Wednesday, September 19, 2013 at 4:00:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time Subject: Re: Ryan Saul Date: Tuesday, September 1a, 2015 at 5:51:44 pm. Eastern Daylight Tlme From: Peter Paris To: Ford, Andrew Andrew, Yhnse are statements avan Saul n, and always naa been, an naneat, nard working polite arnrer He was My exonerated allilxe allegation: veal: aga Whoever gave yau those rammema needs to get his ar nerram strargnt Peter B. Paris, Esq. Beckett Law office 5 Mapleton Road Princeton, NJ 08540 On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Ford, Andrew wrote: Good morning, Oflicials in the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office made statements in interviews in reference to Ryan Saul, including: - don't think he's out on patrol." . "This office would never base a prosecution on the testimony 01 that particular officer. . inclined to he's in a position with the department now which would not require him to interact with the public or ever become involved in a criminal matter or municipal court matter which would compel this officer's testimony. I believe he's probably riding a desk somewhere." After being presented with the tact that Saul has made at least 43 arrests since 2015, according to police records, an oflice spokesman said Saul's participation in Superior Court cases ".e.would be taken on a case-by-case basis.. Do you have any comments on the statements from the prosecutor's oftice? SlnCeleer Page 1 of 19 Andrew Ford USA Today Network -- New Jersey @AndrewFoldNews 1 From: Peter Paris Date: Friday, September 7, 2013 at 2:49 pm. "Ford, Andrew" Subiect: Re: Ryan Saul Andlew If you read ryans deposition, histrial testimony, and my trial briel, that whole episode was explained in detail. ludge troncone knew all about it when he made his ruling. The township attorney repeated this allegation over and overand overagain. sutthe iudge saw it lorwhat it was cornplete bullshit. I have not reviewed rny tiles on this in a couple ol years so I could be wrong on a couplethings I hope you review my trial briel and Ryan's testirnony ilthis lied" story is going to be the hook for your article. aut lor purposes ol leading you toward the truth, here is the gist ol the story. A yearor so belore they came alter hirn, Ryan responded to a dornestic incident when Ryan arrived the guy was leaving in his car but Ryan stopped him lrorn leaving i cannot recall the details but eventuaiiythe guy was arrested on the domestic or a warrant or something while transporting him to the police station, or alter they arrived I can't recall, Ryan srnelled alcohol on the guy. Since Ryan had seen hirn behind the wheel, he and his supervisor discussed whetherto charge hirn with dwi, whetherto do field sobriety tests on hirn atthe station etc. aackthen, certain high ranking people in the department had it out lor Ryan lor reasons that remain unclear. in my view,They just didn't like hirn because he didn't lilt weights and go drinking with the popularguys Two orthree supervisors were particularly mean to Ryan and always broke his balls about little things This went on lor years. Page 1 ol 19 As part of their harassment, they used to call him in to the chiefs conference room and grill him on things he had done or not done. These were not internal affairs invesKgaKons. It was three or four supervisors who would just grill him for an hour or more over nothing. I know other disfavored Manchester officers who have suffered through the same type of harassment. Several days aaer the arrest, Ryan got called in to be grilled about why he didn’t do field sobriety tests on this guy at the scene. It’s irrelevant but they wanted to harass him about it. At the Kme, Ryan was having some issues at home and was under constant scruKny at work from certain supervisors. He was not in a good mood on this day. During this grilling, things got emoKonally heated. Ryan kept saying he didn’t smell any alcohol on the guy at the scene what do you want me to tell you? At some point He said, maybe it was windy or something, I don’t know I just didn’t smell anything. They seized on the windy comment and kept saying that’s a lie it wasn’t windy. Ryan kept saying “what do you want me to tell you?! I just didn’t smell any alcohol at first but later I did.” But they kept saying why did you lie? He was saying I didn’t lie I was just trying to come up with some possible reason I didn’t smell it since you seem to want some kind of answer that I don’t have. they kept pressing him and antagonizing him. On the verge of tears aaer an hour or more, He said words to the effect of, what can I say to you to end this and let me go home? Their response was admit you lied and you can leave. Ryan was so upset that he yelled “Fine I lied. Can I go now?” And they let him leave. They didn’t charge him with lying for that episode. Rather, they cited that episode months later as an example of him lying when they were ginning up the fitness for duty exam. The IA invesKgator basically went fishing for things that happened that could be cobbled together to show that Ryan either lied or was unfit for duty even though they had never accused him contemporaneously. None of those allegaKon was genuine which is why judge troncone exonerated him. Although the judges decision did not address every factual contenKon they alleged, he knew about all of them Especially this bullshit “I lied” story. On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 1:24 PM Ford, Andrew wrote: Thanks, Page 3 of 19 In a prevrous emall you wrote "nu" atter yuu were asked rt Saui has ever been untrutntui on the Job, How dues your statement in the attached court document that quotes Saul saylng "i iled"? Sincereiyt Andrew Ford USA Today Network 7 New Jersey @And rewFurd News From: Peter Paris (gparis@dbeckettlaw.mm> Date: riday, September 7, 2018 at 11:35 a.m. To: "Ford, Andrew" Subject: Re: Ryan Saul Officer Ryan Saui has worked his entire career with no restrictions of any kind, and he continues to do 50. Peter B. Paris, Esq. Beckett Law Office 5 Maplcton Road Princeton NJ 08549 PParis(n Page 4 of 19 On Thu, Aug 30, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Ford, Andrew wrote: Good anernoon, We ask questluns In order lo me snuauon vuny and undenake a cumplete Investigallnn. Can you vorward any materials you'd Irke us in canslder? Please answer me questions below Has Saul tesmled In supenoror municipal ooun srnoe he returned in duly? In which case(s)? Dues Saul perlurm lhe urdlnary dunes OI a patrolman? IS he on me road? Dues he make alresls? Has Saul oeen gwen special Ins1ruclluns or special treatment, compared to omer omcers, vor now he palmls or makes arres\s? Can Saul make arles'ts by hlmsel'? Is Saul Ilmlted In lhe types 0' Cases he can he Involved In? Sincerely, Andrew Furd USA Today NeMork -- New Jersey @AndrewFord News From: Peter Paris Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2013 at 6:58 p.m. Tu: "Ford, Andrew" Subjem Re: Ryan Saul Page 5 of 19 So let's cut to the chase. You clearly have no interest In any laats. So let me made it clear Vou have no <aris wrote: why are you asking these questions? Peter B. Paris, Esq. Beckett Law Office 5 Maplelon Road PrincetonMsAQ PParis(atheckelLlaw.com Page 6 of 19 On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Ford, Andrew wrote: Thanks, Has Saul tesnlled In superlol or coun Slnce he returned to duty? In case(s)? Does Saul oerlorm the ordlnary dunes ol a patrolman? ls he on the mad? Does he make arrests? Has Saul oeen glven speclal or speclal lleatmeml compared to other omeers, lor how he patrols or makes arrests? Can Saul make arresls by hlmsell? Is Saul Ilmlled In the types ol cases he can be Involved In? Andrew Ford USA Today Network -- New Jersey @AndlewFordNews From: Peter Paris Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2013 at 3:47 p.m. 10: "Ford, Andrew" corn> Suaiert: Re: Ryan Saul How did the termination affect Saul's life? II was devastating. It tough Io descnbe the experience of suddenly fired lf you haven't expenenced yourself. But us lmpossible to descnbe the angu|sh of being fired when you've actually done wrong. Page 7 of 19 Even though he was ultimately vindicated, got some money back, got his benefits and pension restored, and is back on track in his career, the harm Ryan suffered from his termination was truly irreparable. Was he treated fairly by his department? By the prosecutor’s office? By the courts? If you understand the facts of the case, saying that Ryan was “treated unfairly” by his department is the understatement of the century. Ryan was utterly railroaded by his department in multiple ways, and all of it was facilitated and encouraged by the attorney who originally represented the Township until Christie made him a prosecutor. (Fred Knapp) However, there is no question that the current leadership of the Manchester Police Department learned valuable lessons from the case. Some departments would have relentlessly retaliated against Ryan upon his return to work. But, Ryan is valued as an excellent police officer and a leader among his peers. Chief Parker deserves a lot of credit for recognizing Ryan’s value and allowing him to rehabilitate his career and reputation without holding any grudges against him. The Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office (OCPO) played no role in the case until Manchester’s attorneys cynically decided to file an appeal in order to try to save face. Manchester’s attorneys sought to enhance their meager odds on appeal by getting the OCPO to write an amicus brief in a desperate attempt to bully the Court into overturning the trial judge. It didn’t work. The OCPO got humiliated at oral argument by the Appellate Judges, especially the late, great Judge Carol Higbee who tersely interrupted their attorney in mid-sentence and scolded him by saying his argument was “insulting” to the court. Although the appellate court went easy on OCPO in their written decision, the prosecutor’s office got an old-fashioned beat down during oral argument. In sum, the OCPO revealed an utter lack of integrity and ethical standards in its appeal. The trial judge was basically fair, but not entirely. He was fair with the facts, but he was not forceful enough in his written opinion about the obvious misconduct by the township. The judge wrote the decision in a very bland way that covered up serious abuses. Moreover, it was unfair for the judge to give Ryan a written reprimand for not reporting his injury in a timely manner. Without getting into the factual details, that reprimand just so happened to relieve the Township from having to pay for attorney fees. The judge knew he had to exonerate Ryan on Page 8 of 19 the facts, but he also bent over backwards in favor of the Township throughout the case when it came to the reprimand, denying attorney fees, and forcing us to accept far less back pay than we were owed. The Appellate Court was fair but also not forceful enough in its written decision in criticizing the Township's conduct in the case and OCPO’s baseless arguments. Do you think the system worked as it should? Would you change anything about the system? What do you mean by “the system?” if you mean the police disciplinary system embodied by NJSA 40A:14-147, here is my response. The short answer is, the system is deeply flawed. It "worked" in the sense that Ryan got his job back, but it failed in the sense that Ryan never should have been fired in the first place. There are two distinct aspects of the police disciplinary system in non-civil service jurisdictions like Manchester. They call such towns “Chief’s Towns” for a reason: the chief has extraordinary powers that s/he is free to abuse without recourse. The first part of that system is the internal department system made up of Internal Affairs, who investigate officers, and the departmental hearing, which is aptly known as the “Kangaroo Court.” This part of the system is broken, wasteful, and highly susceptible to abuse. It can be fixed quite easily but there is no political will for such changes. The manner in which Manchester “investigated” Ryan by coaching witnesses and fabricating evidence was an unholy abomination. Current law does not require neutrality or objectivity in Internal Affairs investigations or departmental hearings. And there is no recourse when abuses occur. (Just look at the Lakewood situation that your colleague Stacey Barchenger covered. rampant abuses and no accountability). This glaring weakness of the system permits police chiefs to abuse their power and arbitrarily discipline and fire disfavored police officers at their whim. There is no remedy for such abuse. Chiefs cannot be sued for unfair terminations, in the absence of discrimination or whistleblower retaliation, and even then its really the town that is being sued, not the chief. The fact that unfairly fired officers can appeal to superior court (or civil service) is not an adequate remedy because (1) there is no deterrent against future abuses, (2) officers only receive partial back pay, so the officers are never made whole Page 9 of 19 financially, and (3) unjustly terminated officers cannot seek compensation for the reputational and emotional harm they suffer from the unlawful termination. Thus, without any deterrent against abuse, police chiefs across the State will continue to abuse their power. The second part of the system is the appeal to a Superior Court judge pursuant to NJSA 40A:14-150. The right to appeal to a real judge generally "worked" in Ryan’s case becuase he got his job back, but again, the facts were obviously exculpatory such that he never would have been fired by a neutral hearing officer. But the law allows the judge to deny attorney fees even when an officer is exonerated of 99.9% of the allegations. This insures that there is no deterrent against excessive discipline. Under current law, the only potential deterrent for abusive terminations is the threat of being ordered to reimburse the officer for his attorney fees. Even that is a mild sanction because the chief does not pay anything from his or her pocket. But the taxpayers might start to take notice if a fired officer is returned to service and the town has to pay its own attorney and the attorney for the officer. But as it stands now, an officer must be 100% exonerated or the town gets off scot free. The law currently says that attorney fees are granted when the outcome is “in the officer’s favor.” It does not say full exoneration, yet, that is how the courts interpret it. Judges always protect towns if and when they can. The system should be reformed as follows: 1. Police chiefs must be held accountable in some way for terminations and disciplinary actions that are reversed and deemed to be unlawful. There should be a cause of action that permits officers to sue the chief individually (not covered by the JIF) for malicious disciplinary actions that are reversed by a court. If chiefs knew they might have to pay money for their own abuses, I guarantee the abuses would decrease. Of course, this will never happen because the Chiefs Association is one of the most powerful lobbies in Trenton. 2. The law should require neutral, objective, professional arbitrators to conduct departmental hearings instead of town employees or lawyers Page 10 of 19 selected and hired by the towns. Currently, departmental hearings are a waste of time and resources because the hearing officers are beholden to the town attorneys who hire them. If they rule against the town, they lose income. You can do the math on that. Like arbitrators, disciplinary hearing officers should be selected and paid by both sides instead of being financially dependent on serving the towns that seek to impose unfair or excessive discipline. PERC has numerous arbitrators on file who are experienced in meting out just discipline for public employees. This minor change in the law would lend 100% more credibility to these internal proceedings and will dramatically cut down on the number of superior court and civil service appeals. 3. If the current “hearing officer” system remains, the law should say that, unless charged with a crime, police officers cannot be removed from payroll until the conclusion of their appeal to superior court; i.e., after the case is reviewed by an objective fact finder, not someone paid by the town. The problem in these cases is that the law allows a town to fire a police officer without any genuine analysis of the facts by a neutral party. Officers suffer financial pain based on a rubber stamp from a hired gun. In my experience, if an officer deserves to be fired, it is obvious to any neutral fact finder. But the converse is also true: if it is not obvious to a neutral factfinder that a police officer should be fired, he or she shouldn’t be fired. But with a hearing officer chosen and paid by the town, the outcome is almost always pre-determined. Has Saul ever been untruthful on the job? No. But you raise a point that I hope you will discuss in your article, if you do an article. How does the law define “being untruthful?” How does the law define a “lie?” Answer: it doesn’t. If I make a factually inaccurate statement without the intent to mislead or deceive, have I lied? When two witnesses to the same crime give two different descriptions of the suspect, is one of them lying? If I say I am the best attorney on the planet, is that a lie? What about you Mr Ford? Have you ever been “untruthful” in your work? Have you ever told a ‘white lie’ to get access Page 11 of 19 lo a source? Have you ever exaggerated how good an you were rn school? Have you sard "I'm fine" when someone asks how you're domg. when youre nol really fine? Have you ever sard lo someone that lhey "look good" when Ihey clearly drdn'r? Where ls Ille legal llne berween and belng rnaecurare? No one knows. Judges requrre some but us nor by law Io do so. The law should affirmauvely lncorporale lnlenl lnlo lhe concepl of unlrulht'ulness respecl lo pollce officers. The leglslalure should define for an officer can gel fired as "a dellberale of lhe Innh for an rmproper purpose." Ar Ille very leasl. lhere should be some legal around case law can develop. But now. a "he" ls not defined. The law leaves [0 proseculors and Judges lo "know It when Illey see ll." Em [Ills IS nol falr when people's careers are al slake. Do past alleguuons impact the performance ofSaul's duties today? No. Ryan performs Job rhe same way he always has: lnlegnly. rnlelhgence, and approprlale reslralnl. The false allegallons from years ago have no bear-mg on Ryan's perlonnanee as a pollce omcer. Peter B. Paris, Esq. Beckett Law Office 5 Mapleton Road Princeton NJ 03549 PParis@dheckeulaw com On Tue, Aug 23, 2018 at 5:49 PM, Favd, Andrew wrote: Page 11 of 19 Good atternoon, Please answer each ol the lollowlng questrons. I have lollow ups. Agalnt every emall we exchange Is on the record How the lermlnallun aflect Saul's Ille? Was he treated larrly by department? By the plosecutor's omce? By the couns? Do you system wurked as rt should? Would you change about the system? Has Saul eve! been unlrulhlul on the jab? Do past allegatrons Impact the perlormance ol Saul's dutres today? SlnCerEIYr Andrew Fold USA Today Network -- New Jersey @And lewFurd News Fm Peter Paris Date: Monday, August 27, 2013 at 6:25 p.m. Ta: "Ford, Andrew" Subject: Re: Ryan Saul Page 13 of 19 Well, i know that you are not "'deeply commiTed to accuracy." Quite the contrary. I read all app.com arKcles about cops and they are typically full of inaccuracies and reveal an undeniable agenda. hit pieces on cops gets clicks, which gets money. so lets not pretend you are seeking truth for the sake of truth. I strongly prefer to interact with you by email because i am deeply commiTed to being accurately quoted and being able to prove what i actually said. I am also deeply commiTed to choosing my words wisely when interacKng with reporters working on hit pieces against my clients. Look, you dont know me but I wasnt born yesterday. I know the game, and i know what your intenKons are. A free flowing conversaKon will help you pick, choose and spin what I say to support your story. and when you misquote me, I have no recourse. But you shouldn't be afraid of a documented conversaKon if factual accuracy is truly your goal. Aaer all, you get to spend hundreds of hours carefully choosing the words you use in your arKcles. you should afford me the same opportunity to carefully choose my words, especially when your hope is to use my words against my client. So, if you want informaKon or comment, I am happy to engage you by email. Page 14 of 19 Peter 8. Paris, Esq. Beckett Law Office 5 Maplclon Road Princeton, NJ 03549 0n M077, Aug 27, 2018 at 5'34 PM, Ford, Andrew Date: Monday, August 27, 2018 at 1:05 Page 15 of 19 p.m. To: "Ford, Andrew" Subjen: Re: Ryan 5auI I prefer to answer questions by email so that I can make sure i am not misquoted. Peter B. Paris, Esq. Beckett law Office 5 Maplelon Road Princeton NJ OSSAQ PParis(atheckelLlaw.com On Mon, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Fovd, Andrew wrote' Mr. Pans, Thank you Ior your emaII, The Asbury Park Press Is Io reponrng IaoIs and Issues aocurater and IaIrIy. We are seekIng InIorrnaIIon Irom Ine and your chem so InaI we can pursue Inose goaIs. I apprecraIe your emall comments and erI renew Inern Ior InclusIun In Ine sIory. We do consldev that emall Io be on-reoord. I have addrIIonaI ouesuons InaI I hope PaIroIrnan Saul or you wuuld be erIrng to near, I would II we couId seI up a tIme Ims week Io IaIk on me phone SlnCelelyI Page 16 of 19 Andrew Ford USA Today Network -- New Jersey @AndrewFordNews From: Peter Paris Date: Thursday, August 23, 2013 at 4:22 pm. To: "Ford, Andrew" Subject: Ryan Saul Dear Mr. Ford Since we spoke last week, it has come to my attention that you have recently bombarded the Township with multiple OPRA requests about my client, Officer Ryan Saul, in preparation for what appears to be a misguided and defamatory story. As you surely know, more than four years ago, a Superior Coun ludge fully exonerated my client of any allegations relating to dishonesty finding such allegations to he "completely without merit." As you also know, the Appellate Division affirmed every aspect of the trial judge's decision. There is no factual basis for you Page 17 of 19 to suggest that my client is, or was, dishonest. Publishing false allegations of dishonesty against a my client, a police officer, would likely cause irreparable damage to his reputation and career. Be advised that ifyou write a story that suggests that my client was or is dishonest, in direct contradiction to the findings ofa Superior Court judge and three Appellate judges, such a story would be per se defamatory, and legal action will be taken against you and your employer. Please explain to me, why are you trying to ruin my client's life? Can't you find a cop to bash who has actually done something wrong? Peter B. Paris, Esq. Beckett Law Office 5 Road Princeton, NJ 03549 Page 18 of 19 Peter 8. Paris, Esq. Beckett law office 5 Maplclon Road Baton 08 \o Peter B. Paris, Esq. Beckett Law Office 5 Road Princeton, NJ 03549 mm Page 19 of 19