uspetition-2
II. Summary of facts as presented in litigants actual
Petition for
Certification before NJ Supreme Court; (Petition denied)
Petition No. 57,372 – Asarnow v. State of NJ, Superior Court of NJ
(Detailed facts and events follows the below
petition.
Table of Contents
Page
1.
Matter
1
2. Questions
Presented
5
3.
Errors
6
4. Reasons for Granting
Certification
7
5. Comments on the Appellate Div.
Opinion
8
6.
Conclusion
8
Appendix:
a. Notice of Petition for
Certification
1a
b. Appellate Div. Opinion/Order entered Dec.
27,2004 2a
c. 1/25/05 Letter of Transmittal to Clerk
;
; ; 4a
1. Matter
The matter really demonstrates what can happen when an
ordinary taxpayer seeking his property rights and who
chooses not to pay to play is denied justice due to a lack
of accountability in the judiciary.
Petitioner relies substantially on his Appellate Brief
with original and amended complaints, and summarizes:
Petitioner claims he has been denied meaningful access
to the courts in 3 original matters as well as in his
current effort to address this as a new matter. Petitioner
has yet to receive one substantive bite at the apple where
all laws are applied to him as to others on the real issues
in question. Petitioner further claims this is not in error.
This has resulted in such perverse, evil decisions as:
– Petitioner having to pay someone for the privilege of
storing their car for them for three years though they
admitted to knowing of the closing on the same commercial
building previously owned and occupied by them, and removed
two other vehicles, yet would neither remove the 3rd vehicle
or pay any storage and failed to make formal demand until
nine months later. (See Verified Complaint). As part
of his claims, petitioner sought quantum meruit or just
compensation, a basic right afforded under the law yet
denied him.
page 1
– Denying plaintiff standing for even ordinary equitable
relief to have zoning laws enforced on properties
immediately adjacent to and across the street from his own
commercial property. The trial court fails to adjudicate or
render findings on almost all counts of the complaint and
substitutes itself as jury. (Virtually all the judges
assigned to the matter either come from the vicinity of Long
Branch or appear to have some connection to Long Branch and
its Sewerage Authority and their respective attorney’s law
firm and the Long Branch Mayor or to those looking out for
Plaintiff‘s neighbor- see tort notice.) The Appellate Div.
affirms that Plaintiff “has no standing to claim dereliction
in the enforcement of ordinances” (VC, Pa90). Under the land
use act, everyone knows that those within 200 feet of a
property proposing certain improvements are automatically
deemed to have standing to receive notice and comment/object
at zoning hearings without need for appraisals or other
arbitrary impediments to prove standing. An appraisal which
was later submitted and showed damages attributable to Long
Branch’s failure to enforce the zoning ordinances was
nevertheless ignored by the trial court. Long Branch is an
active participant in allowing the one neighbor to evade the
permitting process for the illegal nonconforming use which
continues to increase. The refusal to enforce is palpably
unreasonable (no limitation of resources was ever argued by
page 2
Long Branch ) and therefore illegal and corrupt to all,
it seems, but the NJ courts.
– The lower court ordering Plaintiff to pay $3022.93 in
costs in the Long Branch matter including Supreme Court and
Appellate Div. Costs. As was pointed out to the court, this
is contrary to current statutes wherein costs are to be
applied for and garnered separately at each level, and the
court therefore had no jurisdiction as to Supreme Court and
Appellate div. costs. Also, as the parties had earlier
executed a voluntary settlement which disposed of all issues
(including costs) so an appeal could proceed, the courts
action was contrary to strong state policy to settle.
Petitioner believes the trial judge, who professed
experience in deciding many costs motions, was improperly
using the occasion to exact revenge for personal reasons,
that is for Plaintiff’s criticism of and reporting to AOC of
his fellow Monmouth judges. He still serves in Monmouth.
Nevertheless, after 3 cost hearings at taxpayer’s expense,
Long Branch then withdraws the awarded costs in return for
Plaintiff’s promise not to sue for breach of contract or
further appeal the costs Order.
In the current matter, the court self-servingly seeks
to spin the matter as one of plaintiff simply being a
dissatisfied litigant. “In two counts, Plantiff’s complaint
alleged that State defendants deliberately wronged him by
page 3
issuing adverse rulings in two civil lawsuits in which he
was a party” (Appellate Div opinion)
Both lower and appellate div. improperly construe and
seek to spin/cast the entire complaint as a 42 USCS sec 1983
and personal injury/tort claims matter so that it can apply
a 2 year statute of limitation and thereafter find that the
two years is exceeded based on a faulty accrual date for the
non-discreet, evolving constitutional “injury”.
Based upon this faulty procedural dismissal, it
then denies Plaintiff the right to amend his complaint.
Plaintiff asserts a fair reading of the original
Complaint (as argued, the complaint is to be read in the
light most favorable to plaintiff, and plaintiff is master
to decide the basis of his complaint, yet pro se plaintiff
is being held to the highest standards and the court imputes
the basis of the complaint, to attain the obviously
predetermined goal of dismissal) shows both counts to be
founded directly upon sections of the US and NJ
constitutions with no mention of 42 USCS 1983. Alternative
relief is pled in both counts, as encouraged by the Rules,
and the First Count contains no reference whatsoever to the
Tort Claims Act. Any damages sought clearly stem as
consequence of the constitutional tort.
&#To prop up its contrived dismissal, both courts rely
solely upon personal injury/tort claims and 42 USCS 1983
page 4
cases, though irrelevant to the matter at hand. Strauss v.
State , a recognized exception to the Tort Claims Act
involving constitutional tort, and a case relied upon by
Plaintiff, is similarly turned into and improperly
interpreted as a tort claims matter by the trial court.
As the court dismisses based upon a non-applicable
statue of limitations, this raises the larger issue of the
statute of limitations to be applied to matters founded
directly upon the NJ and US Constitutions. This has not been
decided by the US or NJ Supreme Courts.
Plaintiff’s tort notice and writings to AOC give an
idea of how the corruption may be occurring though the fact
that it is occurring at all and being allowed and upheld by
the higher courts is sufficient for a constitutional claim.
Lastly, plaintiff contends (see VC) the denial of
meaningful access is purposeful and not in error and that a
reasonable jury could find such if allowed.
Plaintiff wonders if this is one of the fruits of
liberty, freedom from tyranny and rule of law our President
speaks of and which our soldiers are fighting to secure via
Iraq and elsewhere. Ironically, Petitioner surmises he would
receive a fairer disposition, with full respect paid to
basic property rights, in Iraq, Iran or Cuba than he has in
this venue and will post this petition on his website as an
example of the time being right for elections for NJ judges.
page 5
2. Questions Presented
Petitioner relies substantially on the main and sub-
points contained in the Legal Argument of his Appellate
Brief and incorporates them herein, without repeating, as
the questions presented for consideration. Petitioner adds
that several factors can be used to distinguish his matter
from others without merit, among them, at what point does
the denial of relief become purposeful and not honest error.
Should certification and oral argument be granted,
Petitioner would be pleased to elaborate on these to ease
the Court‘s concerns about a possible onslaught of similar
claims.
3. Errors
Petitioner refers to sections 1 and 2 of his petition
and incorporates them herein, without repeating. Petitioner
adds that the main error is in the misconstruing of
Plaintiff’s entire cause of action so to reach the
predetermined goal of dismissal. The sole, lonesome case
submitted by the Appellate Div. to prop up its decision is
yet another 1983 action taken in Federal court in distant
Oklahoma wherein judges and the State and its certain organs
are named parties and are immune for reasons given therein
and in Plaintiff’s Appellate Brief. Since Plaintiff has not
brought similar action and has named no judges and is in
State Court, the case is respectfully, invalid and
page 6
irrelevant. As with the trial court, the Appellate Div. has
failed to offer one controlling case founded directly upon
the US or NJ Constitutions which applies a 2 year statute of
limitations and which calculates the accrual period in the
same manner as a personal injury matter.
4. Reasons for Granting Certification
1. Plaintiff’s matter is founded directly upon the US and NJ
constitutions. The S/L applied in this matter denies
justice. (See Appellate Div. Brief)
2. The S/L, if any to be applied in matters founded directly
upon the US and NJ constitutions is unsettled and should be
resolved to prevent further denial of justice and to enable
accountability of the state and its judiciary for good cause
shown.
3. The courts supervisory function is needed to correct
the obvious denial of justice in the within and future
matters. Petitioner only hopes that the Supreme Court
Clerk‘s office, which can screen and reject petitions and
certify Orders on behalf of the Court is immune from
influence by the same dark forces which seek to undermine
his due process rights and that the court will actually
see and review the papers.
4. The court’s construing of Plaintiff’s cause of action
conflicts with that of the US and NJ Supreme Courts which
recognize constitutional claims founded directly upon the US
page 7
and NJ Constitutions.
5. The decisions, left unremedied, and which appear unfair,
unjust and corrupt on their face, will stain the reputation
and credibility of this court which claims on its website to
be a model state court.
]
5. Comments on the Appellate Div. Opinion
Petitioner refers to section 1-3 of his petition and adds:
Based upon his previous experiences, petitioner
surmises the appeal was not randomly assigned but rather
so the desired end result of dismissal could be assured.
Plaintiff asked the clerk upon filing but was not given
information about the procedure used to assign the appeal.
Petitioner would have liked to see a lottery type cage with
numbers for each panel/part contained therein and with the
selection/assignment to be made in his presence.
Since Petitioner made these same arguments in the trail
level as to this not being a 1983 or an exclusively Tort
claim action, and they were ignored by the Appellate Div., a
reasonable person can assume it too was not really done in
error, but was purposeful.
6.Conclusion
Based upon the evidence of record and for the foregoing
reasons, petitioner hereby respectfully requests the court
to grant his Petition and oral argument.
Respectfully Submitted,
______________________
Dated; January 25, 2005
page 8