How New Jersey Judges Deceive the Public to

Deny Litigants their Rights

(Red print is what judges deliberately omitted)

DELIBERATELY MISLEADING JUDICIAL MISQUOTES

Before Judges NEWMAN and VILLANUEVA.

Judge Charles E. Villanueva, On Recall

PUBLISHED OPINION STATES PLAINTIFF SAID:
(i) tortious interference with a civil action;

PLAINTIFF ACTUALLY WROTE:

POINT I: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A LAWFUL CIVIL ACTION DENIED PLAINTIFF HER RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE TRIAL COURT.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PUBLISHED OPINION STATES PLAINTIFF SAID:
ii) violation of the separation of powers doctrine,
and the judiciary has no right to decline to exercise jurisdiction;

PLAINTIFF ACTUALLY WROTE IN POINTS II & III

POINT II: THE DESIGN INHERENT IN THE SEPARATION OF POWERS IS TO BLOCK TYRANNY BY ANY ONE BRANCH. A SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES DIFFUSES THE CONCENTRATIONS OF POWER.

Abuse of judicial power is impermissible.

It is well settled that courts may not disregard plain statutory language. In the words of the late Chief Justice Vanderbilt, "[a] clear and unambiguous statute is not open to construction or interpretation, and to do so in a case where not required is to do violence to the doctrine of the separation of powers." Watt v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Franklin, 21 N.J. 274, 277, 121 A.2d 499 (1956). ***where the language of a law is clear, courts are not free to replace it with unenacted legislative intention, for to do so leads the judiciary into undemocratic law making. State vs. Moss (Super. Ct. App. Div. 1994). 649 A.2d 1349, 277 N.J. Super. 545.

AND

POINT III WHICH INCLUDED A QUOTE FROM A PUBLISHED OPINION WAS WRITTEN AS FOLLOWS:

POINT III: ‘THE NEW JERSEY JUDICIARY HAS NO RIGHT TO DECLINE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION THAN TO USURP THAT WHICH IS NOT GIVEN. ONE OR THE OTHER WOULD BE TREASON TO THE CONSTITUTION.’[1] JUDICIAL REFUSAL TO DECIDE RECUSAL MOTIONS NULLIFIES THE INTENT OF STATUTORY LAW.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PUBLISHED OPINION STATES PLAINTIFF SAID:
iii) she has been oppressively harmed by abuses of judicial discretion denying her procedural rights

PLAINTIFF ACTUALLY WROTE:

POINT IV: PLAINTIFF HAS BEEN OPPRESSIVELY HARMED BY ABUSES OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN ITS FAILURE TO ACCORD HER PROCEDURAL RIGHTS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE DELIBERATE CONCEALMENTS OF THE MISSING DOCUMENTS.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PUBLISHED OPINION STATES PLAINTIFF SAID:

(iv) coerced or fraudulent settlements cannot defeat statutory rights;

 PLAINTIFF ACTUALLY WROTE:

POINT VI: COERCED OR FRAUDULENT SETTLEMENTS IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION CANNOT DEFEAT STATUTORY RIGHTS CREATED FOR THE PROTECTION OF DEPENDENT BENEFICIARIES OF ONE WRONGFULLY KILLED.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PUBLISHED OPINION STATES PLAINTIFF SAID:

v) there was a wanton and willful disregard with reckless indifference in an oppressive breach of fiduciary duties;

PLAINTIFF ACTUALLY WROTE:

POINT VIII: WANTON AND WILLFUL DISREGARD WITH RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE IN AN OPPRESSIVE BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO FRAUD, OMISSIONS, AND CONCEALMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PUBLISHED OPINION STATES PLAINTIFF SAID:
 (vi) Green's third party status and his disqualification based upon falsified certification was in the nature of malicious prosecution denying plaintiff free access to the courts.

PLAINTIFF ACTUALLY WROTE:

POINT IX: GREEN’S THIRD PARTY STATUS AND HIS DISQUALIFICATION BASED ON FALSIFIED CERTIFICATIONS WAS AND IS IN THE NATURE OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. -- BY THE SEVERITY OF THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON PLAINTIFF, IT GIVES DUE RECOGNITION TO THE COUNTER-POLICY IN FAVOR OF FREE ACCESS TO JUDICIAL BODIES. -- THE ‘SUBSTANTIAL RELATIONSHIP TEST’ REQUIRED A FULL PLENARY HEARING ON THE MERITS.