Complaint Review: Fairclough Fuel N.B.; Andrew Fairclough - Newton New Jersey

Andrew Fairclough and Family's damage to our community isn't limited to the environment.

(note: all facts and text that follows is taken from a public record complaint filed by Andrew Fairclough against the New Jersey State Police in Federal

Court)

Bottom line: Andrew Fairclough told the police to disregard a report from his father that he was armed and intended to hurt others, refused to allow them into his home when they arrived so they could ensure everything was okay and that the report was false as they are obligated to do, (at a minimum) cursed at them, and is suing the state becuase he claims he was injured in the process of being arrested. These facts and the text below is from the complaint filed by Andrew Fairclough in order to be as unbiased and fair to him as possible. Even just reading his complaint against the state, it is easy for a reader to understand what kind of person Andrew Fairclough. THIS ACCOUNT OF EVENTS IS ANDREW FAIRCLOUGH'S AND DOES NOT EVEN INCLUDE THE RESPONSES OF THE OFFICERS IN ORDER TO SHOW WHAT ANDREW FAIRCLOUGH AND HIS COMPANY (WHICH HAS BEEN CAUGHT LEAKING OIL PRODUCTS INTO OUR COMMUNITY IN VIOLATION OF STANDARDS) LOOK LIKE IN THE BEST POSSIBLE LIGHT!!!!!

is. Ask yourself- environmental issues notwithstanding, is this a person you trust to heat your home and provide vital services for your community?

    As described below in a complaint filed as part of a lawsuit

ANDREW FAIRCLOUGH, Plaintiff v. OFFICER [REDACTED],OFFICER [REDACTED],AND JOHN DOES 1-15).

Case 2:11-cv-06222-FSH-MAH IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEW JERSEY

CAUSEOFACTION

 10. On October 20, 2010, the at approximately 7:32 PM, Plaintiff FAIRCLOUGH received a telephone call from SGT [REDACTED HERE] a male identifying himself as a State Trooper. The trooper claimed that Plaintiff’s father, Jack, had telephoned the station claiming that Plaintiff, FAIRCLOUGH, had a gun and intended to hurt himself or others with it.

 11. Plaintiff’s father, Jack, in addition to Plaintiff’s mother, Barbara, have a long, and wellLdocumented history of alcoholism – of which the New Jersey State Police were well aware given their knowledge and involvement in prior incidents. Plaintiff’s father has been previously arrested for DWI, and the troopers had been repeatedly called to Jack and Barbara’s home (which is not the Plaintiff’s residence) to find Plaintiff’s mother Barbara drunkenly unconscious and in need of medical attention.

12. It was not uncommon for Jack, during his drunken bouts, to telephone family members and others making uttering nonsense and making crazy demands. Plaintiff FAIRCLOUGH believed (and turned out to be correct in so believing) that the 7:32 telephone call to (and from) the State Police was the result of yet another drunken hallucination.

13. Plaintiff FAIRCLOUGH advised the trooper, SGT [REDACTED], that they should send troopers to his parents’ house where they would readily ascertain both Jack and Barbara were severely intoxicated and not in rational states. 14. At this time, Plaintiff FAIRCLOUGH specifically advised the state trooper, JOHN DOE 1, no to come to his house and bother him and his wife with yet another ridiculous problem involving his father’s drunk dialing.

 15. A few minutes later, at approximately 7:39 PM on October 20, 2011, Plaintiff FAIRCLOUGH received another phone call from SGT [REDACTED] stating he had to send someone to Plaintiff FAIRCLOUGH’S house because it was “procedure.”

 16. Plaintiff FAIRCLOUGH again reLiterated that if they were to send state troopers anywhere it should be to his parents’ house, as they would see Jack was grossly intoxicated and Barbara might be in need if medical attention due to intoxication. There were several times in the 1Lyear prior to this incident that Barbara had been taken from her home in an ambulance due to her grossly intoxicated states. Plaintiff FAIRCLOUGH stressed, in his own words, the general and stronglyLheld sentiment that he did not want to be bothered with the drama of yet another drunken fiasco involving his alcoholic parents.

 17. Immediately thereafter, at approximately 7:42 PM, Plaintiff FAIRCLOUGH received a third telephone call, at this time he realized that there were police cars in his driveway. During this conversation SGT [REDACTED] spoke with both Plaintiff FAIRCLOUGH, and his wife, both of whom assured the officer that everything was fine and there was no need for the police to be there.

 18. After ending this third phone call, Plaintiff FAIRCLOUH and his wife, Lisa, continued about their normal business: she was doing laundry and he was watching television, etc

19. The officers on the scene, including DOES 1L15, were watching through the window, were able to see, and later admitted that they did see, that Plaintiff FAIRCLOUGH were simply going about their normal business, nobody was brandishing any weapon, and there was no danger to anyone.

20. At approximately 8:06 P.M. on October 20, 2011, Plaintiff FAIRCLOUGH and his wife, Lisa, received another phone call from SGT. [REDACTED], who during this call stated, “just because you have money, you think you are above the law,” or words to that effect.

21. Plaintiff FAIRCLOUGH responded by stating, “fLyou,” “who do you think you are judging me about what money I have or don’t have,” or words to that effect.

 22. At that point Plaintiff FAIRCLOUGH and his wife realized there were now at least four or five police cars in their driveway, including DOES 1L15, and that the officers were wearing bulletLproof vests and carrying either shotguns or rifles. They were prowling around the house and looking in all the windows.

 23. At no time did any officer approach the door, unarmed, and knock as would be reasonably expected in such a situation.

 24. Plaintiff FAIRCLOUGH advised his wife not to stand near the windows, as he was afraid she might be shot by an accidental discharge of one of the many guns Defendants were needlessly brandishing. Mrs. Fairclough told the officers, including [REDACTED] AND DOES 1L15, outside to please put the guns down, as everything was fine.

 25. One of the troopers, JOHN DOE 1, held a gun at the door, shaking it, and stated they would knock through the door on the count of 3, if Plaintiff or his wife did not open the door. As a result, Plaintiff’s wife, Lisa, opened the door under duress and threats from Defendants.

 26. At this time, Plaintiff FAIRCLOUGH was able to see that there were 3L4 officers, JOHN DOES 1L4, on the porch with drawn weapons, and fingers on the triggers.

 27. Plaintiff FAIRCLOUGH stood in his home, with his hand up by his face, in plain view, palms outward – he was in a tLshirt, jeans and no shoes. It was clear that Plaintiff was not in possession of any kind of weapon.  

28. Plaintiff FAIRCLOUGH demanded to know the reasons the officers were there, stating “you have no right to be here,” “why are you here?” and “I have done nothing wrong,” or words to that effect.

 29. Plaintiff told the officers to stay out of his house, but Officer [REDACTED] rushed in, charging Plaintiff FAIRCLOUGH, and lunging for his throat. [REDACTED] clamped his hands around Plaintiff’s FAIRCLOUGH’s throat, preventing him from breathing. Several other JOHN DOE OFFICERS, who are included among DOES 1L20 joined in this attack on Plaintiff FARICLOUGH. Plaintiff pleaded for the officers to “stop,” claiming he would do whatever it was they wanted. Several officers, currently alleged to be among DOES 1L20, but believed to be DOES 1L4, and possibly more, followed [REDACTED] and piled on Plaintiff FAIRCLOUGH.

 30. Plaintiff’s legs were kicked out from under him, and he was knocked to the ground. Officers [REDACTED] and DOES 1, 2, 3, and/or 4, or other officers alleged to be among DOES 1L20, twisted his arms, and handcuffed him.

 31. Plaintiff’s wife called officer [REDACTED] to inquire what was happening and she was told “you were warned,” or words to that effect. 32. Never before, during, or after the attack did the officers advise Plaintiff FAIRCLOUGH that he was under arrest. It was only once in the back of the squad car that Plaintiff was read his Miranda rights, although he was not told that he was being charged with committing any crime.

 33. When the officers took Plaintiff into custody they would not allow him to put on socks or a sweatshirt even though Plaintiff was ill with a fever.

 34. In response to statements from Plaintiff’s wife, Lisa, that they had done nothing wrong at least one of the officers acknowledged that they had been watching Plaintiff and Lisa through the window and saw them watching TV. So the officers knew the Plaintiff’s were doing nothing wrong and violated no laws.

 35. Plaintiff was taken to the police station and handcuffed to a bench in a 10x10 cell. He was detained for over 3 hours.

 36. At that time, Plaintiff was told they were going to take him for a psychological evaluation, but after driving for a time on 206 South the officers were radioed and told to return Plaintiff to the station. He was detained for another ½ hour and then released.

 37. Plaintiff was released at approximately 2 AM and went to the hospital the next morning. He was diagnosed with neck sprain, 2 fractured ribs, contusion on the foot and abrasions on face, neck, scalp and hands.

 38. Plaintiff was never advised that evening that he was being charged with any crimes. Ultimately, Plaintiff was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Notwithstanding multiple court appearances, the officers never showed to court and all charges against Plaintiff were dismissed. Plaintiff was forced to pay $5,000 in attorneys fees.

 39. On January 14, 2011, within 90 days of the incident, Plaintiff FAIRCLOUGH, through his counsel Kelly & Ward, sent a tort claim notice pursuant to N. J. Stat. Ann. 59:1L1. A copy of the notice is attached as Exhibit A.

 40. At the time the officers went to the home of Plaintiff FAIRCLOUGH and his wife, they acted on a telephone tip from an intoxicated and unreliable informant.

41. At the time of October 20th incident, and during the time of the subsequent detention of Plaintiff FARICLOUGH, none of the Defendants had in their possession any warrant issued by a judge, court, or magistrate authorizing a search of Plaintiff’s home, or the arrest of Plaintiff FAIRCLOUGH. No warrant had in fact been issued by any court, judge, or magistrate for such search, seizure, and arrest.

42. Each of the Defendants, individually, and in concert with the others, acted under color of law in their individual and official capacities, to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights to freedom from illegal searches and seizure of their persons, papers, and effects and their rights to freedom from unlawful arrest, detention, and imprisonment. All of these rights are secured to Plaintiffs by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the New Jersey Constitution, and by 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983 and 1988.

43. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional and/or negligent acts of Defendants, Plaintiff sustained severe mental and physical pain and suffering, including bruises and broken bones, and injury in an amount that will be established at trial.

44. Plaintiff FARICLOUGH is entitled to compensation pursuant to the New Jersey tort immunity act for harms inflicted upon them by the Defendants, individually, jointly, and severally.