[brief] The post-judgment orders being appealed in the instant docket not only infringe upon cherished rights such as liberty interest in international travel and procedural due process rights but also run afoul of multiple Court Rules – Rule 1:7-4(a), Rule 2:9-1, Rule 5:5-4(a)(1), Rule 1:5-3, and Rule 2:5-3(c) as argued under the respective legal points.  The January 12, 2024 trial court order (Pa1149) directing the parties to deposit their and the child’s passports with the court within 5 days that was issued without any hearing lacks a statement of findings of facts and conclusions of law in support of the decision and is inexplicably contrary to the trial court’s factual finding that defendant failed to provide any evidence for her claim that plaintiff was about to flee the country.  (Pa1148).  The motion judge failed to exercise due diligence and violated Rule 2:9-1 by modifying the March 1, 2023 Judgement Of Divorce (JOD) order and the June 6, 2023 orders which are pending appeal before this court in Docket # [...].  Trial court also failed to enforce litigant’s rights of plaintiff by overlooking defendant’s contumacy in intentionally violating the provision of the Judgement of Divorce directing parties to claim the child tax credit in alternate years.  Further, the judge effectively fabricated a new Court Rule on the fly that a movant must provide USPS tracking number of service of the motion on the adversary as a prerequisite for motion hearing or adjudication.  Needless to add, the judge did not have the legal authority to do so.  Regarding the matter of abbreviation of transcript in Docket # [...], I first note that this court unreasonably created hurdles (Pa1057-58) in my ability to comply with Rule 2:5-3(c)(2).  Those hurdles were dismantled only after the Supreme Court of New Jersey summarily remanded the matter to the trial court for consideration of a renewed motion to abbreviate trial transcript by its order (Pa1267) on my motion for leave to appeal.  Trial court’s May 3, 2024 order (Pa1331) denying the renewed motion to abbreviate transcript is a testament to the motion judge’s utter failure to grasp the gist of Rule 2:5-3(c), application of irrelevant factors such as the length of the divorce trial or the number of pages in the JOD decision, and failure to apply the correct legal standard for abbreviation of transcript.  Further, the trial court’s failure to address or even acknowledge plaintiff’s core argument in the moving certification strongly suggests that the judge adjudicated the motion without earnestly reading the motion certification and properly considering the arguments advanced in favor of abbreviation of transcript.  Trial court rationalized its decision by resorting to conclusory statements that do not comply with the requirements of Rule 1:7-4(a).  More disconcerting than the multitude of legal errors in the orders being appealed is the motion judge’s pronounced propensity, too conspicuous to be missed, to cut corners, expediently evade the dutiful discharge of his judicial responsibilities, and needlessly delay the resolution of the issues raised by the litigants in complete disregard of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.