Regarding appealing Ethics Commission’s Executive Director’s claim of jurisdiction

 Now I am sending a simple condensation and resolution to this issue, Nov 23rd 2010, This is It, you have to remember towns in New England require 236 people to make a local decision, and towns in N.J. practiced this form into the 1900’s

Can I get a few words on why the ethical responsibility to deal with the issue of local peaceful assembly can’t be placed within the guidelines your commission edicts, either generally to protect issues like this, or specifically so peaceful assembly, as a protected ideal, is given attention?

Surely such would remedy the conflict of interest between the structure of a state constitution, and the interests of government and the people, especially when the state constitution authorized your salary.

Thank You Vic Fedorov

The below is an earlier letter

State Ethics Commission PO Box 082. Trenton, NJ 08625.

Vic Fedorov
68 Laurel Rd
Princeton N.J. 08540

201 232 1154
Re: Complaint, Fedorov Sep 8, 2010

Dear Mr. Holmes, Deputy Executive Director of NJ’s Ethics Commission,
Thank you for apprehending N.J.’s state governments’ inability to handle the constitutional, compelling issue of local decisions being made in peaceful assembly. As we ethically deliberate, I am grateful for democracy.

1) This conflict of interest, the causing of local officials by state constitution and title, is not unavoidable and can be overcome. Commission a convention or committee to revisit the issue of local decision-making in local peaceful assembly. This unifying concern is within ethical state government and is commissioned, per ethical duty, through you.

2) The issue of revisiting local peaceful assemblies is unifying, substantive, meritorious and manifests the charter of government as facilitating benefit to the people, indistinguishable from ethics itself. The conflict of interest is a substantial and material one but with a little guidance from your commission, overcome. Not practicing local peaceful assemblies is not free society. Peaceful assembly is too relevant to be ignored because of avoidable conflicts of interest between the government and the interests of the people; impediments to ethics must be taken on.

3) When government is not able to deal with the issue of local peaceful assemblies making decisions, government is brought into disrepute, and a suspicious impression made upon the public; why would someone trusted with the public’s interest, turn away from the discussion of the potential benefits of local peaceful assemblies?

“N.J.S.A. 52:13D-23(e)(7) No State officer or employee or special State officer or employee should knowingly act in any way that might reasonably be expected to create an impression or suspicion among the public having knowledge of his acts that he may be engaged in conduct violative of his trust as a State officer or employee or special State officer or employee.
(8) Rules of conduct adopted pursuant to these principles should recognize that under our democratic form of government public officials and employees should be drawn from all of our society, that citizens who serve in government cannot and should not be expected to be without any personal interest in the decisions and policies of government; that citizens who are government officials and employees have a right to private interests of a personal, financial and economic nature; that standards of conduct should separate those conflicts of interest which are unavoidable in a free society from those conflicts of interest which are substantial and material, or which bring government into disrepute.”

Is the personal interest of citizens who serve in government, passed over by the interests of a government to maintain itself? How? This is new for seeing the conflict to the man in office from interests he doesn’t recognize.

4) Aristotle writes of the dual entities of office, and man, how offices of trust, require a good man. This is exactly the charter and domain of ethics; to guide the man to the job: advise this issue, in light of the tension between state and locality and local mode. Make the man more moral, or know what he has to deal with.

5) The lack of an ethical response to a beneficial issue is grounded in government’s relation, to the media, whose paradigm, approached again, supports ethical behavior.

If the official understands he is the one who tells the media how it is, understanding the worth of his analysis, then that official will manifest ethics. If officials are listening to the media tell them how the world is, they are unable to discharge their ethical duties and commissions. This problem can be remedied. Ethics is consistent with outranking the media, not vice versa. We are behind the news, not worried about it.

Where are the journalists? They haven’t noted peaceful assemblies in New England. Do they loudly, subconsciously, hold back government? Are they ignorant of the slander upon the Kingdom of God? Stronger power works through the ruined psyche of journalism. Consciously separate yourself from the press and hear the people, not the press.

6) Authority, is grounded in successful justifications of its behavior, not Totalitarianism. Deliberating for the people, you are the highest order of citizen, concerned with the will and benefits, of the people, as ethical. The State’s self-deprivation of its ethical apparatus is ethical behavior that can be critical of state government weakened by focus of media upon office. Rulers must be concerned about the people, which revisiting peaceful assembly is; unifying the people, and the state, under the ordinary work of the state, justly, with a perceiving divinity, and therefore logical affirmation. But courage, temperance, wisdom, and justice and unity, in our rulers, comes through a usurpation of the domination of status quo through media upon government.

7) Today’s media and government has not implanted the impulse for the people to council together. But journalism heeds little call to ethics. While politics studies the effects of politics, the press has made little inquiry into its effects. People are not grounded in earth. This tyranny though, not being divine, is not true law, as formed against the demonstration of reason. Arts and entertainment, fails to recognize the harmony of people putting their heads together as law and society. The people must see custom or status quo, and law, or ethics, distinguished.

The benefit of free society to be enacted through state officials, thus the obligation by the citizen, to ensure the interpretation of code by reason not custom. Ethics is against the corruption of man interfering with the fulfillment of office, helped by the assertion we tell the media how it is, not by fearing condemnation to a large audience. Change is feared, not by deliberative government, but by a media not seeking peace out of the darkness, unconsciously influencing your assessment. Helping the man who is the official with ethical tactics will end the anxiety of local officials, rather than unethically suppressing the issue in sovereign and immune guises that forget the business of government, as they reflect the media’s domination.


Sincerely Vic Fedorov


         THIS is HOW the NJ Ethics Commissions’ Executive Director’s Deputy, Mark Holmes, responded to the ensuing correspondence.
Dear Mr. Fedorov,
                   The State Ethics Commission received your letter e-mailed to the Commission on July 15th, which was a follow up to your previous leter to the Commission dated June 15, 2010 and the Commission’s June 29th response to your initial letter.
                   Staff has reviewed your July 15th letter, along with the letters to Governor Christie and Commission Chair Franzese attached thereto, as well as reviewed your June 15th letter a second time. Based on this review, staff maintains that the issues raised in your letters are not within the jurisdiction of the Commission, which administers and enforces the New Jersey Conflicts of Interest Law with respect to state employees in the Executive Branch.
                 Many of the issues you raise concern the authority of local governments and local government officials to take official actions. The Commission has no jurisdiction over local officials. In particular you raise questions concerning the legality under the federal Constitution of the creation of municipalities within this State pursuant to the New Jersey Constitution. This issue is not within the jurisdiction of the Commission.
                  You also raise concerns that State officiaals, including the former Attorney General and the Executive Director of this Commission,may have a conflict in handling your questions and conerns because the State is responsible for the creation of municipalities, which you believe is improper and they are employed by the State.Staff does not agree with your concern. The Conflicts of Interest Law recognizes that the “standards of conduct should seperate those conflicts of interest which are unavoidable ina free society from those conflicts of interest which are substantial and material, or which bring the government into disrepute.” N.J.S.A. 52:13D-23(e)(8). Here, unless you raise your concerns with the federal courts, as you have already done, those concerns can only be addressed by the State through the actions of state officials. so the existence of their employment by the state is unavoidable, and does not, by iself, contravene the requirements of the Conflicts of Interest Law.
                          Please be guided accordingly
                                                    Mark Holmes
                                                     Deputy Director
                       IMPORTANT NOTE: (This first Preamble, was not sent and merely posted here for your thoughts)
Dear Gov Christie, Prof. Franzese, Esq. (Ethics Commission Chair), and Kathleen Wiechnik, (Ethics Commission Executive Director),
      Challenging state government to deal with the  forward looking, constructive and beneficial issue of local decisions being made in peaceful assemblies, is not easy. A few points that might illuminate the grip needed to take on this issue.
      The first is that the inability of state government officials to apprehend the logical and natural vitality of communities making decisions in peaceful assembilities is what might be called Statism: Whereby officials and people who work for the government are unable to act in their interests, and the interests of the state and the people and their friends and family, all of whom would benefit by this opportunity for local community peaceful assemblies to discuss and bring up local issues and make decisions therein regarding through consensus or voice vote. Any analysis of the phenonoma of behavior I try to cite would have to begin referencing a state government that can not act in its own interest beyond self-maintennance: That is to a point ineffective in recognizing and asserting its interest. One might say the old egyptian state, that marshalled its people so, that they were at the decree of a pharoah, the people had endowed, is a little like a nj state government that can not act in its own interest; in that there is no responsible accounting or response to reasonable questions. There is no compelling need for this sort of state to defend itself from charges and questions such as I pose. While the rule to the people is indirect, the people are kept spinning round from day to day, without any vital, serious discussion of that consuming routine.
Another point I might make is that it is essential the state and the people admit how weak they are asserting the natural right and practice of local people putting their heads together to discuss their life and society, without all decisions locally being made by a few. If state officials can just admit the weakness, I think we are all ok. And that an analysis of that weakness is important towards strengthening it.
And lastly, let us differentiate between authoratarianism and totalitarianism, fascism, and the acceptance of our government as it is. I am an authority. I say things, cite laws, and make claims. If there are any questions, I am glad to answer them. If anyone wants to ask why I behave and plot so, as an authority I am bound to respond, because authority is based upon responding to challenges. What totalitarianism doesn’t respond, they are not really authority, because they offer no chance for a particular subject to appeal and question, they offer no chance for the assertion of responsibility, are not eager for the challenge of proving their authority through fluid and easy dealing with the people, or any questioners of ideas and practice. In short authority is based on being challenged, and must preserve itself to claim authority. When government falls short of this definition of authority, it is the clinging to power of totalitarianism, not authoratarianism.
      It has always been wrong for any tangent to claim that another tangent can not be a source of good, or does not desire, however deceived, the improvement of their land and people and government and media and art and food and health. The orgin of the word fascist is from the roman word fasces, which meant the sacred rods. As a republic, people descended from the original patrician movement which expelled the way of kings, chose at least two presidents, or consuls as they were called, to serve for a year. If both consuls were collegiate with each other, they alternated power according to whoever held the sacred rods, or fasces. Thus fascism is derived from the honorable attempt to assert authority to the betterment of ones state and people. That seems to be what my queries are. A fascist attempt to show reason and lead to a better society.
 Dear Kathleen Wiechnik, Executive Director of N.J.’s Ethics Commission,
        My letter on June 15th sought advice on how to deal in a state whose officials and employees have generally demonstrated an inability to deal with the issue of local government and local decision-making in Peaceful Assembly, when they are entrusted to conduct relevant issues? And the letter asked why these individuals in office and employed by the state can not act in their own interests and the interests of the people in the sense they should, as decision making in local peaceful  assemblies is in their interests, and their friends, and their families? Why do they act in maintaining the interests of the state, insofar as the corporation of the state, would not want to deal with the issue of the abridgement of peaceful assembly by local officials, because the state is responsible for the situation and is difficult to hold accountable therein?
         These are entirely appropiate, challenging, and fun, questions for the people officially appointed to structure ethical quidelines for the state. The Commission is concerned with a Code of Ethics, with the understanding the enumeration of  Code, is never quite over, and requires work as new situations view it, especially as we see an unethical tension in state government brought out by this particular issue of proper local government.
         Or, please explain to me, specifically, how and why my letter of June 15th is not within
the jurisdiction of the Commission.
         Below are letters I have sent to Governor Christie and Prof. Franzese, complaining that you did not apprehend my issues at any level I can see, and that these issues are not easy for state officials and employees to apprehend, which was and is the subject of the discussion in the initial letter.
Dear Gov. Christie,
I feel the solution to N.J.’s problems lie in restablishing peaceful assemblies as where local decisions are made. Then the people could focus on more reasonable, less costly, education, and a more sensible economy, and even great unifying spiritual issues and values.
I have tried to interact with the state at several venues at this level, and the state by and large has failed to apprehend this issue.
So I found that behavior pattern to be unethical, and worthy of some guidelines regarding what to do when an issue this big confronts you; and solicited the ethics commission with this opportunity for advice.
However, Kathleen Wiechnick, the executive director, has stopped an examination of this discourse by The Commission’s appointees, claiming my letter of June 15 is not within the jurisdiction of the commission.
This struck me as a continued failure to apprehend issues and specify jurisdiction so I am appealing to you and Paula Franzese, appealing the meritorious and substantive nature of this request for advice as a real opportunity to get real and discuss state government, at the level the people understand.
I am enclosing the following letter to Paula Franzese and the initial letter.
Vic Fedorov
68 Laurel Rd
Princeton N.J. 08540
201 232 1154
Dear Prof. Franzese,
I am writing to you and Kathleen Wiechnik and Governor Christie because I feel a difficult issue has not been broached fairly by the executive director of State Ethics Commission, of N.J., Kathleen Wiechnick, and I am appealing her finding of my issues as outside the commission’s jurisdiction as of improper free will and inclination; that etches deeper the behavior pattern by state officials my request for advice cites as consequence to an unethical structure of state government.
For instance what if the state government of N.J. is responsible for the destruction of farmland and forest and unmediated population growth because it allows such destruction to be allowed by local officials, violating the law reserving powers to the state or the people, and abridging peaceful assembly and peaceful assembly’s decision making function? What if the state government of N.J. has illegally allowed towns to be run by local officials, instead of an active polity of local peaceful assembly? These are huge negligient behaviors, and tries the ethics of officials; as it seems no state official has yet to even own up that this is an issue they would like to discuss. Is state government capable of addressing these huge responsibilities? Are guidelines needed for when state government has done something very bad and needs to be held to accountable proper behavior? Or is this huge lapse guarenteed by its own momentum to prevent the ethical behavior of fairly addressing these concerns?
Kathleen Wiechnik reported her staff studied my letter of June 15th and found its issues to not be within the jurisdiction of The State Ethics Commission. She neither cites my claim that the offices of state government are a detrimental conflict of interest in the analysis of local government; because these offices have been unaware of the natural logic and practice of local peaceful assemblies making community decisions, and thereby inadequate to such apprehension, tethered to the self-interest of the office, rather than the benefits of N.J., because this fundamental issue, of the right of the people to decide together, locally, can show offices of state government to be ignorantly structured. Nor does she specify how this concern is not within the commission’s jurisdiction so I may tailor my future. Both of these abscences are not trustworthy.
In any matter, the capacity of the individual, is questioned. And this assertion for peaceful assembly as a place where local decisions are made is a historical and huge issue; undoubtedly and so far, too often too great for state officials to apprehend. (Whereas the people have no problem apprehending it, just no apparatus or power for reforming) So when Ms Wienchinik reacts to an interesting issue we should not fear but discuss; rather than provide an ethical rudder to guide this conversation, she falls prey to the exact behavior I am trying to resolve.
As I say in my complaint, the inability of state officials, who the people have given power to from themselves, to fairly address the constitutional concerns regarding local decision making, when they are trusted to conduct this matter, gives a bad impression of the state government of N.J.. within an inquiry into such incapacity.
This is a request for advice regarding dealing with the unethical behavior of state officials and employees when regarding the issue of local decision making in peaceful assemblies. The issue is literally run away from. The Office of Legislative Services for instance, were requisitioned by my Sen. Shirley Turner, last year, to analyze my argument that local peaceful assembly is infringed on by the state constitution’s incorporation of towns with local officials, as she did not address the issue directly. The OLS failed to say anything conclusive on the subject, neither refuting it, nor proclaiming it.
So I am neither sure the executive director apprehended what my request for advice is about. Nor do I understand the specific jurisdiction my inquiry fails to fall between, so as to conform my question for future service. The only possible line of reasoning I can think of, is that though the behavior pattern I cite violates the public trust in state government being able to reason the issue of local peaceful assembly, especially as the state constitution in 1947 imposed the guidelines for incorporating towns with local officials, the government official or employee is consistently acting the part and entity of a government agent; and therefore the conflict of interest between the immediate state, and developing local peaceful assembly, is genuine. Yet even that is a potential conflict of interest, as the salary and prestige of government maintains itself, in face of this call for responsibility. While this is not the same as representing another entity than state government, it does divorce its agency from the ideals and goals of state government; and this bifurcation and culture should suffice advice from the ethics commission, being analogous to working for another operation rather than what your salary is intended to do. I admit, the magnitude of this issue is such that it necessitates all power inherently being in the people, the people’s power being contingent upon understanding the state government can not deal with this, without continuing to lose and violate trust, in violation of its own ethics law.
I inquire into the need for guidelines regarding alerting the press of lawsuits upon the state, so as cultures of corruption to not fester in secrecy, as appears here. How is that not within the guidelines for asking for advice? The commission is empowered to create guidelines for state officials and employees, for such is only fair to the official, that there be a code.
I make the case that the office state officials and employees hold, constitute a financial and personal interest, in an office, that is incapable of any accounting for the abridgement of decision making in peaceful assemblies, with local officials; and therefore that state office can be and has been, a conflict of interest with the benefits of the people of N.J. who would benefit by making local decisions in peaceful assemblies. How is this not in the jurisdiction? Was my case apprehended at all?
I urge you to see the merits of my case. And I urge you to see how Ms Wiechinik applied her unique position to bottleneck and stifle discussion of an issue that merits the perusal of more, not less people, in order to fairly evaluate the status quo without inhibition. This bottle-necking structure should be looked out for. Some local government structure allows the mayor to filter the agenda, so the council may never know what agenda is not selected.
Nor is unethical behavior known for being all that conscious: more it is known for being pressured, and a correlary to antecedant structure. And an office that has not recognized peaceful assembly as a constitutionally intended form of local decision-making, or the corrupt nature to incorporation of towns by local officials, or the misinterpretation of the necessity of representative government at a state and federal level, but not at a local level at all, misses the vitality necessary to act in the interests of true government and the people.
A state employee or an official, is a part of the corporation of the state. And there can be construed and even assertained, some vested interest in this corporation through its officials and employees, to keep it from being exposed as ignorant of a basic human and civil and important right for humans to make decisions in a group locally, where their times and lives may have more focus than apathetic local delegation of that responsibility to a few, as enacted by the state constitution’s of 1947 incorporation of towns with local officials.
Maybe the party of the state, officials enact, can serve the people, and maintain propiety and the trust of the people. But the idea of this case, is that when an issue, such as making local decisions in peaceful assembly, exposes inadequacies in state government, the partnership and membership with state government impedes and conflicts with the issue at hand. And that this is clearly a conflict of interest, albeit it one contingent upon a particular and great issue rather than the office and individual. These issues tax the official enough to see what is lacking, in a way smaller issues do not.
At the very least, I feel I should be questioned about this assertion and we should see this as the opportunity for our character to discuss something important, and legal, and depart uponto the proper ethics of state government towards addressing this substantive issue of local polity. For it to be dismissed without an explanation, at the least gives the impression of a violation of public trust. How can you not take seriously the making of local decisions in peaceful assembly and the ability of the state government to apprehend such construction? It is in the interests of all your friends and family. The only possible solution is that you are ruled by the trappings of office themselves. Is this true?
We must examine whether state government takes on the role of an independent company or partnership, rather than that of an unconflicted analyzer acting for the people; for the magnitude of peaceful assembly in a day and age marked by local officials and their command of the center of town, makes the state act in self-defense rather than impartial aggression. Thus a state official or employee is conflicted by that apart from his concern for the people and issue, the office or job that holds him. While this bifurcates the state, this bifurcation is a natural analysis and consistent with the ideals restricting officials from dealing with state business as an entity or agent except as representing the state in its true interest, as Ethics Law.
This discussion falls within the Commission’s guidelines. It is analogous to conflict of interest by local officials being conflicted by their salary and prestige, when called upon to discuss the ways of local government, and I see now the distinction between being conflicted by personal and financial interests, and a more duplicitious wording and emphasis specifying a protection from an official working for another partnership and corporation other than the state. Never the less, if we can say local officials can not deal with this issue  because they have a personal and financial interest of their job as a local officials in the issue of local peaceful assembly, then surely we may see a degree of conflict in the same matter by state officials.  If there is a substantive distinction here, it is the fault of an unevolved code, rather than my claim.
Do I need to cite state officials who have been completely unable to deal with matter, such as Kathleen Weinchnik? My inquiries into how to handle this conflict of interest with State Government, is a general one that cites a specific conflict of interest affecting all.
Enclosed following is a copy of the initial signifying letter


Vic Fedorov

CC.Kathleen Weinchnik

BBC Gov Christie

                                                                Initial Letter

Dear Ethics Commission, of New Jersey, Executive Director of the Commission, Kathleen Wiechnik,

I have 4 questions in two parts. The second question is a predicate of the first. And the third and fourth predicate each other as well.

The first part, generally, concerns ethical behavior, and structure, in state government; and in light of the oath to support the federal and state constitution.

The second part, generally, concerns the ability of state employees and officials, to behave ethically; and then, ethical intentions in the structure of state government.

The story of how we get to this framework of questions:

In February 2004 I filed a Federal Question in federal civil court naming Princeton Borough and The State of N.J., (and developers) as parties, and pleaded and litigated, pro se, 04-366, under Judge Anne Thompson, until September 2004 regarding construction of the following laws. The state got the case against it dismissed on the grounds of sovereign immunity and the 11th amendment. Attorney General Charles Harvey wrote that I should have filed it under USC Title 42 Sec 1983; and targeted him, or the person responsible for enforcing laws; rather than the State of N.J.. I unsuccessfully appealed en banc to the third circuit to wave jurisdiction requirements.

1) The right of the people to peaceably assemble in their town is violated by NJ’s state constitution’s incorporation of towns with local officials. How is this so? Peaceful, free assemblies are where all present have a voice vote, and community decisions are made. Princeton had peaceful assemblies until 1900. Some Massachusetts towns today require a quorum of 236 people for a decision to be made. People need to be educated, Peaceful Assembly, is a form where Community Decisions are made; a natural form where all have a say and vote? Regional unifications cause representatives, not local issues.

When did the people consent to let a few elect decide for all locally? This structure violates natural law, to aid corruption, and was imposed in the N.J. State Constitution of 1947, by incorporating town officials.

If we understand local assemblies make decisions by the people, then we may see, how the state constitution’s authorization and incorporation of local decision-making, to local officials, abridges the right to peaceably assemble, because the people are no longer compelled to peaceably assemble, as the decision-making structure has been entrusted with local elect by the state.

The “will”, (and maybe right) to peaceably assemble, has been removed: The power of free, peaceful assembly is nullified: If there was an assembly, decisions conflict the endowed authority of local officials; dimming the considerable light of peaceful assembly.

2) The tenth amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This authoritatively limits powers to the state, or the people, in local assemblies. Local officials are neither the state nor the people yet exercise powers reserved for the state or the people.

This backhanded amendment, interprets a protection of society, locally, from being ruled by the few, (feudally, through one political party, or by a warlord). The lack of specification of the function of peaceful assembly is also “backhanded”. Yet it is time to see, and see how easy it is to see, the natural import of the tenth amendment, its leaning towards the political tension between towns and state government, and legal weapon against representative local decision-making and for peaceful assemblies making decisions.

3) The 14 amendment specifically says “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;” The trampling on the privilege of peaceful assembly, and the immunity to being ruled by a local few, is a huge civil rights issue. (Yet outside the state code.)

My filter of law is indirect. It’s not building itself to object to, but the fairness and legality of the structure that allows it. It’s not suing the builders, or even the town council, it’s suing law enforcement to enforce these laws. And in the instance of this letter, we are seeing if there are healthy ethical guidelines, that dignify state officials, to apprehend these laws.

My first inquiry concerns the secrecy of the handling of this suit by the Division of Law of Attorney General’s Office.

Do State officials have an obligation to tell the press and the public about the cases it is named a defendant in?

As a state representative of people, in this litigation, must they publicly handle the relevant issue of local decision-making forms, to shield the discussion from corruption. Or, is there no ethical mandate to report government work to the public and ensure the free press? Guidelines are needed.

There is a USC Title Code which mandated the publishing of my pleadings on PACER because my case concerned real estate. This code is consistent, and the beginning, of an ethic of relevant and pertinent work, being publicly scrutinized. A working relationship with the press, coincides with sensible debate, preventing corruption’s secret festering.

I ask you about the ethical obligation of state government officials to transmit to the press and public the issues this case raised, and the practice of keeping suits upon the state secret; Because the party of the state includes the people as fundamental and financing; therefore public knowledge of suits are relevant, ethical conclusions of common causes of government and the people.

New Jersey Conflicts of Interest Law

52:13D-12. Legislative findings

The Legislature finds and declares:

(a) In our representative form of government, it is essential that the conduct of public officials and employees shall hold the respect and confidence of the people. Public officials must, therefore, avoid conduct which is in violation of their public trust or which creates a justifiable impression among the public that such trust is being violated.

(b) To ensure propriety and preserve public confidence, persons serving in government should have the benefit of specific standards to guide their conduct and of some disciplinary mechanism to ensure the uniform maintenance of those standards amongst them.

The lack of due to my case, by the attorney general’s office creates an impression trust is being violated, reducing respect and confidence. The transmission of relevant federal questions granted a docket number and judge should ethically compel a relationship with the press.

A Free Press, is intended to be part of society’s landscape, like religions, like free assemblies and free speech. The point of the journalistic trade, is to be free. The point of government may in part be to maintain itself, if only by prestige, authority, and livelihood.

Therefore; does State Government require or have ethical guidelines ensuring important issues are not handled secretly and hence errantly? The lack of reporting to the press my suit, enables behavior “which creates a justifiable impression among the public that… trust is being violated.”

My issues are big. They construct every town in N.J. as illegally incorporated with local officials. Can the NJ’s attorney General’s Office apprehend that? It’s very difficult. So far they have not. Yet, an ethical relationship with the press, would dilute the burden of each, and facilitate navigation away from pressure to an ecosystem not inhibiting the proper discharge of duty.

The second question is this. State officials have an oath: “I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey, and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and to the Governments established in the United States and in this State, under the authority of the people So help me God.”

Foremost, my construction of free assembly, and the reservation of powers to state or the people, does not include local officials as an option of local government: The 14th amendment is to protect the rights in the federal constitution from the abuse of state governments.

So where was the oath agents of the NJ Attorney General’s Office, (such as Charles Harvey, attorney general at the time, who signed the attorney general’s office motions,) to support the federal constitution, when they move to not engage attempts to raise certain amendments? Aren’t I simply bringing to their attention laws they took an oath to support?

As pro se, I did not have a right to pretrial dialogue. (Class action would have been different) Rather than support their state constitution from these charges, or show their support for their constitution in court, by taking on this analysis; they moved for dismissal on the basis of sovereign immunity; that my right to be a citizen, comes from them, so I can’t sue them, logically. This is paranoid reaction on their part, and against the state constitution.

Does the party of the state violate the oath to support the federal constitution by failing to deal with the laws I bring up? Did they violate their oath to support the State Constitution with their evasive action? Support, is addressing, not dismissing, issues. Loyalty, transmitted administratively, acknowledges flaws of what it supports, and seeks to better.

Loyalty to the federal constitution must be remembered as a loyalty to the other states that signed it, and are under it. That other states suffering the same problems of local government do not consider, through a lack of ethical and public dialogue in N.J., exposes disloyalty.

Likewise that Massachusetts has not notified New Jersey regarding it allowance of local decisions requiring a quorum of 236; or when Phillip Freeman of the Civil Rights Divisions doesn’t apprehend the violation of the 14th amendment here in these facts and circumstance; or when the state attorney general’s office does not help me secure rooms in towns for peaceful assembly when that is abridged by local rules requiring local residency or nonprofit status? Are these lapses of jurisdiction caused by the tight ego of office? Or is the situation something more? And if it is something more, inquiry can lead us to more important concerns.

The third inquiry involves analysis of:



It is essential that the conduct of public officials and employees shall hold the respect and confidence of the people. Public officials must, therefore, avoid conduct that is in violation of their public trust or that creates a justifiable impression among the public that such trust is being violated. Accordingly, State officers and employees and special State officers and employees shall conform their conduct to the following standards.

1. No State officer or employee or special State officer or employee should have any interest, financial or otherwise, direct or indirect, or engage in any business or transaction or professional activity, which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his/her duties in the public interest.

3. No State officer or employee or special State officer or employee should act in his/her official capacity in any matter wherein he/she has a direct or indirect personal financial interest that might reasonably be expected to impair his/her objectivity or independence of judgment.

4. No State officer or employee or special State officer or employee should knowingly act in any way that might reasonably be expected to create an impression or suspicion among the public having knowledge of his/her acts that he/she may be engaged in conduct violative of his trust as a State officer or employee or special State officer or employee.”

“As a practical matter, this means that you should not participate, even informally, on a matter in which you have a personal or financial interest.”

You could have an incompatible personal or financial interest with things”

There are relevant considerations in the above charter that reflect a mitigation, in a state employees, or official’s, ability to deal with Federal Constitutional Laws that regard local government. State government may not be meant to consider local government structure. Local decisions should be made in free assemblies. That’s the federal constitution; case closed.

However since there is some tension between the broad concern of the state, and particular local concerns—perhaps the state is meant to chime in on the subject of local government.

Yet this may be difficult to do. Look how they did not respond to my pleadings, or engage my solicitations. Is this because of concerns cited in the Public Ethic Law above? The magnitude of this issue is great enough to cause tremors that obscure public interest, and impair objective judgment, perhaps because these tremors reverberate to their salary. Does the salary of state officials make errant state government incompatible with the sweeping magnitude (of my legal analysis) of local government?

The issue’s magnitude intimidates state officials and employees, exposing government structure as inadequate and ignorant; these pressures come from salaries, and prestige. State Officials’ business with the state, as employees, is threatened by the pressure of an issue which exposes, and by extension, challenges the current form of government that employs them. State officials’ and employees’ salaries, this financial interest, may conflict with the proper discharge of their duties; does it? Is the pressure to not behave in public interest consistent with observations that threaten their legal construction of the world? And can we say, in this great instance, state government officials and employees have general salaries that constitute transactions that impair objective judgment and conflicts with the proper discharge of their duties in the public interest, in this set of fact and circumstance.

The Fourth Inquiry: into ethical intentions.

This enormous issue exposes state government as unaware of the basic practice and need for local peaceful assemblies.

What do I do about this? —is that flaw of state government great enough to not allow it to deal with the structure of local government?

This brings us to the truth of N.J.’s Constitution “Article 1 2. a. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.”

This clause is consistent with the situation, being law like a check or balance. If state government is inadequate, it may not correct its structure.

This law makes the ethical point that government is not meant to analyze forms and structures of government. State government can only administrate from the structure it was set in. State government is beholden to its structure, not future structures it may create. And to a lesser ethical degree, state government may not examine and change itself because of the vested interest of government officials in the workings of government. And to a third degree, a state government ignorant of free assembly, that basic civil right; is not so capable. As the maw of state government tries to apprehend the magnitude of the issue of local government, the fracture that allows such ignorance and impedes the manifestation of cognizance begins to the seen. Deeper issues caused this situation; issues state government may be less capable with than people, without prestige and salary. When a great challenge is upon an institution; that challenge can reveal fundamental flaws in the institution.

Can the state handle this issue? How? Certainly one can not go to one’s town council and bring up the issue of local government form for discussion, because councilpersons and mayors, have a personal and financial interest in the issue, which by law, excludes them from discussion.

Laws suggest situations. Is Article 2a consistent with this construction? Are ethics boards an intended wedge against the grain of government?

You may think that if the state government and legislature becomes aware of the propriety of the people making local decisions in peaceful assembly; they may legislate and ensure that. But I think the current ignorance underscores deep flaws in our state government structure; and signifies a need to reform structure. State government may be prodded to legislate local peaceful assemblies; but still be completely unable to stand up to the forces that kept it in ignorance for so long: Pressure from the media; the unnatural quality of one representing many; or the contradiction between the kingdom of god and elections.

The depths of the roots of these problems begin to uproot the depths of government, and require spiritual guidelines to navigate. The depth of the conflict between the state and the people, both whom the tenth amendment reserves powers for, is seen in the demonstration of previous state behavior.

The apparatus of the state is always going to be invested in itself. It is historically difficult to present a perfect form of government. The ethics commission, importantly, checks and balances, the “for-it-self” quality of State Government.

The relevance of Article 1 2a, in this situation, for ethical advice, is summed up as this. Government and the people can’t be so unaware of the natural urge to peacefully assemble and discuss the community. Things are different than from what they seem. There is a spiritual dimension, our government does not factor in. Therefore, all power is in the people.

Thus, ethically, how does state government deal with the concerns of establishing peaceful assemblies and relinquishing the illegal reins of the local elect? Because while the state legislature and attorney general’s office may become cognizant of these federal intentions regarding local decision-making; what kept them from such cognition will not be dealt with.

Whatever kept the government, the people, and the media from knowing the natural and logical quality to people coming together locally to discuss and decide their community, without letting a few decide for them, is far more powerful than our state government. All power is inherently in the people; because this is so true, the issues that put this situation in context warrant a reexamination of state government.

Is Article 1 2a because government has done nothing regarding an oppressive educational system, insensible economy, rape and ravage of the land, and allowed us away from farming and producing or a substantive sense of community goals and spiritual understanding; all power is in the people because government is not substantively working–even denying these issues.

And does Article 1 2a compel to steward and guide power to the people as the government of this state?

I would also like to ask the ethics commission of N.J. how to bring up the following issue? If the tenth amendment reserves powers not given to the federal government for the state or the people, then the appointment of municipal judges, which is not a power given to the federal government, must be arranged by the state or the people. Currently, throughout N.J. they are appointed by mayors. Mayors are not the state or the people. Thus municipal judges violate the constitution in their exercise of power and thus are violating a law as they attempt to administrate law and I believe this has resulted in an oppressive and illegal nature to municipal court; which as I said, is easily attributable to the contradiction between enforcing law, while violating law. How and where does one bring up this issue; bearing in mind the culpability and neglect of the state judiciary in this instance interferes with its administration of law. (Surely a conflict of interest can be found among the legal dogma and sense of the tenth amendment, and the practice of mayors appointing municipal judges?)

Now, in conclusion, my remarks should address the issue of why we are so ignorant of peaceful assembly as a fine form for community decision-making, and the tenth amendment, and unable to address these assertions: such as the atrocity of local elect is the opposition they inherently stand to genuine community discussions about time and life. The opportunity to renegotiate established reality is here, if we bear in mind, something stronger than us has held these truths back. A pained universe keeps us from any small goods, prompting ethical studies and recourse. The systemic ignorance is because a greater law is violated than the natural right to make community decisions in peaceful local assemblies. The violation of this greater law, the altering of the human to human being, a spiritual cognate the press and the government ignores, shows the system to be more an assertion that that great law is not broken, rather than amassed in arbitrators of ethics. Unless the universe, which is so much vaster than us, understands this opportunity to work out her pain, the ultimate relevance of this inquiry may be lost.


Vic Fedorov

Please be guided accordingly,
Mark T. Holmes
Deputy Director

2 Responses to “Regarding appealing Ethics Commission’s Executive Director’s claim of jurisdiction”

  1. More Letters regarding peaceful assembly in N.J. « Vicfedorov's Blog Says:

    […]…   […]

  2. Trying to take it to the ethics commission hoop « Vicfedorov's Blog Says:

    […]…  I wish to add this issue is unique in providing a direct conflict with the personal and financial interests of local officials. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: