Lisa'

Wht you've written doesn't make sense.  Exactly how does the changing or not changing a named defendant impact the substance of the lawsuit?  Have the charges changed?  has any of the evidence changed?

It seems to me that you're trying to difuse the seriousnes of a federal lawsuit...of course that's just an opinion but nothing of substance has changed has it?

Oh yeah, the DEP.  What exactly do you mean by "it is clear they are not going to take being lied to" ?  I assume you mean that the DEP is upset.  How so?  Has it been determined that some lie has been told? Or is that just wishfull thinking on your part?

And tell us Lisa, what do you mean when you say "we have many friends in high places"  Are you suggesting that friendships and not facts will determine the outcome?  I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth, so please explain.

I'm glad you had a nice vacation.

08/03/05 - Posted from the Daily Record newsroom
Christ Church amends lawsuit

Drops town council candidate's name, adds allegations

By Rob Jennings, Daily Record

ROCKAWAY TWP. - A township resident who is a candidate for town council was first added, and then dropped, from an amended federal lawsuit filed Tuesday by Christ Church of Montclair.

The first version listed Stephen J. Antonelli among a list of council members being sued "in their official capacities" - even though Antonelli, who defeated Councilman Eugene Sheninger in the Ward 6 Republican primary in June, is not currently a council member.

Christ Church, after being informed of the mistake, removed Antonelli's name and submitted a second version to U.S. District Court in Newark at about 5 p.m.

Church spokesman Marc Weinstein said the mistake was not an issue because it had been quickly corrected.

Antonelli, who is running unopposed in November, disagreed.

ADVERTISEMENT

OAS_rn = '001234567890'; OAS_rns = '1234567890';
OAS_rn = new String (Math.random()); OAS_rns = OAS_rn.substring (2, 11);



document.write('');









on error resume next
plugin = ( IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash.3")))
if ( plugin

Montclair church amends lawswuit

It complains of bias in Rockaway Twp.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005

BY PAULA SAHA Star-Ledger Staff

Christ Church filed a federal lawsuit against Rockaway Township alleging religious discrimination back in April, but according to an amended copy of the complaint, the township has continued to discriminate against the Montclair church and its plans to build a religious campus on the former Agilent Technologies site.

A spokesman for the church said the amended complaint was filed in federal court yesterday.

In it, attorneys for the church argue that a planning board member who lives near the Agilent site shouldn't have been allowed to participate in hearings about the project, that another official who recused himself from the review had copies of revised church plans and that one of Rockaway Township's own attorneys said at a public meeting that the township had "changed the rules of the game midstream."

 Advertisement












on error resume next
plugin = ( IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash.3")))
if ( plugin

Christ Church, a 5,000-member congregation, has been before the township planning board seeking site plan approval for a complex on Green Pond Road. Residents are concerned about the environmental and traffic impact of the development.

But the church believes township officials have "manufactured discriminatory and improper barriers to the redevelopment of the property in Rockaway Township, and thus to the fulfillment of Christ Church's religious mission," according to the amended lawsuit.

Church spokesman Marc Weinstein said the defendants in the case should be served with the amended complaint within the next week or so.

The church actually filed two amended complaints yesterday. Earlier in the day, church attorneys replaced defendant Councilman Eugene Sheninger with Stephen Antonelli, who won a primary race over Sheninger in June.

But after realizing that Antonelli would not officially be a member of the township council until January, church attorneys electronically filed another amended complaint, removing Antonelli's name and reinstating Sheninger as a defendant, Weinstein said.

Other highlights of the new complaint:

Under the heading "The Propaganda and Disinformation Campaign," the complaint outlines how Joseph Chovanec, who lives within 200 feet of the Agilent site, was allowed to sit on the planning board, according to the suit. Chovanec is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Town officials have said Chovanec was appointed as an alternate to the board earlier this year, so no one immediately recognized the conflict. He is no longer participating in the hearings.

The new complaint also accuses the chairman of the environmental commission, Pat Matarazzo, with obtaining the church's revised plans in June. Matarazzo, according to the complaint, has recused himself from the application and "should not be in possession of official environmental commission documents relating to the Christ Church application."

Matarazzo declined to comment yesterday, and referred questions to the township attorney.

Under discussion of a new ordinance amendment that set definitions for a church as a conditional use, the new complaint includes the statements of planning board attorney William Dimin at the July 25 planning board meeting. According to the lawsuit, Dimin said Christ Church "had been forced to revise its plans because the township had changed the rules of the game midstream."

"I think that's a key point," said church spokesman Marc Weinstein. "He basically contradicts what the township's position is on the ordinance."

Dimin said yesterday he did make that statement, and that the municipality has the right to change any ordinance. "The applicant must adhere to the newly enacted ordinance," he said.

Procedural question .... CC filed suit in April and had till August to serve notice to the defendents.  The August deadline got here, and we found a post saying that Monday morning all defendents would be served.  Well we know they didn't.  Then Weinstein said all defendents will be served by the end of the week.  Instead, an amended complaint was filed.  My question would be, does the amended complaint now give CC ANOTHER 90 days to serve the defendents and is this just another threat and stalling tactic?

Mr. Weinstein says a lot of things, as do you.  I'll believe it when I see it.

I was asking a question.... plain and simple.

Thinker,

The suit remains unchaged, the process of notification has begun.  Are you denying it?

You've directed some negative comments towards Mr. Weinstein but Why?  Don't you think some substantive thought should be given to resolving the suit? 

It seems to me, there's a lot at stake and productive comments, diected at the issue would better serve RT and its residents.

RTConcern, I find it unfortunate that you begin your comment with yet another use of 4th grade, bathroom humor.  I can only hope you outgrow this phase of your life soon.

As to your salient points, it has never been shown that the apparent discrepancy was a lie.  Further, there is no indication that the DEP is even concerned although VoRT founders insist the DEP is upset and “friends in high places are working hard”

As to whether or not a decision is needed before CC can take legal action, I think you’re wrong.  What did you expect?  RT would delay its decision until CC got frustrated and walked away?  That may have been your dream but not realistic or, I’m guessing, a viable strategy.

Christ Church amended the list of named defendants.  So what? What’s the significance?

The church only addressed the fact that an appointed township official of owns property within 200 feet of 140 GPR…, which is true and is a violation.  No accusation was made.  In my opinion, the church should have questioned quotes made by the Mayor as well.

Sceusi claimed he didn’t know Chovanec owned the property.  How is that remotely possible?  The town subdivided the property, approved the sale of 3 lots to a custom homebuilder and approved a new road, Cody Ct providing access to the 3 sold lots. But I don’t make decisions for legal counsel. 

BTW, this is my town too.