Notice of Procedural Bias and Request for Independent Review – Incident 25-xxxxx

on

 Naomi Johnson

Private Woman / Beneficial Owner

Address:

Email:


Date: September 4, 2025

Lt. Timothy Faranda
Glen Ridge Police Department
Internal Affairs Division
825 Bloomfield Avenue
Glen Ridge, NJ 07028

Re: Notice of Procedural Bias and Request for Independent Review – Incident 25-xxxxx

Dear Lt. Faranda,

I am writing to formally provide notice of procedural bias and to request an independent review of the Glen Ridge Police Department Internal Affairs (IA) Report dated July 7, 2025, regarding Incident 25-05455. The IA report concluded that Sgt. Anthony Mazza “acted within his duty” and complied with department policies and New Jersey Title 39 statutes. I contend that this conclusion reflects a structural and procedural conflict of interest and fails to adequately consider constitutional, statutory, and civil rights obligations.

Basis for Procedural Bias

  1. Conflict of Interest in Internal Investigation
    Internal Affairs is part of the same department as the officer under review. Investigating one’s own colleagues creates a reasonable perception of partiality, as IA personnel have an institutional incentive to favor departmental officers over civilian complainants/one of the people. This structural conflict undermines the credibility and impartiality of the findings.

  2. Officer Duty to the Constitution and the People
    Police officers are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the New Jersey Constitution and act as trustees of the people. Their authority is derived from the public, and their duty is to protect unalienable rights, including due process, equal protection, and protection from arbitrary seizure. Any evaluation of officer conduct, including by Internal Affairs, must reflect these constitutional responsibilities. Department policies or statutory compliance alone cannot override or excuse violations of these higher legal obligations.

  3. Emphasis on Department Policy Rather Than Constitutional Obligations
    The IA report evaluates Sgt. Mazza’s conduct primarily against internal policy and Title 39 compliance while ignoring higher legal obligations, including:

  • U.S. Constitution (Amendments V & XIV – Due Process & Equal Protection)

  • New Jersey Constitution (Art. I, §§1, 2, 10 – Sovereignty and Unalienable Rights)

  • Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.)

  • NJLAD anti-discrimination protections

Prioritizing administrative compliance over constitutional and civil rights protections constitutes procedural bias.

  1. Failure to Address Human and Civil Rights
    The IA investigation ignores:

  • Arbitrary seizure of property without proper notice

  • ADA accommodations for medically disabled individuals

  • Equal protection and anti-discrimination obligations

Framing the officer’s conduct as “policy-compliant” improperly implies that potential constitutional violations are irrelevant.

  1. Outcome Predictability and Perception of Bias
    Internal investigations routinely result in exoneration of officers, particularly senior personnel. The IA report’s conclusions, despite apparent violations of constitutional and civil rights, reinforce the perception of systemic bias and erode public trust in departmental accountability.

Request for Independent Review

Given the structural bias inherent in internal investigations, I formally request that the IA findings be reviewed independently by an external oversight authority, such as:

  • Essex County Prosecutor’s Office – Professional Standards Bureau

  • Office of Public Integrity & Accountability (NJ Attorney General’s Office)

Furthermore, I request that all future determinations regarding this incident consider constitutional, statutory, and civil rights obligations, including ADA compliance and unalienable rights, rather than relying solely on internal policy or administrative statutes.

Preservation of Rights

This notice preserves all rights to pursue legal remedies for civil rights violations, including claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983, ADA enforcement, NJLAD, and common law protections. Nothing in this notice should be construed as a waiver of any rights, remedies, or claims.

Conclusion

The Glen Ridge Police Department Internal Affairs Report for Incident 25-05455 exhibits structural and procedural bias. Its conclusions cannot be relied upon as an impartial evaluation of officer conduct. I formally rebut the findings and demand independent review to ensure protection of constitutional and civil rights.

Respectfully,

Naomi Johnson
Private Woman / Beneficial Owner / One of the People

CC:

  • Chief of Police, Glen Ridge Police Department

  • Essex County Prosecutor’s Office – Professional Standards Bureau

  • Office of Public Integrity & Accountability (NJ Attorney General’s Office)

  • New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (ADA & NJLAD Compliance)

  • Office of the State Comptroller – Police Accountability Project

  • Acting U.S. Attorney Alina Habba – U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of New Jersey

  • Michael Campion, Chief, Civil Rights Division – USAO-NJ

  • AUSAs Junis L. Baldon and Nicole Taykhman – Civil Rights Unit, USAO-NJ

Comments

Post a Comment