Archive for April, 2011

Morris County Superior Court filing leave to appeal municipal court interlocutory opinion

April 27, 2011

Vic Fedorov
219 Yardville-Allentown Rd
Trenton NJ 08540
201 232 1154

State v. Victor Fedorov
Summonses LHT 048698-701
Honorable Judge James D. Bride
Township of Long Hill Municipal Court

April 25, 2011

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL INTERLOCUTORY ORDER

To Superior Court of Morris County N.J.,

This letter motions an appeal of a Long Hill Municipal Court Judge Bride’s opinion denying Defendant’s Pretrial, and Constitutional, motions. It is consistent with Municipal Court Rule 3:24 (a) the defendant may seek leave to appeal to the Superior Court, Law Division from an interlocutory order entered before trial by a court of limited criminal jurisdiction.

Municipal Court’s Public Defender, Public Prosecutor and Judge, all conferred, and agreed on the appropriate venue of review of defendant’s pretrial motion in Superior Court, even while the municipal trial resulted in a guilty result. There were three constitutional motions, and Defense wishes to compress their issues for judicial review, in hopes of remanding this case back to municipal court with an declaratory statement, or judicial statement to inform municipal court regarding Municipal Court Rule 7:7:1.

State v. Barchevski 181 N.J.Super. 34, 436 A.2d 550) seems to understand collateral attacks invoking constitutional grounds as appropriate and desirable, as within judicial form for legal analysis.

“The Law Division apparently overlooked the authority of the rules of court above cited, which expressly recognizes the right and opportunity of a defendant in a criminal or quasi -criminal matter to attack, by way of defense to the charge….the validity of the regulation upon which the charge is based.”

The proximity to the government’s redressing grievance is intentional.

Defendants motions do question the regulatory structure of Long Hill Township through a citation of unconstitutional ordinances incorporating Long Hill, pursuant to Municipal Court Rule 7:7:1. “A defense or objection capable of determination without trial of the general issue shall be raised before trial by motion to dismiss or for other appropriate relief, except that a motion to dismiss based upon lack of jurisdiction or the unconstitutionality of a municipal ordinance may be made at any time.”

Essentially my claims signify a dehabilitated court, inappropriate in this instance, and grounded in a mistake or judicial process whose purpose is different than promoted.

Barchevsi “a defendant has an essential and fundamental right to interpose a defense based on the invalidity of the legislative or quasi -legislative act upon which the prosecution is predicated.” ……”In allocating the business of the courts by way of implementing rules, the Supreme Court has, in its adoption of R. 3:10-3, expressly authorized the Superior Court, Law Division, to consider, in criminal proceedings, collateral attacks on regulations.”

“even if there were the slightest doubt as to the municipal court’s jurisdiction to have entertained the defense here raised, there can be absolutely no doubt as to the Law Division’s jurisdiction to have done so on the de novo appeal.”

I shall try to show issues of my motions here, through a rebuttal of Judge Bride’s judgments upon them, through a clarification of wrong information he was operating under.

1) I claimed that the incorporation of Long Hill with local officials, and numerous municipal ordinances structuring and reflecting that incorporation is unconstitutional, abridging peaceful assembly, and violating the tenth amendment’s reservation of powers to the state or the people; As well did the judge’s appointment by local officials.

Judge Bride wrote that the state constitution legalized this behavior. This charactorization ignores the 14th amendment, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. Federal law trumps state law, in this case, to protect the important freedom of local people deciding local issues through ayes and nays at peaceful assembly: The same way federal law protects civil rights.

2) Judge Bride also misconstrued peaceful assembly as the right to protest; which it patently is not. And we will show peaceful assembly is naturally and logically and historically a protected form for local decision-making. (This is similar to the mistake of construing the first amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievance, with the right to collect signatures and present them to an official. Really that first amendment right signifies the government as the judiciary, and petition as bringing up an issue in court.) This appeal affirms powerful information.

3) This interlocutory appeal seeks also to address the issue that since local officials appoint the judge and prosecutor, and that is not a right given to the federal government by the constitution; that therefore such rights are reserved to the state or the people, of which local officials are neither. Point being then the judge is only there through an unconstitutional means of appointment; which must hinder apprehension of issues questioning in particular the constitutional structure of the municipality he works for: Thus providing an appearance of impropriety, and favoring.

Therefore this motion is filed pursuant as a writ of Quo Warrento challenging the right to public office through neither the state or the people of municipal judge and prosecutor. And as this extends to the mayor and council of Long Hill, who thus monopolize the regulatory structure of ordinances and municipal apparatus; to the detriment of the interests of society.

For by showing the unconstitutionality of local ordinances two assertions are cited. The first is that the regulation of the police, and structure of law in Long Hill, stems from an unconstitutional vortex which makes the structure societal unconstitutional and not a fit foundation for the administration of justice until the understandings capable of this situation are examined. There is a big mistaken assumption about what the people are.

7:7:1 indicates a judiciary ignoring important laws and essential rights; the absence of vision regarding these points indicates a judicial grounding in false assumptions, routing a justice through contrived currents. So when issues such as proper local government, as well as why such is not perceived, are brought up, the courts are not strong enough to consider such and there; and must dismiss cases where this awareness exists; or as in this case; await further explanation of why the judiciary is unaware of the pivotal significance of amendments cited.

We also ask for serious analysis of these issues pursuant to a writ quo Procedento, as some misconceptions ruined their deliberation in municipal court, and these issues are wide ranging and precedential; Essentially the procedure appointment of the judge and a perceived collapse of both law enforcement and judiciary in the ignorance and illegality of the incorporation of towns with local officials by the N.J. constitution. A collapse that begs explanation which I will offer; and show the false groundings of a judiciary that capsizes discrimination to a degree where the courts themselves may admit, a purposeful misunderstanding of the cases that come before it; that changes with a view of me by my views.

Again, the unconstitutional structure to local government I point out questions law enforcement and judicial administration and is a collateral attack upon the incorporation of towns with local officials. The courts must also indicate whether the tenth amendment is violated by such appointment of municipal magistrate. The argument the state gave that right to local officials, ignores the tenth amendment’s reservation of power for soley the state or the people, not the state to give out to an agency expressly not actually the people.

But even greater; the existence of unconstitutional local government indicates a flawed judiciary; which loses its jurisdiction. The methodology are based on false estimation of earth; evidenced by judicial ignorance of peaceful assembly. A judiciary ignorant of peaceful assembly, must be falsely grounded.

I am trying to retain a right for myself that distinguishes me from what a flawed judiciary is used upon. My incorporation unto the legal system is mistaken, insofar the judiciary seems grounded upon the manifestation of misery and destruction upon the kingdom of god. Yes there is a production of society grounded upon keeping me a part of society; yet it is full of lies designed to fulfill negativity. And this motion distinguishes me from the kingdom of god: In that as the Kingdom of God has no volition of its own; all that is said about it in form of society is made up. And as the Kingdom of God has not volition of its own; it easily fulfills bowing to the greater forces compelling illogical scenarios as mark the lies of society. Indeed, the Kingdom of God is for this purpose because otherwise it would be too hard.

I have not yet retained this right. This right may be said to be denied and disparaged through lies and obscuring of truth in systemic form. So I hope through these incursions into truth, to retain a right through recognition by the courts, of differentiation from the kingdom of god. For the kingdom of god is created, to make the demands of the universe more easy to take. The Kingdom of God is because there is a risk of life in the universe. Grant this right towards a dismissal and see a met criteria.

This appeal questions the contract between individual and court, based on the enormous contractual lapse to protect peaceful assembly, know the tenth amendment and be aware of why these protections exist.

In the constant punishment of the individual for infractions, without a recognition of the kingdom of god, the courts punish the body, and not the mind which claims such behavior. Thus there is a double injustice; of violation, and its punishment. Whereas an awareness of the real politic would reduce infraction and disturbance.

I think this is the required due process of law. If this process is like wading too high a river, then the court must abdicate its responsibility through a subservience to the people codified in rule 7:7:1, towards which declaratory indicators are sought. If the court wishes to engage further in these discussions, in a forward looking and constructive way, the party of petitioner believes in the system.

We also urge a strong scrutiny of the code of judicial conduct and how this applies uniquely to attacks upon the judiciary and jurisdiction through an exposure to metaphysics and spirituality.

Proper municipal court behavior, in Barchevski, is to transfer underlying unconstitutional statues to civil calendar for a declaratory judgment on notice to Attorney General. Or Superior Court expressly authorized to deal with collateral attacks on regulation. Municipal Court encourages these issues in pretrial motions.

Note the introduction to statutes, 40:69A-1 et seq

“If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this act shall be adjudged unconstitutional or to be ineffective in whole or in part, to the extent that it is not adjudged unconstitutional or is not ineffective, it shall be valid and effective and no other section, subsection, clause or provision of this act shall on account thereof be deemed invalid or ineffective, and the inapplicability or invalidity of any section, subsection, clause or provision of this act in any 1 or more instances or under any 1 or more circumstances shall not be taken to affect or prejudice in any way its applicability or validity in any other instance or under any other circumstance.”

This can be taken as a practical admission of guilt of violating federal law by the state constitution.

Sincerely,
Vic Fedorov

THE MUNICIPAL PRETRIAL MOTIONS AND JUDGE”S OPINON CAN BE FOUND AT https://vicfedorov.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/rough-motions/

COLLATERAL VICTORY

April 11, 2011
        
 
                              COLLATERAL PEACE, COLLATERAL VICTORY
 
I like to say I am 3 and 2, because there are three times I have used to courts to prosecute for a right, and there are two times when the government, of all entities, has used to the courts to prosecute me for alleged wrong. o
 
However, when I am attacked, I am able to use the same constitutional points I prosecute for, to defend me. This is what is known in the court system as a collateral attack. It is when a defendant shows the law or regulation invoked to be unconstitutional or questionable; and there is a semi-famous case cited here that encourages those scrutinizations that come from the ground up, from the people upward through the courts.
 
Now a fair issue is how a municipal judge is going to handle the attack on his legal superstructure in the showing of the unconstitutionality of the local ordinances that reflect an illegal part of the state constitution incorporating towns with local officials to make local decisions, abridging peaceful assembly’s form for making local decisions, the reservation of powers to the state or the people, and the 14th amendment.
 
For one, once you point out the unconstitutionality of local ordinances, you point out how the judiciary doesn’t know what it is doing, and grounded in false assumption.
 

Thus I am appealing the pretrial motions raising these constitutional issues. Every appeal, hones, streamlines and makes pithier the rewriting of this case. For I am aware now, in using this defense, to advise the judge as to proper behavior in that he is empowered to deal with constitutional issues constructively; but if unable to apprehend their reality, guide them upwards to debate on a civil calendar, which is where the appeal ends up anyway. I should have asked the judge, if you can not see these questions in a precedential light, to seek a declaratory statement of guidance from Superior Court.

By pleading guilty to a DUI, they will toss the breathalyzer results on a technicality, and then only have observational evidence, and thus 3 rather than 7 months of license. But I have a feeling the whole thing is a racket between police, judiciary and defense lawyers. Plus I have an option to appeal my constitutional pretrial motions which question the validity of the court. That would be a collateral attack on the incorporation of towns with local officials, to the cause of enabling local decisions made in peaceful assembly. I also don’t necessarily really worry about not having wheels, because if you profile me, and really know me, I am quite Amish in disposition, and am for regulation of the car, and promotion of the horse; however I am very against the fines, which could have been 700 dollars more, and praise the lord the other 3 tickets were dismissed, and the increase in insurance rates and the thousand I must pay the DMV of NJ 3 years in a row. Someone I know got a DUI in Pennsylvania and only lost his license 30 days. The court did allow me a few minutes at the trial to speak on staying the sentence which is up to the municipal judge, but I failed; the appeal is to save me 3 thousand in DMV motor vehicle surcharges over 3 years, and increased insurance rates; and the best way to do this is by showing each other the kingdom of god. And yet the judiciary, in its primordial, rational, primal and dignified understanding men are very much alone, embodied by the right for one citizen to petition (ask) the government (the judiciary) to redress grievance.

To cause a judicial examination of my constitutional motions, I must learn how to file in Superior Court an appeal of the judgment in municipal court upon my pretrial motions. But this is only a summary of what there is to now and a seventy five dollar fee. After that, I get a judge and a docket number, and a brief may be required. As it is there is a law library in Morristown requiring visitatio. I am not sure there is much casework regarding the violations of the bill of rights in the incorporation of towns with local officials. The federal criteria to appeal is a case be precedential and wide-ranging, in effect; which my supposition is. Yet by definition, what is new, doesn’t have demonstrable case work to it. I had a case about it, 04-366, Judge Thompson, and my pleadings and motions published on a Pacer Judicial Government website because they effected real estate, according to section code they had to be published for public examination.

The plan at a municipal court level was to defend my DUI by utilizing rule 7:7:1 of municipal court, which is that if unconstitutional local ordinances are shown, the case may be dismissed, as the jurisdiction is questioned: This acknowledges the courts are too weak for this issue, and the judgment of one in truth greater than the judgment of those in error. Therefore to a precisely avoid going through these collateral attacks, municipal court must dismiss the case, and thus increase the reputation of the discriminating advocate. Again, being unaware of the protection of peaceful assembly and peaceful assembly, seriously damages the credibility of the courts, certainly must be addressed; Yet as this rule deems the court incapable of this magnitude, we may infer a further understanding of the magnitude of the kingdom of god.

Ultimately, to be constructive, my collateral attack, or victory must show that the courts handle crime in a fundamentally wrong and exacerbating way through a strict ungodly quality. In that by cracking down on each violator as if each and all violate law, they exacerbate a quality that needs to be reminded that the kingdom of god does not will or behave in these situations; they are controlled by higher powers.

And were these higher powers acknowledged, and individuals not punished as if hundreds of individuals are violating common sense and natural will everyday, for they are not at fault, the higher power is at fault, how to punish that, but by acknowledging its presence it may better control its propensity for mischief, for by not being struck, especially incorrectly, the clear minded necessary for moral behavior is not being muddied but able to discern, and not propagate the endless cycle as it is.

A big problem is that whites are not aware of their issues. And I mean this in a very critical way. In an actual and harmonious way blacks are aware of or should be of their issue; Safety in neighborhoods, reducing prison population, alienation, own culture, mixed race, racial relations. And you would think whites would be as keenly tuned into their issues out of necessity as well: an oppressive educational structure, a wasteful insensible economy, the lies and ignorance of media regarding the kingdom of god.

 But whites lack that racial identity in issues, especially manifest so in municipal court, Morris county NJ. If one is not aware of the kingdom of god, of white issues, and black issues, then they can not follow through on the intent and law of Municipal Court Rule 7:7:1. Indeed sophistication is required, the world can not be as it is on paper, to manifest spiritual and actual truth.

I can see clearly now, having read a case law, the municipal judge cited in his response to my pretrial motions, that judges should be guided to either positive, constructive behavior on constitutional motions, or allocate them to Superior Court, for either a declaratory statement of guidance, or complete adjudication. Because as it is, that’s where misapprehension by municipal court is going to go.

There was a simplicity to the Municipal Court Judge’s response that is easy to point out on appeal. For one he misconstrued peaceful assembly as the right to protest, not the right to make local decisions with ayes and nays in an assembly. And this can be cited with historical and contemporary examples, and logically shown to be a natural right, which consistent with the right to bring up grievances in court, light a very calm rational form that doesn’t require protests because it has a civil government.

For a second thing, the judge maintains that since the state constitution authorized this form of local government, local representative government is legal, and it is not, violating to amendments, and thus calling the 14th amendment into play, which has a history of overturning unfair state constitutions that abridge privileges and immunities of the federal constitution. These two points ignoring peaceful assembly, (nor addressing the reservation of powers to state or people, not elected officials), and the 14th amendment, are clearly identifiable and show a form to a solution. However, I believe, the higher courts are insufficient to register the merit of these assertions, as what they did not recognize yesterday, they will not recognize today if pointed out to them, because there is no improvement to the processing facility. The same faculty that has been idle discerning natural local practice and cause, is still going to be idle, reading these words. There is no turn on mechanism, that a mechanized world hinges upon. The judge also claimed no obligation to constitutional issues, and that is also not completely true.

So I do not have a license to 7/7 from 4/7 because I took three months since my orally argued pretrial motions failed, and I would be able to appeal the constitutional motions and see what happens, even though it will cost over five hundred in filing and transcript costs, I want to see what will be said, as it could save me thousands in insurance and DMV surcharges.

Really the point going into the trial was to show the kingdom of god, by working to establish this with friends of mine; for showing the kingdom of god will be proof a great deal in this world is made up; which is not to say it doesn’t happen, and hurt, but that it does not come from actual individuals, but a representation of society as society by a higher power, and showing what the human being is, in court and in general, is a first step towards justice, and success, on whatever terms.

However, while I was getting ready, they moved up the trial a week, and I did not have time to prepare that; which does not come easy.

The more this comes to the attention of the court and scholars, the more crime may be reduced by an awareness of its origin; and instead of a violent, almost psychotic justice system, that never slows down the crime enough, one gets an aware justice system handling the higher powers that cause trouble.

I am going to have to go to the rules of Superior Court soon and see what there is to do. The problem is there are often important things I don’t know. Such as suing people, not states??? Or filing with help according to regulative United States Section Code, or going class action, or being aware of judicial options. Yet playing through is always educational, and respectable.

It is hard for the courts to admit its ignorance regarding local decision-making, and the response of the Roman Republic to that was to make the judiciary a function of the people and lower class, and aim it at the legislative and executive branches usually staffed by powerful wealthy people. How could you entrust legal issues to rich people who had vested interests in their class.

Thus were the judiciary more an arm of the people, rather than the state, it may be more able to recognize natural laws regarding local decision-making. This is a fundamental difference between the Roman Republic and America. The judiciary is critically different. The political tension back then between the judiciary and executive/legislative, is fairly likened to today’s tension between democrats and republicans.

Because there is a statist conflict interest that can be ensued from a salary and job from a state that you are supposed to be critical of. I brought up how being appointed by the mayor and council, unlike higher judges appointed by the state, so the reservation of powers to the state or the people is violated by said exercise of this power not given to the federal government by the U.S. constitution which being to appoint municipal judges.

The judiciary of the republic of Rome had the power to veto legislation and bring officials to trial for folly or wrong doing. It was a justice system that didn’t come out of the executive, but was aimed at the executive by the people; and perhaps why though there was a lot of war in ancient times, there isn’t record of the crime we have today. Obviously to show that this is the reason why judges have not manifested our laws, is an interesting assertion to make, and promote; but somehow judges need reminding they work for the people not the state.

And must know the Kingdom of God: in that such knowledge understands the folly of the people, does not nearly have the opportunity to exist than the folly of people in power whose very lives are created for public viewing, whereas individual lives are not as apparent.

And in its ignorance, the press is precisely not free. And the judiciary and government seem oblivious to the market realities business only knows so well. And this appears to be because the media makes up election results, this de facto surfeit renders elected government incapable of recognizing the facts of business, without confronting its own fears of the elective process. Likewise pressure upon the judiciary through its own ignorance of the kingdom of god, should be swiftly confronted by that the knowledge of the kingdom of god, precludes the suffering ignorance falsely assumes.

Muncipal Court 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.”  My interpretation of this rule  is different from the judge. To me it indicates, as I’ve written, that by showing an unconstitutionality to the general ordinances of the town; glaring error on the part of the courts is signified, which logically leads to a decrease in jurisdiction and authentic power. The judge wrote that this rule could only be applied towards the regulations unto the defendant; and not to expose defects within the judiciary.

 

 

quote barchevski, also 771 is any municipal ordinance, not one cited by offense.