As you scroll down the page just mouse over some empty space where the menu was, and it will pop back into view.
|
|
Mosher vs. Mendham
Mendham:
Town Stuff:
Mosher vs. Mendham
     By 21... . on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 7:28 am: |
| loser |
| By 2....... . . . on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 9:55 am: |
Subpoena Mania coming to a town near you
...or The el shito will now hit the fano.
Although not entirely unexpected, I'm offended and angered that the mayor and town council, at the November 7th meeting, decided to silently endorse rather than repudiate the statements made by council members at the previous meeting. More obvious nose-thumbing was the fact that they didn't even have an executive session to discuss the issue-- and sensibly consider seeking settlement of the pending lawsuit. It seems improbable that they chose this course of action without seeking advice from legal counsel and apparently these weasels see no strategic disadvantage in adding more insult to the already substantial insult to injury they have imposed. In other words, these people still think it's possible to get away with this relatively unscathed (unpunished) and that there isn't any risk to dragging this thing out, presumably in the hope that I will drop dead or somehow otherwise disappear.
In considering my best strategic response I am frankly to distracted by disappointment and anger to see any point in wasting any more time being a "nice guy" about this. Basically this is a war to validate the simple fact that Mendham is in America and that I am an American endowed with real constitutional rights--and you don't leave your gloves on in this kind of fight. To the point, it's time to play hardball, show no mercy, and take no prisoners. Really getting to the point, I'm going to spend this week working on getting a real shyster lawyer to sue these individuals "personally" (attaching their personal wealth) in federal court. The simple truth is these "new" crimes can be separated from the existing lawsuit and prosecuted for what they are separate "new" crimes. In the previous lawsuit I exercised the respect and courtesy of not naming these people individually in the lawsuit. That saved them the inconvenience of hiring a personal attorney, and being obligated to provide all kinds of personal information in discovery... including tax records. Obviously that courtesy has earned me absolutely nothing but cenacle unAmerican terrorist-like threats against my well-being as a resident of this town. From my perspective, the mayor and councils willingness to allow their legal counsel to continue to lie in court was the last straw of discourtesy I was willing to tolerate. If these jerks had any honor or integrity the lawsuit would have been settled the day it was filed for pennies on the dollar. They have chosen to attempt to cover-up their guilt and have obliged me to expend substantial energy fighting for crumbs of constitutional liberty--this strategy will now officially backfire... as I am no longer going to settle for crumbs and what bread my shyster lawyer gets will now come out of their personal loafs.
Here's a preview of what will probably be the first question on the depositions council members will now be required to endure. (Including councilmember/lawyer Barbara Stanton who should damn well know better)
How exactly how were you fulfilling your oath to protect and defend the Constitution in allowing the remarks of October 17th to stand unchallenged?
In other semi related news:
I ran across this as part of a daily record columnists post election recap.
quote:ne of the more interesting political court cases recently involved the suit in Mount Olive by Charlene and Scott Uhrmann. The couple claimed that part-time township council members are not entitled to health benefits. Their reasoning was that the township did not specifically allow such a thing.
This case took an eventful turn right out of the box with a judge's off-the-wall ruling that would have turned the Uhrmanns' computer hard drive over to their adversary. That opinion, fortunately, was overturned on appeal.
And in the end, the Uhrmanns prevailed when Judge Stephen F. Smith Jr. (not the judge who had made the computer hard drive ruling) granted summary judgment in the Uhrmanns' favor. But when it came time for the judge to formally put his reasons on the record, he did it on Election Day in an empty courtroom when the courts were technically closed.
Guess what Judge was responsible for the overturned "off-the-wall ruling"... that's right, it was none other than the Mendham residing judge presiding over my litigation... I guess that explains the delay in the processing of my case-- he probably wants to wait until the new year to put little distance between crazy corrupt decisions obviously intended to protect obviously corrupt and/or constitution violating government officials. |
| By 2....... . on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 12:24 pm: |
quote:Quoting Voltaire: I told you to get a real lawyer 6 months ago .. you felt you could handle it. You were wrong. Now you have come around to my way yet again.
I believe I can still handle the "state" litigation in which the Borough of Mendham is the only named defendant. What I am "conceding" to myself is that federal litigation where you have perhaps more than a half-dozen named defendants would likely be too much for me to handle... at least without some legal advice.
quote:Now I am going to tell you, I seriously doubt any court will meet your renewed "vigor" [sic] with anthing but serious contempt.
I seriously doubt anything but a crazy court would blame me for the muggers mugging me again after they were already on trial for mugging.
quote:If you can even find a schyster who would take this dog.
Money does talk as they say... and I would think a 30% commission on it least three deservedly harsh punitive penalties-- against millionaires-- should attract some shyster attention....As a backup plan I'm also sending another updated request to the ACLU. |
| By 22... . on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 9:19 pm: |
good grief. can you buy a clue?
Admin: Apparently this moron doesn't have a lot of loose change for clues either. You really don't have to read too many post on this message board to get the clue that I'm done putting up with "is not." style argument. Reticule, isn't prohibited but it's got to be creative enough to deserve the reply it necessitates. At any rate you can spend some time over at Voltaire's web or you can go to some other website where clued in folks like yourself exchange six word sentences and call it useful discussion. |
| By 2....... . . on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 11:50 pm: |
quote:Quoting 22: if the case had any merit (and i mean ANY) then some shyster laaawyer would have already taken the case...
I never offered the case to any shyster lawyers as I figured all they would do is necessitate a strictly cash settlement/judgment they would inflate to pay their exorbitant fees... and I wasn't after that in pursuing this.
quote:since it is a frivolous piece of crap, it's just more pro se garbage for the grist mill.
There is a standing offer of $10,000 if you can produce a signed statement by a law professor agreeing with your unqualified, unsubstantiated, garbage opinion. |
| By 7. . on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 8:20 am: |
| i suppose it's 'garbage' until the day they dismiss your case...course, by then you'll be off tilting at windmills in Federal court, or so you think. A word to the wise... unlike the state courts, the feds will dismiss meritless cases pretty fast...and Rule 11 sanctions are often imposed to boot). good luck. oh, you can mail me the 10K when it's over. |
| By 2....... . on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 8:26 pm: |
Well here we go some more...
I called Judge Dumont's office today-- because they hadn't called me as they stated they would-- I asked to know what's happeneng and was informed that the "motion" will now be decided by a judge RAND... another Mendham resident... surprise, surprise. I contacted Judge Rand's office and was informed that the motion will be heard on the trial date of November 28th. I of course pointed out that it might be nice if I was informed that there was a trial date and added that the motion was already illegal under the conditions set forth by Judge Dumont, and that outside of those conditions the motion is preposterously illegal. For the record, I did point out that the last letter I sent regarding the processing of this motion should be forwarded to the judge as it covers all the issues that need resolution before any rational trial can begin.
I don't know whether Judge Dumont is just using Rand to clean up the mess he made so the case can get back on some rational track... or whether this is just some conspiracy to force more delay by obliging me to file an appeal. I tend to think a judge with any future ambitions would be wary of being overturned on appeal for making a ruling that violates both court rules and constitutional due process... but I never anticipated things could get this strange ...so who knows what is going to happen. Sense appeals are fairly expensive, if that's my next move I might just go to the federal court sooner than anticipated and request the Court to mandate a federal investigation of due process violations by the New Jersey Judiciary.... or something like that. |
| By 7. . on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 10:36 am: |
Right, Einstein...the Courts are always out there "mandating federal investigations of due process violations"...good grief, what a putz.
Perhaps you should just take your beef right to the Attorney General's Office (Curses!!! he's yet another Mendham resident...part of that big conspiracy against you...) |
| By 2....... . . on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 2:12 pm: |
As I may eventually have to write legal argument on the subject, I guess I might as well start compiling the evidence -- Here's a brief rundown of the constitutional issues denied due process...
A plaintiff follows New Jersey court rules and legally challenges the constitutionality of excessively taxing, at dramatically unusual levels, a minority vice (smoking) that saves both the state and national economy billions of dollars (by killing most users after their most productive years and before they can collect many times their contribution from health care and retirement programs) and has been proven to kill no innocent victims (beyond the number that broccoli or gardening may kill) --unlike other majority vices that destroy families and kill or injure many thousands of innocent men, women and children of all ages. In violation of due process rights and "the right to redress of grievances" the New Jersey courts refused to hear argument on the subject of "excessive taxation" and merely proclaims "that it is legal to tax cigarettes" The New Jersey Supreme Court validates this blatant denial of constitutionally mandated "redress" by refusing to grant certification (to judge the issue).
A plaintiff follows New Jersey court rules and legally challenges the constitutionality of the state using a 1950 law (established before the Internet or widespread use of credit cards, and intended to regulate distributors) to covertly (without notice or consent) monitor credit-card purchases. Also challenged is the right of the state to use that information to apply a tax (on average eight months after the purchase) and to also apply a sales tax that is in substance a tax on taxes. The court explains that convicted child molesters can have their privacy violated as an element of probation and therefore cigarette smokers are not entitled to 14th Amendment rights. --other relevant issues are ignored, and the New Jersey Supreme Court again endorses this preposterous injustice.
A plaintiff follows New Jersey court rules and legally challenges the constitutionality of a tax amnesty program that requires all persons assessed an unpaid tax, including those who have paid for a legal challenge, to give up all claims challenging the tax and accept the provisions of the tax amnesty or be required to pay a 5% penalty on the tax owed. This is nothing short of government endorsed extortion and the plaintiff appropriately labels it "threat bargaining" and demonstrates through extensive logical evidence that it is a blatant violation of Constitutional law to extort confessions through threat of added penalty. The courts refused to address the challenge made again blatantly denying constitutionally mandated "redress"
A plaintiff follows New Jersey court rules and legally challenges the constitutionality of the Open Public Records Act (which now most open government advocates are conceding is useless, or destructive to the cause). The court dismisses the challenge violating court rules by denying legally requested oral argument that is to be provided "as a matter of right". The dismissal is also illegally void of explanation or justification.
more when I get around to it ...
A dozen or so judges (counting appeals courts and such) and not 10 minutes of fair judgment-- that is the system you're defending.... Well putz as they say what comes around goes around and the injustice you laugh at today might well be lopping your head off tomorrow. Obviously we don't share many common values --even the core value that certain principles of fairness that are the foundation of justice should never be violated especially for short-term partisan advantage. The court system is currently rigged to let rich murderers and molesters off the hook and to sustain sloppy law intended to placate majority convenience or elitist special-interest... apparently you happen to think that's just great...I on the other hand find it unacceptable and intolerable and see it as the greatest threat to the survival of the American experiment. |
| By 7. . on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 3:01 pm: |
maybe I'll read your 5000 words of slop sometime when I need help sleeping
....the point is putz-boy...Courts aren't mommy and daddy. You don't just run in and cry in front of a judge and tell her that your 'rights' have been violated or you were denied 'due process' and the judge makes it all better for you. grow up. |
| By 7. . on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 3:09 pm: |
just read it....(unfortunatly for me).
Did you ever stop to think you lose all these cases because (1) you have no valid claim |
| By 7. . on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 3:11 pm: |
now you're cutting off my responses...cute.
Too bad, now you won't get the help you desperately need. |
| By 2....... . on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 4:00 pm: |
Well here is some pong to go with yesterday's ping.
The court date is still November 28th but now we are back in Dumonts court. Apparently the motion to dismiss will be held until it's appropriate time after evidence is presented -- at least that's what they're telling me. As we haven't worked out jury selection or cross-examination or what to do about the new evidence and perhaps the need to amend the complaint to name the members town council as plaintiffs -- I don't think much will be happening on the 28th beyond perhaps a conference to work out some of these loose ends.
for 7,
OK... $10,000 for a signed statement by a law professor that my filed legal papers are little more than "just run in and cry in front of a judge and tell her that your 'rights' have been violated"
BS. The software seems to work for everyone else-- no cut off posts-- maybe you need little yellow bus Software. |
| By 7. . on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 7:54 am: |
| as if you had the $10,000 to bet with in the first place. |
| By 2....... . on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 8:14 am: |
| The point is, at minimum, my integrity is on the line ...and I will offer another $10,000 if you can find proof anywhere on this planet that I have ever gone back and my word. I've pointed out that you anonymous cowards who choose to mix it up with me "personally" had better tread carefully-- if you're gonna make accusations and implications in your little 6 word sentences than you got to choose some damn eloquent verbiage... unlike your moron tripe.... maybe you should practice a while in Voltaire's litterbox. |
| By 20... . on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 10:55 am: |
| To the web page owner the reason I have stopped posting on your web is because i am tired of the NAGATIVE responses every one gets clean up this page |
| By 14... . on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 11:29 am: |
| We thought you stopped posting because you were brushing up on your spelling, we were wrong. |
| By 2....... . on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 12:37 pm: |
Well the federal government is trying to clean up the world.... and your town council is working on getting the rubbish out of this town... so maybe if you just wait a little while longer the body snatching of earth will be complete and then you can all sit around and talk about how awful it was when people had individual personalities and values, and would express themselves using all kinds of different words.
Ridiculous aside, I do have to admit I sometimes wish I had nothing better worry about than scary words.
Well I guess that was actually more ridicule. |
| By 2....... . . on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 3:47 pm: |
Kangaroo court update: I won't bother detailing the dozen phone calls over the last four days trying to get a coherent explanation regarding where my case is in the, New Jersey version of due process, process. The last word is.. apparently Judge crazy ass Dumont (of recently infamous over rulings in appeals court fame) has decided that he's going to decide the case on the papers, and deny me my right to a jury trial. The law quite obviously states he can't do that... and even if he could he would still have to make sure the papers were complete including all witness testimony and evidence... including the new evidence of the "he doesn't pay taxes" and "condemn his house" remarks.
What it all comes down to is an illegal second summary judgment motion this time before a judge who apparently doesn't care about looking like a complete ass hole... Maybe he is some old fart who doesn't have any future ambitions, beyond tearing up as much of the Constitution as he can before anyone who matters gives a damn and stops this guy from using the law to cut out paper dolls.
I still haven't decided on a best legal strategy to deal with this lunacy-- it's kinda like punching ghosts, you kind of have to know the trick to it. I could go to federal court with the new evidence and make new charges. The unknown is, would the federal court insist on taking jurisdiction over the pending state case.... and would that court entertain a motion claiming the state judiciary has violated my constitutional rights by not providing constitutionally mandated due process. The thing that would instantly fix this is media attention and the "somebody's watching" oversight that forces responsible behavior. The truth is our court system is a sham... and I can prove it... but it doesn't matter if there's no court of public accountability to try the issue in.
The other alternative is to let the state court, add to its crimes, through the appeals process and then go to federal court with the record of this case and the tobacco tax case and sue the shirt off the state of New Jersey. It seems apparent that the system currently doesn't see any possibility of this bomb their building blowing up in their own face... Maybe corruption owns them all and the system is impervious to a fair fight... but then maybe somewhere I will run across someone in the media or in government who has the integrity, and enough social conscience, to light the fuse on the bomba of just desserts.
As for my efforts to secure a lawyer, that has been nothing but a waste of time... apparently things have changed and not too many lawyers do the flat commission thing... the best offer I got was $100.00 an hour and a 20% commission. It also seems kind of apparent that they don't even want to hear about cases that don't involve some horrendous physical injuries. The fact that courts now routinely reduced judgments on appeal has probably taken a lot of profit out of plaintiff civil litigation (especially litigation primarily intended to impose accountability on government). More surprising was the fact that most law offices were not work hungry enough to even return phone calls or e-mail. The ACLU is still a long-shot hope, but I don't think their lawyers have read much of the Constitution either.
I'm not really feeling anymore hopeless, I'm just getting damn tired. Including the tobacco tax case this is like round 70 and I am frankly getting a little fuck-this punchy. |
| By 7. . on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 8:33 am: |
| there's a good reason the laaaawyers don't want to touch your case (or even bother to return your silly phone calls or emails)...it's because (1) you don't know how to communicate clearly...you just babble on and on about nothing so god knows what your case is about... other than b.s.; (2) you have no legally cognizable claim (i.e. you have no case); (3) there are no monetary damages, thus there is no incentive for a lawyer to invest time and money chasing your tail when you can do it for free. Go to Federal Court...that will end the whole thing sooner than you think. |
| By 2....... . on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 9:24 am: |
More completely unqualified anonymous opinion defended with no reasonable argument or evidence... last warning for you to.
"You don't know how to communicate clearly" -- Average message left on voicemail that received no reply:
"I am contemplating civil action against a local municipality for constitutional rights violations, violations of the ADA and NJLAD. I'm interested in acquiring legal services on a commission basis... please reply if you believe you may be of service."
"You have no legally cognizable claim" -- If that were true, the case would not have survived summary judgment and I would not still be in court after two years. Deception, Theft, Discrimination, and Harassment are "cognizable" concepts for most people.
"There are no monetary damages"-- Punitive damages can be awarded under the ADA are explicitly permitted under the New Jersey law Against Discrimination. The federal 1983 civil-rights statute also permits punitive damages for willful violations of constitutional rights perpetrated by government officials. I also had a stroke a year-and-a-half ago that may mitigate in my favor regarding actual damages... in the end I am suing a very rich municipality and the jury will be able to award a monetary punishment commensurate with what it deems an appropriate imposition of accountability.
quote:Go to Federal Court...that will end the whole thing sooner than you think
Only time will tell (...but there's reason the hope the federal court's are a more familiar with the provisions of the United States Constitution --unless of course it's a Bush appointee) |
| By 7. . on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 11:32 am: |
| Listen gerry...there are enough lawyers out there looking for work that if you had a claim or if you could communicate the basis of your claim in a logical and understandable manner, some shyster would have jumped at the chance. Also, your jury argument works against you. First off, Morristown ain't Newark (not exactly the friendly forum for big plaintiffs verdicts...just the opposite). Plus, no Morris County jury is going to hit Mendham with a big award (that these jurors know may come out of their own pockets). |
| By 2....... . . on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 2:19 pm: |
quote:.there are enough lawyers out there looking for work that if you had a claim or if you could communicate the basis of your claim in a logical and understandable manner, some shyster would have jumped at the chance.
When I used to think lawyers were particularly intelligent ...I probably would've agreed with your conclusion... that it "means something" regarding the merits of my case that lawyers are not jumping at the chance to cut themselves in for a piece of the action. But seeing lawyers at work over the past few years I think the average garbageman might be more intellectually engaged in a relevant universe. I did notice that a lot of law firms play both side of the street representing plaintiffs and defendants... their advertisements also give the indication that they really like corporate and government work. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that some lawyers don't wanna get government officials angry at them... and prefer to just maybe piss-off a corporation or two defending plaintiff's claims. Anyway, I think the majority of the problem is most lawyers can't even read their own e-mail... and like-you they don't understand that there are still some laws in America that provide opportunity for punitive damages.
I did send some more detailed solicitations patterned after this request to the ACLU:
quote:I was the town Web Master for two years.... was fired without cause or notice and was not reimbursed for out of pocket expenses the town had
agreed to pay. I set up an independent web site and the town makes it nearly impossible for me gain access to public information to publish-- so I sue "the town" in state court for violation of the ADA, njlad, and federal civil-rights statute and to enforce OPRA. The Court's break a lot of court rules, the case survives summary judgment, but hasn't gotten very far in 2 years . NOW when I submit some questions/comments to be addressed by the town council during the public comment portion of a council meeting-- council members respond with these whispered ...but audable and recorded statements.
"why even answer he doesn't pay taxes" (clearly audible on the recording)
"we should condemn his goddamn House" (not as clearly discernible on the
tape but enhancement should verify)
It is my intention to sue the town council as private "individuals" in federal court for violating my constitutional rights and relevant disability law and seek punitive damages. As they are not named defendants in the previous case, the two cases may need to be combined to satisfy the "entire controversy doctrine". Regardless, I think this case has many elements that SHOULD interest the ACLU. Laws protecting the disabled and the Bill of Rights really have no meaning if POOR victims have no capacity to impose accountability.
quote: no Morris County jury is going to hit Mendham with a big award
If they're a "jury of my peers" living on a fixed-safety net-income or maybe renters... I think the award could be "humongous"... I would even argue that there's a lot of rich people out there who are really sick of secret corrupt government... these guys were not doing any citizen any favor, rich or poor, by-- pointlessly firing me -- pointlessly not paying me --pointlessly not respecting my right to request a few public documents-- pointlessly considering things like charging for e-mail just to stop me from "asking" for something-- pointlessly not respecting my basic equal constitutional rights-- and then to top off... pointlessly threatening the security of my home for ASKING A FUCKiNG QUESTION! |
| By 7. . . on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 3:02 pm: |
(1) Yes, lawyers are all stupid..how come they can't see the millions just dangling in front of them? They must ALL be morons or corrupt (and working with such a peach of a client to boot would be a real plus).
(2) "I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that some lawyers don't wanna get government officials angry at them... and prefer to just maybe piss-off a corporation or two defending plaintiff's claims"...Newsflash: By your 'logic' I guess the government must never get sued.
(3) You get a jury of your peers, not a jury of your 'clones' you dolt. |
| By 2....... . . on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 3:47 pm: |
quote:By your 'logic' I guess the government must never get sued.
Actually there probably have been less than a handful of successful prosecutions under the ADA. Why don't you point me to some recent litigation successfully prosecuted by an individual against the government.-- there really isn't that much out there. You've got to remember that judges are government employees two.
quote:They must ALL be morons or corrupt
Well it's kind of like the cop argument I made on another subject board-- the good cops see what the bad cops are doing ...but they don't do anything to stop them because they're all part of the same corrupt Union. Another consideration in this is the entire bar associations contempt for pro se litigation --It a threat to their special little club. Also doesn't hurt to add... the lawyers are rich elitist whos personal values are as corrupt and unAmerican as yours.
quote:You get a jury of your peers, not a jury of your 'clones' you dolt.
what's your definition "peer" --12 good and true council members.
Haven't you jerked on this pole enough -- as stated before we OBVIOUSLY don't share any common values or a common understanding of what it means to be an American. YOU like secret government willing to break the rules to stop the evil public servant volunteers from creating public resources that allow people to be informed.--- fine, we all get your point. I happen the think it's insane ...but that's just my opinion... so now that we have argued it all to death why don't you just flip me a Nazi salute and mosey off to the official government website where your values are being protected and defended. |
| By 7. . on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 5:50 pm: |
| You're funny. Stupid, but funny. At least you controlled yourself and didn't say 'faggot' for a change. I'm tired of trying to help you come to your senses and quit while you're behind. Good luck with your case (you'll need it). Shalom, putz. |
| By 2....... . . on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 6:28 pm: |
If you actually argued how the "evidence" does not prove deception... does not prove theft .... does not prove a deliberate effort to obstruct access to public information ... does not prove a cynical disrespect for my FUNDAMENTAL constitutional rights... that would have been helpful. Instead you just made empty accusations claiming I'm retarded for drawing the obvious conclusion the evidence points to --that what happened was wrong and somebody should try to make it right. Sorry...but I see no point in thanking you for that.
--aloha ...and let me provide the traditional salutation of warning you not to let the door hit that big fat ass you have fore brains on your way out. |
| By 11. . on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 1:26 pm: |
| 6'3" 205...sorry faggot, but I ain't fat. Perhaps you need a look=see in the mirror, lard-ass. And all your whining (sorry, I mean your 'case') really doesn't state a legal claim upon which relief can be granted....in other words...you have a lot of whining and complaining, but nothing happened to you that is recognized under the law as a legal right (Constidutional or otherwise) that was trampled...despite your whining to the contrary...Voltaire and I have tried to help you, but you're too stupid to take the advice...as I said before...Shalom, Putz. |
| By 2....... . on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 2:04 pm: |
7-Eleven that's craps... but you WIN a luxury suite in the litterbox.
quote:
...all your whining really doesn't state a legal claim upon which relief can be granted...
....but nothing happened to you that is recognized under the law as a legal right
I have already made this dirt simple but let's indulge the moron once more.
$10,000 ...AND I will leave town (after 35 years here) if you can get a law professor to sign a statement agreeing with you. (must remain a member of a United States Bar Association after signing the statement)
Your just 205 lbs. of mouth and shit -- or is it mouth with only shit behind it.... No balls or brains to back up what you say... just a big pile of stinking fagot shit.
You like funny Shalomie words... look up integrity! ...it should have you in hysterics. |
| By 2....... . . on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 6:19 pm: |
I will be mailing out a motion in the next week or so amending my complaint to include the evidence and implications of the October 17th remarks by some council members. By naming the mayor and council members as defendants in the case, it will become possible for the jury to assess damages that individual council members will have to pay. This will make this case more "personal" than I wanted it to become... but there really isn't much choice as a matter of rational legal strategy. Obviously when government officials start talking about condemning the roof over your head the "personal hourse" has already left the historic barnlike building. In truth, when the borough's attorney chose the legal strategy of attempting to attack my 25 year disability --as their only "justification" for the crimes of deception and theft committed by Borough officials-- the smell of pretty personal Bull Shit was already in the air.
No doubt this will cause some delay in the processing of the case as it seems probable a reopening of the discovery period will be necessary... Considering the months judge Dumont has delayed things I suppose it won't make much difference.
In preparing my paperwork I decided to attempt to create some online forms that would help make the process of preparing legal documents easier for pro se plaintiffs. There really isn't much help out there in the real world for people who can't afford an attorney and have no choice but to attempt litigation themselves. The fill-in-the-blanks web browser templates I created work pretty good, but they will need some perfecting to print with appropriate page breaks.... I did have to tweak the HTML of the pages I created for my case to get some of them to print appropriately. ... here is an example of a summons template. |
| By 2....... . on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 2:07 am: |
I received an answer from the defendant attorney regarding my motion for leave to amend my complaint.... as expected it's just more high-priced shyster sh...rubbish. They made a couple of completely bogus arguments regarding "procedural technicalities" I won't waste time explaining. The substance of their argument relies on an ambiguous notion of "legislative privilege". The law, does provide legislative bodys some protection from civil claims of slander or defamation-- the intent being to provide immunity from stifling or harassing civil litigation. I think quite obviously as I'm not claiming any defamation but in fact and claiming disenfranchisement from my civil rights, defense attorneys unsupported opinion of "absolute immunity" is absolutely irrelevant. Lawrence Haverkost and the others were not engaged in open free-speech deliberation... they were engaging in a treason against the United States Constitution and were in fact violating state and federal laws by diminishing, advocating against, and threatening my civil liberty. The simple truth is they swore an oath to the Constitution and the law does provide that they are accountable if they violate that oath.
A funny side note was inclusion in the papers of a transcript of the on-the-record portion of the conference with Judge Dumont. This transcript probably cost a couple of hundred dollars and I don't see how it does anything but prove the incompetence of the presiding judge. Defendants' motion for dismissal was in fact nothing more than a regurgitation of the exact same argument made in the motion for summary judgment... there were no new arguments defending or explaining or in any way refuting any of the documentary or videotaped evidence. The fact that the whole point of the unusual procedure was to expedite the processing of the case, and the judge failed to hold up his end of the agreement, makes this transcript nothing but clear evidence of a judicial fiasco. |
| By 29... . . on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 4:40 pm: |
| Hang in there Gary, if nothing else make a print out of their response and use it for toilet paper. |
| By 2....... . . on Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 9:56 pm: |
Reply to answer regarding motion...
Quoting 20: "Gary I sued a guy in this judges court. If I were you I would try to get the case moved to another jugde. Im telling you you are wasting your time check out were this judge lives."
So far.. all three judges connected with this case have lived in Mendham Township... The good news is now that I'm suing the Township there's hope to believe I can force appropriate recusal and get the case to a rational "Real American" court. |
| By 2....... . on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 6:26 pm: |
I called Judge Dumont's chambers of horrors today, as the return date on my motion is tomorrow morning, and I hadn't heard anything regarding the scheduling of oral argument. When I got a return call to my voicemail, the legal secretary informed me that the judge was going to decide the motion without oral argument.... deja vu, all over again, some more. Here's two relevant excerpts from the "rules of the New Jersey kangaroo courts"
quote:4:9-1. Amendments
A party may amend any pleading as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is to be served, and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, at any time within 90 days after it is served. Thereafter a party may amend a pleading only by written consent of the adverse party or by leave of court which shall be freely given in the interest of justice.....
1:6-2. Form of Motion; Hearing
(d) Civil and Family Part Motions-Oral Argument. Except as otherwise provided by R. 5:5-4 (family actions), no motion shall be listed for oral argument unless a party requests oral argument in the moving papers or in timely-filed answering or reply papers, or unless the court directs. A party requesting oral argument may, however, condition the request on the motion being contested. If the motion involves pretrial discovery or is directly addressed to the calendar, the request shall be considered only if accompanied by a statement of reasons and shall be deemed denied unless the court otherwise advises counsel prior to the return day. As to all other motions, the request shall be granted as of right.
Judge Dumont is just another Rule (Law) Breaking piece of shit we're letting define justice. It is a sick sad commentary that these highly paid professionals are afraid to take me on, in a fair, on-the-record argument. They only have about 6000 legal technicalities to screw me with... yet they have to resort to breaking the plainly written law to commit their cheap elitist treason against the United States Constitution.
I'm figuring this bullshit suspension of due process can only mean that the judge intends to deny my motion... if that is what he does some time next week... I won't waste anymore time on these state lunatics and I will file a legal plea with the federal courts for intervention. |
| By 2....... . on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 8:26 pm: |
I found this photograph of Judge Dumont from a ribbon cutting ceremony for a lawyer lounge... after my brain recovered from the preposterous shock, I realize the judge bore a remarkable resemblance to another dickhead I had an archived photograph of... |
| By 2....... . . on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - 3:01 pm: |
From the courts Order:
----------------------
Denied, the new allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Moreover, the trial is under way on "paper proofs" and the court will not grant leave at this juncture to amend.
----------------------
So obviously, as I anticipated, oral argument was ILLEGALLY denied so the judge could render this vacantly defended ILLEGAL decision.
Analyzing the first claim:
---------------
"new allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."
---------------
Taken literally, this lunatic judge is saying YOU cannot claim rights under the ADA, NJLAD, 1983 statutes, common law, or The United States Constitution.... Even by a generous interpretation, the judge is saying, without even hearing the tape, that there's no possibility what was said was a violation of law. Even if a judge had right to make such a determination-- he would be obligated to defend it with a on the record rationale.
---------------
"the trial is under way on "paper proofs" and the court will not grant leave at this juncture"
---------------
The motion clearly points to the new claims arising out of "new evidence" ... in no court room on the face of this earth would a judge, not allow the introduction of intensely relevant and significant new evidence. Even if the jury were deliberating ... it's likely a mistrial would be declared. Councilmembers threatening to condemn my house fits the cliche definition of a "smoking gun"... it is evidence that can't be ignored... and can't be disposed of in a judge's garbage can. When you further consider that a jury trial was requested...and has been subverted through agreements broken by the judge. There really is no other word for this than judicial treason against The United States Constitution. |
| By 2....... . on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 11:31 am: |
| I sent off my complaint in the case of Mosher verses The State of New Jersey today. I'm hoping this will secure me enough rational process that I can finally feel satisfied that justice has been done--regardless of whether I win or lose regarding the individual issues. |
| By 2....... . on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 7:35 pm: |
Here is a bit over-due update: Last week I got a couple of phone calls from Judge Dumont's legal secretary. They claim they can't find the data on the CD I sent with the videotapes and were requesting another copy. I basically informed the Secretary that I believed it was only through illegal process that the stupid motion to dismiss was still viable, and at any rate the evidence already on the record was more than sufficient to dispose of the motion. I also informed the Secretary that I was suing the judge in federal court and that should rationally be cause for him to recuse himself. Later in the week I got another call basically informing me that if I did not provide another copy my claims would be dismissed, and that the judge wasn't considering the motion to dismiss, he was deciding the case. I pointed out that he had no legal right to deny me the jury trial I had requested-- especially without even a motion arguing the issue. I also pointed out that he has basically thrown critical evidence in his garbage can and that there has been no testimony from the defendant's whatsoever and therefore there is no rational justification to consider this case "ripe for trial"... but I did relent to the nonsense and agreed to send a another copy of the data.
The good news is if Judge Dickhead Dumont does overtly break the rules of the court and the laws of the United States and render a decision in this case... he will pretty much insure me ultimate victory in the federal court-- somewhere in this process I will be able to make this bullshit the legal precedent... and even the evildoers of our corrupt government won't want to let that happen. .... but I have miscalculated how preposterous things can get, so who can say for sure what weird future will unfold.
An ominous bad sign, was an order (my reply) I got from the federal judge requiring me to provide more information regarding the relief sought. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure don't give any indication that a judge is permitted to threatened to dismiss a claim because he doesn't wish to understand some part of the relief demanded. As I anticipated, judicial corruption is not a problem specific to any one political party (this judge is a Democratic appointment) it is a problem of political appointment through political patronage.... lying corrupt politicians appoint lying corrupted judges and as there aren't any honest politicians corruption controls both parties and all branches of government.
The only good news is I think the higher standards of the federal system will require a judge to sign his name to a decision that actually explains how all this unconstitutional bullshit can be justified. In my opinion, no federal judge with any higher court ambitions is going to want to have defending Judge Dumont on their record. ... but we will see. |
| By 80... . on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 11:30 am: |
| Golly, Gerry, since this topic of "you vs. the World" has lain dormant, shall we assume that you are not collecting millions of dollars in lawsuit awards? |
| By 2....... . on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 1:52 pm: |
You can assume what ever the fuck you like... even in this fascist, BS, two-corrupt-party nation of unprincipled liars you're still free to ignorantly assume what ever truth suits you. The facts substantially prove that none of this started as a quest for personal gain... the indisputable truth is I have risked my meager fortune, and a substantial portion of my time investing in the protection of "our" hard earned constitutional rights (and I may even up the stakes by risking my life on an October hunger strike demanding "American Justice" in America). You old exploitive farts of the Hitler Youth, who are largely responsible for America losing it soul, may malign me all you like, but I would advise that you would sound more credible if you spoke from a soap box I didn't build, and wasn't paying the price to maintain.
Regarding the case, it is still pending--waiting almost a year now for Judge Dumont to contrive some way to escape his own illegally initiated motion to dismiss. These people we call judges, and sadly neighbors, are in fact traders to the United States Constitution, and if I can get a fair day in court (have my evidence and argument fairly judged) I will prove it!
Golly, anonymous coward, how about trying to argue one single fact made in the claims to be filed this week and try to make your words actually mean something. |
| By 06. 2....... on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 9:17 am: |
Here is a bit overdue update: In the three-year-old State Superior Court case against the Borough of Mendham-- in which Township judges have presided--Sometime around October 23rd the assignment judge (Judge Dumont) will pass jurisdiction over the case to a new judge.
In the federal case I have received the first of the "I can be a criminal if I want to because I'm absolutely immune" excuses from one of the bum judges. The legal precedent might be hard to challenge... but the logic defending it is nonetheless imbecilic and opaque black in its obviously corrupt purpose.
The SJ. Motion:
My answer
Also of note: The lawyers for Patriot Media are refusing to respond to the summons (ie: waiver) in a petty effort to waste my time, and distracted me from prosecuting my claims. The court rules provide that it is "a duty" to cooperate with efforts to minimize the expense of service of papers.... so I will request the judge send a federal martial at Patriot Media's expense. |
| By 06. 06. on Thursday, December 14, 2006 - 12:10 pm: |
| gee gerry - you must really be making some headway with your legal tilting at windmills - to have been so quiet on the subject - let me guess .. The Righteous Voltaire was Right again ?? |
| By 06. 2....... on Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 12:55 pm: |
I don't bother posting updates as it's pretty obvious that the available audience isn't at all interested. Its also been a depressing awakening for me to realize that America is all cheap facade with no principaled substance...ie. the people all suck, especially the jerks we make judges... So I guess my interest in them/you, and this website, is waning.
...but since you asked. The now three-year-old state Superior Court case against Mendham Borough has been trapped in a purgatory created by the treasonous judges living in Mendham Township. For 15 months a motion to dismiss has been pending, and no judicial process has taken place. No doubt the criminal state judges living in Mendham Township are now just waiting for the federal judge to endorse their immunity from prosecution so they can comfortably complete their crime against me and the United States Constitution. To the federal judge's credit, he is taking his time considering the 2ed "immunity motion" (and my reply) ... but I would suspect in the end he will contrive some excuse to protect his criminal colleagues. My plan "B" to that event is an also still pending motion, where I essentially move the pending state claims, from state court, to federal court.
I will concede, that as a practical fact, I have already lost this fight... I mean what good are constitutional rights you have to spend years in court to gain or retain. |
| By 06. 137... on Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 4:04 pm: |
| As usual you make the assumption that you are correct and the rest of the world is wrong. Perhaps your constitutional rights were not violated, only you perceive that they were. Out of the millions of people living in the USA and the entire population of the Mendhams why has no one come to your defense. Perhaps your rights have not been violated and it is your perverse and twisted view of the world that is wrong. |
| By 06. 2....... on Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 5:06 pm: |
As usual you make the assumption that you are correct and the rest of the world is wrong.
I wouldn't frame this as me against the world... more like me against a privileged enclave of bigoted fascists who would like to return America to a classist monarchy. Regardless, my claims are based on facts, not assumption, and until the evidence indicates otherwise it would be illogical for me to assume I was incorrect because a few/bunch of retards and liars inarticulatly pronounce otherwise.
Perhaps your constitutional rights were not violated
well perhaps you should demonstrate that supposition with a shred of factual evidence or substantiating argument.
only you perceive that they were.
I bet if we could strap the mayor to a lie-detector test he would have to admit that he perceives so also.
Out of the millions of people living in the USA
Get real... most of my neighbors don't even have knowledge of this controversy.
and the entire population of the Mendhams
realistically what are the actual numbers? 1 in one hundred.
why has no one come to your defense.
will actually there have been one or two... As for the rest they're just part of the elitist tyrannical evil that believes the Constitution should only protect the right of the rich to exploit.
Perhaps your rights have not been violated and it is your perverse and twisted view of the world that is wrong.
Find a paragraph that I have written, regarding my claims against the relevant parties, that abuses the facts, or that misinterprets the Constitution and the laws of this country-- And demonstrate my "twisted perversion" with a respectable argument, rather than just the cheaters weapon of empty rhetoric. |
| By 06. 137... on Sunday, December 17, 2006 - 6:57 pm: |
| As usual you rant and rave agains the status quo but you are losing the argument. The rules are stacked against you and you will lose. |
| By 06. 2....... on Monday, December 18, 2006 - 1:19 pm: |
As usual you rant and rave agains the status quo but you are losing the argument.
I might be losing the fight, but I won't concede I've lost any argument. Regardless, I see greater purpose in going down with a good ship, than serving on a bad one.
The rules are stacked against you and you will lose.
Probably so, but when I am wearing my Underdog underroos surrender just doesn't seem an option. |
| By 07. 2....... on Friday, January 05, 2007 - 7:56 pm: |
Here we go some more.... I requested from the Borough a copy of the CD created in compiling "The History of Mendham, Reflections on a Community" coffee-table Book. Here is the reply I received from the Borough government.
quote:Pursuant to the Open Public Records Act NJSA 47:1A-1.1 all government records shall be subject to public access unless exempt form such access which includes any federal law , regulation or federal order. The History of Mendham, Reflections on a Community Book is copyrighted material and therefore subject to the Federal copyright Laws as set forth an Title 17 of the United States Code. Pursuant to the Federal Copyright Law, the document requested is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form. Under the circumstances, I have been advised by Legal counsel that the document is copyright protected and therefore the Borough cannot provide you with the information requested.
Please know that you have the right to challenge this decision by either instituting a proceeding in the superior court of New Jersey or filing a complaint with the government records council.
Respectfully yours,
Maureen Massey, Borough Clerk
My Reply;
Your claim that copyright law provides you the right to suppress public information--gathered and compiled using public resources and public financing-- is a preposterous perversion of the intent, and letter, of the law, as well as the American Constitution. (the Supreme Court's First Amendment interpretation of a constitutional prohibition against prior restraint)
By the silly rational you have articulated a copyright holder would have the right to prohibit a public library (for example) from providing (free) access to their copyrighted material. To my knowledge no copyright holder has (in recent history) attempted to defend such a ludicrous right.
Copyright Law protects covered material from abusive "use", and cannot be reasonably perverted to justify directly suppressing public access, to public information. As you and your attorneys are no doubt aware, there are also "fair use" provisions under copyright law that are clearly incompatible with your claimed right to prevent "any use" whatsoever.
Unless you provide a more reasonable legal rationale justifying what I claim to be your willful, and malicious, oppression of my constitutional speech and access rights I will seek legal redress (compensatory and punitive damages under federal 1983 statutes) in FEDERAL court. |
|
