ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[directive] Note:  Participants using 5-shot weapons will fire a total of 50 rounds when completing this course (HQC1).  These participants will fire the number of rounds indicated for each drill until all rounds within the weapon have been expended.  The total number of rounds fired in all but two phases (Phases II and V) must be adjusted to accommodate 5-shot weapons.  To achieve a passing score of 80%, participants using 5-shot weapons and firing a 50-round course must place a minimum of 40 shots within the border of the Q- target silhouette.  9-39 Revised (5/03)
[brief] Furthermore, undersigned counsel stressed repeatedly throughout discussions at multiple settlement conferences that any resolution reached would not be “global” as to all claims, but only as to the probate case. \(^3\)  While the bulk of these discussions were held off of the record, the Honorable [...], \(^3\)  Full copies of the settlement conference transcripts were originally provided as part of Appellant’s Appendix.  However, they were removed in accordance with the Court’s deficiency notice of May 21, 2024.  Small, relevant excerpts of those transcripts are included in the body of this brief because they are germane to Appellant’s arguments.  Appellant would be more than happy to provide the full transcripts again, if the Court would find same useful.  J.S.C. confirmed that the releases would only apply to that specific case when he stated the following Transcript of Settlement Conference, April 27, 2022, p.9:10-12.  Undersigned counsel again made it clear at a subsequent conference on May 4, 2022 that only [...] was entering into the settlement agreement for the claims in that specific case, which did not include ANY legal claims for statutory liability for the environmental contamination.  Extensive conversations to that effect were held off the record.  Counsel also made clear that [...] was the only person/entity releasing any claims in that settlement: Transcript of Settlement Conference, May 4, 2022, p.6:11-16.  [...]’ environmental claims were not resolved at that time.  Additionally, [...], the current owner of the Property, was never a party to any of these prior proceedings at any time.  [...] also was not in direct privity with [...] or any of the [...].  As detailed in the chronological timeline of events set forth above, statutory liability under the Spill Act was never adjudicated and Appellant’s legal claims for monetary relief arising out of the environmental contamination at the property were never heard.
[brief] Furthermore, the court’s unwarranted presumption ignores that the policy dispenses with parental notification whenever there is a reasonable belief that notification would place a student at risk of abuse or neglect (Da110).  The court also ignored that “keeping parents uninformed and unaware of significant events that beg for medical and psychological experts to evaluate a child … is likely to cause greater harm. …”  Mirabelli, 2023 WL 5976992, at *14.  The trial court’s approach of excluding parents “is dramatically inconsistent with respected medical opinions.
[brief] She further explained that the formatting of the second agreement presented by the Appellants had other clear errors.  [212a, 271a-278a]  “first of all, I notice now reading further that margins everywhere are justified, but in just this one paragraph they are not justified.  And when you highlight the page to justify or not, you highlight the whole page, you don’t pick and choose one paragraph which does not align with the rest. ”  [212a, 271a-278a]  She explained both in her deposition and in her court testimony the arbitration language was copied from another document and placed into this agreement.  “I look at the agreement and I was comparing how it’s being written down the full margin and everything.  Look at arbitration as mandatory, how come it does not look like others?  Can you see the difference?  Can you see the other paragraph, it does not look the same. ”  [212a, 273a]  She continued, “everything, spacing, typeface, everything is different.  It looks like it’s copy and paste into that.  You can examine the document yourself it does not look like that. ”  [212a, 273a-274a][1T P55:L7-P57:L21]  She explained the formatting of the paragraph that includes arbitration language has a variety of differences from the balance of the document.  After this explanation she testified, “the first thing I noticed, it is happening the same which is happening in the previous agreement.  They are copying and pasting into the agreement.  Keeping the last page the same and tried to tell the court that this is my employment agreement, this is try number two. ”  [212a, 275a]  She also explained in some detail the harassment and discrimination.
[brief] (Pa000126).  26.  Plaintiff [...] brought this action on his own behalf and additionally, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a subclass (the “Subclass”) of [...] customers in New Jersey, who were charged and paid fees to [...] in excess of those agreed to in their Merchant Agreements with [...], by virtue of the wrongdoing described herein.
[brief] The plain language of the exemption makes clear that upgrades to existing utility systems, provided that those upgrades are consistent with the goals and purposes of the Highlands Act, are exempt from the Highlands Act, NJDEP’s implementing rules, and the Highlands Regional Master Plan.  N.J.S.A. 13:20–28(a)(11).  The NJDEP has consistently interpreted the exemption to apply to upgrades to utility systems.
[brief] This Court finds the element of meeting of the minds was proven by [...] at trial.  [Da43-44 (emphasis added)].  2.  Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration.  The trial court also found that, on April 26, 2013, [...], in response to his friend’s tearful plea and after [...] “begged [...] to work-out a solution concerning how to handle the still outstanding balance due and owing to [...],” offered to extend a new and distinct loan to [...] reflecting a discounted principal sum.  Da19-21, Da45.  The trial court found that [...] gladly accepted the offer, thanking [...] profusely.  Da46.  Significantly, the trial court found that, by his August 7, 2013 email, [...] “confirm[ed] the third loan and the principal balance thereof. ”  Da46; see also Da43-44.  With respect to consideration, the trial court correctly found that “[c]onsideration can be a benefit to one party or loss of a benefit to the other party[,]” and that an exchange of consideration occurs when “something of value [is] bargained for. ”  Da46 (citing Shebar v. Sanyo Bus. Sys. Corpo., 111 N.J. 276, 289 (1988)).
[brief] (Da144 & T1, 21:7-8).  Even if natural attenuation is attempted, Plaintiff’s LSRP made clear that it would be at least two (2) years before he was able to determine if such a process effectively removed the contamination.  (T1, 18:24-19).  The Mayor, an epidemiologist and pathologist, expressed concern that the Property’s contamination created a health risk due to the association with cancer.  (T1, 26:18-27:1).  Ultimately, the [...] voted to recommend designating the Property as a Condemnation Redevelopment Area pursuant to criterion (b) and (d) but proposed that condemnation not be used unless the Plaintiff failed to timely remediate the Property.
[brief] Fourth, the Parental Secrecy Policy impermissibly reverses the constitutionally mandated presumptions of parental fitness and affection in violation of both substantive and procedural due process.  *Parham*, 442 U.S. at 602; see also *Troxel*, 530 U.S. at 68 (reversing visitation decision that failed to presume parental fitness and affection) (plurality op.); *Stanley v. Illinois*, 405 U.S. 645, 658 (1972) (invalidating statute that presumed unmarried fathers were unfit parents); *Doe v. Heck*, 327 F.3d 492, 521 (7th Cir. 2003) (holding parents’ rights violated where state actors “not only failed to presume that . . . parents would act in the best interest of their children, they assumed the exact opposite”); see also *Mathews v. Eldridge*, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (noting that the “fundamental requirement of [procedural] due process” is notice and an opportunity to be heard).
[brief] Similarly, the Application requests, “information that relates to the Applicant’s qualifications to operate a cannabis related business, including, but not limited to experience in the cannabis industry and/or other highly regulated industries. ”  (56a.)  - The Evaluation Sheet requests the “[r]esults of Applicant’s background check conducted by the [...]. ”  (63a.)  Similarly, the Application provides that, “[a]pplications will be sent to the [...] for background check processing.  Following review and approval by the [...]. ”  (48a.)  - The Evaluation Sheet requests, “Applicant’s written commitment to employ Borough residents in at least 50% of full-time equivalent positions. ”  (63a.).  Similarly, the Application asks the applicants to “[d]escribe the Applicant’s plans to hire local residents as employees in the proposed facility.  Please include the proposed percentage of such employees and the proposed positions. ”  (55a.)  -  The Evaluation Sheet requests information about the applicant’s “ties to the Borough, demonstrated by at least one owner’s proof of residency in the Borough for five or more years or at least one owner’s continuous ownership of a business based on the Borough for five or more years in the past ten years.
[brief] (Da19).  [...] filed an order to show cause seeking his reinstatement, which the court denied in January 2019.  (Da19).  In 2018, [...] retained new counsel – [...] – after his removal, who filed serial motions related to stopping [...]’s sale, including seeking to permit [...] to obtain a loan to “secure” the judgment using [...] as collateral, seeking to gain access to sensitive information concerning the sale process, and to stop the sale and “reset” the powers of the special fiscal agent.  (Da19).  Plaintiff opposed the motions, and they were denied.  (Da19).  In June 2019, [...] retained yet another firm – [...].  (Da19).  That firm filed an additional series of applications seeking to permit [...] and [...] to “secure” the judgment using a loan from a third-party lender secured by [...] and [...]’s forfeited [...] mansion (assets that [...] and [...] had no right to pledge to a lender because they had already been pledged and forfeited to Plaintiff).  (Da19).  The applications were premised again on the contention that they had no liquid assets available to secure/pay the judgment, which was not true.  The motions to obtain a loan to secure the judgment through a third-party were not viable for several reasons.
[brief] In August 2010, Morris Plains Engineer [...] advised the Board of Adjustment that he had become aware of "an elevation issue relating to the construction of the new 15,000 SF building in relation to the existing 20,000 SF building."  [...] told the Board that he asked the applicant for an as-built survey, which revealed that the new building was "approximately 2.5 feet lower in relation to the existing 20,000 SF building than what the approved site plan had shown in the past."  [...] found this discrepancy significant enough to stop all work and require an amended application to the Board by [...].
[brief] Pa95 o Exhibit G, True copy of Defendant’s Expert Report of [...] Pa100 o Exhibit H, true copies of the Certification of [...] of the [...] Pa110 o Exhibit L, True copies of Plaintiff’s Deposition, Exhibit P32, the “academic probation Spring 14: Report Pa115 o Exhibit M, True copy of Plaintiff’s Deposition, Exhibit P33, the June 23, 2014 letter advising Plaintiff of his probation  Pa117 o Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment  Pa119 o Plaintiff [...]’s Counterstatement of Material Facts Pursuant to Rule 4:46-2(b)
[brief] Page(s)  Stelluti v. Casapenn Enters., LLC, 203 N.J. 286 (2010)  .................................................................  19, 21, 22, 24 Vector Foiltec LLC v. Becker, No. A-3293-22, 2024 WL 3153194 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. June 25, 2024)  ...........................................  18  Vitale v. Schering-Plough Corp., 231 N.J. 234 (2017)  ............................................................................  20  Williams v. Ysabel, No. A-1391-22, 2023 WL 5768422 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Sept. 7, 2023)..................................................12, 30  Wollen v. Gulf Stream Restoration & Cleaning, LLC, 468 N.J. Super. 483 (App. Div. 2021)  ..................................................  28  STATUTES
[directive] If the crime involves a N.J.S.A. violation of 2C:24-4b(3) (causes or permits child to engage in sexual act that is to be photographed or N.J.S.A. exhibited), if the crime was committed on or after February 1, 2018, 2C:24-4b(4) (photographs or N.J.S.A. films a child in sexual act), if the crime was committed on or after February 1, 2018, 2C:24-4b(5)(b) N.J.S.A. (knowingly possessing or knowingly viewing child pornography), 2C:24-4.1 (leader of a child N.J.S.A. pornography network), if the crime was committed on or after February 1, 2018, 2C:34-3 (selling, N.J.S.A. distributing or exhibiting obscene material to a person under age 18) or an offense involving computer criminal activity in violation of any provision of Title 2C, chapter 20, you will be assessed a mandatory penalty as listed below for each offense for which you pled guilty?  (1)  $2,000 in the case of a 1st degree crime (2) $1,000 in the case of a 2nd degree crime (3) $ 750 in the case of a 3rd degree crime (4) $ 500 in the case of a 4th degree crime (5)
[directive] Supplemental the revision to The CEDs, of costs purchase the reduce both to intended is camera CED internal an of lieu in be used to cameras. worn body deploy and acquire to departments encourage to and ENERGY CONDUCTED ON POLICY SUPPLEMENTAL TO REVISIONS  2.  DEVICES on Policy Supplemental  General Attorney the of XI, and VIII, VII, VI, V, I, Sections follows' as to read amended hereby are 2010)
[brief] (3T81-6 to 82-22).  The “frightened” [...] then either flagged down or tapped on the car hood of [...], who was slowly driving because of traffic, east-bound on Clinton Avenue, and told the captain that “the store across the street was being robbed,” pointing to the 99-cent store.  (3T35-14 to 40-14; 3T82-17 to 84-6).  [...] radioed other units, turned on his unmarked car’s overhead lights, and then parked his car, blocking traffic on Clinton Avenue both ways.  (3T40-15 to 43-12).  [...] exited his car, approached the front door of the 99-cent store, and then took out his service revolver, holding it in a ready position, downwards.  [...] saw defendant approaching the door, holding a gun that appeared to be a Glock.  In “immediate fear that [defendant] was going to kill him,” [...] fired a shot.
[brief] In so doing, the trial court granted only Respondents’ motions to dismiss *without* prejudice and to compel Dr.  Murray to arbitration instead to adjudicate her claims there, rather than in court.  *NAACP* is thus inapposite because there, --- ¹  In light of this standard, and as discussed further (*infra* Part III(E)), [...] did not establish grounds for reversal by complaining that the trial court did not provide a sufficient statement of reasons and must have, therefore, failed to consider her arguments or her certification related to the circumstances surrounding when she signed the Agreement.
[brief] “Whether a party has standing to pursue a claim is a question of law subject to de novo review. ”  Cherokee LCP Land, LLC v. City of Linden Planning Bd., 234 N.J. 403, 414-15 (2018) (citations omitted).  It is a well-established rule that “a shareholder – even the sole shareholder – does not have standing to assert claims alleging wrongs to the corporation.
[brief] The undisputed evidence presented at trial showed that an annulment was warranted and due to plaintiff on ground of fraud, or because there was “a lack of mutual assent to the marital relationship,” Faustin, supra, 85 N.J. 510 (considering sham marriage entered into knowingly by both parties as qualifying for annulment; “We conclude that plaintiff’s marriage, entered into for the sole purpose of securing permanent residence in the United States, clearly falls within the language of the 1971 amendment to paragraph (d).
[brief] Respondents also argue that it might be impossible to obtain consent of a previously designated redeveloper who becomes defunct.  However, that consent could be obtained from the current project owner and, failing that, by application to a Court.  Nor does a redeveloper have an absolute “veto” (*Ocean Brief*, at p. 40), because any refusal to consent would be tested under the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  **POINT III**
[brief] ”  Hyatt Corp. v. Occidental Fire & Cas. Co. of N.C., 801 S.W.2d 382, 393–94 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990) (citing City of Ypsilanti v. Appalachian Ins. Co., 547 F. Supp. 823, 828 (E.D. Mich. 1982), aff’d mem., 725 F.2d 682 (6th Cir. 1983)); accord Hollybrook Cottonseed Processing, L.L.C. v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 772 F.3d 1031, 1036 (5th Cir. 2014) (statutory award of attorneys’ fees held to constitute insured “damages”); XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. Loral Space & Commc’n, Inc., 918 N.Y.S.2d 57, 62 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dept. 2011) (same); Neal-Pettit v. Lahman, 928 N.E.2d 421, 424 (Ohio 2010) (same); Pac. Ins. Co. v. Burnet Title, Inc., 380 F.3d 1061, 1066 (8th Cir. 2004) (same); Sokolowski on Behalf of M.M. & P. Pension Plan v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 670 F. Supp. 1199, 1210 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (same).
[directive] Nothing in this document displaces other existing requirements for law enforcement agencies or officers, such as those established by Attorney General Law Enforcement Directives (“AG Directives”), including AG Directive 2018-2 (mandatory random drug testing), AG Directive 2018-3 (mandatory early warning systems), and AG Directive 2019-4 (independent investigations of use-of-force and death-in-custody incidents).  1.0.9  Policy requirements that the Attorney General has determined are critical and must be implemented by every law enforcement agency include the following:  General Practices  (a)  Each agency must establish by written policy an internal affairs function.  (b)  Each agency must accept reports of officer misconduct from any person, including anonymous sources, at any time.  2  INTERNAL AFFAIRS POLICY & PROCEDURES | August 2020
[brief] Pa243-244.  On October 30, 2023, Plaintiff then served a new notice of deposition upon all defendants’ counsel to take the remote deposition of [...] on November 28, 2023.  Pa257-258.  That same day, Plaintiff served a notice to take the deposition of a corporate representative of [...] and [...], and [...] and [...] produced such a corporate representative, [...], for deposition.  Pa251-254, 369-371.  On November 9, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel advised that he no longer wished to take [...]’s deposition remotely and was therefore adjourning the deposition to take place in New Jersey on December 7, 2023.
[brief] The *Clarksburg Inn* Court related the following in regard to a governing body’s authority to pass anti-noise Ordinances:  “The governing body of every municipality may make, amend, repeal and enforce ordinances to preserve the public peace and order, and to prevent disturbing noises. ”  Id. at 633.  The Court then cited to N.J.S.A. 40:48-1.  Ibid.  See also *State v. Powell*, 250 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 1991) (Court upheld a municipal governing body’s “noise pollution” Ordinance of the [...]).  Hence, there is clear unambiguous statutory authority for municipal governing bodies to make, amend, repeal and enforce ordinances to “prevent disturbing noises” even going so far as to refer to same as “nuisances”.  See *Bynum*, 181 N.J. Super. at 6.  Again, this Court has repeatedly upheld such ordinances and has done so stating that the authority for these ordinances is the Home Rule Act.
[brief] Defendants have taken the arbitrary position that post-November 9, 2016 retirees are subject to a terminal leave cap of $15,000.  (231a-232a); (238a-239a).  However, pre-November 9, 2016 retirees are entitled to uncapped terminal leave.  Ibid.  Some post-November 9, 2016 retirees received deferred compensation payments either well in excess of (i.e., $150,000) or comparable to (i.e., $93,286.32 & $57,716.54) what Plaintiffs seek as part of this lawsuit.  (418a-421a).  Further, after November 9, 2016, Defendants made approximately 18 payments to sworn law enforcement of accrued vacation leave that were in excess of $15,000, with some payments in excess of $45,000.  (422a-427a).  Based upon the foregoing, the Trial Court erred when it reconsidered Defendants' R. 4:6-2e motion.
[brief] Plaintiff’s Complaint filed 8/4/23  Defendants' Notice of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint  Pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e) filed 10/13/23  Certification of [...], Esq.  In support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint filed 10/13/23, with attached:  Exhibit A - Plaintiff’s Complaint (reproduced Herein at pp. Pa1-Pa9)  Exhibit B - Stipulation Extending Time to Answer (mislabeled as Exhibit A)  Pa15  Exhibit C - [...] Deed in Deed Book 8400, Page 34, for premises at [...]  Pa16  Exhibit D - 5/11/2012  Mortgage, [...] To [...] in Book V1058, Page 4, securing $134,000  Pa18 Exhibit E - 5/11/12  Mortgage marked cancelled  On 1/29/2018  Pa20  Exhibit F - Adversary Complaint for Avoidance and Transfer of Property filed 1/30/20 in US Bankruptcy Court [...] with attached:  Pa24¹  ¹All of the documents included in this Appendix that were filed in US Bankruptcy Court [...] were before the trial court.  EXHIBIT A - Four Year Pre-Petition Analysis - [...]  Exhibit G - Plaintiff’s Answer to Adversary Complaint filed 3/27/2020  Exhibit H - 1/24/2022  Mortgage, [...] to [...], recorded 6/5/2023 in Mortgage Book V5007, Page 64, securing $97,000  Exhibit I - Unpublished Opinion in Wells Fargo Bank v.  NJ Prop. Group, 2020 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1130  8/10/2022  Consent Order Resolving Complaint for Avoidance of Payments entered in the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey, [...]  Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion to Amend Complaint filed 11/6/2023 with attached proposed Amended Foreclosure Complaint Certification of [...], Esq. with attached  Trustee’s Proposed Distribution in Bankruptcy Case #18-1220 (JKS) filed 11/6/23  Trustee’s Final Report (TFR)  Bankruptcy Case #18-1220 (JKS)  FILED 7/10/23  Form 1, Individual Estate Property Record and Report Asset Cases, Bankruptcy [...] filed 7/10/23  Form 2, Cash Receipts and Disbursements Record, Bankruptcy [...] filed 7/10/23  EXHIBIT C - Claims Register - [...]  Bankruptcy [...] filed 7/10/23  Order granting defendants’ Motion to Dismiss entered 1/22/2023(sic)  Attachment to 1/22/2023  Order granting defendants’ Motion to Dismiss  Order denying plaintiff’s Cross-Motion to Amend  Complaint entered 1/22/2023(sic)  Notice of Appeal filed 3/1/2024  Transcript Request Form filed 3/1/24  Certification of Transcript Completion and Delivery filed 3/18/2024  | Cases Cited | Page# | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------| | Anske v. Palisades Park, 139 N.J. Super. 342, 348, 354 (App. Div. 1976) | 22 | | Associates Commercial Corp. v. Wallis, 211 N.J. Super. 231, 243 (App. Div. 1986) | 23 | | Atwater v. Underhill, 22 N.J. Eq. 599, 602 (E.& A. 1872) | 3, 20 | | Banta v. Vreeland, 15 N.J. Eq. 103 (Ch. 1862) | 18,19 | | Baskin v. P.C. Richard & Son LLC, 246 N.J.
[brief] | |---|---| | a. | App. Exh. “A”&“B” – See App. Exh. “A”&“B” for Exh.  “K”.  --- | | b. | Appendix Exhibit “D” – [...]’s Feb. 16, 2022, Letter to [...] to Avoid Any 3-Way Settlement w/[...] 353a  | | | Exhibit “X” is [...]’ Nov. 9, 2022 Certification in Opposition to [...]’s Nov. 4th Certification (legal fees)  | |---|---| | | Exhibit “Y” is [...]’s Nov. 16, 2022 Cert. Reply to. Ross’ Oppositions to legal/accounting/commission fees, Ambrose’s Opposition to legal fees, & our Oppositions to Trust Reserve.