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.