[brief] I.  THE STATE HAS FAILED TO OVERCOME THE DEFENDANT’S REASONS WHY THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN DETERMINING THAT N.J.S.A. 4:22 – 24(a)(2) AND N.J.S.A. 4:22 – 17(C)(3)  DO NOT VIOLATE THE UNITED STATES AND NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTIONS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY.  (Argued Below Da60 – Da64).  a.  THE STATE CANNOT RE-WRITE N.J.S.A. 4:22 – 24 ON AN EX POST FACTO BASIS.  N.J.S.A. 4:22 – 24(a)(2), is a strict liability offense and, in its entirety, provides as follows:  a.  A person who shall: (2)  Be present and witness, pay admission to, encourage or assist therein; ...Shall be guilty of a crime of the third degree.  The State (Executive Branch) and the trial court (Judicial Branch) cannot add the word “or” to N.J.S.A. 4:22 – 24(a)(1) on an *ex post facto* basis (or any basis for that matter) to save N.J.S.A. 4:22 – 24(a)(2) from constitutional invalidity *(Pb5)*.  Only the Legislature can create or amend legislation (especially criminal legislation) and it cannot do so on an *ex post facto* basis.  See United States Constitution, Article I, §9, cl. 3 and New Jersey Constitution 1947, Article IV, §VII, cl. 3.  While the Legislature is free to amend N.J.S.A. 4:22 – 24 in the future, this Defendant must be prosecuted based exclusively upon the way it existed at the time of the alleged offense.  As such, N.J.S.A. 4:22 – 24 is unconstitutionally void and / or unconstitutionally vague.  **b.  A REASONABLE PERSON IS NOT OBLIGATED TO SCOUR THE INTERNET AND 49 OTHER STATE’S STATUTES TO BE PLACED ON NOTICE OF THIS STATE’S CRIMINAL LAWS. **  A vagueness challenge may invalidate a criminal statute on two independent grounds: (1) it may fail to provide adequate notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits; and (2) it may authorize or encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.  *City of Chicago v. Morales*, 527 U.S. 41, 56 (1999).  A statute is unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause if it “(1) ‘fails to provide people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct it prohibits'; or (2) ‘authorizes or even encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. ”  *Hill v. Colorado*, 530 U.S. 703, 732 (2000)).  The void-for-vagueness doctrine reflects the fundamental principle that, in order to comply with the requirements of due process, a statute must give fair warning of the conduct that it prohibits.  See *Bouie v. City of Columbia*, 378 U.S. 347, 351 (1964)  A statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law....”  See Id.  The State (represented in this proceeding by the [...]) performs a Yeoman’s task of scouring the internet for dictionaries and the laws of 49 other states (and Guam and Puerto Rico) to cobble together a menagerie of laws and definitions that have absolutely nothing to with any of the constitutionally invalid statutes before this Court.  In this State, people of ordinary intelligence (a First Assistant County Prosecutor is not such a person\(^1\)) are entitled to reasonable notice and fair warning of the criminal laws of this state.