Case 5:18-cv-01218-GLS-CFH Document 157 Filed 08/28/21 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

KEVIN MURPHY,
AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO ADD AN
ADDENDUM TO THE RICO
STATEMENT

Plaintiff, Case No.: 5:18-cv-1218

-vs-

ONONDAGA COUNTY, THE ONONDAGA COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, EUGENE CONWAY both
Individually and in his capacity as Sheriff of Onondaga County,
JOSEPH CICIARELLI both Individually and in his capacity as
Chief Police Deputy, MICHAEL DICKINSON, JAMMIE
BLUMER, JONATHAN ANDERSON, JOSEPH PELUSO,
ROY GRATIEN, JASON CASSALIA, and CARL HUMMEL,
all Individually and in their capacities as employees of
Onondaga County and the Onondaga County Sheriff’s
Department, WILLIAM FITZPATRICK both Individually and
in his capacity as District Attorney of Onondaga County;
STEFANO CAMBARERI, both individually and in his
capacity as an employee and agent of both Onondaga County
and William Fitzpatrick; MELANIE S. CARDEN, both
individually and in her capacity as an employee of Onondaga
County and LINDSEY M. LUCZKA, both individually and in
her capacity as an employee of Onondaga County; BRYAN K.
EDWARDS, both individually and in his capacity as an agent
of Onondaga County; WESTCOTT EVENTS, LLC both
individually and as an agent of Onondaga County,

Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________

1
 Case 5:18-cv-01218-GLS-CFH Document 157 Filed 08/28/21 Page 2 of 11

Jeffrey R. Parry, hereby makes this affirmation under the penalties of

perjury.

1. I am an attorney, duly admitted to the courts of the State of New

York, the United States District Courts of the Northern District of New York and

the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. I am the attorney for the

plaintiff, Kevin Murphy, in this matter.

2. On August 16, 2021, I filed an Amended RICO Statement.

3. This statement represented months of work and arduous investigation.

4. Contributing to the delay in filing the RICO Statement was attempts

by defendants to hide evidence or otherwise prevent it from becoming available to

the Plaintiff.

5. Only two days after the above filing, on August 18, 2021, I became

aware of further criminal activity by the RICO enterprise that merits the attention

of the Court.

6. It should be noted that this activity involves Domenic Albanese, a

defendant in Glover v. Onondaga County, et al.; 5:18-CV-00837.

7. As well, it involves Eugene Conway, a defendant in this case and

Sheriff of Onondaga County.

2
 Case 5:18-cv-01218-GLS-CFH Document 157 Filed 08/28/21 Page 3 of 11

8. The illegal activity described is relevant to both cases and, very

importantly, was known to the defendants since at least June 7, 2021.

9. Specifically, defendants conspired to hide evidence and hinder

discovery for their mutual gain as well as to garner unfair advantage in several

pending legal actions.

10. This activity is part of the ongoing activities of the RICO enterprise

and is illustrative of their ongoing course of conduct.

11. It was simply impossible to include this information in my previous

filing as it was kept from me.

12. However, this activity is particularly egregious because it flies in the

face of two separate Federal lawsuits and demonstrates a total disregard for the law

and the authority of this Court.

13. Moreover, it was committed by several sworn police officers who are

aware of these proceedings and the ramifications of their conduct.

14. Further motion practice concerning this activity is anticipated

however, at present, I merely wish to memorialize the present activity into the

RICO Statement.

15. Therefore, I respectfully request that the Court allow me to include the

attached information to the RICO Statement at page 77 and to update the RICO

form as needed. Exhibit A.

3
 Case 5:18-cv-01218-GLS-CFH Document 157 Filed 08/28/21 Page 4 of 11

WHEREFORE, I respectfully request that the Court allow me to

supplement the previously submitted RICO Statement by including this

information at page 77 together with appropriately updating the RICO form as

required.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the

foregoing is true and correct.

____________________________
Jeffrey R. Parry

4
Case 5:18-cv-01218-GLS-CFH Document 157 Filed 08/28/21 Page 5 of 11

EXHIBIT A
 Case 5:18-cv-01218-GLS-CFH Document 157 Filed 08/28/21 Page 6 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

KEVIN MURPHY,
ADDENDUM TO RICO
STATEMENT

Plaintiff, Case No.: 18-cv-1218

-vs-

ONONDAGA COUNTY, THE ONONDAGA COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, EUGENE CONWAY both
Individually and in his capacity as Sheriff of Onondaga County,
JOSEPH CICIARELLI both Individually and in his capacity as
Chief Police Deputy, MICHAEL DICKINSON, JAMMIE
BLUMER, JONATHAN ANDERSON, JOSEPH PELUSO,
ROY GRATIEN, JASON CASSALIA, and CARL HUMMEL,
all Individually and in their capacities as employees of
Onondaga County and the Onondaga County Sheriff’s
Department,

Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________

Jeffrey R. Parry, the attorney for Kevin Murphy, hereby proffers this

addendum to be inserted at page 77 to the Amended RICO Statement. Plaintiff

regrets the necessity of adding this additional information at this time however,

defendant’s conduct only came to light after the RICO statement was completed

and, as it is occurring in the midst of litigation in a Federal District Court, could

not be more egregious. Defendant’s continuing conduct will shortly, and of

1
necessity, be the subject of additional
Case 5:18-cv-01218-GLS-CFH motion practice,
Document 157 Filed as08/28/21
I’m sure the
PageCourt can
7 of 11

imagine.

Dominick Albanese was a Deputy in the Onondaga County Sheriff’s

Department. As well, he is a defendant in the matter of Glover v. Onondaga

County, the Onondaga County Sheriff’s Department, Dominick Albanese and

Sharon McDonald; 5:18-CV-00837 (hereinafter “Glover” or “Glover v. Onondaga

County”). That case includes several causes of action that should be considered as

background.

1.) Count One is based upon the violation of Ms. Glover’s civil rights
when she was wrongly arrested without probable cause or, in fact, any
justification whatsoever. 42 U.S.C. §1983.

2.) Count Two is similarly based upon the deprivation of Ms. Glover’s
rights under the Constitution of the State of New York.

3.) Count Three is based upon the conspiracy to deprive Ms. Glover of
her constitutional rights. 42 U.S.C. §1983. Importantly, this count
alludes to the cover-up efforts by the defendants to dodge
responsibility for their wrongdoing.

4.) Count Four is based on the defendants negligent and/or

deliberately indifferent policies, practices and customs in training and
supervision rising to violations of 42 U.S.C. §1983, the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

5.) Count Five is based upon multiple Constitutional torts including

violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution.

6.) Count Six is based upon common law fraud.

See Glover v Onondaga County, et al., 5:18-CV-00837 at Dkt. 13.

2
 Case 5:18-cv-01218-GLS-CFH Document 157 Filed 08/28/21 Page 8 of 11

Eugene Conway is, as the Court is aware, a defendant in the present matter.

He is the Sheriff of Onondaga County.

It is known that, aside from his wrongful actions against Ms. Glover,

defendant Albanese committed at least two wrongful acts involving other Central

New York citizens that, together with his wrongful arrest of Kelly Glover, led to

his suspension and an internal affairs investigation as to possible crimes on his

part. Upon information and belief, at least one of these episodes involved the

physical abuse of a psychologically impaired young man. Albanese was initially

suspended and his termination from the Sheriff’s Department was imminent.

In proceeding, the reader should be aware that police officers in the State of

New York are required to be certified by the Department of Criminal Justice

Services (hereinafter “DCJS”). An uncertified police officer cannot be employed

by a police agency. Additionally, and as a further matter of New York State law, a

police agency must notify DCJS upon the termination of a police officer for any

reason whatsoever. Terminations, and the reasons therefore, are reported to DCJS

on a very simple, albeit mandatory, one page form supplied by DCJS. As such,

compliance with the reporting requirements only takes a few moments.

Further, if a police officer is terminated for cause or resigns while only

under investigation, his certification is revoked and he cannot be employed by

3
another
Casepolice agency. Conversely, Document
5:18-cv-01218-GLS-CFH police officers
157 who
Filedvoluntarily leave9for
08/28/21 Page of 11

benign reasons, due to retirement for example, retain their certification.

Very clearly, these legal requirements are designed to promote transparency

in government and prevent offending police officers from avoiding legal scrutiny

by simply accepting employment at another agency. They are designed to protect

the public as well as to inform. Once again, compliance with these requirements is

absolutely necessary, and cannot be ignored, under New York State law.

Returning to the acts of the defendants, upon extremely strong evidence, it

is known that Albanese offered to resign his position with the Sheriff’s

Department if Conway, the Sheriff himself, either destroyed or prevented

disclosure of his records AND he be allowed to keep his certification. Conway

is known to have accepted these terms. Albanese resigned from the Sheriff’s

Department on or about June 7, 2021. However, as of this writing, he remains

a certified police officer despite his resignation in lieu of pending discipline; a

clear violation of New York State law. Conway has thus far kept his promise

to Albanese and has refused to tender evidence regardless of the legitimate

reasons for doing so.

Specifically, while this transpired, and being unaware of this nefarious

conduct, this office attempted to acquire Albanese’s records as part of discovery in

the Glover case. Although these records are essential in proving the elements of the

case as depicted above, and while they are routinely exchanged in cases of this

4
type,Case
formal requests have been refused
5:18-cv-01218-GLS-CFH without
Document 157rational explanation.
Filed 08/28/21 PageEven the
10 of 11

one-page DCJS form, which was specifically requested, has been withheld.

The Court is asked to specifically note that all of the information presented

is the result of the investigation performed by this office. None of the above

information was acquired from a discovery request. Moreover, one should bear in

mind that the Fitzpatrick enterprise, and Fitzpatrick personally, fraudulently

represented that Peter Rausch was a sworn police officer to enable Rausch to

attend the Police Academy (phase 2) without appropriate qualifications.

Falsification of police credentials is not new to the Fitzpatrick enterprise nor is

defrauding DCJS. Again delving into specifics:

1.) On July 12, 2012, took the oath as a Process Server at the Onondaga
County District Attorney’s Office.

2.) On August 28, 2012, it was falsely asserted to DCJS by the Fitzpatrick
conspiracy that Rausch was a sworn investigator/ police officer with the
Onondaga County District Attorney’s Office.

3.) In 2013, Rausch attends the Police Academy which specifically requires
that he be sworn police officer.

4.) On December 28, 2015, Rausch is sworn in as a police officer.

5.) On March 23, 2017, while drunk in a police vehicle, Rausch kills Seth
Collier and flees the scene of the accident. He was convicted and sits in a
New York State prison today.

This typifies the pattern and practice of the Fitzpatrick conspiracy.

Wrongdoing is simply covered-up and records altered, withheld or never created to

5
protect
Casethe5:18-cv-01218-GLS-CFH
members of the enterprise. This same
Document 157 conduct is memorialized
Filed 08/28/21 Page 11 at
of many
11

points in the RICO statement.

Moreover, extortionate means are present as Conway can now control the

testimony of Albanese through his promise to “allow” him to keep his certification.

In point of fact, Conway can deprive Albanese of his certification at any time by

simply submitting the legally required form if he is at any time displeased with

him. As well, Albanese has extorted Conway, conditioning his resignation upon

terms that will protect him in civil litigation and allow him to seek further police

employment while saving the County from civil exposure.

That this activity violates the law is, obviously, of no interest to either party.

This constitutes, very minimally, Tampering with a Witness in a federal case in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §1512 and Obstruction of Justice under 18 U.S.C. §1503.

Clearly, other criminal statutes are applicable and will be added to the appropriate

section of the Amended RICO statement.

_________________________
Jeffrey R. Parry