Motion for disposition on application of Article 1, 2a, of N.J. Constitution towards this matter
April 23, 2013
To the Court:
Please consider the motion for a disposition subjective to Article 1 2a, of N.J.’s constitution; 2. a. ” All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it;” as grounded in the significance of these words to this case. Raised issues and dimensions to this case give it class action appeal; does 2a propel judges, to protect me as because the public security and good requires it? I apprise of this issue, in advance of oral arguments, in hope for feedback to address in oral arguments, and Supreme Court relevance.
Table of Contents
P.3 Material Facts
P.5 Legal Arguments
P.5 Can the Judiciary Police Itself?
P.6 I’m Unique
P.10 “Petition” “Government”
I have been denied due process every step of the way. From unsigned will in 1994 being signed in 2010 by the recently paralyzed, not deemed suspicious, to probating in a county not domiciled through lies under oath, little discovery, not aiding medical records,etc: PA2,18,265,163-165,152-63,191(Grey v. Cholodenko), (PB1CASP Motion) Due process is a process that reflects inherent power in the people; because due process reveals what is true and what is false; and knowing what is true and what is false, inherently benefits the people.
The procedural nature is: If due process is denied to me, it must easily be denied in many matters, for these widespread mechanisms, cannot affect me this matter alone. Analysis addressing these issues, benefits the people. Concerns of security and protection, benefit the people: Especially analysis how we alter and reform a government, to 2a goals, through a judiciary that has almost, (through discretionary power given judges, by numerous statutes, for instance), where the means for, and manifestation of the denial of due process, conceivably, and actually, institutionalized, and issues of this matter.
So we seek a procedure where the power inherent in the people, is able to manifest itself through a court that commissions the power and respect of inquiry through me, of those I know, to those about, that will then lead to the reform that benefits the people.
If the power is inherent in the people to the goal of reform, must courts reflect or refract and enable this power, to duly process these issues, as they apply to cases, in systemic form of precedence, on their own, or to resolve particular matters? Does the court think the sole manifestation of the inherent power of the people, be in Peaceful Assembly? Or other means, and what would they be if so? For without factionalism, the inherent power of the people, must go through the form of peaceful assembly, or judicial due process, in certain matter. This then raises a level where the adjudication of cases procedurally and by design, takes on potentially Historical issues, and shows legal form lends itself to an understanding of 2a, as where 2a takes place, and I write this for confirmation of such affirmation.
So far, the procedural nature of across the board civil discussion, is not here, because I would convert the situation, as due process lends itself to. Denying pre-argument conference is suspicious.
1) There are too many suspicions to not implicate the judiciary link. PA385-87, 391-95,401-02, 163-65, PBR1 (Not showing will while Vera alive, lying under oath to probate in Hudson County, not fulfilling significant discovery, not recognizing email resolving revenues off six million for future generations, slandering me not recognizing my agricultural trade, and how close to Vera that was, not including me in work managing investment properties, people not calling back, not meeting with me, not discovering medical records)
2) My mother’s death and taking of wealth, was planned with the judiciary in mind.
3) That may be where the money went, and why due process denied.
4) This is through a constitutional structure
5) The Constitutions place power in a few
6) This makes official vulnerable to criminals, for now only a few need to be controlled; a critical mass out of twelve judges, and a whole county controlled; widespread long term abuse, and appellate, secured.
7) Numerous statutes secure judicial discretion.
8) Government structurally polices itself.
9) Law enforcement franchising is the same principle of acute structure, obtuse for crime.
10) What is the alternative to one or a few, judges, resolving conflict? The people assembling together for knowledge of the matter.
11) In the Roman Republic, and The Jersey Plan, the judiciary was designated for ratifying law and codifying treaty. Tribes, or state institutions, handled criminal issues. Historical perspective is judiciously required to reform for the people’s benefit.
12) Other cases are not bringing up these issues, looking at nuts and bolts, not the whole engine.
13) “petition the government” means “ask the court”
Can the Judiciary Police Itself?
Can the judiciary police itself? Denials of due process, such as investigating probate fraud, recognizing legitimate suspicions, calling will witnesses, compelling truth and good faith from defense counsel, suggest a paid off and/or threatened judiciary. We’ll see. So far, through denials of conference and concern, it hasn’t; and this mode for justice, what we seek to reform, so an appropriate and potential conundrum or issue for Supreme oversight. Your advisors and analysts, I recommend, talking with me.
The fallibility of History, and corruption of society; starts from an admission of wrong, the state may be hard pressed to do; its own corruption, may be psychologically beyond the consciousness that takes in History; It is only through talking with me, we may step beyond that. So citizens help with the policing process.
“The Constitution protects individuals, men and women alike, from unjustified state interference, even when that interference is enacted into law for the benefit of their spouses.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 847 (1992)
The nature of tragedy is very much whether protagonists can rise above their fate. And what if the lack of conscience that disables due process, is because organized criminals are telling you what to? We want 2a to protect individuals from unlawful codifications, but if criminals control the judiciary, then we have to work out that, and this is important. The way out of this totalitarian structure is seeing how easily it is controlled, how that signifies a higher power, which you must be a part of; frankly, a rejection of atheism, is required, to rise above this tragedy. Then you are not dealing with criminals, but control of them by higher power, metaphysics.
These are important, ignored issues, and rare approach. These issues can be handled quietly. The structure and fact makes this mental health. I offer a way out of bad structure, and benefit all. Law enforcement and the judiciary has not treated the causes of these issues. Talking with me, shines light on secrecy, in the name of knowledge, of that which atheism inherently refutes. Behind the scenes people would know I’m spiritual, and this is trascendant, exculpatory, reward, that sees History, as controlling, the lack of talking, totalitarian, so benefitting the people, and altering government.
Commission me, through 2a, my assertion and art. I am harmless. I know the human is altered in womb, that Christian terminology calls this the kingdom of god, and is to produce history; which is why Christians forgive. My contrast to mistaken atheistic government facilitates means countering the removal of power from people, as this investment of individuals as officials, is atheism manifest. Commission me to quietly talk with the many people I know caught up in this, and lead.
This is a way through totalitarianism, through the judiciary, and compels interest, through all the lacks of due process, addressing real issues, and the intent of 2a. Totalitarianism is the tight control of people.
The notion, of totalitarianism, is consistent with heaven and earth, the physical world, bound up in some contract, which to free itself from, the courts make logical opportunity as an investment in critical searching; at least on paper and actuality. So the vulnerable and criminal must consider the control of people and officials by mind, as vehicle of society’s design, with corrupt accessories.
Article1 2a, of N.J.’s constitution; 2. a. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.
Because talking with Mark, would reveal corruption to me, and I would try to cure it, to benefit the people, than per 2a, you must somehow say to Mark, “Vic really is trying to do something good, and it is difficult, please work with him” And then Mark would. This sort of subpoena power could eventually be applied to anyone, but starts with facilitating talking with friends and family I know, caught up in this, unable to talk with me so far.
Unwinding conspiracy, contextually, each may have a meta-issue that determines the next person and issue. It’s hard to entreat Mark that there are suspicious items, it involves many people, higher power, important, mental health issues as well: we can talk esoterically. Yet you could entreat him, if you could understand you are a part of higher power.
Historians would say history controls the people, hence the focus on people in power in Histories. Historians would say, war is contrived and unacceptable to reason, such; but must be understood in context of people controlled by history, and history a product of metaphysic, and metaphysic, relation between universe, kingdom of heaven and earth and humans.
I’ve little doubt, Ron Fraoili and Mark, are in fear of Christopher Garvin, our tax attorney, and the potential violence to the nature of this control. So what is to keep you from fearing your own handlers in the adjudication of justice? Can controls be broken here through the opportunity to unite to the benefit of all, per professional interest, despite structure creating officials as victims, should unity and faith be seen, and an unatheistic recognition of higher power, and spirituality, protect you, and show you what is true, and false. Or, is totalitarianism still stronger?
The right to petition the government for redress of grievance, is the very good right of the individual to bring up issues before courts. “Petition” means to ask, and “government” means the judiciary, or, courts. So 2a, is an extension of this most important protection. The issue, of course, is whether this first amendment right, and 2a, can allow the initiation of constitutional issues. Standing is hard to achieve a judge and docket number, Courts’ required to consider their Creation. Yet say I tried to bring up these issues, independent, per grievance of oppressive government structure, per right to reform local officials with peaceful assemblies, or dispute resolution with involvement of many? Can we say the courts would or could honor these claims? And yet, in this particular case, mitigated by the structural impairments we would naturally, in a less totalitarian society essay to have fixed, applying both principles of redress and reform, through 2a and motions on accepted cases, critically achieves the same intent.
Since here, I have done a little more research on the subject of 2a, and concluded: 2a is like class action. And 2a applies most before the courts.
Let’s be honest here; the people may have the right to alter and reform government at all times, but most times don’t provide that opportunity, organizing people is hard, that’s why the right to petition the government manifests the rights of one individual. When one is before the courts, the chance exists, to motion for relief which alters government to benefit public good; Thus logically, this may be construed as a legal documentation of a legal principal.
Likewise, let us show a similar dimension between class action, and 2a. The purpose of class action, is to let poor people have the court hear their case. 2a, is similiarily and inexpensive, reductive form of looking into matters, it’d would cost to much, if at all possible, to bring up without great resources. Class actions are against corporations. 2a, against powerful entrenched government; both force courts to examine that which power might avoid. Both also let the court handle some efficiently and instant perhaps, that which might be tattered across political economic landscape.
Let’s also consider a natural feature of 2a to avoid violent action, through an endorsement of power being in the people, a stepping back, as possible, as foment and propulsion possible and benefitting.
Rutgers Law Journal ‘ The N.J. Supreme Court extended the virtues of class action device as a means of gaining equal accesss to Justice for those who have sall claims and unequal bargaining power.” Lee “Class action is a device that allows an otherwise vulnerable class……”thus providing a procedure to rememdy a wrong that might go undressed.” Can’t allow “safe harbors for misconduct”