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
LETTER TO MUNCIPAL LAWYERS FOR PRINCETON TOWNSHIP AND BOROUGH
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
email@example.com c/o Deputy Executive Director Mark Holmes- David Nenna at the local finance board, firstname.lastname@example.org – 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
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.
68 Laurel Rd
Princeton NJ 08540
201 232 1154