Appeal Filed
11/28/17:
Appeal Filed
Asarnow v. City of Long Branch, et al.,
Docket No. A-4973-14T4
This is the Appeal from the contrived, unjust summary judgment dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint against Long Branch and the judgment of no nuisance or emotional distress upon farcical jury trial against the private Defendants. (See Case 6 under “ A Case(s) for Elections & Reforms” which includes the Brief and Reply Brief of Plaintiff/Appellant which makes this obvious.) As the previous appeal (Case 5) was assigned to the Monmouth home vicinage appellate judge Fisher, who previously mentored trial judge Cleary who decided the trial court matter, and was joined by a ringer retired judge with an ax to grind, and a pliable newbie, Plaintiff had justifiable concerns about the assigning of this new appeal. (Perhaps a similar outcome would have resulted before other judges in Case 5 but the dictum and pretending no injunctive/equitable relief was being sought in that matter, whereas enforcement of a notice of violation was sought, was in bad faith.) Plaintiff’s concerns were borne out. The final appeal filing, ‘Appellants Reply Brief”, was filed 2/8/16 and the appeal was submitted to the 3 judge panel on 1/23/17 then decided on 9/18/17 which exactly coincided with the unveiling of the upgrading of this website (US Supreme Court unanimous Decisions take only 3-4 months) The previous hacking by defendants of the old website is mentioned in the Decision so the court is well aware of this website, which may be their prime concern, judging by the timing and their Decision..The 3 judge panel included the previous assigning judge himself and same previous newbie. and a different judge. After 8 months in which to be lobbied about how bad Plaintiff is for vindicating his property rights and advocating elections, the 5 minute Decision may as well have been written on toilet paper and rubber stamped as it simply affirms the trial court Decisions without findings except for the most insignificant issue of vacating of the 3 year old default. On that it contradicts caselaw that limits do exist on vacating defaults and seeks to portray Defendants’ use of land as lawful though contradicted by the record. It ignores that the lower court failed to use the Brill standard and made up its own facts to support its contrived opinion, including regarding the laches used to dismiss. Pathetically, no mention is made of the key argument of the suppression of evidence showing that the use is in continuous violation and unreasonable and relevant as the jury was charged to judge the reasonableness of Defendants’ use. Instead the court states “Plaintiff’s remaining claims concerning the order vacating default and alleged trial errors are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion” In so doing, the court affirms the lower court ruling that local governments can do as they please with regard to issuance of permits and enforcement and violating resident’s 14 th amendment civil rights but only as regards Plaintiff. The preamble to the Decision makes this discrimination by the court clear, that it only applies to Appellant and is not precedential. Furthermore, no oral argument, which would have perhaps enabled Plaintiff to argue these points, was permitted which is not the norm and further evidences the bad faith & discrimination of that court. But what else would you expect from politically appointed lifers with no accountability?
Petition for Cert. with 9/18/17 Opinion Attached
Petition for Certification Filed
Plaintiff — Appellant filed his Petition with the NJ Supreme Court on 10/24/17. Unlike the Appellate Div. Court where all cases following final judgment are heard and judges are expected to provide honest service, the Supreme Court hears only about one of six cases after first considering the Petitions A routine motion was filed seeking a few days extra time due to printing delays and attorney schedule/vacation which normally constitutes the good cause required. The Petition focuses on the unfair trial due to suppression of relevant, key evidence without which even famed Harvard law prof. Alan Dershowitz could not win especially while Defendants were allowed to argue/lie that the use was legal. The other point is for violation of Plaintiff’s rights under US and NJ constitutions to equal protection and due process of law being denied by municipal Defendant’s willful misconduct/refusal to enforce its ordinances. Governments must have a valid reason not to enforce its ordinances such as a limitation of resources which Long Branch has failed even to try to demonstrate. These address important public concerns in future nuisance trials and enforcing the rule of law, countering corruption, and preventing NJ from being on par with third world dictatorships and communist governments in this regard.
5/16/18:
The Petition was denied 3/26/18 by our illustrious Supreme Court, thus enabling the corruption and rubber stamp affirmation by its Appeal Div. of the trial court determinations. In their courts, local governments have total discretion and immunity with regard to issuing permits and enforcement regardless of evidence of bad faith & corruption excepted by the tort claims act. (NJSA 59:3-14) They know a jury could determine that corruption is behind the disinterest by Long Branch in abating the violations – they’re afraid of that happening so they look the other way. In their courts, neighbors can remain in violation of zoning for years while your property is depreciated, without being liable for damages for same. Corrupt local governments can violate your civil right of equal protection and even retaliate against you (including hunt you down on a beach and threaten you with arrest one week after filing a complaint) with impunity for seeking same. All property owners should take note and beware! (and sign the FTNJ petition) The NJ courts have again demonstrated how they excel at turning their heads and pretending local governments are always acting in good faith, and protecting lawbreakers and rotten decisions of its brethren – not in rendering justice. No outrage at the charade by its municipal court or arson of the Fairtrial van (police report states “arson” despite judge keeping this out of the trial against the neighbors) and corrupted “investigation.” – no apparent moral compass either. (See Case(s) – The farsical nuisance trial) Everything is A-OK with Chief Justice Stuart Rabner who denied the petition. He’ll leave it to judge Perri to “handle” the equitable aspect in the site plan hearing appeal bench trial scheduled June 19, 2018. (see “Site Plan Filed”). All pre- arranged no doubt. Plaintiff will certainly not get fair access to damages or justice in these courts, and FTNJ’s “case for elections & reforms” is nearly complete save for Judge Perri’s next ad lib “performance.” She has the green light, based on the above, to do anything she wants now, including distorting the zoning board record, and designing her own facts and standard of review as done prior.
US Supreme Court Petition Considered
Despite Tactics Employed by NJ Appellate Courts to Evade Further Review
A Petition to the US Supreme Court (aka SCOTUS) is being considered. A few things to know about SCOTUS and the American civil justice system however: SCOTUS members all have lifetime appointments and are increasingly old and lazy – whereas a few years ago they heard 100 cases annually, now they only hear 60-70 cases annually drawn from 7-8,000 Petitions..
Of that, “the United States is involved in approximately two-thirds of all the cases the U.S. Supreme Court decides on the merits each year.” https://www.justice.gov/osg. That leaves only about 20-23 cases not involving the US. Furthermore, much like the NJ Courts, its run like a club – reserved primarily to a select group of 66 attorneys who either previously clerked for SCOTUS or worked in the US Solicitor General’s office. Of those 66 attorneys, 51 work for firms that represent corporate interests, i.e. big corporations.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/scotus
Doing the math, that leaves 15 of 66 or approximately 23% non-corporate attorneys and therefore about 4-6 non US and corporate cases a year for other matters! Several of the top attorneys and law professors in the group confirmed to FTNJ that SCOTUS is not a court for “errors” and there should be prior Appellate Opinion involving a federal question to have one’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari granted. The “rubber stamping” without opinion on the merits of trial decisions by dirty state courts like NJ is a tactic employed to evade SCOTUS review. One top professor in the group of 66 states “ there are ways for lower courts to minimize the chances of review. We struggle with it all the time” It seems justice is rare, indeed ALL THE MORE PROOF/REASON WHY CLEAN, FAIR, DILIGENT AND ACCOUNTABLE STATE COURT JUDGES THRU NON-PARTISAN ELECTIONS ARE NEEDED!
11/4/18:
The petition was not pursued based upon the above reasoning.