- Jurisdiction
- New Jersey
Introduction
The Freehold Superior Court, tasked with upholding justice and fairness, has shown alarming flaws and biases in my case against Stonehurst Association, Inc. Despite presenting substantial evidence and pointing out significant procedural errors, the court has consistently ruled in favor of the plaintiff, raising serious concerns about the integrity and fairness of the judicial system.
Regarding the principle, "It is impossible to prove jurisdiction exists absent a substantial nexus with the state, such a voluntary subscription to license. All jurisdictional facts supporting the claim that supposed jurisdiction exists must appear on the record of the court," it is essential to consider that jurisdiction must be established based on clear and substantial connections with the forum state. While this specific language is not directly from "Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno," it echoes the principle established in "International Shoe Co. v. Washington," which requires minimum contact with the forum state for jurisdiction to be valid. The absence of a contractor contract, certifications, substantial invoices, or any form of payment further supports the argument of no jurisdiction and lack of standing in this case, making it perplexing how Judge was able to issue a decision based on these factors.
Recent Judicial Decisions and Their Impact
Despite presenting all these key points and evidence, Judge recently denied my motion for dismissal and my motion to vacate the judgment and writ of execution. Furthermore, she has granted the opposing party's motion to turn over my funds. This decision further exemplifies the flawed nature of the judicial process in this case and highlights a severe lack of regard for substantial evidence and procedural fairness.
Note: Certain information REDACTED to protect the operator of this site.
The Freehold Superior Court, tasked with upholding justice and fairness, has shown alarming flaws and biases in my case against Stonehurst Association, Inc. Despite presenting substantial evidence and pointing out significant procedural errors, the court has consistently ruled in favor of the plaintiff, raising serious concerns about the integrity and fairness of the judicial system.
- Misrepresentation and Procedural Burden: The plaintiff has engaged in extensive misuse of the judicial system, filing numerous motions for adjournments, reassignments of judges, and continuous filings aimed at overturning Judge McCarthy's decisions which were unfavorable to them. These actions have unduly burdened the court system, contrasting sharply with their accusations against me of procedural impropriety.
- Disregard for Judicial Decisions: The plaintiff has consistently disregarded the clear directives and decisions from Judge McCarthy, especially those denials that concluded lack of standing and controversy. This pattern of behavior suggests a strategic attempt to sidestep established judicial rulings that do not benefit their case, effectively turning this process into a "Kangaroo Court."
- Insubstantial Evidence Over Extended Periods: For over 3.5 years, the plaintiff has failed to substantiate their claims with concrete evidence, relying instead on provisional estimates and incomplete documentation to support their claims about the property and alleged damages. Notably, there has been no contractor contract, no certifications from a contractor, no substantial invoices, or any form of payment, which are crucial to establishing the validity of their claims.
- Illegal Entry and Signature Forgery: The plaintiff engaged in illegal entry into my unit without my consent, which is a violation of my rights and the association's by-laws. Furthermore, there are serious concerns about signature forgery on key documents, further questioning the legitimacy of the plaintiff's claims. This was noted by Judge McCarthy, further highlighting the deficiencies in the plaintiff's case.
- Lack of Contractor Certification and No Factual Forms of Payment: The plaintiff has not provided any contractor certification or original signed forms of payment, which are crucial to substantiate their claims. This omission was noted by Judge further highlighting the deficiencies in the plaintiff's case.
- Fulfilling Financial Obligations: The unit in question was sold on September 8, 2023, and all fees were satisfied as per decisions. This fact undermines any claims of procedural impropriety on my part.
- Misleading the Court: The plaintiff's opposition fails to acknowledge their own procedural missteps, including the need for a corrected writ due to initial errors, which demonstrates a pattern of carelessness and misrepresentation. They have burdened the court system by repeatedly filing motions because they were not happy with decisions.
- Pending Hearing on June 7th: We have not concluded any upcoming hearings which have been scheduled for June 7th regarding the writ of execution and turnover of funds. This further demonstrates that the plaintiff's accusations of procedural impropriety on my part are unfounded and misleading.
- Consistency in My Story and Compliance with Court Directives: Throughout the ongoing litigation, my story has never changed. This unwavering adherence to the court's instructions contrasts sharply with the plaintiff's inconsistent and evolving claims.
- Flaws in Plaintiff's Complaint: The complaint contains several critical flaws, including misrepresentation of the status and resolution of property issues and inaccuracies in the documentation presented as evidence.
- Lack of Jurisdiction and Standing: The court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter as the plaintiff has failed to establish standing, evidenced by the previous denials of claims by Jurist.
- Procedural Errors: There have been significant procedural errors throughout the case, including the failure to properly notify and involve me in critical stages of the proceedings, which has denied me the opportunity to adequately defend myself.
- Misrepresentation of Evidence: The plaintiff has consistently misrepresented the nature and extent of the alleged damages and has failed to provide genuine evidence supporting their claims, relying instead on estimates and unsubstantiated assertions.
- Prior Judicial Decisions Ignored: Previous judicial decisions, denying the plaintiff's claims for lack of standing and controversy, have not been adequately considered or adhered to in the current proceedings.
- Denial of Due Process: My right to a fair hearing has been compromised by the court's oversight of substantial and pertinent evidence which I have submitted in my defense, as well as by procedural missteps that have not been addressed.
- Introduction of New Evidence: someone has confirmed that the leak has been repaired (June 8, 2021), yet the plaintiff has failed to produce the repair invoice (Nov. 6, 2020). The repair invoice and confirmation email were omitted from previous filings. This starkly contrasts with the plaintiff's claim that their submissions were complete and substantial.
- Correcting Misrepresentations and Addressing Procedural Anomalies: Specific instances where the plaintiff's actions have potentially misled the court or misrepresented facts are detailed, including issues of illegal entry, signature forgery, and the lack of contractor certification. This directly contrasts with the plaintiff's portrayal of their actions as procedurally proper and transparent.
- Concerns of a "Kangaroo Court": The plaintiff's actions suggest a strategic attempt to sidestep unfavorable decisions and manipulate the judicial process, effectively turning this process into a "Kangaroo Court." Their continuous filings and disregard for established judicial rulings highlight a lack of respect for the court system and due process. This is in stark contrast to their portrayal of a fair and diligent pursuit of justice.
- New Jersey Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: This act prevents debt collectors from using abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices. It particularly prohibits the misrepresentation of the character, amount, or legal status of any debt.
- Procedural Requirements for Writ of Execution: Under New Jersey law, a writ of execution must be based on a valid and enforceable judgment, correctly identifying the amount and nature of the debt, and must comply with all procedural safeguards designed to protect debtor rights.
- Exemptions for Escrow Funds: Specific protections under New Jersey law may exempt escrow funds, especially if they are linked to a primary residence or necessary for the completion of a real estate transaction.
- N.J.R.E. 104 (Rule on Preliminary Questions): This rule governs the admissibility of evidence and ensures fairness in proceedings.
Regarding the principle, "It is impossible to prove jurisdiction exists absent a substantial nexus with the state, such a voluntary subscription to license. All jurisdictional facts supporting the claim that supposed jurisdiction exists must appear on the record of the court," it is essential to consider that jurisdiction must be established based on clear and substantial connections with the forum state. While this specific language is not directly from "Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno," it echoes the principle established in "International Shoe Co. v. Washington," which requires minimum contact with the forum state for jurisdiction to be valid. The absence of a contractor contract, certifications, substantial invoices, or any form of payment further supports the argument of no jurisdiction and lack of standing in this case, making it perplexing how Judge was able to issue a decision based on these factors.
Recent Judicial Decisions and Their Impact
Despite presenting all these key points and evidence, Judge recently denied my motion for dismissal and my motion to vacate the judgment and writ of execution. Furthermore, she has granted the opposing party's motion to turn over my funds. This decision further exemplifies the flawed nature of the judicial process in this case and highlights a severe lack of regard for substantial evidence and procedural fairness.
Conclusion
The integrity of our judicial system is at stake, and I implore the court and the public to take swift and decisive action to rectify these injustices and restore confidence in our legal institutions.Note: Certain information REDACTED to protect the operator of this site.
