One of the questions the editorial asked: “If there are problems of such magnitude, why have we not been told about them by the politicians and the media?”

“If one really wishes to know how justice is administered in a country, one does not question the policemen, the lawyers, the judges, or the protected members of the middle class. One goes to the unprotected--those, precisely, who need the laws' protection most--and listens to their testimony.” -- James Baldwin (1924-1987), U.S. author. The Price of the Ticket, "No Name in the Street" (1972).

Victims-of-Law Openly Responds

On October 10, 2005 an Editorial in the New Jersey Law Journal entitled: 'Enhanced Fairness' and the Legislature” and “Some Legislators' Assaults on the Judiciary.” The Editorial Board is composed of attorneys and judges or former judges.

[A subscription is required to read the full editorial].

The Editorial Board asked:

“What problems exist between these two branches of government that cannot be resolved by reasoned discourse?”

Response: It’s been obvious to the people who have been subjected to the lack of fairness in the judiciary that legislation is required in an effort to force the judiciary to conform to unbiased, impartial fair justice by honest law abiding judges.

The Board asked:

“If there are problems of such magnitude, why have we not been told about them by the politicians and the media?”

Response: The answer is relatively simple. The public has been bitterly complaining for years. They complain to all three branches and are ignored by all three. The editorial which we respond to likewise ignores the public, focusing strictly on the legislators and media. Naturally, the people know why the editorial board consists of attorneys and judges who disregard the public in general – it’s protecting its own self-interests.

The people bring their horror stories to the mainstream media and are  ignored.

Essentially, the media cannot afford to report on the judiciary because they are afraid of retaliation. They not only file lawsuits to obtain certain rights, they are also sued for various reasons. They rely on the courts to effect lawful decisions in media litigated cases – we can rest assured the mainstream media report on those cases.

The flagrant judicial and attorney abuses affecting the citizenry might be reported only after someone in authority in a grievance system registers a formal grievance. The heck with the people who knew what was going on for many years; long before a committee decided to put a halt to it. For all the people who have been exposed to attorney and judicial misconduct, the grievance systems are nothing more than a big joke.

The Board lightly touched on a serious problem:

“Rather than package judicial candidates in a political horse trade between colleagues about who gets to make which appointments, legislators should recognize that an excellent candidate is an excellent candidate, whoever is advocating his or her appointment.”

Response: The politicians want their own choices for judgeships for their own political [or personal] reasons whether the nominee is qualified or not -- the public be damned. A perfect illustration is the recent appointment of Marianne Espinosa. See: The Politics of Judicial Horse-trading in New Jersey.

There were too many people who knew she was not fit to be a judge. The political power brokers were aware they would have to get her appointed -- the solution -- violate the Senate rules. After all, they made the rules so they’re entitled to violate them. The five business day public notice rule went bye-bye to achieve their goal. See: Open Letter to Marianne Espinosa.

The New Jersey Constitution requires the Governor to give seven days public notice when he sends a nomination to the Senate Committee. Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn’t define what ‘public notice’ means. Example: He can put up a notice on a wall in a public building and it is considered ‘public notice’ except the public doesn’t know it’s there. Ironically, the acting-governor has published other nominations via the media and on his email list of subscribers. Why was Espinosa different?

New Jersey also has the additional problem of having an acting-governor who is also the senate president in an obvious ‘conflict of interest.’ The columnist, George Will, refers to the acting governor as an “American Caesar” because the NJ governor is the only statewide elected official. He has the power to appoint his attorney general, the treasurer, the county prosecutors and almost all the judges. Now comes an acting governor with the same powers but without the electorate being heard; alas, the legislature allows this conflict to continue despite the obvious constitutional problems.

The final question from the editorial board:

“If there are not such problems, why encumber the legislative process?”

Response: The last question appears to be asinine. If anyone takes the time to read some of the bills the editorial noted, many have precise explanations.

The New Jersey judicial branch has publicly violated the constitutional separation of powers on numerous occasions. What remains a secret is the abundance of cases where judges deliberately and maliciously violate the rights of certain litigants. Anyone that dares complain is labeled a ‘disgruntled litigant’ and ignored no matter how illegal or corrupt the judicial ruling. The attorney and judicial grievance systems are likewise unaccountable to anyone.

In our opinion, the legislature is on the right track with ACR118 to “remove jurisdictional power of the New Jersey Supreme Court over the admission to the practice of law and discipline of attorneys in New Jersey.”

Lest anyone has doubts, here’s an excellent example of an illegal ruling by the New Jersey Judiciary see: WARNING TO N.J. Property Owners: The Ultimate Consumer Fraud Violator: The New Jersey Judiciary.

Property owners are responsible for checking the requirements for ‘permits’ from building code enforcement officials to make sure they conform to the law. It’s not only common knowledge it is easy to check. Funny thing though, when judges want a specific outcome they are immune from all liability as they deliberately make false statements in judicial opinions. This is a tactic that is fairly well known to litigants who have to deal with these judicial scoundrels. In another fraud on the people, they are told that judges ‘speak’ through their opinions and are not allowed to explain their decisions (illegal behavior) no matter how egregious.

'Enhanced Fairness' and the Legislature”

On the issue of legislative bills for ‘special courts’ for ‘enhanced fairness’-- the legislators should be tending to the numerous attorney and judicial violations in the ‘family court’ system instead of adding other courts that will undoubtedly cause equally serious constitutional violations. If judges violate the law, refuse to adhere to their own court and evidence rules, no amount of additional courts will solve the deep rooted problems that continue without any relief in sight.

In conclusion:

The Editorial states:

“For those in the judiciary whose personalities tend toward the "someone is out to get me" type, this is a golden time. A quick glance at the 2004-2005 session of the Legislature will surely validate their ideation. . . . There are pending in the Legislature the following bills:” [The editorial did not supply the links, Victims-of-Law believe the people should not have to figure it all out, thus links are supplied. Where there is only one link, it's because both bills are identical. ].  

ACR-66/SCR25 proposes a constitutional amendment authorizing the Legislature to invalidate certain court decisions;

ACR-104/SCR17 proposes a constitutional amendment abolishing tenure for Supreme Court justices and establishing retention elections as part of the reappointment process;

ACR109 proposes a constitutional amendment establishing a Court of Appeals separate from the Superior Court and nomination of appellate judges directly to this court;

ACR118 would remove jurisdictional power of the New Jersey Supreme Court over the admission to the practice of law and discipline of attorneys in New Jersey;

ACR-136/SCR61 proposes a constitutional amendment establishing a four-year term of office and a new reappointment process for members of the judiciary; clarifies authority for establishing provisions governing judicial salaries and pensions;

ACR175 provides five-year terms for justices of the Supreme Court and for elections for the justices to receive tenure upon reappointment;

ACR191 proposes a constitutional amendment requiring the state Supreme Court to interpret the state constitution literally;

SCR72 requires provisions of the state constitution and statutory law to act as the sole sources for judicial decision making.

Other Pending Bills:

Victims-of-Law believes the above is insufficient to address the unconstitutional acts of the judiciary but at least a few senators are trying. In addition to the above, the following bills would help the public believe the legislature might want to achieve a modicum of fairness in the New Jersey Judicial branch.

A617 -- Requires attorneys engaged in the private practice of law to maintain malpractice insurance coverage.

SCR112 -- Urges the creation of an attorney Internet profile for New Jersey attorneys. . . . This concurrent resolution urges the New Jersey Supreme Court to create attorney Internet profiles for New Jersey attorneys similar to profiles established for physicians and podiatrists pursuant to P.L.2003, c.96.