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 THE BOROUGH OF MENDHAM
Mendham:
NO JUSTICE in NEW JERSEY:
MOSHER VS THE BOROUGH OF MENDHAM
     By . . on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 10:25 am: |
MOSHER VS THE BOROUGH OF MENDHAM
(all papers filed and evidence submitted available at linked website)
Initiated in Superior Court (2003)... still pending.
The case involves a claim of a theft of services, discrimination, and the unlawful obstructions to access to public information (violations of Constitutional rights). Clearly demonstrated in the processing of the case is the court's contempt for the truth and justice as there are numerous violations of court rules and constitutionally required due process.
Evidence of judicial malpractice demonstrated:
* The case evidence indicates the judge's have not even read the papers filed.
* The case evidence demonstrates clear abuse of the summary judgment technique.
* The case evidence demonstrates the Court's willingness to not only accept completely unsupported lies as truth... but the court's willingness to add its own lying exaggeration to those lies.
* The case evidence demonstrates the court's unwillingness/cowardice to commit its crimes against justice fairly facing the victim in oral argument.
* The case evidence demonstrates the court's willingness to contrive "preposterous process" to satisfy its bigoted intent to destroy litigation.... in violation of the oath sworn to.
* The case evidence demonstrates a blatant violation of the ADA by the court.
* The case evidence demonstrates a completely indefensible and patently unconstitutional denial of a jury trial.
* etc...
Most significant public interest issue/cause damaged by the courts illegal behavior:
A challenge to 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 dismissed the challenge violating court rules by denying legally requested oral argument that is to be provided "as a matter of right". The dismissal was also illegally void of explanation or justification. |
|