Trenton Courts
The following information is provided for educational and public-interest purposes to document verified incidents of identity theft, financial exploitation, and related misconduct that affected my livelihood and property. All material is based on verifiable records, including emails, legal correspondence, and financial documentation.
What Offense(s) Did They Cause?
What Laws Did/Does They Break?
What Offenses/Crimes Continue?
Backstory:
Details about activities within the Trenton Courts:
Timeline of Events:
Evidence Collected:
Witnesses/Third-Party Involvement:
Impact on Victim (Chalise Mapp):
Current Status / Next Steps:
What Offense(s) Did They Cause?
Procedural irregularities and confusion over case posture (trial vs. pretrial), culminating in a mandatory diversion to mediation even when the complainant objected.
Mishandling of a conditional dismissal’s key terms (especially “no contact” for one year) and failure to give effect to alleged violations during the active dismissal period.
Administrative stonewalling—directing the victim to “file a new complaint” instead of honoring the court’s on-record remedy (return to trial upon violation) and refusing to reopen despite contemporaneous evidence of violations.
Victim-unfriendly case messaging that minimized safety concerns and shifted burden back to the complainant instead of enforcing the judge’s conditions.
What Laws Did/Does They Break?
The record you provided indicates potential departures from court policy and due-process-adjacent safeguards, chiefly:
Conditional dismissal enforcement: When a condition (“no contact for one year”) is allegedly violated within the active period, the matter is supposed to return for adjudication—not be dismissed as “disposed” with instructions to start over.
Contempt / order-violation exposure: Your letter cites N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9 (contempt) and N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4 (harassment) as the underlying legal hooks for violations via third-party contact.
To be precise: the files support administrative mishandling and non-enforcement; whether that rises to a statutory violation by court actors would be a question for oversight bodies. (We’ll frame it as “procedural failure and administrative obstruction” in the blog.)
What Offenses/Crimes Continue?
Ongoing contact attempts/third-party relays by the defendant during the one-year “no contact” window (as documented in your email to the court) and court staff’s refusal to recognize those violations as grounds to reinstate the case, instead telling you the matter was “disposed” and to file anew.
Backstory
You filed citizen complaints that ultimately reached Trenton Municipal Court.
In court, the judge placed the companion matters into mediation (over your objection), with the warning that your complaint could be dismissed if you didn’t appear.
On June 4, 2024, the court handled Case S-2022-3989 with a conditional dismissal after a guilty plea to harassment—explicitly conditioning one year of no contact, “stay out of trouble,” and payment of assessments.
In June 2025, you documented multiple violations during the active conditional period and asked the court to extend no-contact, convert to a restraining order, or reinstate for trial.
Staff repeatedly answered: “disposed,” can’t be reopened—file a new complaint.
Details about activities within the tri-state (NJ/PA/NY)
The four documents provided are limited to New Jersey (Trenton Municipal Court).
If you want this section broader, we can add PA/NY episodes after you drop those files (e.g., parallel misrouting, refusal to docket, or non-enforcement in neighboring venues).
Timeline of Events
Oct 2–3, 2023: Court schedules Zoom mediation for Oct 3 at 2:00 PM.
(Undated hearing video): Judge orders mediation; warns the complaint could be dismissed if you don’t attend; says it “usually works,” otherwise it will come back for trial.
June 4, 2024: Conditional dismissal granted in S-2022-3989 after a guilty plea, terms include one-year no contact, “no new criminal charges,” and payment of $258; administrative relist noted for June 5, 2025.
June 2–6, 2025: You email the court requesting extension/conversion and asserting documented violationsduring the conditional period. Staff replies that the case is “disposed,” can’t be reopened, advising you to file a new complaint.
Evidence Collected
Hearing/mediation transcript showing: (a) imposition of mediation over objection, (b) linkage of companion cases, and (c) warnings tied to attendance and trial posture.
Official mediation email (Zoom link, date/time) proving scheduling and the court’s own notice trail.
June 2025 email thread between me and the Trenton court staff (with DCA and prosecutor cc’d) documenting: (a) the judge’s on-record conditions in 2024, (b) your notice of violations, and (c) staff’s “disposed / file anew” position.
Witnesses/Third-Party Involvement
Judge Harold George (presiding).
Defense counsel (on Danielle Saunders’ matter).
Clerk/administrative staff: names appearing on the emails/notices include Rosaura (Rosa) Espinal, Raquel Camacho, Kimberly Finney, and Kristina M. Bryant (prosecutor referenced/cc’d).
Chalise Mapp (complainant) as a direct witness; third-party messengers I referenced (laundromat/cousin/aunt/neighbor) for the contact-by-proxy pattern.
Impact on Victim (Chalise Mapp)
Ongoing emotional distress and safety concerns tied to continued contact attempts during a period that was explicitly supposed to be no-contact.
Procedural fatigue and administrative burden—being told to re-file from scratch instead of enforcing the court’s existing conditions.
Erosion of trust in court protections, as well as time and financial costs to compile, re-submit, and re-seek relief.
Current Status / Next Steps
Status (currently): Staff continued to state the case was “disposed” as of early June 2025, despite my request to reinstate/extend based on violations during the conditional period.
Next Steps:
Escalation to departments and figure heads above city level regarding the unprofessional conduct within the judicial system.
Public Record & Evidence Disclaimer
The following material is presented for educational, journalistic, and evidentiary purposes only. All names, email addresses, and communications shown appear solely to verify incidents of identity theft, fraud, and related misconduct. This publication does not encourage contact, harassment, or retaliation toward any person named.
Information is reproduced from existing records, emails, and correspondence that form part of ongoing documentation submitted to legal and investigative authorities. Statements are based on verifiable evidence and are made in good-faith reporting to protect the public and defend my livelihood. Personal addresses, phone numbers, or unrelated private details have been redacted where possible to preserve privacy.