1)I apply Article 1 2a and interpret Judicial Constitutional Article, and govern so to, “based on thinking that matters, of interpretation or application of organic documents of government, and of fundamental right and obligation, warrant a second judicial look at…because they are intrinsically of basic importance. Tidewater v. Mayor, Council of Carteret. 44 N.J. 338,341 (1965)
2)The basic right is assured by arranging honest talking which is civil due process.
3)My allegations, do not depict the only senseless device in society. Even, where, “sufficient arguable potential for the denial of a basic right” especially since I am quite particular…. ”substantiality, will be found” State v. Pometti N.J. 446, 450, (1953)
4) There has not been, nor maybe may be, a conclusive judicial or governmental, determination of the safety generated by the concentration of justice in a few judges, if there be a quantifiably much greater network of crime. The record reflects this.
5) If by design, how can there be settled law; nor notion of lawyers working things out, and not courts; nor that spirituality and justice must be together; nor the people more capable of justice together, than a judge alone?
6) How can this totalitarianism, succinct with crime, be?. Public interest may demand a guide, but these terms go beyond set judiciary.
7)“Do moments of silence violate the constitution” was not rejected by the supreme court. Morsi v Wermer 86 N.J. 232, 237. My allegations would subsume due process.
8)The court admits, “We strive to avoid reaching constitutional issues, unless required” Recall Menendez v Wells, 204 N.J. 79, 95,96,201 (2010). The design is to ignore the pressure on constitutional structure. Are they now required to, by docket? The 2010 Court here also admits the obligation to the ideal of court.
9) The court is sworn to uphold the constitution. The constitution entertains my claims. Yet I petition “Government”, as “government” desires expressing a true condition, and negotiate a way to conceive what we are, more than “judiciary”, as generally and particularly, a first chakra issue.
10) This case is in public interest; what goes on in Hudson County, and New Jersey Appellate, is as definitive a public issue as what enables it.
11)The citizen becomes the court.
12) Constitutional cases are like class action
cases, bonding people, as does a state’s right
to tax foreign business, municipal ordinance, or
the right to fire someone.
13) Yet I am outside History, questioning three
basic components of our constitutions, focusing
on a pressure, tended to ignore.
14) This shakes public opinion. So discretely,
examine the relation between media, and public
15) There is a grain of salt, to the claim you can
reduce crime by altering and reforming
constitutionalism, as it takes a higher power
to keep History from having shared this.
16)Such is required to hear terrible stories.
17)This case is compelling because it is a common
denominator to other countries.
18)This is more than collateral examination of the
justice system, because the constitutional issues
of the case, merges into matter, as the matter,
19) Liability and proceeding, discretionarily,
due to criminal network in the background,
and not atheistically.