Archive for September, 2010

Ethics Flier

September 21, 2010

Local peaceful assemblies are a way for the people to make local deicions with ayes and nays of all present.

Thus, Peaceful Assembly, is abridged, in violation of the first amendment, when local officials make local decisions.

Local officials are thus illegal.

Local officials also violate the tenth amendment, because local officials are neither the state nor the people, and the tenth amendment reserves powers not given to the federal government to the state or the people. “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.”

So we are ignorant that peaceful assemblies are the way to make local decisions: The tenth amendment is a backhanded protection of the people from local officials: And this is a 14th amendment civil rights issue, in that state constitutions incorporating local officials, violate federally protected priviledges and immunities.

For large cities to practice this form, every park is opened up at the same time for peaceful assembly, the same issues come up in each park to be voted on, each park votes, each park has one vote.

That we don’t know these laws, forms, means we are in totalitarianism.

Quorums of 236 are required to decide if something can be built, in some New England Towns.

 NJ Towns made local decisions in Peaceful Assemblies into the 1900’s.

 When will we be able to show a little humility and admit our current local government is wrong, and illegal?

The immunity to local officials is abridged, as is the privilege for the people to consensus and decide local issues.

More Letters regarding peaceful assembly in N.J.

September 21, 2010

                                                   LETTER TO JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

Dear N.J. joint legislative committee on Ethical Standards,
For years I have been trying to get state government to entertain the notion of helping localities make decisions with consensus or voice votes in peaceful assemblies. Some New England towns require quorums of 236 for a decision to be made, and that is how New England has preserved their countryside. Princeton in the 1900’s made decisions in peaceful assemblies. This is a natural and logical behavior, of decisions making by citizens coming together; and giving up this practice to a few local officials in state constitution and title abridges peaceful assembly, violates the tenth amendment’s reservation of powers for the state or the people, and confuses the need for a representative government that can streamline decision-making decision making to benefit the people over diverse regions in an ethical way, and local areas where the people should come together to consensus and make decisions together in peaceful assemblies.
The current structure of local officials, is a corrupt structure seemingly designed and implemented to enable corruption. Yet while this constitutional right to peaceful assembly unabridged by the structure of local officials, abridges a privilege and immunity violating the 14th amendment- there is no responsible dialogue from state government on the subject.
While this discussion is ethically within the domain of state government, and would benefit the people and possible correct problems within the state; no one in state government has been able to deal with this issue. When I took the state to federal court 04-366, Charles Harvey assumed sovereign immunity did not compel them to this discussion through federal courts; recommending I sue him directly pursuant to USC 1983. In February 09, when I wrote the civil rights division of N.J.’s Attorney General’s Office seeking protection of the civil right guaranteed in the federal constitution of peaceful assemblies unabridged by local officials, and the reservation of powers to the state or the people, not local officials; Phillip Freeman wrote back this concern is not in the list of protected civil rights. But this is a reaction due to the newness of this consideration.

When I wrote and spoke with the aids of Ass. Guscioria, Watson-Coleman and Sen Turner, as well as wrote to other representatives, the only response or apprehension of the merits of what I am sayings was Sen. Turners shipping the issue to the Office of Legislative Services, for a technical examination of my legal claims. This examination neither refuted nor proclaimed my references.

I contacted divisions of the attorney general’s office asking for help procuring local spaces to hold a peaceful assembly; because in Princeton, being a nonprofit is required to reserve a library meeting place, and in Hackettstown, near where I worked, one must be a tax paying resident to utilize their community spaces. These local ordinances abridge peaceful assembly as they abridge my ability to organize one. The attorney general’s office never responded to these appeals. I wrote the A.G. asking for interest in a grant to ease tension in big cities by peaceful assemblies where the people could let out their frustrations and try to do something about the situation; even those these are ethical concerns of N.J., at many levels, the state government has failed to apprehend the vital and legal harmony here of government and ethics which benefit the people require.

I have attempted to take up this dialogue with the state ethics commission: State Government’s inability to entertain this issue, to even comment on it, is unethical behavior as they have sold out the interests of the people, for some unidentified interest clearly influencing their negative behavior, perhaps near an interest in government appearing to stay unblemished. This ethical gap, should command discussion of the reality of this issue of local government and the laws I’ve cited.

My analysis of the reason for this unethical behavior is state officials are too dominated by the media. Instead of knowing they tell the media what is news; they seem to be listening to a media telling them their reality must not disturb the media’s rendition. The message things can’t be changed comes from the media, not government. This is a psychological problem for which we must shift the ear listening to the media blare about how nothing significant can change, to realizing government is commissioned to deliberate for the people and tell the media what makes N.J. better. This understanding is the only way to overcome the inhibition officials feel regarding change of this magnitude. That you tell the media the law; and not the media tells you such is hopeless.

Ethics is synonymous with good government. I see a conflict of interest here where you all are influenced by the status quo, rather than the interest of the people in the tangible benefits of this discussion: which has been avoided without contrary argument, simply out of a lack of the ethical guidance it takes to guide the man within the office to more effectively deal with the corrupted state we live in insofar this corruption be by the inflation of media and that the state constitution whose support is a foresworn.

I want to make it clear, ethics demand a response to this letter, that shows clear apprehension of what I have said, as well as the results of some deliberation.

It is also important to see this concern in light of that because local councils can not deliberate on this one issue of local concern, as local officials have a personal and financial interest in the matter; it is of ethical concern for state government to accommodate the responsible discussion of issues local government, by law, may not. Otherwise there is a sense of impropriety and lack of confidence, in that this is an important issue, local government particularly can’t discuss, and the state fails to discharge a responsible duty discussing the issue; and there even may be a conflict of influence between state office supporting the state constitution and the interests of discussing this situation. If this relevant and ignored issue cannot find its way to an agenda, then government has improperly failed to discharge its duty about something important.

There are more forms on this subject at—

To the State Ethics Commission

To the Local Finance Board                                       





Vic Fedorov
68 Laurel Rd
Princeton NJ 08540






201 232 1154
                                                         Sep 21 2010
Re: local government
     Dear Princeton Township and Princeton Borough Lawyers,
     As you may know, I have tried to bring up the issue of making local decisions in peaceful assemblies, rather than through local officials. Local decisions were made in peaceful assembly in Princeton into the 1900’s, and New England currently protects its countryside through required quorums of 236 to decide whether something may be built. I have argued the incorporation of towns with local officials by the state constitution of 1947 abridges peaceful assembly thus understood, violates the reservation of powers not given to the federal government to the state or the people; abridges the privilege of making decisions in local peaceful assemblies, as well as the immunity to local officials—in the apparent confusion of interposing the need for representative government at a state and federal level, with a local polity. Especially given the notorious unpopularity of local officials, and the proneness of local government to corruption; these concerns are meritorious and substantive, and I have attempted to address them in Federal Civil Suit 04-366, to bring them to the agenda of town meetings, and in written and oral commentary to local officials, in letters or at town meetings when the public speaks.
The conundrum is that local officials, legally, I believe, have to recuse themselves from the discussion of this issue because they have an obvious personal and financial interest in the matter.
This leaves the local council, whose creation was designed to handle local issues, unable to handle this very important issue about how local issues are handled. So state government is a more appropriate venue to bring this issue up. Yet how is that done? There is such an entrenched gap between the citizen and state government; compelling state government to consider this issue is no easy matter; since supporting the state constitution may constitute a different interest, than the interests of the people and state government, upon state officials.
With this regard, David Nenno, of The Local Finance Board, of the Division of Community Affairs of the Attorney General’s Office, thought it might prove wise to write you a letter with the concern of this issue being addressed by the state through a transmission of acknowledgement of your concern regarding this issue; because you may have the ear of the A.G. more than my citizenship.
If you could write a letter to the appropriate agency of the A.G. apprehending my concerns and asking them to address these issues. They could commission a committee, or revisit the issue of local decision making in many ways—but it requires some guidance, because state government, now, is not inclined to consider a different way to local decision-making, out of an inherently negative view of society, which public exposure may easily alter.
Thank you for time on my thoughts on this matter.
Please mail any concerns on this matter, through contacts or appropriate attorney general agency you know and email c/o Deputy Executive Director Mark Holmes- David Nenna at the local finance board, – and  







Labor, Personnel, Community Affairs and Elections
C/o Donald Palombi


Chief, Deputy Attorney General
P.O. Box 112
Trenton NJ 08625


You may also see the following








Thank you
Vic Fedorov


Vic Fedorov
68 Laurel Rd
Princeton NJ 08540
201 232 1154
Dear Mr. Durkee, of Princeton University, and
Dear Westerly Road Church,                                 Sep 29, 10
     When Local officials are allowed by our state constitution to decide whether something is built, the reservation of powers to the state or the people, in the tenth amendment, is violated, and peaceful assembly is abridged. To understand peaceful assembly is abridged by local officials, you have to understand, as many are ignorant, that peaceful assembly is a form through which local decisions are made by all there. According to the Princeton Township Website, decisions were made in peaceful assemblies in Princeton into the 1900’s, untill Frank Hague and the democratic party established the ways of long term mayors culminating in a state constitution of 1947 and ensuing title law, that incorporated towns with local officials, thus abridging priviledges and immunities guarenteed in the federal constitution to peacefully assemble and decide issues, free from such delegation to local officials. Many New England Towns require a quorum of 236 for a decision to be made allowing something to be built, and anyone with ten signatures may place an issue to be voted on. (See a Citizens Guide to Town Meetings in Massachussetts, and Rules of Town Meetings in Amherst Mass).
         I brought up these issues in 04-366 federal civil, with the borough of princeton, but they kept this issue a secret from you. Even though no one is against towns making decisions in peaceful assembly, they seem to be under the delusion some people are, and want these laws unknown. Really they are just under a lot of pressure from the media and silence. Every single person and their friends and families would benefit from an implementation of the natural and actual laws to make decisions locally together, understanding, representative democracy is for diverse regions and federations, not locally.
         Yet it is a suspicious circumstance that only I actively apprehend these issues and advocate and promote them. If you understand what the term “The Kingdom of God” means, this is not suspicious, but consistent with the fallen and sinful world we live in, that deliberately confuses and obscures Christian, religious and spiritual teachings, such as The Kingdom of God. Nevertheless, a fundamental tenet of the old testament, I believe, is to think for oneself. So I hope you benefit from any righteous insight these laws and facts I share with you transmit. The world is senseless, so you must seek sense, as much as possible, to find peace for anxiety.
        Now you may think the Lord moves in mysterious ways, and so he moves now transforming cities through deliberative bodies of a few local officials, and our alianating lifestyle of ignorant and removed local decision-making, somehow, His will.
         But I don’t see it that way. I see this destruction of countryside, and railroading of culture over reasonable means of decision-making, as a sacrifice, same way as the destruction of the countryside by wars, are somehow sacrifices that must be cleaned up afterwards.
       Because what may happen, is people may learn what “The Kingdom of God” means and so no longer be tricked into reproduction, and the population will drop, and we will have to reckon with our ignorant excess, and strive for an agrarian and more godly future.
                                     Vic Fedorov
                                      68 Laurel Rd
                                      Princeton NJ 08540
                                      201 232 1154

Deconstructing Islam

September 10, 2010

The Koran is poetic, that is not denied; genius poetry is the plus side of the ledger; yet evil works through poetry as obama the poet politician knows.

Talking about The Scatterers; then it threatens unbelievers who may think they do not command angels; and it ambiguously, in plaintive poetry— now this is disjointed across the board poetic enough, to tend to psychological analysis and deconstruction I now offer. For one thing, there is an open ended smiling smirking questioning of the speaker—he is saying, “do you believe, you should…” He is trying to win you over, and proselytizing,” And threatens “Taste your persecution. This is what you would hasten on.

Surely those that guard against evil shall be in the garden near fountains. Taking what their lord gives them, Surely before that they were doers of good. They used to sleep but little in the night, and in the morning asked forgiveness”

What’s morally ambiguos here is are these people in the gardens converts, or sinners being threatened now, or what? And “their” lord, why not allah, that would mean they are not converts.

So this explains why the chapter ends with words about the destruction of towns.

Then “and in their property is a portion for those who are denied good“ what does that mean? Automatic donations for nefarious militias?

Then there is a skitzophrenic break about a dinner scene where knowledge of a knowing boy is announced–this is a christ reference to an arrangement of christs with bad governments,

Then the second half, a page and a half is reserved for the destruction of towns and woe unto unbelievers.

In short where the old testament had the walls of Jericho tumbling down, the Koran has constant warfare, like ancient rome, imperialistic behaviors at the expense of more indigenous tribes—america’s federalism is based on the republic of ancient rome.

All of the Koran is just short 2-6 pages story poems. This one is called The Criterion.

Blessed is he who warns unbelievers, speaks out against other gods, people who put him down lie.

“Surely he who knows the secrets in the heavens and earth is forgiving” Well, knowing the secrets of the universe might make you hard, and the universe is behind and older than heaven and earth, and while existent contracts are unforgiving, you want them to be more forgiving—so in some ways this is glittering but not gold. Then he offers paradise and woe to those who turn him down—then there is poetry that needs interpretation because it seems all color and florid without something specific on something solid, you can say it is. For instance jesus says the mind is like a lamp—it needs to be turned on—-and I can relate to seeing people and turning on their lamp first—nice metaphor for the intermingling of the kingdom of god and the mind here—

Was Corzine’s assumption of the governorship ethical?

September 3, 2010

Sept 1, 2010

Executive Director of The N.J. Ethics Commission, Kathleen Weichnik,

When Sen. Corzine gave up his Office to Rep. Menendez, such constituted unethical behavior, that teetered and fell upon the jurisdiction of your office.

Simply put, what if Sen. Corzine gave up his seat to Rep. Menendez, because Rep. Menendez asked Sen. Corzine to run for governor, so Rep. Menendez could become an incumbent senator. Then Sen. Corzine never really wanted to become governor of his own free will – an inappropriate candidate through an inappropriate form.

The only reason for this behavior is to enable one party to shift through the senate seat, while procuring the governorship from the vantage point of a senator; it’s simply to secure more elected seats; And that’s not in the interest of the state. That is why it is never done, and why many states don’t allow a senator to pick their replacement.

Governor Corzine must be asked if there was any coercion of his decision to forsake his senate seat for a governorship. The appearance alone of the instance I cite, should be enough incentive to address this issue.

I affirm your charter commands you evolve ethics law to meet situations.

I affirm conflict of interest is here in that Gov. Corzine may have been influenced by the interest of Sen. Menendez.

This is an important issue lingering over the state, there is an obvious ethical gap allowing a senator to run for governor and appoint who he pleases, and I hope you tell me why you think the way you do.

An issue seems to be whether our representative state government, can be considered participatory, as Plato deemed necessary for a democracy, through the interaction of office and the people.

In the breadth of experience, these considerations are little.

Vic Fedorov


Mr. Federov:

Deputy Director Holmes already responded to the first issue addressed in your 10/06/10 e-mail.  With respect to your suggestion that a committee be commissioned to address this issue, please be advised that the State Ethics Commission has no authority to take such action.

With respect to your second issue, please be advised that the State Ethics Commission administers and enforces the Conflicts of Interest Law with respect to employees and appointees in the executive branch of State government and has no jurisdiction over federal or county employees.


From: Vic Fedorov []
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 7:30 PM
Subject: I sent two correspondences in the past month and have not received a reply.


      I sent two correspondences in the past month and have not received a reply.

      The first responded to Mark Holmes claim that conflict of interest between state employee and the issue of local government in lieu of the initiation of our present form of local government by state constitution is unavoidable, by saying it may be avoided through the commissioning of a committee to address this issue of making decisions in local peaceful assembly and such consistency with the protection of peaceful assembly, the reservation of powers to state or people, not local officials, and the protection of the 14th amendment herein, and the neglect of this route poses a material and substantial conflict of interest between state government and the aforesworn goal of government.  This correspondence is visible at  I wish to add this issue is unique in providing a direct conflict with the personal and financial interests of local officials.

I also submitted a complaint regarding the ethics of the story of governor Corzine moving to hudson county from ny state to be eligible to run for senator, and then giving up his senate post to Mr. Menendez upon winning the race for governor, who is from Hudson County, and former county executive there. This is very suspicious, and unaddressed, or even acknowledged as received, speaks very poorly of your commission. This correspondence may be view at—

Do you have anything to say on your behalf regarding the lack of response of a challenge to authority currently accepting these unethical and illegal situations?

That you run away from refuting these claims implies they are true, for if they were false, you would assert so. So what am I to do?

                    Thank You

                          Vic Fedorov


“Donna” <>
Dear Donna Schmitz,
1)The commission may issue a guideline through its plain language ethics guide, such as an advisory opinion or procedure reminding executive officials of a particular obligation to rarer or specific specie of issue such as local decision-making, that question our state constitution.
      You may improve ethical behavior by advising on the phenomena of apparatchik, whereby one part of the state just supports another part; reminding officials of the ethical understandings of government. Remind officials of the obligation to protect local peaceful assembly made decisions, in a state where such has been usurped by local officials, to compensate for the lapse in state constitutional law.
                                           “Statutes/ governing
Section 21(o) of the Conflicts Law directs the Commission to prepare, and ensure distribution to each State officer and employee and special State officer and employee in the Executive Branch, a plain language ethics guide designed to provide a clear and concise summary of the laws, regulations, codes, orders, procedures, advisory opinions and rulings concerning applicable ethical standards. The goal of this guide is to promote ethical day-to-day decision making, to give general advice regarding conduct and situations, to provide easy reference to sources, and to explain the role, activities and jurisdiction of the Commission. Each State officer and employee and special State officer and employee must certify that he or she has received the guide, reviewed it and understands its provisions.”

                               “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.”

Avoidance of the issue of local decision making by local officials generates mistrust, compels the ethics commission to rudder the executive branch of government; from the civil rights division, to department of community affairs, to the division of law; by virtue of the state constitution’s institutionalization of local officials.
This avoidance is both avoidable, through your literature; and a substantive conflict of interest between the state as it is, and the state of NJ’s interest: Take on what is wrong by evolving ethical guidelines.
Observe a clear lapse in functional state behavior regarding a serious and beneficial issue, community decision-making. Identify its cause, remedy by ethics guideline; particular issues of local government, respectful to input that construes to expose grievous error; Humility qualifies Authority as consciously and transparently justifying itself, inherent to authority is addressing challenges.
2) Governor Corzine headed the executive branch. If his interest was poisoned by the interests that had him leave the senate, a lackluster performance based on unethical operations, should be purveyed for the taints and shadows of how he got to office; whereby natural interests are dwarfed and inhibited. Guardians of executive office, concerned with professional psychological and detrimental assertions that one’s initiative and will, a relationship with the people, have been divorced from the professional domain from being coerced out of a senate seat, are needed.

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.

You have the opportunity to give Jon the opportunity for some redemption if this is true.
I also have to warn you that not acknowledging the receipt of the Corzine issue looks guilty; as if because he appointed your bosses, they know this already, or have a loyalty to hushing this up.
One last note: If you take the tenth amendment seriously, there is a simple correlation between mayors appointing municipal judges, and the situation of running as a senator for governor.

Vic Fedorov

On October 21rst, Donna Schmitz sent this:


“Donna” <>

Add sender to Contacts

“‘Vic Fedorov'” <>

Mr. Fedorov:

The State Ethics Commission administers and enforces the Conflicts of Interest Law with respect to employees and appointees in the executive branch of State government.  With limited exceptions, the actions of the Governor, however, are not covered by the Conflicts of Interest Law. The issues you raised with respect to former Governor Corzine are not within the jurisdiction of the State Ethics Commission.  Former Governor Corzine was subject to a Code of Conduct for the Governor that was established pursuant to Executive Order 1 (Corzine) and interpreted/applied by an Advisory Ethics Panel which is separate and apart from the State Ethics Commission.  The Advisory Ethics Panel was also created pursuant to Executive Order 1 (Corzine).

Thank you for your inquiry.


The problem with this response citing guidelines Corzine put in as governor, is they displace the ethical focus from party politics that got him there, to a strict accounting of financial interest, which as very rich, the governor is not prone to succumbing to. This is a diversionary technique.

still required ”

WHEREAS, I am committed to establishing an administration that adheres to the highest ethical standards and enhances public trust in government; and WHEREAS, public officials must avoid conduct that violates the public trust or creates an appearance of impropriety; and”

The whole point is that being governor does not stem from letting another be senator.  In some way the governors ship is an interest that pays for the senate seat, and thus is an entity other than what it is intended, and capable of mitigating proper discharge of duties.