Jody Raines/Camden County Prosecutors vs. Bruce Aristeo: Minor Case Updates

Since early November 2015, I have written a multi-part series expose on the legal plight and wrongful prosecution of Bruce Aristeo over humorous and satirical YouTube videos.

I believe it was done as revenge and power play against Bruce because of personal connections, local politics, corruption, abuse of prosecutorial power, and a runaway Camden County NJ prosecutors such as Tracy Cogan.

Quite simply, I believe it is being done because they thought they could get away with it without anyone knowing about it. They are trying to grind him down from ever speaking out and allowing case information to be released despite the fact that he is not a lawyer and looking for assistance and support in his fight. I am happy to report MANY smart and influential people (whom shall go unnamed for now) know about Bruce's case and they are reading and watching Defiantly for the latest updates.

In an effort to encourage an open dialog, I will be making more personal comments and minor updates here. The major updates and major announcements, I will continue to write articles and blog commentary. But the smaller stuff and smaller developments, I will post updates here.

It is my hopes that Bruce himself will participate and comment in the open dialog.


  • edited February 2016
    It has been awhile since I have posted any updates. I have elected to not do an entire, full-blown blog post at this time. I prefer to just opinionate and rant freestyle here.

    Based on my interviews with Bruce, I have differing opinions than Bruce and a different outlook on his case.

    What I can say is that this is truly a cluster-fuck of characters from Jody, to the prosecutors, the judges, the detectives, and even Bruce himself.

    To be clear, Bruce is a smart, likable guy and I think he has been extremely wronged but he is almost too smart for his own good to the point he continues to be a whipping boy by Jody Raines, Judge Schuck, and prosecutor Tracy Cogan.

    All of them have conveniently ignored the First Amendment and free speech. They have fallen for the blonde-ambition spell of Jody Raines.

    I have seen her testify in videos and I can see why Bruce has been whipped and stepped on like a beaten dog the past few years.

    Jody appears to be attractive, well-spoken, well-educated, articulate, and plays the "helpless woman" card quite well because it is convenient. At worst, Bruce might have done some creepy, weird things but they don't rise anywhere close to the statutory definition of stalking.

    But Jody appears to have jumped on beaten dog named Bruce and have ridden him into the ground. And the clueless prosecutors have spent probably over $100,000 in manpower and resources to "teach Bruce a lesson he will never forget".

    From what I can ascertain, we have a hurt, damaged professional, educated, well-connected woman who wanted to get revenge against a guy for breaking up with her. Bruce who probably has a real PITA (pain-in-the-ass) personality have racked up "enemies" left and right looking to put him down. All of this, of course, is rescue the "damsel in distress".

    On one hand, she appears to want everyone to think she is attractive, smart, articulate, educated, capable, etc. On the other hand, she simultaneously wants to play the "poor helpless woman" whose life was allegedly ruined because of all the "emotional distress" Bruce caused.

    GMAFB. She can't have it both ways. If she wants to play the helpless female, that is her perogative. But any guy who enters her orbit better beware. If she can level criminal charges against someone because she was so hurt and "defamed" for being mocked online, then she can grind another guy into hamburger meat like she did with Bruce.

    I am a pretty good read of character and a good intuitive sense to sniff out the truth. Bruce is no angel, and a quirky, smart-ass, wise-guy. But Jody isn't exactly the helpless woman either. She was simply smart and persistent enough to convince some sucker prosecutors and detectives she was being harmed.

    And since we are dealing with a lower court with no supervision, they appear to get away with bloody murder trying to suppress information, documents, videos, etc. all in the name of "saving" Jody Raines all the while savaging the First Amendment.

    As far as I am concerned, Camden already has a shitty reputation. It isn't just the police force. I've been disgusted by what the Camden prosecutors, detectives, and even the judge appear to have done. This whole case against Bruce is a sham that is aching to see the light of day. So many learning lessons here. And try as they might to keep the lid closed, the Pandora's box has cracked open. It is a matter of time before the crack opens further and more people find out about it.

    No one has educated Jody, the prosecutors, or Judge Schuck the power of the Streisand Effect. They can attempt to do whatever they want to use trickery and subterfuge to suppress information and Bruce's 1st Amendment rights but fortunately Bruce is pretty sharp and good at documenting his complaints. For one, they are all over PACER. So much has been uploaded. And with the nice browser utility RECAP, the general public can now see most of Bruce's documents FREE OF CHARGE.

    My instincts have been pretty good so far. I never met Jody or knew much about her except from my interviews from Bruce. But I read between the lines about what kind of person Jody appears to want to present herself and I was dead on the mark. It hugely explains why Bruce has consistently lost and been beaten like a dog by the system.

    Bruce is a smart-ass, wise-guy that is head-smart and loves to get into the weeds. He lacks street-smarts and insight of the bigger picture and appears to have done a shitty job explaining his story in simple terms.

    Jody has succeeded in playing to all the stereotypical tropes of being a hurt, injured woman against an allegedly "stalking, obsessive" ex-boyfriend. And the damsel in distress needs to be rescued because of YouTube videos that hurt her feelings and the built-in paranoia many women have about their security and safety.

    I have a very different view of how prosecutor offices work now. It sickens me. And I have a lot of evidence up close that show prosecutorial abuse and prosecutorial misconduct at work. They have even named me more than once in their reports for daring to interview Bruce and report on the situation. Because I don't work for NBC, CBS, FOX, or some newspaper, they don't yet understand that even an individual has the law on their side. It is called Freedom of the Press and it has been litigated in the highest courts that INDIVIDUALS may exercise their right to report and editorialize.
  • Two cases of despicable perjury by two different women come to my mind in connection with the Aristeo case: Vladek Filler and Ben Vonderheide. Filler's convictions in Maine were all set aside when he was able to compile evidence against his ex that she had lied under oath. Filler then was awarded the children of the marriage.

    Ben Vonderheide is an ABR (always be recording) kind of a guy that caught his ex lying to try to get him prosecuted for assault. Instead, she was prosecuted in PA for perjury and convicted. Her name is Wendy Flanders in case you want to google up the filthy old sow.

    Perjury to harm someone is a detestable felony and ought to be prosecuted and punished as such, but you will find very few times a prosecutor will seek an indictment for it. Sometimes I wonder if the law is not abused nowadays more to destroy than to protect. It is supposed to protect us, but so often it is used to ruin us.

    I have been talking this afternoon to Bruce Aristeo, and it appears clear to me that he has documentary evidence that Jody Raines lied under oath before the jury which convicted him. He's now working on a motion to get the verdict set aside, particularly on the basis of clear evidence he had, some of it from criminal discovery pursuant to NJ statutes, that Raines lied to the jury and that when he tried to impeach her with documents that she said she did not recognize, Judge Schuck, who appeared to be in the DA's corner during the trial, refused to let him show these documents to the jury because "it would prejudice the jury against her [Jody Raines]." Unbelievable and shocking! That a judge would be so callous and so biased for the prosecution and so prejudiced against the defendant that he would hamstring Bruce from defending himself is beyond the Pale! I am looking forward to Schuck getting the shit reversed out of himself on appeal.

    One more item Bruce told me about: He said that a whole flock of prosecutors including the radfem DA, Mary Eva "Pepsi" Colalillo, and all the detectives who work in that grimy office had filed into the courtroom when the jury returned with their verdict of guilty. That exhibition was specifically designed to prejudice the judge against Bruce that much more and send Judge Schuck the signal, "We want you to throw the book at him."
  • I found out last month that Bruce was sentenced to 364 days in jail. However, he had time served from his prior incarceration. The last I heard Bruce's release date is mid-August 2016. Rumor has it that he might be released sooner because of an alleged appeal he filed.

    He has been his own lawyer for the last year or so and in order for him to represent himself again, he has to be outside so that the can prepare for his appeal.

    It was a very disappointing verdict but not unsurprising.

    The good news about all this is that we will hear from Bruce again as he continues to fight for his 1st Amendment rights.

    Make no mistake, Camden County Prosecutors and Jody will do everything in their power to grind him down all in the name of alleged stalking. Just because someone is convicted of stalking doesn't mean a person gives up his 1st Amendment rights to speak about someone or his case.
  • For those following Bruce's case, Bruce was released on parole a few weeks ago in July 2016. He was in jail for 3 months.

    It is sort of anti-climactic given the fact that the prosecutors wasted so much time and money on this case and 3 months later, Bruce is a free man.

    There now appears to be a overly restrictive order on Bruce found and posted by BuncyBlawger. The permanent restraining order contains some crazy free speech-slaying language and a few hand-written "instructions" for him to follow.

    Bruce has to try to remove Jody Raines' voice and audio recordings from the Internet? She has images and videos all over the Internet but Bruce has the responsibility to remove them? Wow. It sounds like to me the removal has to begin with the alleged "victim".

    Lots of verbiage about forbidding Bruce talking about her pets. LOL! This is Camden County prosecutors "protecting" one of its citizens. Let's not insult the dog, shall we or Bruce could be put in jail again.
    1. The Defendant shall be PERMANENTLY PROHIBITED from entering the residence or place of employment of Jody Raines and shall be further prohibited from being present upon the grounds or property surrounding said locations whether in the State of New Jersey or another jurisdiction as specified below.

    2. The Defendant shall be PERMANENTLY PROHIBITED from any future acts of domestic violence against Jody Raines enumerated in N.J.S. 2C:25-19a and specifically from following, monitoring, surveilling, stalking, harassing and, or threatening Jody Raines.

    3. The Defendant shall be PERMANENTLY PROHIBITED from any and all personal contact with Jody Raines.

    4. The Defendant shall be PERMANENTLY PROHIBITED from any and all communication to or about Jody Raines and her business (see Paragraph 8).

    5. The Defendant shall be PERMANENTLY PROHIBITED from causing any communication to be made to or about Jody Raines and her business and any contact to be made or about Jody Raines directly or indirectly, or through any third parties, mediums or agents (see paragraph 8).

    6. The Defendant shall be PERMANENTLY PROHIBITED from any and all communication or personal contact with any family members, friends, employers and co-workers of Jody Raines or other persons with whom communication would be likely to cause annoyance or alarm to Jody Raines (see Paragraph 8).

    7. The Defendant shall be PERMANENTLY PROHIBITED from utilizing any internet and/or social media postings, directly or indirectly, or through any third parties, mediums, or agents regarding, referring to, or simulating, characterizing or alluding to Jody Raines, her family, her friends, her business, or her pets in any form, including but not limited to YouTube, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter.

    8. Prohibited contact or communication as reference in Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 above shall include any form of communication made by any means, including but not limited to, any verbal or written communication, communications conveyed by any electronic communication device or medium, including but not limited to, a telephone, including a cordless, cellular or digital telephone, computer, or any other means of transmitting voice or data, including but not limited to text message, email, social media, social networking sites, internet or other communication via computer or electronic device* and communication made by sign or gesture and the physical presence of the Defendant in proximity to Jody Raines or at the Specified prohibited locations.

    * (including but not limited to the posting or publication of images or audio recordings of Jody Raines.)

    9. The Defendant shall further be PERMANENTLY PROHIBITED from communicating, sharing, disclosing, or disseminating to any third party, medium or agent any information referencing Jody Raines, her business, her family, her friends, or her pets via any method described in Paragraph 8.

    10. The Defendant shall cause to take down and remove from the Internet any and all publications or postings over which he has control that mention the name of Jody Raines or any business owned or operated by her, exhibit her image, or contain audio recordings of her voice.

    Unfortunately, this type of thing continues to exist in Camden County, New Jersey. I would never have believed it if I had not followed this case myself.
  • I have received information (second-hand) that Bruce was arrested today for allegedly violating the terms of the above questionable protective order. Supposedly, Jody Raines complained to police that Bruce didn't take down whatever he posted about her and the case. I have no specifics yet. As far as I can tell, Bruce has not posted anything since he came out of jail but I am not sure what websites he has that might be up.

    Regardless, Bruce no longer has any First Amendment rights in Camden, NJ. It has been conveniently eradicated.

    You can get arrested in Camden, NJ for NOT removing opinions about someone? Wow, unbelievable. This so-called "victim" is determined to continue getting revenge on Bruce by continually making complaints to keep him in jail. And amazingly, the legal system in Camden is going along with it.

    It appears Bruce will be in and out of jail for the foreseeable future as his alleged victim continues to complain about him and watch his every move online. So my question is who is stalking whom now?

    Bruce's case shows how lower courts can find the First Amendment a terrible inconvenience and disregarded if you have the right "accuser" and you have no one decent or honorable in your corner to help represent you.
  • see Thomas v. Collins 323 U.S. 516 (1945)

    Conviction for contempt reversed on first amendment ground, wit the court finding no "clear and present danger". I don't recommend others think this case law will give them a green there is presently a man, John Marvin Miller, with a 10 year prison sentence in Georgia, never been given a bond in the pre-trial, for mailing his kids happy birthday via US mail. Been unable to find him a lawyer.
    Thomas knew this, and faced the alternatives it presented. When served with the order, he had three choices: (1) to stand on his right and speak freely; (2) to quit, refusing entirely to speak; (3) to trim, and even thus to risk the penalty. He chose the first alternative. We think he was within his rights in doing so.

    The assembly was entirely peaceable, and had no other than a wholly lawful purpose. The statements forbidden were not in themselves unlawful, had no tendency to incite to unlawful action, involved no element of clear and present, grave and immediate danger to the public welfare. Moreover, the State has shown no justification for placing restrictions on the use of the word "solicit." We have here nothing comparable to the case where use of the word "fire" in a crowded theater creates a clear and present danger which the State may undertake to avoid or against which it may protect. Schenck v. United States, 249 U. S. 47. We cannot say that "solicit" in this setting is such a dangerous word. So far as free speech alone is concerned, there can be no ban or restriction or burden placed on the use of such a word except on showing of exceptional circumstances where the public safety, morality or health is involved or some other substantial interest of the community is at stake.

    If, therefore, use of the word or language equivalent in meaning was illegal here, it was so only because the statute and the order forbade the particular speaker to utter it. When legislation or its application can confine labor leaders on such occasions to innocuous and abstract discussion of the virtues of trade unions and so becloud even this with doubt, uncertainty and the risk of penalty, freedom of speech for them will be at an end. A restriction so destructive of the right of public discussion, without greater or more imminent danger to the public interest than existed in this case, is incompatible with the freedoms secured by the First Amendment.
Sign In or Register to comment.