The State's final witness, Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano, the police supervisor who investigated this incident and subsequently authorized my arrest, takes the witness stand and swears to tell the truth.

He tells the jury he did not listen to the tape I voluntarily gave to the first Nassau County Officer who arrived at the cab office.

At the time he ordered his officer to arrest me, I asked Sergeant Piampiano, "what about the tape." He replied, "there is nothing on it."

Dear Reader, I heard my audio tape being played at the police station house and saw him in possession of my tape recorder moments after the tape stopped playing. Yet he did not listen to it?????

Keep in mind, Paula Nichols told the police, prosecutors and the jury she took my recorder to record me threatening her life while I was engaging in activities which were recklessly endangering her life. She claimed she recorded me as I was driving at a high rate of speed and swerving at mailboxes located along New York State Highway Route 106, while telling her I was going to kill the both of us. She claimed I placed her in fear for her life while driving in circles on the grassy median that divides the highway. Based on Nichols statement to police, I may have committed a felony. Yet the police investigator, Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano, testified he never listened to the tape.

Why would a police supervisor not review all the evidence at his disposal prior to making an arrest?

Especially evidence being offered by a business person who called 911 and was claiming there was exculpatory material on the audio tape.

While I was not privy to what Nassau County Police Officer Visterino said to the Old Brookville Police when he handed them my audio tape, I have to reasonably believe he told them the cab driver informed him that he recorded the incident. Why did Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano ignore this evidence?

I'll tell you why. Because his employer, Mr. William (Bill) Finetta, Paula Nichols friend, advised him to. As a result of deferring to his employer instead of carrying out his sworn duty, Sergeant Piampiano committed a crime against me and The People of The State of New York.

Would any reasonably prudent person actually believe a police supervisor with twenty three years on the job, is going submit evidence used for the prosecution of a crime without first thoroughly reviewing the evidence?

Does anyone over the age of ten actually believe a police officer, one of the most inquisitive people on the face of the earth, did not listen to this tape? Sergeant Piampiano had a lawful duty to examine all the facts before making a lawful arrest. He chose not to. I would suggest he felt a stronger duty and loyalty toward his employer than he did to the Oath of Office he swore to uphold when he was promoted to Sergeant.

Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano looked away from the jury when he told them he attempted to interview me prior to arresting me. He went on to testify that when he attempted to question me, I informed him I was not interested in talking about the incident.

Essentially, Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano told the jury I refused to cooperate with a police investigation, even though there was plenty of evidence I wanted to speak with the police.

The evidence being: my tape, my call to 911, my unrecorded statement to P.O. Visterino when he responded to the 911 call. The unrecorded statement from my dispatcher, verifying that I asked him to call the police.

As I heard Sergeant Piampiano inform the jury I refused to cooperate with his investigation, I had a physical reaction which sent chills through my body. As he said this, I observed juror number three's head jerk as though she had been slapped in the face.

I could not believe that a police officer could be so bold and offer this kind of incredible testimony, under oath, to fellow members of his community. There is no doubt in my mind that, "The Badge," was tarnished by Sergeant Piampiano's testimony.

Here is the run on question I need answered. Would a business person and former criminal investigator engage in behavior that resulted in a person being injured, call 911, inform the 911 operator he wanted a person arrested for "robbery," and then not want to talk to the police when they arrive to investigate?

Please keep in mind, in her summation to the jury, ADA Wladyka characterized me as someone who apparently likes to talk a lot. I'd like to add that the audio tape Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano swore he did not listen to, depicts me asking my dispatcher to have the police respond to the location where I picked Paula Nichols up.

Had Sergeant Piampiano testified truthfully and told the jury he listened to my tape, he might have had some explaining to do.

For starters, it might be difficult to explain why, on tape, I can clearly be heard asking for the police to respond to where I picked his "victim" up. I clearly had intentions of speaking to the police at that time. I even called 911. (My original report to 911 must have been forgotten about in the shuffle. I wonder if Police Officer Visterino could explain what happened to it?)

On tape, I can clearly be heard telling a angry, belligerent person to leave my place of business after she repeatedly refused to pay me. The angry person is heard refusing a lawful request to leave my place of business.

On the tape, I can clearly be heard telling the disruptive person to leave my cab at the location where I picked her up, not the location, a half mile down the road, where she told him I ordered her out of my cab.

Many questions regarding the credibility of his witness's story would certainly come into play if Sergeant Piampiano admitted he listened to the tape.

Here is the question. How could Sergeant Piampiano testify he listened to the tape and maintain that I refused to cooperate with his investigation? How could Sergeant Piampiano explain the glaring discrepancies between the real evidence (audio tape) and his witness's sworn statement to police? In my opinion, he couldn't. So instead, he told an even more unbelievable lie under oath. He told the jury he never listened to a audio tape his own witness told him may contain evidence of a felony.

My attorney asked Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano if he was familiar with Article 35 of the NYS Penal Law. He turned his face away from the jury, and nearly whispered in an uncertain tone, "something to do with arrest processing." (not an exact quote).

Article 35 is probably the most important article of law any New York State law enforcement official should know. The NYPD spent one full week training me about Article 35. After this week of training, I was required to take a test with regard to this training, which I had to pass or I would flunk out of the Academy. The NYPD drilled the justification for the use of force statutes into my head. This training included when "persons" (civilians), can and cannot use force. With regard to the situation Paula Nichols thrust me into, I had the same authority to use physical force as a police officer does.

Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano, a police supervisor with twenty three years on the job, testified he did not know what Article 35 is.

My attorney asked Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano, who served his community for twenty three years, how many businesses are located in his jurisdiction? The Sergeant testified there were not many and guessed at about ten. Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano went on to testify he did not know William (Bill) Finetta, one of approximately ten business owners in his police jurisdiction.

Dear Reader, are you familiar with the definition of hogwash? Sergeant Piampiano, while acting with deference to his employer, knowingly committed an act of official misconduct on the night he arrested me. Subsequently, he came into court and committed more crimes to cover up for his act of misconduct.

I would suggest that not only did Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano put himself at risk, but he also placed the men he is supposed to be looking out for (his officers and detectives) in an extremely untenable position.

In a moment, I will discuss what action Denis Dillion's office took to correct the criminal acts perpetrated by his office's police witness.

The jury listened to nearly four days of testimony and deliberated for approximately thirty minutes before returning to the courtroom with a verdict of "not guilty." Before the Judge could finish asking the jury foreperson for their verdict, the foreperson interrupted him and blurted out "not guilty."

During the trial I testified I resigned from the NYPD because I made a big mistake and violated my terms of employment by using marijuana, which was discovered during a random drug test. I also testified I used marijuana the day before the incident.

After the jury was dismissed, I briefly met with them and thanked them for their verdict. I was told they never even considered "the law" with regard to this matter. They all agreed I never intended to injure Paula Nichols.

They all agreed they did not believe a good portion of Paula Nichols testimony. Not one of them stated dismay at the type of controlled physical force I employed.

However, one juror gently spanked me for using marijuana. She told me I lost a good job because of it and she thought I should stop. As I was telling her I am not a drinker, another juror, an elegant looking woman in her fifties, said, "you just keep doing what you have been doing." I looked at her with a puzzled look on my face and said, "Miss?" She repeated the same words over again while smiling at me. She got an extra handshake and hug from me. To be honest, I was not sure if she was referring to me using marijuana or to me and my attorney putting the police on trial.

Earlier in this article, I described the State's handling of their case against me as, "bungled.". A few days after the December 2000 conference where I informed the prosecutor I called 911 and Paula Nichols did not, I put my story on the Internet. The prosecutor became aware of this and presented a copy of it to my attorney. Now ADA's Wladyka and Schoenberg had the my story written in stone. In this Usenet article I stated I was the one who called 911 and Nichols did not. I am still wondering why my attorney and I did not receive the 911 tape along with other discovery materials provided to us by the prosecutor. The tape was eventually given to us three days into my trial, in mid March 2001. At a time when it could not be used to impeach or discredit police testimony that I refused to cooperate with a police investigation.

I personally told the prosecutors about the 911 tape on December 11, 2000. Additionally, they had that information written in stone when they discovered the Usenet article I created months before my trial. Why wasn't the 911 tape provided to my attorney with the other discovery material? Did the prosecutor intentionally hold back this piece of critical evidence? Or, was this simply an oversight by a young, inexperienced prosecutor, concerned, with winning her very first trial?

I believe ADA Wladyka made the 911 tape available to the defense after all her police witnesses had testified and left the building. If this was the case, too bad it was not available sooner. I'm sure my attorney would have had a few questions for the State's police witnesses as to the credibilty of their testimony that I refused to cooperate with their police investigation.

In the Usenet article I am referring to, I also wrote about what I termed as police misconduct with regards to my arrest. I clearly painted a picture of police misconduct in this article and follow up articles. I also discussed my situation with other people in the Usenet groups (misc.legal, US.legal, alt.lawyers) I posted the article in. Why didn't ADA Wladyka provide transcripts of these discussions to my attorney? Why did she ignore the dialogue I had with others concerning this case? Seems to me, all the public statements made by a defendant could potentially be relevant to the case.

ADA Wladyka and Scheonberg had a nearly completed picture of what I said occurred on July 4th AND my defense before they put me on trial. They choose to ignore my allegations of police misconduct and went ahead with putting me on trial before looking into them.

I believe I gave them enough credible evidence to support my allegations of misconduct, yet they ignored me, AT THAT TIME.

It wasn't till after I was acquitted that my allegations were entertained and investigated, by the same district attorney's office that prosecuted me.

It is now time to discuss the excuses Denis Dillion's investigators conjured up to bury my allegations of misconduct and perjury.

I have one question regarding this is. "Why was there reasonable suspicion to investigate the police after my trial, BUT not enough before I was put on trial?"

On March 23, 2001, two days after being acquitted, I went to the Nassau County District Attorney's, Special Investigation Bureau. I sat down with and was interviewed by, Investigator Joseph Liante and his supervisor, ADA Marshall Trager.

Based on his actions at the scene of my arrest and his testimony in court, I made allegations of official misconduct and perjury against Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano.

I also informed Liante and Trager that most everything Paula Nichols swore to in her police deposition was a lie, as was her conflicting courtroom testimony.

They pretty much conducted a professional interview and advised me they would be in touch with me. They also asked for a copy of the audio tape which I gave them on March 26, 2001.

On April 9, 2001, I called Investigator Joseph Liante. He was very apologetic for not getting back to me sooner. He also informed me my complaint has been accepted by his office. When I asked for a case number he stated his office does not work that way. The investigator adamantly maintained he had no case number to give me.

At the end of this investigation, I received a written communication from ADA Marshall Trager regarding this case and my allegations of police misconduct. The letter clearly described a case number. During a conversation with Trager's secretary, she confirmed the number on the letter was, in fact, the case number assigned to this investigation.

I'm curious. Why would this seasoned investigator, Joseph Liante, tell me such an incredibly transparent lie? How am I able to trust someone who would mislead me on such a petty issue? What was his motivation for misleading me?

Liante informed me he is currently busy with another investigation and it will take a month or so before the investigation can begin.

On May 24, 2001, Investigator Liante leaves a message on my answering machine stating he is beginning his investigation.

On June 6, 2001, Liante shows up, alone, at the cab office to interview my dispatcher.

On June 27, 2001, I call Investigator Liante and he informs me he completed his investigation and turned the results over to ADA Marshall Trager, the prosecutor handling this case. On the same date I spoke with ADA Trager who informed me he wants Liante to tend to one more matter.

On July 27, 2001, I called ADA Trager. He informed me he is still creating a "memo" of his investigation for presentation to his immediate supervisor, who may or may not make the final decision on this matter. He stated another of his supervisors may have to review his "memo" before making a decision on whether or not to prosecute the police sergeant.

I ask him about the gap in the audio tape and he informed me I have my perceptions and other people have their own perceptions of what is on the tape. His response left me wondering why there was no forensic evaluation of the physical evidence I provided. It seems to me a audio expert could definitively determine whose voices appeared on the tape.

On August 3, 2001, I called the Nassau County District Attorney's, Special Investigations Bureau and spoke with ADA Marshall Trager . I asked him what was being done with regards to my allegations that the complaining witness lied in both her sworn deposition to police and in her courtroom testimony. He told me it was my word against hers and inferred nothing was being done about the apparent lies the State's complaining witness told in this case. Based on the facts of this case, I find it difficult to believe that anyone who heard Nichols "bizarre" story, would believe it. I asked him why I was arrested and the complaining witness was not. He refused to answer me. However, he did say he would sit down with me when the final decision in this matter was made.

Trager also stated the supervisor who was possibly going to make the final decision, had gone on vacation. He stated it would be at least another two weeks before a decision was made. To be honest, I feel as though I am again being jerked around by the Nassau County D.A.'s Office.

A few days before the August 3rd call, I spoke with a civil rights attorney who was referred to me by the Nassau County Bar Association. This attorney stated that based on the facts I gave him, he would be willing to sue the complaining witness, the police AND the District Attorney's Office for malicious prosecution.

During this conversation it became quite clear why this investigation by the District Attorney's Office is taking so long and why they won't answer my questions.

On August 30, 2001, I spoke with ADA Trager regarding the final disposition of this matter. He informed me that no action was being taken on my complaint. He invited me to ask questions and then proceeded to refuse to answer most every question I asked him.

He did admit that his investigation determined I voluntarily gave police my audio tape. The same tape which the Old Brookville PD characterized as "seized", on their police property voucher. ADA Marshall Trager refused to answer any follow up questions regarding the chain of custody of the tape. He even advised me to take my detectives hat off when I asked basic questions about his investigation. I did not think it was possible for someone to dance on the telephone. ADA Marshall Trager proved me wrong.

On August 31, 2001, I called Trager's boss, ADA Frank Quigley. I left a message with his sercetary, Rosemary. She assured me ADA Quigley would get back to me that day.

On September 4, 2001, I sent a certified letter and a copy of a Usenet article I wrote about this case to, "The Honorable District Attorney Denis Dillion," requesting a "face to face" meeting regarding this issue.

I never did hear from District Attorney Dillion, but on September 7, 2001, ADA Frank Quigley finally got back to me by leaving a message on my machine. He offered me a "face to face" meeting regarding my criminal complaint against Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano and Paula Nichols.

On September 19, 2001, at about 3:45PM, I met with ADA Frank Quigley, Bureau Chief for the Nassau County District Attorney, Special Investigations Bureau, at his office.

The tone of this meeting started with ADA Quigley attempting to soften me up by implying that forfeiting my job for using marijuana, may have been too harsh. At least that was the feeling I think he was attempting to convey with his fragmented comments. I informed ADA Quigley I agreed with him , but, I also told him I knew the rules and I broke them. I was responsible, no one else.

ADA Quigley went on to sympathetically explain that we all run into people who have different agendas in life. He was referring to the psychiatric patient who was in my cab the night I was arrested. Again, he spoke in fragmented comments which barely made sense. This meeting had hardly begun and it was apparent that ADA Quigley was wearing dancing shoes, similar to those ADA Trager wore.

After a few minutes of listening to ADA Quigley ramble on about nothing that had to do with my case, I asked him why I was arrested. He looked me in the eye and told me his alleged investigation revealed the police officers believed this case, "had something to do with domestic violence."

With the exception of President Clinton's responses to questions about his affair with an intern, this has to be one of the lamest answers I have ever heard from a government official. I asked him if he was kidding and he adamantly gave me the same response over and over.

He informed me his investigator interviewed PO Visterino and a female Nassau County Police Officer who was present at the scene of my arrest. He said, "a problem with my case," was that they both stated they also would have arrested me.

As a former police officer, I find it difficult to believe that a police officer would embarrass himself or herself by stating he or she believed this was a case of domestic violence, when it clearly was not.

I went on to ask ADA Frank Quigley why Paula Nichols was not arrested for admitting to commiting crimes against me. Quigley informed me Nichols had not committed any crimes or offenses.

At trial, the Judge read a "larceny charge" to the jury. Please keep in mind, I was not charged with larceny. While reading this charge, the Judge stated, "a larceny is the taking of property, no matter how temporary the taking."

I asked Quigley what "standard of law" must be met for a Judge to approve the reading of a "larceny charge" to the jury.

He scoffed and replied that a Judge will read most any charge a defense lawyer requests. I asked why the Judge denied my motion for a robbery and probable cause charge to be read to the jury. Quigley shrugged his shoulder and quickly changed the subject to inaudible murmurs while smiling at me.

The audio tape I gave police clearly depicts Nichols refusing to pay the fare and refusing to leave my business, which by her own admission, was parked by the "front gate," the same location where she told Finetta I "attacked" her. I asked Quigley if this provided evidence Nichols was trespassing in my cab. Again he murmured and looked away from me, offering no articulate response.

When I asked Quigley why nothing was being done about the blantant perjurious testimony offered under oath by Sergeant Piampiano, he informed me he had not read the police officer's testimony because the transcripts of this case have been sealed.

Is this another lie or am I just plain ignorant of the law? Why is it when I called the court reporter, Carla Grayson, she told me she would gladly provide me with any transcripts I require, for a fee?

Why Did ADA Quigley's office accept a criminal investigation (generally, probable cause is required for a criminal investigation to be initiated) for perjury, and then not review the transcripts of the testimony which I allege is perjurious?

I would respectfully suggest ADA Quigley was not interested in verifying the truthfulness and accuracy of my allegations. In my opinion, if he did review the trial transcripts in an unbiased manner, he would ultimately have to admit that his colleagues prosecution of me was grossly flawed. So instead, he countered my accusations of perjury and misconduct with another lie.

ADA Quigley also informed me, "if they did lie, it was not relevant to the case."

Problem is, my criminal complaint against Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano is for engaging in Official Misconduct, as defined in the NYS Penal Law, on the night he ordered me placed under arrest. My criminal complaint was for the patently perjurious testimony he offered in Court to cover up for his act of Official Misconduct.

If Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano truly believed he was arresting me pursuant to the State's Domestic Violence laws, why didn't he testify to that in court?

Why did he sit there and cower on the witness stand, allowing my attorney to intensely examine him regarding why I was arrested, when all he had to say was, "I arrested your client because I believed this case had something to do with domestic violence."

Why did he tell the jury that I refused to cooperate with his police investigation? Isn't testifying in this manner detrimental to me? How can a police sergeant telling a jury that the defendant refused to cooperate with his investigation, not be highly prejudicial toward the defendant?

At about about 5:15 PM, one and a half hours into our meeting, we were advised the building was closing for the night. ADA Quigley invited me back to continue our discussion and I accepted.

On September 26, 2001, I arrived at ADA Quigley's reception room. I just happened to run into George Rice, a former supervisor of mine. He retired from the City and is now employed by the Nassau County District Attorney's Office. George Rice had supervised me in the 79th Precinct and subsequently as a supervisor for the Brooklyn Robbery Squad. After a few minutes of small talk with George, I was greeted by ADA Quigley, who invited me to his office.

The tone of this second meeting started out quite differently. It became apparent that the District Attorney's Office was reverting back to pointing fingers at me.

As this meeting progressed, it became painfully apparent, it was now time for the District Attorney's Office to start painting a negative picture of me. Quigley offered no credible answers to most of the questions I asked him regarding my arrest and prosecution. So now it is his duty to make me look like the bad guy while he covers for the bungled investigation his colleagues conducted in District Court.

Quigley started this meeting by informing me that no one was going to be arrested with regard to my criminal complaint. Once again, I asked Quigley why I was arrested and Nichols was not. He informed me I was arrested because I used, "poor judgement." I asked Quigley what kind of judgement Nichols used and his reply was, "she used extremely poor judgement."

I'm not sure if I want a District Attorney in office, whose staff prosecutes people based on the word of a witness who his office characterizes as a person who used "extremely poor judgement." This is another reason I was not able to tug the lever under Denis Dillion's name in 2001.

I asked Quigley if we could have George Rice, a retired police sergeant, once assigned to the New York City Police Derpartment's, Brooklyn Robbery Squad, come into his office and tell me Nichols had not committed crimes against me. Not surprisingly, Quigley declined my offer.

When I asked him if he sincerely thought the District Attorney's office had a reasonable expectation of successfully prosecuting me, he called me arrogant.

I could see this meeting was going no where, so I did not bother reminding him it was he who was performing a dance routine, not me.

It was Nichols who the jury agreed lied under oath, not me.

It was ADA Ronny Scheonberg who clearly stated I used excessive force, while the jury said I never intended to injure her.

It was his D.A.'s office who allowed their police witnesses to tell unbelievable lies under oath.

Apparently Quigley interpreted my anger toward people who seriously screwed with my life, as arrogance.

Quigley went on to point his finger at me by calling me "obsessed." Yes, I'll admit this matter has me a bit twisted and fearful of my government. But let us examine his "obsessed" comment a little further.

In a letter to Judge Marks, of the Nassau County District Court, ADA Wladyka requests the Judge make certain that a jury panel and a court part are available for trial on March 13, 2001.

In this letter, ADA Wyladyka writes, "the main witness and victim in this case has relocated to the State of Washington since the date of the incident. For trial, the People must fly her to New York and pay for her accomodations. We have made these rather costly arrangements and she will be available for trial the week of March 12, 2001".

Back on August 24, 2000, the prosecutor who arraigned me, told the Judge that Nichols was considering moving out of state because she was frightened of me.

On October 24, 2000, five days before my next court appearance, Nichols leaves ADA Wyladka a message that states she will be moving out of state in two weeks.

On December 11, 2000, Nichols is still residing in West Hempstead. On this date, in the presence of my attorney and prosecutors, Nichols states she will be ready for trial on January 29, 2001.

When did she finally decide to move or flee from her West Hempstead residence? About two weeks before the January 29, 2001 trial date she agreed to on December 11, 2000, that's when.

Am I the only one who sees red flags popping up all over with regard to the State's witness, Paula Nichols? Would a prosecutor focused on winning her very first criminal trial not see these flags, or intentionally ignore them?

In her court room testimony, Nichols provided no continuity to her story with regard to the context of statements on the audio tape presented as evidence. Her story was convulted and changed many times. Was this the same story Nichols told ADA Wladyka during trial preparation?

Before ADA Quigley goes pointing fingers at people he thinks are obsessed, he better take a look at his own District Attorney's Office. He might also consider what, "rather costly," accomodations were shouldered by the taxpayers of Nassau County to feed that obsession.

After forty five minutes of ADA Quigley tap dancing all over me, I abruptly ended this meeting when he suggested I, "taunted," Nichols with my tape recorder. In the record of this trial, the same record he claimed that he, the Bureau Chief of The Special Investigations Bureau, does not have access to, there is absolutely no mention of me taunting Nichols with my tape recorder.

ADA Quigley had finally worn me down with his shoulder shrugs, distorted facial gestures and outright lies. It took two meetings, over two hours in all, but he achieved his goal. His apparent goal was to cover for the malicious prosecution of me AND the lies told by the Nassau County District Attorney Office's own police and civilian witnesses.

I am curious why the Bureau Chief of The Special Investigations Bureau, felt two meetings which took up over two hours of County time, were required to blow me off?

I should mention that during the second meeting, Quigley recommended I sue the Old Brookville Police Department. In a follow up letter he sent me, he wrote no action was being taken on my complaint. Again, he advised me to pursue this matter civilly.

Several times during this writing, I referred to Quigley's investigation as an "alleged investigation." Here is why. On September 28, 2001, at about 11:55PM, I observed P.O. Visterino and another female officer issuing summonses at the Hicksville LIRR parking lot.

I had a brief conversation with Officer Visterino who informed me that NO ONE had spoken to him about this matter since the night of my arrest. I asked him if he was sure and he remained adamant. I asked him if he would have arrested me and he replied, "yes, you told me the whole story." I quickly asked him, "THE WHOLE STORY, OFFICER?", he offered no reply.

When I, in the friendliest manner possible, asked him if he was familiar with the "justification for the use of force" statutes in New York State, again, he had no reply.

When I informed him that the Old Brookville Sergeant testfied he did not listen to the tape I gave Officer Visterino on the night of my arrest, Officer Visterino quickly suggested that it was their case and he had nothing to do with it.

I would beg to differ with Officer Visterino's assessment of his involvement. He was the first officer on the scene and I voluntarily admitted to him, "I used physical force. I bit her." If Officer Visterino truly felt I was a perp, good police work would have dictated that my statement to Officer Visterino be recorded and introduced in court.

Especially in light of Sergeant Piampiano's testimony where he told the jury that I refused to cooperate with HIS investigation.

Here I am, an alleged perp, making a confession to police and they disregard this statement, insuring it can't be used against me in a court of law. This my friends, is lazy, sloppy and careless police work.

This is also an effective means to limit exposing Officer Visterino to the lies that would have to be told to justify arresting me.

As I said earlier, I will always admire hardworking police officers who act like, and are professionals.

Here is another discrepancy in ADA Quigley's alleged investigation. ADA Quigley told me to my face his investigator interviewed Police Officer Visterino. Subsequently, Police Officer Visterino looks me in the eye and tells me no one interviewed him regarding this case.

Someone is lying and I promise you it is not me. I have nothing to hide from. I readily admitted my involvement in this case from the beginning. The lies started when William (Bill) Finetta arrived on the scene and injected himself into this matter.

As far as following up on ADA Frank Quigley's suggestion that I sue the Old Brookville Police Department. I contacted several civil rights attorneys and they all want a straight pay check. No contingency deals. I'm not about to invest fifteen to twenty thousand dollars to bring an action against Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano and the Nassau County District Attorney's Office. Especially with an attorney who wants no vested interest in the case.

Truthfully, for me, this matter is not about money. I was arrested for acting in a lawful manner while the police sergeant who ordered my arrest was committing a crime against me and The People of The State of New York.

I now have a permanent injury which will follow me for the rest of my life and beyond. I now have an "arrest record," because a private village police sergeant decided to suck up to one of his employers, instead of acting in a lawful manner. I spent my entire teen and adult life being a decent, hardworking member of my community...and now I have an arrest record...

This is why I spent the time to create this article and post it to a webpage. I am very upset with Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano and the members of the district attorney's office who allow the few officers like him to continue adding to their boss's high conviction rate.

I would have followed up on this matter in a more timely manner, but the events of September 11, 2001 kind of took the wind out of my sails for a while. Police Sergeant Rodney Gillis, a man who I admired both professionally and personally, was killed in the attack. I decided to take a few months off from this matter that had torn through my life.

I also felt I was better off laying low for a while before taking Paula Nichols to Small Claims Court. I found it difficult to believe that Nichols picked up her stake and moved all three of her horses across the country. So I decided to let the dust settle.

During this anticipated small claims proceeding, I was really hoping to get Nichols to admit that the police had, in fact, listened to my audio tape before arresting me. Not that this would have helped my criminal allegation against Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano. Based on the way Denis Dillion's office handled my allegations of perjury and police misconduct, I firmly believe his office would take no action against Piampiano, even if he decided to come clean and admit he lied under oath.

In March of 2002, I went to Nassau County Small Claims Court and initiated an action against Paula Nichols. A few weeks later, The Court sent me a letter advising me that Paula Nichols no longer resides at 550 Pauley Drive, West Hempstead, N.Y.

If anyone reading this knows the whereabouts of Paula Nichols, please drop me a note.

My subjective opinion is that I have a excellent cause for action in this matter. I would be more than willing to offer sixty percent of whatever award, if any, to an aggressive attorney who is willing to catch this ground ball. Of course, I realize I would have to pay the expenses which will run at least three to five thousand dollars if the case goes to trial.

While a settlement would be convenient for the State, I'd rather see the officers take the witness stand before another jury. I'd rather see the officers have to stand by their prior testimony and answer questions put to them by an aggressive, no nonsense attorney who is prepared and willing to do his or her job.

I have also considered filing an action without an attorney. It would be a struggle, but as ADA Quigley suggested, I may be obsessed...with the truth being heard.

So far, I believe I offered a few palatable reasons for why, after twenty eight years of supporting Nassau County District Attorney Denis Dillion, I was not able to vote for him in the 2001 election.

Had it not been for ADA Ronny Schoenberg's inability to examine the facts and discern fact from fiction, thereby wasting oodles of taxpayers resources, not to mention mine, this case would have died in his office on December 11, 2001.

Had ADA Scheonberg bothered to look into my allegations of police misconduct before my trial, maybe ADA Frank Quigley would not have had to look me in the eye and tell me boldfaced lies, after my trial.

Perhaps if ADA Scheonberg bothered to look into my allegations of police misconduct, ADA Quigley, Bureau Chief for the Nassau County District Attorney's Office, Special Investigations Bureau, would not have had to send me a letter suggesting I look into taking a federal action against the Old Brookville Police Department.

ADA Scheonberg suggested I used "excessive force." The jury rebuffed his opinion by saying I never intended to injure her.

ADA Scheonberg stated Nichols committed no offenses. The Judge apparently heard enough evidence to feel a larceny "charge" be read to the jury.

Dear Reader, I've worked closely with hundreds of different prosecutors. I liked most prosecutors because I found most to be very professional AND interested in details of a case, especially in a, "he said, she said case."

I would guess that ADA Scheonberg has over twenty five years in the District Attorney's Office. Perhaps after twenty five years or so, a prosecutor gets good enough where he or she can go to trial without looking into the details of a case and insuring they make sense.

I waived my right to remain silent and offered to go over the details of this case with ADA Scheonberg. He declined and chose to point fingers at me instead of looking at the evidence. Had he looked at the evidence and scrutinized this case, I would not have had to make allegations of perjury against Paula Nichols and her private village police friends. With that in mind, ADA Quigley's Special Investigation Bureau, would have had one less, six month long, investigation to conduct.

ADA Scheonberg told me this case was, "bizarre." Apparently the jury didn't think so. They all agreed Paula Nichols lied and that her story didn't make sense. They listened to the same story I told ADA Scheonberg on December 11, 2000 and took a whole thirty minutes to figure out Nichols lied. ADA Scheonberg insured I related the same story to the jury by being present in the courtroom when I took the witness stand. ADA Scheonberg is the first reason I couldn't vote for Denis Dillion in 2001.

The second reason I cast my vote for District Attorney in another direction in 2001 is, ADA Dawn Marie Wladyka. I realize it may be inappropiate to pick on a rookie, but her star witness was sending up red flags all over and she apparently ignored them.

ADA Marshall Trager is another reason Denis Dillion lost my vote. Upon completion of his six month investigation into my allegations, ADA Trager politely asked me if I had any questions. When I started asking questions he told me to stop asking questions, before he asked me if I had any more questions. My final telephone conversation with ADA Trager bordered on absurd.

Finally we come to Bureau Chief, Frank Quigley. I don't have to retread my account of the more than two hours I spent with this special gentleman. Suffice it to say, a while back I saw America's Most Wanted host, John Walsh, being interviewed on Hannity & Colmes. In this interview, Mr. Walsh used the street vernacular term for a used condom when describing people he believed were criminals. Wonder what term he might use to describe the people in this case?

Before closing this article, I would like to ask a few questions of the government officials who were involved in this matter.

ADA Wladyka, as a relatively recent law school graduate, I have to assume you conducted a thorough examination of all the evidence prior to putting a business person on trial for allegedly committing an act of violence against another citizen.

In the past, I worked closely with several prosecutors who were investigating and preparing for their very first misdemeanor trial. As best as I recall, each was extremely meticulous in preparing for their very first case in which they would be representing The People of The State of New York. One first time prosecutor even took the time to visit and investigate the scene where I arrested a person who was in possession of a shotgun, directly across the street from the 79th Precinct Station House. I have to believe you were just as meticulous while preparing your case against me.

With that in mind, I'm wondering what you thought to yourself when you reviewed the official police documents submitted to you by the Old Brookville Police Officers who arrested me? I'm referring to one particular document, ADA Wladyka. The document I'm referring to was generated by the Old Brookville P.D. 911 dispatcher as a result of a call made to him or her by a community member, William Finetta. You provided my attorney with a copy of this document prior to trial.

In case you do not recall what William Finetta told the OBPD 911 operator, I will reprint the entire narrative, word for word, right here.

COMPL CALLED TO REPORT THAT HIS FRIEND, PAULA NICHOLS, JUST CALLED HIM CRYING. SHE WAS CALLING FROM THE HICKVILLE TRAIN STATION. SHE HAD JUST LEFT THE STABLE AT 1912 RT 106 BY A CAB. SHE STATED THAT THE CAB DRIVER ASSAULTED HER IN THE CAB IN THE DRIVEWAY OF 1912. THE CAB DRIVER THAN THREW HER OUT OF THE CAB IN HICKSVILLE. COMPL STATES HE DIDN'T THINK SHE NEEDED AN AMBULANCE AND THAT HE WAS GOING TO THE HICKSVILLE TRAIN STATION TO PICK HER UP. COMPL WILL BE RESPONDING TO HQ'S SHORTLY.

Before I comment about William Finetta's statement to the OBPD 911 operator, I would like to state that I can testify to the accuracy of the account of the incident which William Finetta provided to the OBPD 911 operator. Paula Nichols made her call to her friend, Bill Finetta, from a public phone located in my cab office. I managed to eavesdrop on the beginning of her conversation. I heard her say to the person she was calling, "Hello Bill", (pause), "the cab driver just attacked me" (pause), "by the front gate," before I stopped listening to her talking on the phone.

Paula Nichols made this phone call to Finetta approximately fifteen minutes after our confrontation in my place of business, otherwise known as my cab. She was being truthful to her friend when she told him our confrontation took place, "by the front gate." The audio tape of the incident clearly depicts me asking my dispatcher to have the police respond to the third driveway, which is where the front gate of 1912 Route 106 is located.

Here are my common sense questions, ADA Wladyka. Why did Paula Nichols tell her friend, Finetta, I assaulted her by the front gate and then go on to tell the police, you and the jury, I assaulted her at some nebulous location along Route 106 in Muttontown? ADA Wladyka, with all due respect, I am very interested in the answer to that question?

On the tape, she accused me of driving in a manner which endangered her life? Clearly, the tape shows we are still parked by the front gate where I picked her up when she started making allegations about my driving. Why didn't she get out of my cab to protect her own safety if we were still stopped at the location where I picked her up?

Paula Nichols told you and the police that after recklessly endangering her life, I pulled the cab over and ordered her to get out, approximately one half a mile from where I picked her up.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with Route 106, ADA Wladyka. There are many occupied residential homes located in close proximity to where she said I ordered her out of my cab. If I was driving reckless and placing her in fear for her safety, why didn't she exit my cab and seek refuge with one of the home owners located nearby?

Her leg brace excuse is rather lame in light of the fact she testified that just prior to entering my cab, she spent approximately twelve hours riding and frolicking with her three horses. Wouldn't you agree, ADA Wladyka?

She also told you and the police she considered jumping out of my cab if I was driving slower along a fifty five mile per hour highway. That would have been quite a feat for a severly handicapped person, wouldn't it, ADA Wladyka?

After refusing to exit my cab, Paula Nichols told you and the police I went crazy and drove in a terrifying manner while threatening her safety and life.

Let me ask you ADA Wladyka, after driving more than a half a mile down Route 106 and terrifying Nichols to where she feared for her life, did I drive back to where I picked her up and then decide to call the police? While listening to my audio tape, did Paula Nichols, in your opinion, sound like a person who just had her life threatened when she started making allegations about my driving.

How about we NOW take a look at the tape, as I offered to do back on December 11, 2000, months before you took me to trial.

Unfortunately, I did not capture Nichols repeatedly asking me if all cab drivers are stupid when she entered my place of business. I think I may have inserted my tape recorder too snuggly between the bucket seat and the tranny hump. As a result, I believe the record button did not fully engage when I first pushed it.

When Nichols refused to pay me or leave my place of business, I reached down and tried to covertly check the recorder to make sure it was working. I thought I felt it click off when I tried to discreetly insure the recorder was on. That's when Nichols saw me fiddling with the tape recorder.

I pulled the recorder from it's resting place, the recorder's strap still affixed to the seat belt harness, and depressed the record button once again before showing it to her. She sat back, her eyes now wide open as she sees the tape recorder.

Just prior to her seeing my tape recorder, I stopped the cab less then fifty yards from where I picked her up by the front gate. I stopped because when she became abusive toward me, I politely suggested if she was not happy with our service, she could find another, she replied, "fine."

When I stopped, so she could exit my cab, she refused to leave and demanded I take her to her destination. It became apparent to me I was being jerked around by a person who I perceived as emotionally disturbed.

I prudently asked her to pay me prior to providing her with my service. Her response to my request was, "this is bullshit, this is bullshit, this is bullshit."

This is when Paula Nichols spies me fiddling with my tape recorder and becomes aware she is being recorded

This is where the tape starts, with my comments in italics:

JM: "Whats that?"

I'm attempting to get her to repeat the "bullshit" comment she just made.

Nichols: I said, you're full of it
you're full of it
you're full of it
you're full of it -

JM: "Would you please get out of my cab or pay me" -

Nichols: "I'm not getting out of your cab" -

JM: "Would you please pay me." -

Nichols: "You haven't brought me to my destination." -

JM: I don't have to, you don't, you don't pay for a train before you get there." -

Nichols: I'm going to pay the fare, but you told me to get out and pulled over." -

JM: You said, you said to get out and you said you were going to get out, now get out". -

Nichols: "You told me that I - I didn't like the way you were talking to me." -

ADA Wladyka, did you notice there is no mention of my reckless driving? Nichols is apparently attempting to save face after she sees she is being recorded. Fact is, ADA Wladyka, Nichols is refusing to exit my cab and demanding I take her to her destination. Why would Nichols want me to drive her anywhere, if, as she will claim in a few short moments, I am driving like a "maniac?" Seriously, ADA Wladyka, I would respectfully request you provide a reasonable answer to this question. You can email me if you want.

JM: "What did I say Dear? I said - you asked me what kind of day I was having and I said not a very good one and then you started bitching and moaning, didn't you?" -

Nichols: "Excuse me." -

JM: "OK, aren't you the one?" -

Nichols: "Are you swearing at me?" -

JM: "Yes, I am Dear, I'm swearing at you." -

I had no desire to argue with this emotionally disturbed person. So I agreed with her. I just wanted to get paid. Did you notice how she avoided answering who started this confrontation by suggesting I was cursing at her?

Nichols: "OK, good, good, good." -

JM: "Now, I want my money please." -

Nichols: "You want - you want to get money." "Bring me to my destination."

ADA Wladyka, did you notice that Nichols is still demanding I DRIVE her to her destination? Now please take notice of when her psychiatric drug filled mind starts looking for another excuse to cover up for her abhorrent behavior in my place of business.

JM: "I want my money please." "Draq--"

Draq, is my dispatcher, who I am trying to raise over the radio. ADA Wladyka, please take notice of how Paula Nichols reacts when I begin to introduce a third party into this situation. She is apparently about to go on the offense by trying to establish that it was me who was trying to, "twist this around."

Nichols: "I use this cab company all the time, don't tell me you can swear at me and everything else and get away with it, you're not swearing at me" -

ADA Wladyka, why isn't Nichols mentioning my reckless driving at this point. Surely, reckless driving and endangering her life is a more heinous offense than my "cursing" at her.

JM: "Draq" -

Nichols: "No. Go right ahead." -

JM: "Draq." -

Nichols: "You're not twisting this around and making it look like my fault when you drive like a maniac." - "How dare you?" -

Here we go. Finally, we get to my reckless driving. Apparently Nichols felt her case against me for cursing at her wasn't strong enough to justify her disrupting my business. So she hastily developed a new angle to justify her acting like a knucklehead. Everyone knows cab drivers are reckless drivers, so why not hang her hat on that allegation? Problem is, the tape clearly shows we are still parked at the location where I picked her up.

ADA Wladyka, in your thorough and complete interview of Paula Nichols prior to my trial, how did she explain not complaining about my driving till after I called for help. How did she explain her refusal to leave my cab after she claimed I drove like a maniac and endangered her? Remember, during this taped conversation we were still parked by the front gate which Nichols also referred to as the third driveway when she gave my dispatcher directions to pick her up. Why didn't she quickly leave my cab and seek safety with her good friend, William Finetta, the owner of the third driveway? In her sworn statement to Old Brookville Police, she swore I drove a half mile down the road and stopped the cab before ordering her out of the cab. The audio tape clearly shows I told her to get out of my cab at the same location where I picked her up. How did she explain this away?

JM: "We're not going anywhere." -

Nichols: "We'll sit here all night - I'm not working - you're the one working." -

At this point, Nichols has refused to pay me and refused to leave my place of business, thereby disrupting my business. According to New York State law, she is committing an offense known as, "Trespass."

Draq: "Ah, John, you trying to call me?" -

JM: "Yes, would you have the police respond to the third driveway please."

Mysteriously, the tape stops recording just as Nichols adjusts herself toward the middle of the backseat and starts screaming over my shoulder that I'm driving in circles and endangering her life as I attempt to speak with my dispatcher. Upon hearing I was in trouble, he reacted by leaving his post in the office and jumping into a driver's car to come to my rescue.

ADA Wladyka, had the police conducted a lawful and proper investigation on the night they arrested me, you would have had a statement from my dispatcher and the driver whose car he borrowed to come rescue me. Though, I will give the District Attorney's Office credit for eventually interviewing my dispatcher, three months after I was acquitted.

ADA Wladyka, do you recall our meeting back on December 11, 2000? The meeting where I came to you, waived my right to remain silent, and offered to answer ANY questions you had concerning this matter.

Do you recall the ONLY question you asked me in this meeting? You asked me if I drove Nichols back to the train station after the physical encounter with her.

My impression of this question was that you believed that after advising my dispatcher I wanted the police to respond to a location located along Route 106, (the front gate, aka, third driveway) I decided to drive in circles across the center median of Route 106, hoping the police wouldn't arrive before I was through sadistically terrifying Paula Nichols? Please keep in mind that at least seven minutes had elapsed since I called for the police and got back into the cab to drive Nichols, the perp, to the train station.

Do you seriously believe I would engage in the behavior Nichols said I did, believing the police where going to be responding to Route 106?

ADA Wladyka, I have a question, just between you and me. Does the Nassau County District Attorney's Office have a cap or limit on how many conflicting or contradictory statements a witness for the People can make before their credibility comes into question?

Please believe me ADA Wladyka, I do not take pleasure in being salty. I realize your boss, ADA Ronald Scheonberg, saddled you with this case. I also realize you wanted to do your damndest to win your first case and I can't blame you for that. BUT, at what price?

You are the one ultimately responsible for presenting this case in the cause of justice for The People of The State of New York. You are the one who put a witness on the stand who the jury agreed, lied under oath.

Besides handing Nichols an expensive airplane ticket to send her back to her new home in Washington State, before my trial ended, what action did you take against her for lying under oath?

Did you notice Juror Number Three as Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano offered his testimony? She nearly broke her neck reacting to his testimony. What action did you take against Sergeant Piampiano after he slapped you, the jury and The People of The State of New York in the face with his incredible testimony.

Didn't you think it was odd that you told the jury I like to talk a lot while Sergeant Piampiano told them I didn't like to talk at all?

Didn't you think it was odd that the police officer who arrested me and the detective who was called in on overtime to investigate the circumstances of my alleged crime, testified they never listened to the audio tape they had in their possession?

Well before my trial started, I informed my attorney that my arresting officer and the detective were going to shift the responsibility for arresting me to the sergeant. I told my attorney we needed to call Piampiano to trial. He informed me we were better off having you call him as a witness.

As I predicted, the arresting officer and Detective Bartlett placed the responsibility for arresting me on Sergeant Piampiano. As a result, Piampiano was called to testify at the last minute.

I am still curious why he was not on your original witness list. You knew before trial I was making public allegations of police misconduct. You knew I was making a issue of my audio tape. You knew before trial that the arresting officer and detective stated they never bothered listening to my tape and that they were placing the responsibility for arresting me on Sergeant Piampiano.

Why is it Piampiano was not on your original witness list, ADA Wladyka? Why did you appear reluctant to call him as a witness when it became evident he was needed to explain why the police did not have a statement from me prior to arresting me?

During your trial prep, how did the arresting officer explain not having a "cabdriver's version of the events" or statement from me BEFORE he arrested me? While "prepping" the arresting officer, didn't his responses give you notice his sergeant was going to be needed to fill in the details?

ADA Wladyka, please correct me if I am wrong. I believe Sergeant Piampiano was given less than twenty four hours notice that he was to appear in court. I also believe your first and only interview with Sergeant Piampiano occured on the same morning he took the witness stand and testified for the State.

I seem to recall my attorney telling you that if the State did not call Sergeant Piampiano, the defense most certainly was going to call him to explain the circumstances under which he ordered I be arrested.

If I am correct in my assumptions, I am wondering how you reacted when, just moments before Sergeant Piampiano was to take the witness stand, he told you he did not listen to the audio tape his complaining witness told him she used to record me threatening her life? With all due respect, ADA Wladyka, did your jaw hit the floor when he told you that?

Didn't it seem odd that three police officers would tell you they never listened to a tape they were going to voucher and cause to be used to prosecute a "violent person?"

The same tape their very own witness stated she used to record me verbally threaten her life. Again, I do not like coming off like a wise guy, but facts are facts?

While interviewing Sergeant Piampiano, minutes before he would swear to tell the truth before the jury, did you squirm and grimace, as juror number three later did, when he told you I refused to cooperate with his police investigation?

Honestly, ADA Wladyka, I feel bad that you were also victimized by Paula Nichols. I can empathize with you. According to her neighbors, we should form a club known as the "Former Victims of Paula Nichols."

I can only hope you understand why I am upset with you. You are no dummy, ADA Wladyka. You are an educated woman who took on the responsibility for insuring justice is served for The People of The State of New York.

While Piampiano's testimony was not relevant to the assault charges he helped put me on trial for, in my opinion, his false testimony was injurious toward me.

ADA Wladyka, I think after you finished interviewing Piampiano in your office, you might have had the feeling of being caught between a rock and a hard place. I also think you had a choice to make. We both know what choice you made, don't we?

ADA Wladyka, as I mentioned earlier in this article, I had a lengthy conversation with a colleague of yours, Frank Quigley, Bureau Chief of the Special Investigations Bureau.

He told me his investigation revealed the officers arrested me because they felt this incident had something to do with domestic violence.

Why was it that all three of the officers who testified at my trial, never breathed a word about domestic violence? Why is it that throughout my entire four day trial, there was never a mention of domestic violence, by you or anyone else?

Did any of the officers who you sat down with and prepared prior to my trial ever mention anything about domestic violence, as they did in Frank Quigley's alleged investigation regarding my criminal complaint for perjury and misconduct against Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano?

ADA Wladyka, I realize you and your boss, Ronnie Schoenberg, are going hang your hats on the fact that Nichols was injured.

Believe me, Madam Prosecutor, I never had any intention of injuring the emotionally disturbed person who chose to damage my tape recorder while taking it without my permission.

Nichols had every reason to believe I recorded her abuse and she chose to engage in proscribed conduct in order to rectify the problem she created for herself. Had she freaked out and grabbed my map and started ripping it into a thousand pieces, I would have laughed at her.

Resorting to the use of physical force is not always warranted, even if the law permits it's use.

In this case, I was not about to allow a person who just got caught with her pants down, to pull her pants up at my expense. I had a lawful right to use physical force to prevent her from causing further damage to my property and to prevent her from leaving my place of business with my property. Especially when I believed the property contained evidence to refute any allegations she was making about me!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you recall, ADA Wladyka, your own witness, Detective Bartlett testified that physical injuries can occur when "lawful" physical force is applied.

Apparently, your colleague, Frank Quigley, agrees I was entitled to use force. During our more than two hours together, not once did Quigley say I was not justified in the use of force.

He offered lame excuses for why I was arrested and prosecuted, but he never said I was not justified in using force.

While flinging lame excuses at me, Quigley never suggested the force I used was, "excessive force," as your boss, Ron Schoenberg, did when we met on December 11, 2000.

ADA Wladyka, I don't know much about you. I don't know about your reputation, your character, your integrity or your investigative skills.

What I do know, is that you put at least two witnesses on the stand who told verifiable lies before the jury and who effectively torpedoed your very first criminal trial...and then you did nothing about it. So much for justice, huh?

ADA Scheonberg, I have a few questions for you, if you happen across this article. In our December 11, 2000 meeting, I told you Nichols took my recorder and exerted a great amount of force to prevent me from taking it away from her. When I suggested her conduct amounted to a robbery, you replied, "you don't think this was a real robbery, do you?"

Let's forget about her thrusting the recorder at my face because you have only my word she did that. Let us stick with the fact she admitted using as much force as her psychiatric drug filled body and mind could muster up to prevent me from taking my recorder away from her.

Sir, could you please explain to me what you meant by "real robbery?" She admitted using force to prevent me from recovering my property and you're suggesting her conduct does not contain all the elements of a robbery?

I've seen people arrested and prosecuted for robbery for merely implying they were going to use force. Yet, you told me, Nichols actual constructive conduct did not amount to any crime, including robbery. How is that so, Sir?

At the end of our December 11, 2000 meeting, I asked you if I could have Nichols arrested for perjury when this was all over. You murmured some vague reply about the facts of the case. Now that the trial is over and the jury agreed that Paula Nichols lied under oath, what have you done about her perjurious testimony, ADA Schoenberg?

I have another question for you. In your experience as a veteran in the Nassau County District Attorney's Office, in the last twenty eight years, how many witnesses who testified for the State (your office) have been prosecuted for perjury? If you know?

Personally, I think it might be difficult for some prosecutors to admit they were deceived by a witness who had a agenda to protect her own butt with transparent lies. In my own experience, I can recall being "taken in" a few times by various complaining witnesses who had their own agendas. Fortunately, I conducted thorough investigations and determined the complaining witness was "yanking my chain." It was not a pleasant feeling knowing I had been deceived, but it happens.

A prosecutor with integrity might be able to look beyond his own embarrassment and seek justice when his or her case is shot out of the water by the false testimony of their own witnesses.

Or, he or she could sweep it under the carpet and live with the realization that they are still collecting the same check every two weeks, regardless of whether or not justice is served.

Hello again, ADA Marshall Tragar. Sir, do you remember our telephone conversation on August 3, 2001?

Do you recall advising me your investigation was nearly complete and that when is was completed, you would answer my questions? Do you recall telling me you believed I was being, "genuinely sincere in your position," regarding the allegations I made against Nichols and Piampiano?

Now, let us fast forward to our final telephone conversation on August 30, 2001. ADA Tragar, do you recall asking me if I had any questions about your investigation which you were marking closed, no further investigation required? Do you recall telling me to stop asking questions just before you asked me if I had anymore questions? Sir, what was that all about?

More importantly, do you recall suggesting I was not being truthful when I informed you I had a conversation with a former Manhattan prosecutor who characterized Nichols conduct as robbery and the police conduct as misconduct. Why is it earlier in the month you referred to me as being "genuinely sincere," and just a few weeks later you are suggesting I am a liar?

Sergeant Robert S. Piampiano. My first questions are, "why?" Did Finetta offer you any inducements or was this just a part of the service you provide to wealthy community members you serve?

My next question is, "why didn't you tell the jury you arrested me pursuant to domestic violence laws?" As you allegedly told Quigley's investigators, who allegedly interviewed you based on my criminal complaint alleging you are a man who has no problem abusing his police powers.

Here are the last few questions I have for you at this time. Why did you really try and stick it to me when you told the jury I refused to cooperate with your investigation? Not that they believed you, but that was really mean spirited of you.

Did you lie to the jury hoping I would be convicted, so you would be insulated from any allegations I might make about your unlawful investigation on the night you arrested me? Kind of like the allegations I am making now?

My final few question are for Paula Nichols. I understand you were injured in an elevator accident a while back. Is that why you were wearing a sleek purple leg brace when I picked you up after a full day of frolicking with your three horses? Are you disabled as a result of you leg injury? Are you collecting government or private disability checks as a result of your injury in the elevator mishap?

Why is it you came to each court appearance wearing a leg brace the size of Florida? Could it be you want to go on pretending you are disabled and felt you had to put on a show for the government? If in fact you are collecting disability checks, wouldn't want the government to find out about your horse riding skills, in triplicate, would you Paula?

One last question for you, Paula. What is your new address? I have a subpeona for you.

I would be remiss if I did not address the comment I made about the prosecution's case being malicious.

After the police unlawfully arrested me, I approached the prosecutors to tell them my side of the story. After telling my side of the story, prosecutors refused to examine the evidence which clearly shows their complaining witness was lying.

Prosecutors ignored the fact that their own witness admitted committing criminal acts against me.

Prosecutors stated I used excessive force while the credible evidence in this case shows I did not.

Prosecutors stated I should have retreated while The People of The State of New York tell me I had no duty to retreat.

Prosecutors refused to entertain my allegations that the police acted improperly and did not investigate my allegations until after they put me on trial and I was acquitted.

Knowing I was making allegations of police misconduct, the prosecution put police witnesses on the stand whose testimony was not supported by the evidence.

While preparing police witnesses, the prosecution HAD TO KNOW that one, if not all, police witnesses were lying when they stated they never listened to a audio tape that would be the focus of the defense in this case.

Yet, all three police witnesses were permitted to take the witness stand and testify they never listened to a tape their own witness told them contained evidence of a possible felony being committed.

The State's key police witness testified I refused to cooperate with his investigation, even though the prosecution had plenty of evidence to disprove or impeach his testimony.

If I correctly recall, the prosecutor finally made physical evidence (911 tape) available, after the State's police witnesses were well clear of the courthouse. This evidence would have been used by the defense to severely discredit and impeach police testimony.

If you feel I am wrong for characterizing the State's case as, "malicious," please feel free to send me your comments. I am always willing to examine different ideas and thoughts which come my way.

Dear Reader, thank you for your time and patience. I realize my writing skills are at best, marginal. If anything I wrote needs clarifying, please feel free to contact me at the below listed email address.

Sincerely,

John Menso

A personal note for my District Attorney, The Honorable Denis Dillion.

Sir, In September of 2001 I sent you a certified letter requesting a face to face meeting with you, regarding my arrest and subsequent prosecution. Sir, I would still like to discuss this matter with you. You have my phone number, address and email addy. Please feel free to contact me. Thank you.