Brookville Private Police Department, if he was needed anymore. Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano assured the Nassau County Officer that he and his officers would handle the matter. Officer Visterino left the scene.

Moments later, I was approached by Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano, of the private Old Brookville PD, who informed me I was being arrested for 3rd degree Assault. Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano also informed me I should cooperate because they were going to issue me a Desk Appearance Ticket. I was stunned.

I later learned Sergeant Piampiano left his post as Station House Desk Officer to come down to the cab office and personally conduct this routine "assault" investigation.

As a former police investigator, I immediately knew the fix was on as a result of Bill Finetta responding to the scene and advocating for his friend, Paula Nichols. At this point, I knew the best thing to do was keep my mouth shut and let the police commit a criminal act of Official Misconduct as defined in Article 195.00 of the NYS Penal Law. Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano had a lawful obligation to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation. He chose not to. During my trial, he demonstrated a further lack of integrity by choosing to testify falsely, under oath, with regard to the circumstances of my arrest. I will elaborate on his false testimony later in this article.

However, I did make a comment immediately after Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano informed me I was being arrested. I asked him, "what about the tape?" The Sergeant responded, "there's nothing on it." Again, I was stunned.

I was handcuffed and a quick field search of my person was conducted before being transported to Old Brookville Police Headquarters for arrest processing.

Upon arrival, I was told to face the wall for a body search. The Old Brookville Officer who searched me for contraband and weapons, for his own safety, as well as his fellow officer's safety, did not search my groin area. I was placed in the detention cell with my belt, shoes and laces still affixed to my body. Several times throughout my detention I was left unattended. At no time did any of the officers order me to remove my shoes and socks to insure I had no weapons or contraband on me. I'm not complaining about how the two police officers who took me into custody and processed my arrest treated me, they were gentlemen. I'm concerned for their safety.

While my arrest was being processed, I heard my voice and Nichols voice resonate through the room the detention cell is located in. Apparently somebody was listening to my audio tape.

Approximately a minute or two after the tape stopped playing, I observed Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano, who supervised my arrest, walk past the cell and place my tape recorder with the rest of my property being safe guarded outside the cell. I asked him, "what about the damage to my recorder." Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano replied, "go to court", as he walked away.

A while later, a Old Brookville Detective Investigator who had earlier interviewed Nichols at the hospital she was being treated at, approached me in the cell.

I should mention, this detective was ordered into work, from his home, on a holiday, perhaps with overtime pay, to conduct this routine, misdemeanor assault investigation. He was not present at the time I was arrested.

Months after being acquitted, I spoke with Nassau County ADA Frank Quigley, Chief of The Special Investigations Bureau, who informed me assigning a detective to investigate a misdemeanor assault case was very unusual. Based on my professional experience, I would agree. Ordering a detective to investigate a routine "assault" arrest where there is apparently no intelligence information to be gained, is in my opinion, needless, and a waste of taxpayer resources. I would also strongly suggest that ordering the detective to investigate this matter was an attempt by Sergeant Piampiano to distance himself from this case.

Either that, or he had no confidence in the arresting officer's ability to conduct a routine investigation. The arresting officer was a ten year veteran with the Old Brookville PD at the time Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano ordered him to arrest me.

The Old Brookville Investigator, Detective Bartlett, approached the detention cell and opened the cell door. He asked me if I wanted to make a statement. With half a grin on my face I jokingly replied, "what, no rights?". He looked me straight in the eye and replied, "I don't have to read you your rights. I'm not questioning you. I'm asking for a statement."

At that moment, internally, I was very annoyed with this Detective, but I remained calm and friendly, as I did throughout the entire time I was in custody. It was apparent to me he realized neither the arresting officer or sergeant had taken a statement from me prior to arresting me, as they would have if Bill Finetta, their employer, was not present at the scene. It was also apparent Detective Bartlett was attempting to cultivate a statement for presentation to the District Attorney's Office, even if it meant intentionally violating a United States Supreme Court ruling in order to obtain a statement from me.

I decided to entertain Detective Bartlett and followed him to one of the desks in the arrest processing room. After I sat down I asked him, "with all due respect Detective, is there anything I can say that would get me unarrested?" He grinned at me and replied, "no." I got up, returned to the cell and closed the cell door behind me without uttering another word.

Honestly, I was fearful of these men. Besides, they probably would not have liked what I had to say. So I kept my mouth shut. I was not going to risk having them tear up the Desk Appearance Ticket and charge me with a felony.

After a while, Detective Bartlett came to my cell and offered to let me select the court return date. He said Wednesday and Thursday were usually the slowest days. He further stated, in a compassionate voice, "this arrest is not the end of the world. You can go to court and get this taken care of."

I feigned ignorance and asked him what he meant before I suggested he was referring to a plea bargain. He said I could probably get this matter disposed of with a twenty five dollar fine. I was impressed with his enthusiasm to assist me in my time of need.

My Arraignment - August 24, 2000

I decided to appear at my arraignment without an attorney. An attorney, Regan Lally, who apparently makes her living by appearing in arraignment court and representing defendants who show up without an attorney, was appointed by the Court to represent me for arraignment purposes.

During my arraignment the prosecutor advised the Court he had spoken with the complaining witness, Paula Nichols. The prosecutor informed the Court the complaining witness was so afraid of me she was considering moving out of state. He requested an order of protection be issued for the complaining witness. Prior to this incident, I had never met the complaining witness in my life.

The prosecutor also informed the Court the complaining witness was handicapped and requested bail.

After reviewing the sworn deposition given to police by the complaining witness, the Judge looked at me over his reading spectacles and said in front of a packed court room, "if what is in this deposition is true, this could have been a cab ride from hell." (not an exact quote)

After conducting an investigation based on the few facts available to him, the Judge did not require I post bail before leaving his arraignment part.

However, the Judge did issue an order of protection. When I questioned this, Regan Lally, who I did not even know for five minutes, immediately requested and was granted a "TOP hearing."

Regan Lally made this motion without consulting me first. I now had a five hundred dollar court date which I never agreed to. Wait, things get better between Miss Lally and I.

My First Attorney

The day after my arraignment, I hired and paid a retainer to Regan Lally, a former prosecutor. In our very first conversation I told her I was not guilty of committing a crime. We did not discuss the case in our first conversation. Money and what services she would perform were the primary focus of our conversation.

I also told her I was not interested in spending five hundred dollars on a TOP hearing and asked her to scuttle the hearing. Which she allegedly did, by phone.

Of course, I still had to take the day off to appear in court three days after my arraignment, for a cancelled hearing date I never wanted in the first place.

I also told her I was not interested in a plea bargain and I was ready to go trial. From the day I hired her to my next court date, which she referred to as a "plea conference", I did not receive ONE phone call from my attorney. I called HER office the day before our next court date and her secretary confirmed she would be there.

On October 29, 2000, I appeared for the first post arraignment court date. I asked my attorney if she was going to interview me regarding the case before we sat down with prosecutors for the "plea conference." Regan Lally turned her face away from me and stated, "I don't want to suborn perjury." Prior to this moment, she had not asked me one question about the incident. As I terminated her services, I realized it would be more then three months, after my arraignment, before I would have an opportunity to tell my side of the story to my government. I was really looking for a quick resolution to this matter, even if it meant going to trial on my next court date.

Frankly, I was a bit unsettled knowing an emotionally disturbed person who resides about ten minutes from my community, has a court order in her hand which could cause me more grief. I was also EXTREMELY anxious to get the police officers on the witness stand, to watch and listen to them explain their conduct with regards to arresting me.

Unfortunately, back in August, Miss Lally dashed my desire for speedy justice when, without consulting me, she scheduled the "plea conference" for October 29, 2000. I asked her, "why such a late date?" She informed me it was better that "tempers cool." Again, she knew nothing about the case except for a few words spoken by the State at my arraignment and the transparent lies told by the State's complaining witness.

While I am not very happy with the manner in which Regan Lally handled my case, it was I who was responsible for hiring her. Based on the way she handled my arraignment, I should have known to steer clear of her. Shame on me for hiring her. I'm just happy she returned my five hundred dollar retainer, exactly two months after she said she would.

Criminal Attorney Number Two

I hired an attorney I observed working hard for his client in the same court part I terminated Regan Lally. He had me in his office the very next day to interview me.

I told him I wanted to sit down with prosecutors to give them my side of the story. The same story I would have told the police if they had acted as police officers instead of Bill Finetta's private henchman on the night they arrested me. He immediately advised against this but I was adamant. I knew I acted in a lawful and reasonable manner in protecting myself and my property.

With some misgivings, he finally acquiesced and on my next court date, December 11, 2000, we sat down for a conference with the prosecuting attorney, ADA Dawn Wladyka (nee, O'Brien) and her supervisor, ADA Ronald Schoenberg.

Additionally, I made my attorney aware that I was not interested in ANY type of plea bargain. We were going to this conference looking for an outright dismissal based on provisions of the justification statute as defined in Article 35 of the NYS Penal Law.

I did nothing to precipitate the events which lead to the complaining witness's injury. She was the aggressor and I acted in accordance with the law to defend myself. I employed the use of my teeth to cause her fear she might be injured. She chose to rip her arm from my mouth instead of letting go of my recorder. If I wanted to hurt the complaining witness she would have sustained real injuries, not a minor cut on the arm.

I made and participated in well over a thousand felony arrests and never had a complaint of excessive force lodged against me.

My attorney felt we should not hi-light what I considered an unlawful act perpetrated against me by the police on the night I was arrested. He was more interested in discussing the criminal charges pending against me.

I, on the other hand, was more interested in talking about the incredible lies the complaining witness told the police and the extent to which the police went to support her lies. (her sworn statement to police is included in this article)

After waiving my rights, I immediately informed the prosecutors I was willing to answer ANY questions they may have. I was told to simply tell them what happened. I related to them what transpired in my cab between me and their complaining witness.

I also told them about the events I observed at the cab office without making any direct accusations regarding what I believed occurred between the police and the complaining witness's friend, Bill Finetta.

Please keep in mind, that even though I was the one who called 911, the prosecutor had no statement from me prior to or after my arrest.

More importantly, they had my audio tape which clearly depicts me asking my dispatcher to have the police respond to where I picked Nichols up. How they failed to see the police may have acted improperly by not interviewing me prior to my arrest had me puzzled.

I learned the answer to this at trial, when Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano took the stand and slapped the jury, the Court and every police officer with integrity in the face, by telling boldface lies under oath.

ADA Ronald Schoenberg listened to my story and told me I should have driven to the police station instead of using physical force. I would respectfully suggest that ADA Scheonberg did not have a emotionally disturbed roman candle going off in the back seat of his cab on Fourth of July night.

He scoffed at the notion that his complaining witness had committed a robbery against me when she took MY property, damaged it and menaced me with my own tape recorder. His exact words were, "you don't think this was a real robbery, do you?"

This is one of the reasons I was not able to vote for Denis Dillion. Based on my training and years of experience, there is no doubt in my mind that Paula Nichols committed a real robbery against me. She even admitted it when she told police and prosecutors she took my property and used as much force as her psychiatric drug filled, 206 pound body could exert to prevent me from taking my property away from her.

I am not saying she would be prosecuted for robbery, but she most certainly admitted to the elements required for a robbery.

I was miffed at how in her sworn deposition to police, their complaining witness could describe committing a larceny and robbery against me, yet I was the one being prosecuted for protecting my property.

NYS law does not require a person retreat when a property crime is being committed against them. The law specifically states, "a person may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of larceny or of criminal mischief with respect to property other than premises."

The law also states, "A person responsible for the maintenance of order in a common carrier of passengers, or a person acting under his direction, may use physical force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order...",

Additionally, based on my training and experience, I knew the complaining witness elevated the larceny she committed to a robbery when she thrust the tape recorder at my face and used force to prevent me from taking my property away from her. ADA Ronald Schoenberg, the Nassau Criminal Court Supervisor did not see it that way. He pointed a finger at me and suggested I should have retreated even though the law does not require me (or you) to retreat. Fact is, the law gives a person the authority to use physical force when warranted.

I was a hard working and successful robbery investigator in the NYPD with nearly five years experience in conducting robbery investigations. I was also responsible for investigating robbery arrests made by patrol and anti-crime officers. Pursuant to my duties as a robbery investigator, I attended a Robbery Investigation course for which I earned college credit.

I thought I knew what a robbery was. I also thought I knew what larceny, criminal mischief and menacing are. I guess all the arrests I had made for these crimes in NYC would not be prosecuted in Nassau County?

ADA Ronald Schoenberg told me I used "excessive force" and that was one of the reasons I was being prosecuted. Again, based on my training and experience, the force I used was no where near excessive. Paula Nichols sustained a cut on her arm which apparently healed without any scarring. I'm sure if she had a scar, the prosecuting attorney, ADA Dawn Wladyka, would have displayed Nichols arm before the jury. This did not occur.

I was also miffed at how Scheonberg and Wladyka could ignore the fact that Nichols allegations about me driving recklessly were patently false. They had evidence in their own case file which disproved her claims of when and where I allegedly attacked her. I will discuss the Old Brookville PD 911 document later in this article.

They also had my audio tape, which in my opinion, proves her story about me driving recklessly was fantasy. Nichols statements do not make sense when measured against tangible evidence, my audio tape of the event.

I should mention the police never vouchered my tape recorder which I voluntarily gave to them. However, on the police property voucher, the arresting officer characterized the audio tape as "seized." This property voucher was reviewed for it's completeness and accuracy by Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano, who affixed his signature to the official police document.

Paula Nichols told police and prosecutors she took my recorder to record my "conversations" as I drove my company's cab in circles and across the median strip of State highway, Route 106, in Muttontown. Among other lies she perpetrated, she told police and prosecutors I was driving at mail boxes located along Route 106 while telling her I was going to kill us both. She testified to the above at trial.

This was her lawful justification for taking and damaging my property? In her sworn, written statement to police, she said she refused to leave my car one moment, then, moments later, she considered jumping out of a moving vehicle. This is another reason I was not able to vote for Denis Dillion. He has hired attorneys who apparently are willing to let emotionally disturbed people spoon feed them transparent and incredible lies.

At this conference, I told ADA Schoenberg and ADA Wladyka I was willing to go over the audio tape the police vouchered. When I heard the tape I was seriously disappointed that I had not captured more of the incident on the tape.

There was also an apparent gap in the tape which contains some barely discernible words. In this gap I can be heard saying "I want her arrested. She grabbed my [stuff] and fucked it up." Immediately after me making this comment there is another more audible voice apparently responding to my comment, saying, "she's grabbing it, ohhhh." I believe this other voice belongs to one of the officers who unintentionally and unknowingly recorded himself. (my gut feeling tells me it is Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano's voice which appears on this tape).

This could easily be accomplished by hitting the record button instead of the stop button on this particular tape recorder. The only officers I observed in possession of my tape recorder were Nassau County Officer Visterino and Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano, of the Old Brookville "Private" Police Department.

When my attorney listened to the tape he characterized Paula Nichols as a unstable person. I was in the car with her so I knew she was an emotionally disturbed person.

I have a strong feeling the prosecutors also had a gut instinct she was unstable because they did not take me up on my offer to review the audio tape I voluntarily gave police.

However, at trial, the prosecuting ADA asked me about a gap in the tape and I replied I did not believe there was a gap. I told her I heard me making a comment and what sounded like an authoritative voice responding to my words in the gap. She asked the Judge to strike my response from the record and he complied.

During her summation to the jury, ADA Wladyka suggested I recorded myself in this gap because it is apparent I like to talk a lot.

During my trial, testimony offered under oath by Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano paints a different picture of me. He testified I don't like to talk at all. Especially when it comes to cooperating with a police investigation that I called 911 for.

While relating details of what transpired between Paula Nichols and I, ADA Ronald Schoenberg asked very few questions. He spent most of his time pointing his finger at me, the business person who was victimized.

I offered to answer any questions they had. ADA Wladyka, the young attorney who was actually going to prosecute me, asked only one question. My case was her first criminal trial. I kind of felt bad for her getting stuck with this "bizarre" caper as her very first trial.

Upon completion of the conference, ADA Schoenberg had me wait outside his office while he spoke with the complaining witness, Paula Nichols, in the presence of my attorney. My attorney later informed me that during this meeting Nichols agreed to be ready for trial on January 29, 2001.

When ADA Schoenberg finished with her, I was called back into his office where he informed me this case was, in his word, "bizarre". He stated my story and Nichols story where divergent and that a trier of fact would have to hear this case. I thanked him for his time and before I left I asked him if I could have Paula Nichols arrested for perjury when this was all over. He seem startled and mumbled something about, "if the facts of the case prove it." (not an exact quote).

I spoke with the jury after my trial. ADA Wladyka was present. Members of the jury informed me they all agreed Nichols lied under oath. Was any action taken? Read on.

On January 29, 2001, I appeared in court ready for trial. It was at this time I learned Paula Nichols, who back in August of 2000 told the prosecutor who arraigned me, she was so afraid of me she was considering moving out of state, had in fact, moved (fled) to Washington State.

During my trial, she testified she moved to Washington State a few weeks before the scheduled January 29, 2001 trial date she agreed to approximately six weeks earlier. I'm curious why she did not know she would be living in a another state on December 11, 2000, the date she agreed to the January 29th trial date?

A week prior to my next trial date, my attorney had a conversation with the prosecutor. The prosecutor asked my attorney if I was ready for trial because she was going to have to fly Nichols from Washington State to New York State for the trial. My attorney advised her we were ready.

Prior to trial, my attorney informed me he had another conversation with ADA Wladyka. He learned that Nichols had expressed some concern about her testimony. I have to wonder if any promises, actual or implied, where made in order to secure Nichols subsequent appearance at trial, in March of 2001?

For instance, did ADA Wladyka suggest to Nichols that she would not be prosecuted for perjury because, regardless of her testimony, Nichols was the victim who sustained an injury?

I do not like having to ask this question. Yet, based on Nichols sworn statement to the police and her testimony in court, I am left with little choice but to speculate about why she was permitted to testify in the first place. When evaluating all the evidence, her story does not make sense. The jury who eventually heard Nichols story, agreed she lied under oath.

Side note:

My attorney informed me Nichols told the prosecutor that due to her physical handicap she had difficulty traveling to the court house which is located approximately eight minutes from her home in West Hempstead. I was told an investigator from the District Attorney's office was assigned to transport Nichols to and from court each time she made an appearance.

While testifying under oath at my trial, Nichols stated she arrived at the horse stable at about 9 AM on July 4th. I went to pick her up at about 9:30 PM the same day.

Nichols also testified she spent the day tending to and riding her three horses which she houses at the stable where I picked her up. I'm not sure what method of transportation Nichols used to get to the stable on July 4, 2000, but I do know she testified she was using public transportation to get home from the stable that night. Nichols testified she was going to hire a cab to get to a bus stop. From there she was going to take a bus home.

On the night I picked her up she was wearing a small, sleek, plastic leg brace. At each appearance prior to my trial and during my trial she appeared in court wearing a huge leg brace which apparently made it difficult for her to walk. During one court appearance I had to grin when I observed Nichols using a stairwell while ADA Wladyka was looking for her by the elevator... She also used a cane to assist her during one of her appearances prior to my trial.

What I can't figure out is how a handicapped person is able to spend approximately an hour or more getting to or from the stable on her own, via public transportation, BUT cannot get to the court house which is located less than ten minutes from her home, without assistance. How can this handicapped person who can apparently play and frolic with her three horses all day long find it difficult to get to the court house by herself?

The following is the EXACT sworn statement, word for word (punctuation or lack of included), which the State's witness gave to police on the night I was arrested.

NOTICE - ANY FALSE STATEMENT MADE IN THIS DEPOSITION IS PUNISHABLE AS A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR PURSUANT TO SECTION 210.45 OF THE PENAL LAW.

"I am Paula Nichols I have read and understand the above notice on the 4th day of July 2000 at about 9:45 PM I was waiting for a cab from [redacted] Cab Company in Hicksville at Chestnut Vale Stables at 1912 Rt 106, Muttowntown. Shortly thereafter the cab arrived and I got in the cab. The driver was angry and started to drive recklessly. I told him to slow down. He had driven a ways down Rt 106 (maybe a half mile) and he pulled over and told me to get out but I have a leg brace on my right leg and could not walk that far. I again told him to drive more carefully and he went crazy. He was driving in a terrifying manner going in circles on Rt 106 and was saying "I'm gonna rip off your leg and throw it in the woods" and "I'm gonna fuck up your face so bad no one would recognize you." I was scared and did not know what to do. I saw his tape recorder on the front seat so I took it and began to record his conversations. When he saw that I had his recorder, and while we were still on Rt 106, in Muttontown, he pulled to the right and screeched the brakes. He then lunged into the back seat trying to get the tape recorder. He bit my left forearm several times very hard causing bleeding and a lot of pain. He then punched me on the left side of my head 4 or 5 times causing pain and making me see stars. He finally pulled the tape recorder away, got out of the car and went behind the car. I was afraid to get out so I sat in the car dizzy, in pain and terrified. He then got in the car and drove to the train station. I thought about jumping out of the car but he was going too fast. He made other threats at this time but I do not recall them. When I got to the Hicksville train station I tried to get help from the dispatcher at the [redacted] Cab Company but he refused. A few minutes later a Nassau County Police Officer arrived and I saw the same cab driver walk over to him and I told the officer that this cab driver had just assaulted me. I did not give this cab driver permission or authority to punch, bite or otherwise injure or frighten me in anyway and I request that he be arrested for his actions. I am giving this statement to Det Bartlett who is writing it for me and it is the truth."

End of Paula Nichols statement.

The above sworn statement bears both the complaining witness and interviewing detective's signatures.

By order of ADA Ronald Schoenberg, The State's case against John Menso for "intentionally" assaulting another person begins:

Paula Nichols is the State's first witness. For some reason I do not understand, Paula Nichols is put on the witness stand and sworn in before the jury is brought into the courtroom. She is also permitted to write her address down instead of stating it aloud for the court reporter (and apparently me) to hear. A short time later the jury is brought into the court room and the State's case begins.

Upon completion of telling lie after lie under direct examination, to a enthralled jury, it was my attorney's turn to ask questions of her.

Paula Nichols told the jury she is currently under psychiatric care, as she was at the time of the incident. She also testified she uses five different medications which are prescribed to her by her psychiatrist. Nichols testified she was only using four of these medications on the day of the incident. These medications are clearly listed on a hospital report ADA Wladyka provided to my attorney.

In her sworn statement to police on the night of the incident, Nichols stated she called for a cab and I arrived "shortly thereafter." She stated I (defendant) was "angry" when I arrived.

Her emotional, sworn testimony in court was quite different.

She told the jury I was forty minutes late in getting her and she was extremely angry because she missed the last bus of the night which would take her home.

When my attorney grilled her on this point, she offered no explanation to the jury as to why she changed her story.

My attorney asked Nichols if it was OK to tell the truth sometimes and not at other times.

Nichols replied, "yes," one moment and, "no," the next moment.

My attorney had barely started his cross examination of Nichols and already her story was melting before the jury, as was she. As I watched and listened to Nichols testify, I could not believe the prosecutor put her on the witness stand. Her testimony changed as frequently as a minute hand on a Swiss watch.

I wish I had the money to purchase Nichols incredible testimony for the purpose of presenting it in this article. Unfortunately, purchasing Nichols testimony will have to wait until I find a respectable attorney who is willing to work with me on this case. Or, till I go it alone.

Side note: Through conversations with other cab drivers I learned my cab company has been late picking her up in the past. On those occasions she also became abusive and demanded we drive her home to West Hempstead, for free. End note.

Nichols testified I "punched" her four or five times in the left side of the head. She was examined by an Advanced Emergency Technician (AEMT) approximately thirty minutes after the incident. The AEMT's testimony did not include any mention of injuries to her head or face. The medical reports generated by the nurses and a doctor who examined her at the hospital do not include any mention of injuries, marks, abrasions or swelling to her head or face. Fact is, one nurse who examined her at 12:30AM, approximately three hours after I allegedly punched Nichols in the head, wrote in her report, "no redness or discoloration noted on head."

Nichols testified that two or three days after I was arrested, she attempted to retain a civil attorney. Nichols testified this attorney took pictures of her injury. The prosecution introduced these pictures into evidence at my trial. One of the pictures depicted a huge, nasty looking bruise with a thin red mark running horizontally through the middle of it. This huge, ugly bruise was located on her upper right arm and shoulder.

Again, Nichols was examined by a AEMT and a doctor who made no note of any injuries to her right arm. Yet this photo was placed into evidence for the jury to see. The AEMT testified that bruises sometimes take time to surface. He did not explain how the red line running horizontally through the middle of the bruise was not detected on the night he examined her. Additionally, Nichols did not complain of pain to her right arm on the night of the incident. Yet this photo was placed into evidence for the jury to see.

Based on a statement made by Finetta at the scene of my arrest, I have reason to believe the injury Nichols claims I caused to her shoulder was in fact, a pre-existing injury. Other than the word of a mental patient, the prosecution offered no qualified medical opinion as to how old the bruise in the picture presented before the jury really was.

When my attorney asked Nichols why she did not sue me and my company, she testified she was only going to sue me if she contracted a communicable disease. I would suggest that when discussing this case with the civil attorney Nichols attempted to hire, she realized that she had better not be a Nassau County or New York State resident by the time the criminal matter was settled. The statute of limitations for me suing her in Small Claims Court is one year. I am not sure what the statute of limitations is for perjury.

I will discuss Nichols testimony and sworn statement to police in detail later in this article when I pose a few questions to the prosecutors.

The arresting officer, Police Officer Charles J. Hanney, takes the stand and testifies his supervisor, Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano, conducted this investigation and ordered him to arrest me. In addition he testifies that in his ten years as an police officer in the Old Brookville PD, he has never made a robbery arrest. He also testified he never listened to my audio tape.

Detective Bartlett, the investigator who interviewed Nichols and implied to me he did not have to adhere to United States Supreme Court rulings, took the stand.

He was not present at the scene where I was arrested. However, he did testify Sergeant Piampiano ordered him to conduct this [routine] investigation.

He also testified that when he was attempting to interview Nichols at the hospital, she was practically incoherent.

Detective Bartlett told the jury that when lawful physical force is used, injuries sometimes result.

The detective, who Sergeant Piampiano ordered from his home and family on Independence Day, told the jury he never bothered listening to my audio tape while conducting his thorough and complete investigation of this criminal case.

Additionally, I was rather surprised when he testified he did not "recall" asking me for a statement while telling me he did not have to read me Miranda warnings while I was in police custody.