[brief] This matter is similar to *Isaacson* in that both --- \(^1\)  The lower court considered the testimony of [...] that he [[...]] only had an issue [with] nineteen (19) of [the] five-hundred eighty-six (586) property checks that [...] performed.  11T194:18.  The lower court considered the following factors for credibility:  - **“Manner in which they testified”**  The Court found the Plaintiff’s testimony guarded and measured in a manner so as to not be definitive or unequivocal, . . . whereas the Township’s witnesses were unequivocal.  - **The witness’ interest in the outcome of the trial**  The Court found the Plaintiff [[...]] had a strong interest as he was fighting termination and an end of his law enforcement career.  The Township’s witnesses testified in a manner upholding the appropriate conduct of police officers as well as their truthfulness.  - **Their means of obtaining knowledge**  The Township’s facts were backed by credible GPS evidence and corroborated testimony.  - **Witness’ power of discernment meaning their judgment- understanding**  The Court found the Township’s witnesses power of discernment and judgement was better than that of the Plaintiff.  - **Witness’ ability to reason, observe, recollect, and relate. **  The Court found the Township’s witnesses ability to reason, observe, recollect, and relate was more credible than that of the Plaintiff.  - **The possible bias, if any, in favor of the side for whom the witness’ testified**  The Court did not find the Township’s witnesses testified with any bias either for or against the Plaintiff [[...]] or that of the Township.  The Court found . . . the Plaintiff testified in a manner designed to present himself in a clearly favorable light and was guarded.  - **The extent to which each witness is either corroborative or contradicted, supported, or discredited by other evidence. **  The Township’s evidence was corroborated by the witness testimony and the GPS evidence.  The Plaintiff’s [[...]] was not corroborated.  The Plaintiff testified he was on foot patrol, he did not notify dispatch he was a way from his patrol vehicle and was seen in his vehicle by [...] and not seen “on foot” on November 20, 2017.  - **Whether the witness testified with an intent to deceive this Court**  The Court found this to be so on the part of the Plaintiff’s testimony.  - **The reasonableness or unreasonableness of the testimony the witness has given**  The Plaintiff’s [[...]] testimony was not reasonable at all.  For example, despite being taught how to conduct property checks by his FTO, he testified that he was “self -taught. ”  The Court did not find this reasonable in light of credible evidence confronting him from his FTO.  Additionally, the Plaintiff testified he was on foot patrol when confronted with evidence he [his] patrol vehicle was stationary was incredible.  The Township’s witness testimony was very reasonable and corroborated.  Pa218 at 8-10.  officers lied about their location and circumstances in reference to their police conduct and then provided false documents and/or statements.  In rendering its decision requiring the matter to be heard in the Superior Court, the Commission supported the Township's assertion that this type of conduct violates N.J.S.A. 2C:28–2 (false swearing), and N.J.S.A. 2C:28–3 (unsworn falsification to authorities) and as such, would by rule, negate reliance on N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147 (45-day rule).  STATEMENT OF FACTS