Skip to main content

Essex County Man Sentenced to 147 Months in Prison for Carjacking and Related Crimes

NEWARK—An Essex County, New Jersey man responsible for a gunpoint carjacking in Newark last winter was sentenced today to 147months in prison, U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman announced.

Taj Elliot, 24, of Newark, previously pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Esther Salas to a three-count information charging him with conspiracy to commit carjacking; theft of a motor vehicle by force, violence, and intimidation; and use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. Judge Salas imposed the sentence today in Newark federal court.

According to documents filed in this case and statements made in court:

Elliot admitted that between November 2010 and February 2011, he conspired with others to commit carjackings in order to profit from resale of the vehicles, to use stolen cars to carjack other vehicles, and to take personal items from carjacked passengers.

Elliot admitted he and others carjacked a Nissan Maxima on January 10, 2011, in Newark. The co-conspirators approached the victim, who was standing near the car on Park Ave., and ordered the victim to surrender the car keys and other personal items. At least one of the co- conspirators pointed a loaded gun at the victim. Elliot and the others took the Maxima and sped away.

In addition to the prison term, Judge Salas sentenced Elliot to five years of supervised release.

This case was brought as part of a cooperative effort between federal, state, and local law enforcement to address a spike in carjacking and related crimes in and around Essex County.

U.S. Attorney Fishman credited special agents of the FBI’s Violent Crimes/Fugitive Task Force, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael B. Ward in Newark; the Newark Police Department, under the leadership of Director Samuel A. DeMaio and Chief Sheilah A. Coley; and the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Acting Prosecutor Carolyn A. Murray, with the investigation.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...