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