Welcome to ap material facts

Under the NJ Discovery Rule and Fraudulent Concealment Doctrine. In July 2004 there was an active Court Ruling and Order against the City of Asbury Park NJ and Civilian Police Director Louis Jordan. Mr Jordan as a Civilian without police powers and who was prohibited from exercising police powers met with the Plaintiff on September 17, 2004 (After the July Court Order) after receiving a memorandum from Sworn Officer of Rank Mr Gilbert Reed on September 13, 2004.

In July 2004, which is before September 2004. Mercer County Superior Court specifically prohibited Mr Jordan from exercising police powers by way of a Court Ordered. Mr Jordan disregarded the Court's Order as he confirmed in his own police memorandum he provided. The City concealed the fact that there was a Court Order specifically against Mr Jordan.

The City of Asbury Park negligently failed to supervise Mr Jordan and are liable for Ordinances 2616 and 2667 under the Monell Doctrine for creating and later failing to amend or repeal these policies to reflect the Court's ruling and Order. There was no change until 2007 as records confirm.

On September 17, 2025 a complaint was submitted to the Monmouth County Division of Consumer Affairs to investigate concealment of material facts during the initial business transaction with the City of Asbury Park NJ and to investigate the concealment of the same material facts within the Monmouth County Division of Consumer Affairs investigation. 

The Division of Consumer Affairs does not have jurisdiction over the municipality. However, they are a State Agency branch and it's against Attorney Ethics to falsify and conceal material facts from a State Agency even without jurisdiction.

N.J. Supreme Court, December 16, 2008 – In this decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified the remedies available. The Court held that the offended party can assert a separate cause of action for fraudulent concealment of evidence. Tartaglia v. UBS PaineWebber, Inc., et al., 2008.

A party may not benefit from its own fraudulent conduct. Joe D'Egidio Landscaping, Inc. v. Apicella, 337 N.J. Super. 252, 257 (App. Div. 2001).

In a PRECEDENTIAL DECISION, the Superior Court, Appellate Division, in Catena v. Raytheon Company, et al.,(August 18, 2016), held that the Discovery Rule applied to Common Law Fraud Claims as well as fraud claims under New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) and was held 17 years later.