State v. Fedorov
Long Hill N.J. Municipal Court
March 1 2011
Motion Summaries for oral argument March 3 2011
To the Court:
The two purposes of a motion is to ask the court to do something, and to bring up a matter within the case before the judge, towards which the judge may indicate a disposition.
My requests for the court are grounded in genuine concerns any officer of the court would be concerned about, towards order.
Motion 1 Summary
Motion 1 asks the court to bring up my ideas in professional communication with other municipal judges for the issues are too big for one, relevant to all; Also to attempt to introduce the issues to the recently formed by the NJ Supreme Court Committee on Access and Fairness, designed to improve the NJ Court System; And to see if the prosecutor would like to discuss their remedy in a pretrial conference. An important concept is that municipal court is the natural check upon local unconstitutional ordinances; more so than higher courts; because state courts have gone along with a state structure, while local courts operate in a local domain.
To The Court:
A judge should respect and comply with the law. The following is a law, the tenth amendment: “The powers not given 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 is where my construction starts.
Your honor was appointed by the mayor, a local official, who is neither state nor people yet exercises a power, by appointing you, not given to the United States by the Constitution: Which regards the local administration of punishment.
The reason for this law is to avoid concentrating local power in a few hands. And also to protect local officials, who pivotally, also, are neither the state nor the people and exercise powers not given to the United States, from the more natural prosecution that local judges, prosecutors and defenders beholden to the state or the people might engender to recognize the violations local ordinance manifesting the incorporation of officials in Long Hill, and in other towns, is. Local court is aimed at corrupted or unconstitutional local officials; especially as peaceful assembly is abridged, which is where local decisions constitutionally and naturally are intended to be made.
That the tenth amendment is violated, indicates judicial performance is colored by a false and illegal statute; and it is an issue for Americans. According to the code of judicial conduct, a judge must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. Any failure to understand the law, the tenth amendment, at play here, would be very prone to the impropriety of siding for local officials and power as it is, rather than simple and good, law. Any failure to recognize the obligations of local courts to correct local government erodes confidence in the integrity and impartiality of your court.
In some ways all must understand this law; each municipal court judge in N.J. must recognize and consider this law; for it is too much for just one, and essential to all. This motion is grounded the tenth amendment, and shows statutes that appoint judges, prosecutors and defenders from Mayors or local officials, illegal. We ask for a form to discuss remedies to this situation. We wish to see if the prosecutor can recognize this assertion, if the recently founded Committee on Access and Fairness in the NJ Judiciary, can put it on their agenda, and if other municipal judges find this relevant. We assert this common violation of law, and the ignorance and illegality associated with it, formidably taints limpid resolution, jurisdiction, and remedying these issues.
If your honor understands the aim at unconstitutional ordinances and illegal statutes and protection of the people, if you understand that the enforcement of laws by an illegally structured system compromises truth, if you understand all judges and people and officials should understand this and apply it to a more sensible and better form of community government; then as a judge, according to the code of judicial conduct, you are allowed and encouraged to engage in activities that improve the law, the legal system and administration of justice; so as that which this motions requests. This concerns all those who participate in court.
What there is to discuss, is not the assertion of law and reason, though that legal guidance beneficial: But why and how we did not know these matters. It requires humility. A devoid earthly situation is suggested and not the fast-paced one we are led to believe. If what seemed to exist existed, these laws would be self-evident. And this absence of wisdom is something religion and spirituality tries to explain, along many paths; in Christianity the terms The Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven acknowledge a greater circumstance than the world deals in.
Pretrial conferences, professional and quasi-legal communication must contain a spiritual dimension to firmly move structures of society in beneficial direction, difficult as that is.
There must be some citation upon the fraud and error here to incriminate a wide range of society as fraudulently grounded in false assumption, towards which the constitution’s administration and the people have been corrupted and improper. Surely someone would have recognized this, and indicated the two dimensional reality. If the kingdom of god is represented to project temporary reality and that can be shown, the whole swath of business and punishment is neither true, nor recognized as not true, yet here I do.
I just want to say that these ideas for discussion should include their development in motion 2.
68 Laurel Rd
Princeton NJ 08540
201 232 1154
Motion 2 asks that since I find the nature of the municipal ordinances in this town abridging peaceful assembly, exercising powers reserved to the states or the people, through an incorporated form of local officials, which shows the NJ Constitution in violation of the fourteenth amendment, extending a liability to officials not protecting our rights in USC Title 42 section 1983; therefore the structure and ordinance of the town founded in violation of the federal constitution: The ignorance about this is suggested in rule 7: 1 finding ordinances unconstitutional questions the authority here. The incessant violations of law, is consistent with the constant ignorance of the natural and legal right and practice of people making local decisions on issues with ayes and nays in peaceful assembly. (Decisions were made this way in NJ into the 1900’s (Princeton township website) And New England Towns require 236 people in an assembly for a local
issue to decided) Thus the structure of the enforcement of ordinances and punishment by municipal court as well as ordinances and statute themselves, is grounded in an irresponsible pose, that is yet honest enough to recognize the ascetic, in the almost direct challenge to point out unconstitutional municipal ordinances towards dismissal
I ask the municipal court to assert its relation to the municipality by asking the local elect if they want to conform to the first amendment form of deciding local issues in peaceful assembly, and remind them representative government is intended for regions not localities, and that conforming will make many people happy: and report what local officials respond. Because you will probably see how local officials can not step up to the plate and address issues, the way a peaceful assembly does. Because this really is Long Hill, versus me, and Long Hill is incorporated with local officials, and they abridge peaceful assembly, and violate civil and natural rights therein, and I invite them to step up to the plate.
According to the code of judicial conduct, a judge must not allow political relationships to influence judicial conduct; and may not use his office to advance the interests of others and moreover, expect public scrutiny, especially regarding his judicial conduct.
So it is important to know that even though the state constitution incorporated towns with local officials in 1947, manifested later in Title Law 40 41 and 41a, the state constitution violates the 14th amendment,
insofar as we are protected from local officials by the tenth amendment, and the first, as local officials abridge peaceful assembly, which is how Princeton Township, for instance made decisions, in peaceful assemblies, into the 1900’s; and towns in New England still require quorums of 236 for decisions to be made. Representative government, necessary at state and federal level, but locally, harmfully concentrates power to a deleterious brand, that has oppressed NJ and its people, for decades.
So to be faithful to law and maintain professional competence and precisely be unswayed by partisan interests, any officer of the court, to avoid the appearance of impropriety from political or business relationships, with local officials, or legal establishment, must take on this issue; Towards which we motion for the replacement of the system of local decision making by a few local officials, with local decisions being made in peaceful assemblies, in Long Hill. This would make many people happy and redress the grievance of what may construed as a cruel and negligient municipal court. We ask the court ask local officials if they are into this transition and report what they say. This is the natural check of judges and officers of the court, upon illegal activities.
Motion 3 Summary
Motion 3 shall specifically cite numerous specific municipal unconstitutional ordinances in Long Hill; and show the legitimate objection such citation poses. And show that rule 7/7:1 “a motion to dismiss based upon lack of jurisdiction or the unconstitutionality of a municipal ordinance may be made at any time’ indicates an ascetic knowledge that the judiciary is tainted pivotally, and that an awareness of unconstitutional ordinances, is consistent with two further understandings of the judiciary: that the judiciary isn’t strong enough to consider remedying unconstitutional structure: And that dismissal grounded in this recognition of unconstitutional ordinances consistent with and appropriate to a recognition of the citizen’s cognition, who may then take the asceticism further: That the intention of this rule is to award and trust the aware rather than push an illegal system further. Truth influences bottom lines.
This motion asks for dismissal based on a lack of jurisdiction and the unconstitutionality of municipal ordinance; for how can unconstitutional ordinances be unconsciously asserted when brought to the attention of the court? I would like to read my own oral argument for motion 3.
I shall show NJ municipal law recognizes this situation through its rule 7:1, that its disposition seems to be to dismiss the case, if an awareness of this is shown; because the laws are unfair to one, then; and made in the phony enforcement of all, when if only one understands this natural and constitutional right, is it safe to conclude there really is the all claimed? Moreover the rules acknowledge an asceticism therein, whose reputation may be increased and compelled by this observance of the municipal court rules, and lead to using the ascetic through clients and assistance, to improve society. Therefore we motion to show that the rules guide a dismissal upon the pointing out of unconstitutional municipal ordinances.
There are steps here.
The principal is that punishments grounded in ignorance, are inappropriately excessive, because ignorance causes frustration and frustration leads to harsh punishments. This really is Long Hill versus me; and I can show many unconstitutional local ordinances structuring an unconstitutional incorporation of Long Hill NJ.. But the key step is when we consider how the natural and constitutional immunity to a few people making decisions for all locally, and the constituted privilege of local decisions being made with ayes and nays in peaceful assemblies, as they have been, in New England, and in NJ into the 1900’s. This is basic stuff to living, coming together with your community to discuss issues and life: A vital opportunity to society. As I said, the key step is when we wonder how society can be so ignorant of something so fundamental. Because Christianity explains this as a world of sin, a fallen world, and evidences it through the use of its term The Kingdom of God. The recognition of how the kingdom of god can be made to appear the people, shows that because the people are the kingdom of god made to appear a certain way, that then the reality of the kingdom of god, and the phoniness of its representation as otherwise explains how these principles of good society may be lost.
Therefore 7/7:1 indicates to the judge a great and poorly apprehended situation: where because the kingdom of god is represented to violation, and addressed as something else, the continuous violations of law and knowledge couples frustration and ignorance, resulting in a false assessment and responsibility for the situation.
Thus dismissing defendants who point out unconstitutional ordinances indicate a relief regarding this because the courts are not strong enough, and the laws, improperly grounded, grounded in falsehood and statistics false statistics. By the Kingdom of God, if you understand this, these weekly violations don’t really happen, for the kingdom of god doesn’t have the will, and the will comes from a higher power, designating society this way.
I shall try to pass over the citing of The revised General ordinances of Long Hill NJ here:
—Article 1 Chap 2.2 covers several ordinances empowering a township committee and local officials, abridging peaceful assembly, and not being the state or the people but using powers the people naturally have, not a few local officials. In violation of the 14th amendment for the privilege of peaceful assembly and immunity to a system of local officials.
That natural constitutional law is so abridged, means to form to inculcate proper behavior, and punishments and enforcements, is fundamentally skewed nor practiced. The ignorance that allows these violations signifies an incompetence towards a considerate and serious administration of justice that might reduce municipal court through the practice of natural local polity; thus making severe sentences less necessary; and leading to the potential understanding of humans on earth as culpable to a will exercised for them.
Ordinances of meetings, and allowing the right to make ordinances, and govern government agency 2-3 are unconstitutional—thus the police are run illegally, making it more prone to corruption. Designation of police chief by ordinance an issue 2.4. Further illegal township administrator- who might be the person to talk to about this. All violating natural constitutional and beneficial understandings of community as a place where all the people are equal. Same with 2.8 incorporation of department of law, insofar as it misses these laws I cite, is fine indication of corruption and unfitness. And as these laws are there for any reader, so we must begin to ask, how can humanity have missed this?
Motion 4 Summary
Motion 4 seeks to inject a fourth amendment understanding to further understand dismissal and be coupled to a recognition of possibly unfair practice in Long Hill traffic enforcement.
Dear Your Honor,
The fourth amendment’s protection from illegal search and seizure is consistent with a divine knowledge of not only the difficulty of the real politic; but also the gap between humanity and the kingdom of god, or spiritual understandings. Likewise the right to not incriminate oneself also, I believe demonstrates this divinity.
This law recognizes the inculcation of bonds and positive people and understandings that may frankly come first through vices, rather than stoically; and therefore this protection is from that which may be against the vices, that bond the people, are prone to and more. Oppression is signified, and so there is an encouragement for the people to get together, enjoy and be serious, which is protected from illegal search and seizures consistent with that encouragement of good serious people striving in an imperfect world. The fourth amendment suggests a godly primacy to individual judgment, and bottom line, rather than overzealous prosecution. And we wish to contrast this ideal with a pattern of enforcement in Long Hill that may be corrupt for which we seek particular remedies to the citations.
I notice a pattern weighted against the individual in Long Hill, indicative of a corrupt and illegal structure to local law enforcement, which I hope pointing out the unconstitutional local ordinances, the incorporation of towns with local officials are and breed, and perhaps even deeper more nefarious corruptions, in that I can cite that which I can not in other towns. This illuminates an oversight of the police department through an official, rather than the responsibility of the people.
For instance just one DUI sign along Maple Ave saying a “DUI you can’t afford it”, certainly would have reminded me to be careful. Many towns have one. Its lack in this instance indicates almost a solicitation or wanting drunk drivers, rather than not wanting drunk drivers.
Likewise at the intersection going downhill it is claimed I did not stop at: Going uphill you do not have to stop, and that is unique to Long Hill, confused me, and it was late at night, and I remember I certainly did slow down, I could not have run the stop sign by very much, because I am responsible and have a clean driving record. It was also after 1am and I did not see any traffic. In other words the grounds for causing a stop were not as honorable as during a more trafficked or reckless time and close to entrapment.
Likewise going down hill from that intersection should not immediately be a 25 mph zone, because one is going down hill, and it is still residential enough to be 35 perhaps, and if it is said it is 25 mph because it is nearer a school; this is very suspicious because many towns say it is 25 mph near a school when children are present, or likewise, when lights on the sign are flashing indicating a time of day when 25 mph is required.
So this is all very set up, not to deter dangerous driving behavior, but catch drivers and punish them; and I ask you, is this the good moral conduct a police officer requires?
The set-ups I notice continue through Long Hill. If one makes a left on Valley, the speed limit sign on the right is hidden by a telephone pole so that for some 100s of ft I couldn’t tell if the speed limit was 30 or 35. Likewise, turning into municipal buildings on the right of valley rd further, is complicated by a lack of signage indicating one enters in the first driveway and can only exit from the second. So I even suspect the breathalyzer is weighted against, even if only by being used so often as to contain residues of alcohol.
So there is almost a requisite pattern of abuse upon the driver, consistent with illegal local structure as well as pattern of questionable police behavior. I also ask your honor to reconsider the reckless driving charge. I had just 2 16 ounce beers from 8:45pm to when I left at 1am. And I have had only one traffic offense since I got my license in 1982, in the eighties. I have had a breathalyzer when I used to drink more often and I know I was not .13. Because I have felt more intoxicated when I measured myself and in my own breathalyzer and blew much less. Simply put I did not feel drunk, felt I was driving fine, a little fast going down the hill because it was a new area; the pt being seemed to be more to arrest someone, than legitimate concerns or actual violation.
Again I evince credibility for my own responsible conduct through my
knowledge of law, and devotion to my trade of organic agriculture which I have done full time for 6 years. If you examine my blog site, vicfedorov.wordpress.com you see lots of essays on serious subjects including law, requiring reading, research and thought. These are indicators of responsibility and judgment; an attempt to the ascetic, not violation and abuse. I have also been aiding my recently paralyzed mother in a physical rehab 30-50 hrs a week in West Orange and living in Newark. My mother is now back at her home in Princeton NJ. I am looking for work assisting legal matters, signing up for a paralegal certificate course and will work on farms this spring.
On the grounds of these claims, I would ask for an affidavit or swearing by the officer in charge that he knows nothing of a tainted or weighted breathalyzer, even though the entire local system is tainted and weighted against the individual citizen and defendant. I don’t believe I was that drunk, and I don’t believe I failed the five tests given. I simply don’t myself as someone who is .13 percent alcohol.
Also ask the court consider reimbursing me 140 $ for towing costs, 5 hrs of legal work 96$ and the over 20 hours studying rules and writing motions to be pro bono on behalf of the general interest and ultimate benefit to N.J. and its people.
68 Laurel Rd
Princeton NJ 08540
201 232 1154
THIS IS WHAT MUNICIPAL JUDGE JAMES BRIDE WROTE IN RESPONSE:
Mr. FEdorov submitted 4 writen Motions to the Court andrequested the oppportunityto personally argue the Motions which the Court granted, The Motions raise constitutional issues and each witll be dealt with separately. The PRosecutor argued in opposition to the Motions made by Mr. Fedorov.
Defendant argues that the appointment of this Courtwas an unconstitutional usurpation of power by the Mayor and Counci which established the local Munipicpal Cort and appointed the Judge who can mete out punishment, The defendant cites the United States Constitution.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor b=oprohibted by it to the States are reserved to the States respoectively, or to the people.” Amendment 10 United States Constitution
Defendant argues that peaceful assembly has been abridged contrary to Ameendment # 1 of the United States Constitution. The Prosecutor argues that New JErsey Statues deirect the establishment of Municipal Courts.
The states are nt forbidden to establish their own Constitutions by the United States Constitution. New JErsey enacted its present Constitution which was approved by the Electorate on Nov 4, 1947. Article 6, Section 1 of the New JErsey Constitution established the New JErsey Court system including inferior Courts of limited jurisdiction such as the Municipal Courts. This Constitutional provision permittted the LEgislatiure to establish Municipal Courts by enactment of N.J.S.A. 2B: 12-1 which mandates the establishment of a Municipal Court in each municipality.
Defendant’s Motion misstates the meaning to Amendment 10 of the United States Constitution and must be denied.
Motion # 2
Defendant claims local ordinances are unconstitutional when passed by the Township Counsel and should passed upon by an assemblage of citizens, ie., a town meeting. Including within the argument is the claim that local officials abridge peaceful assembly and that local decisions should be nade by an assemblage of citizens, not local elected or appointed officials.
Defendant also mentioned peaceful assembly within the body of Motion #1 and the argument is made that only valid local laws, (ordinances) are made by the system used in small New England towns known as “Town Meetings” (which require quorums of 236-note by defendant). New Jersey has a statutory scheme known as the Faulkner Act, N.J.S.A. 40:69A-1 et seq. which sets forth the types of local governments permitted in New Jersey, primarily based on population.
Peaceful assembly in Amendment 1 of the United States Constitution refers to the constitutional right of the citizens to lobby the government and encourage or protest government activities. A Town mMeeting, while a peaceful assemblage of the people, is protected as are the rights of demonstratoers who espouse unpopular even repulsive social and political positions.
Motion # 2 is denied as it does not set forth an agument which can be dealt with by this court.
This motion argues that the Municipal Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the unconstitutional municipal ordinances of Long Hill Township. Defendant cites Rule 7:7-1 which permits Motions to Dismiss Upon LAck of Jurisdiction or the Unconstitutionality of a Municipal Ordinance to be made at any time. Defendant is correct that such motions are permitted to be made; however, almost all motions of this type are based upon lack of jurisdiction. The reason for this is the New Jersey Case Law enunciated byt eh Higher Courts advised Minipal Courts to assume validity of states, ordinances nd administrative regulations and leave constitutional issues to a highe court. State v. Barchevski, 181 NJ Super. 34 (A.D. 1981). Only in rare circumstances such as where an identical ordinance of another municipality has been found unconstitutiona, will a local Municipal Cour tissue a ruling determining that the municipal ordinance is invalid.
Defendant’s motion is denied