EDISON – A state Superior Court judge dismissed a criminal complaint against townshipMayor Jun Choi during a probable cause hearing May 6.
Despite his disappointment with the verdict, Craig Prupris, the man who made the complaint, has said he will try to have his complaint recognized through higher channels, such as the county prosecutor’s office or the stateAttorney General’s Office.
The complaint, heard before Judge Frederick DeVasa at theMiddlesex County Courthouse in New Brunswick, accused Choi of identity theft, false impersonation, theft by deception and official misconduct, with the charges centered around a second office the mayor maintains on Oak Tree Road. A probable cause hearing is undertaken when a citizenmakes a criminal complaint. A confirmation of its relevance can then lead to a trial.
Prupris said that the second office, which is mostly responsible for Democratic campaign work, creates ambiguity between themayor’s governmental duties and political functions.
The office shares a building with several other businesses. According to Prupris, the directory telling visitors who works where had, until recently, listed the second office as “the Office of the Mayor, Jun Choi.” Prupris also said there was another sign outside the office itself that said the same thing. This, he felt, violated township ordinance 2-1.1, which states that the mayor cannot have his office in a private building.
“That’s where the issues come in. It appears the mayor has set this up to look like the mayor’s office when it’s really a campaign headquarters. … That’s where I feel the official misconduct comes in,” Prupris said during his testimony before DeVasa.
The Edison resident also said that the mayor had improperly used the township seal, a charge that the administration itself had leveled against township residents Bill Stephens andAnthony Russomanno earlier this year. The pair, longtime opponents of Choi, had used the seal to advertise for a rally during the mayor’s State of the Township address in January and were met with a criminal complaint alleging fraud and impersonation. The county prosecutor downgraded those charges to disorderly persons charges a few days later.
Prupris, meanwhile, said that the mayor’s use of the seal on a piece of campaign literature mailed to local Democrats represented a similar misuse of the seal. Furthermore, the flier listed the Oak Tree Road office as the address for the office of themayor and not the 100Municipal Boulevard address where Choi’s official office is located.
Prupris, who has been critical of the mayor, said that his complaint was not politically motivated. Speaking before his testimony, Prupris said the initial complaint against Stephens and Russomanno was what alerted him to the fact that the seal could be misused, but that his motivation, like the administration’s, was simply to defend the use of the seal.
“The mayor’s adamant about defending misuse of the seal. Why shouldn’t ordinary citizens?” asked Prupris.
The judge did not deny the veracity of Prupris’ comments, saying that he did not doubt the factual basis behind the complaint and also added that the two offices did represent some ambiguity over the mayor as a public servant and the mayor as a political entity. At the same time, however, DeVasa said that there was not enough evidence to say that the mayor had committed the crimes the complaint has charged himwith, noting that his duty is not to make a determination as to whether something is proper but whether something is legal. The judge said that regardless of whether or not it’s improper, it is still not the crimes that the complaint alleges.
“When I look at this conduct in this context, I cannot conclude that the mayor has violated these criminal statutes,” said DeVasa. “These are very serious crimes intended to be applied against those individuals… who cause great harmand damage to our citizens.”
DeVasa said that the second office and the misuse of the seal was not used, in this instance, to hurt someone or to obtain money from someone. He said that if the mayor had let people who came to the second office pay township fines and then pocketed the money himself, then that would have been something indictable. On the other hand, he likened Choi’s actions to a technical mistake that was not made with the express intention of enriching himself at the public’s expense.
“The act of using the mayor’s seal and setting up this address … does not constitute theft of services, does not constitute identity theft, does not constitute official misconduct,” said DeVasa.
Prupris stated that the mayor had recently taken down the signs that said it was his office, which shows that themayor knew it was a legal issue. DeVasa, though, said that theremust be at least some level of corrupt intent, which was not evident in the mayor’s action of taking down the signs. As an example, DeVasa said that some public employees might take longer lunches, but that they’re not going to start charging them with stealing minutes.
“What we’re looking for is some level of corruption, that takes public misconduct outside technical violation. … Not every time a public official does something wrong is it official misconduct,” said DeVasa. “If you start a fire, it could be to enjoy a romantic evening or to commit insurance fraud. But the lighting of the match [is not relevant].”
After his testimony, Prupris said he was disappointed with the ruling and that he would want to approach the county prosecutor or attorney general next. He was also upset that the judge threw the entire complaint out, and Prupris noted that Stephens and Russomanno still needed to face disorderly persons charges.
“I am disappointed he felt there was no criminal intent. Why would [Choi] have taken down the signs?” said Prupris.