ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[directive] •  If the registrant does appear via video or phone, the court should review the on record the registrant's desire to proceed prose.  •  If the registrant does not appear at the court proceeding and the registrant indicated that he or she was not contesting the matter, or there confirmation is that the registrant received the notice the scheduled court date, for example on the mail was not returned or staff spoke to the registrant, the court may consider proceeding with the matter as a default case.
[brief] 319 | 7 | | Walid v. Yolanda for Irene Couture, Inc., 425 N.J. Super. 171 (App. Div. 2012) | 5 | | Zoning Board of ADJ v. Service Electric Cable TV, 198 N.J. Super. at 370, 381 (App. Div. 1985) | 8 | ## Rules & Statutes | Citation | Page | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | N.J.A.C. 11:5-9A.6(a) | 14 | | N.J.S.A. 45:15-16.59(a) | 11,12| | N.J.S.A. 45:15-16.59(b) | 12 | | N.J.S.A. 45:15-16.80(b) | 11,12| ## Other Citations | Citation | Page | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | Black’s Law Dictionary, (11th Ed. 2019) | 12 | PRELIMINARY STATEMENT There is no question that at this point in the litigation, [...] is fighting for its life after three different Judges heard multiple motions based on the Parol Evidence Rule and refused to apply that substantive rule of law.
[brief] THE TRIAL COURT ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECISION THAT THE COURT IS NOT TO ENGAGE IN WEIGHING OF THE EVIDENCE AND THEN PROCEEDED TO ENGAGE IN WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE AS WELL AS DISCOUNTING OF THE EVIDENCE TO THE APPELLANT’S DETRIMENT.  Pa144, Pa113  An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is “made without a rational explanation, an inexplicable departure from established policies, or rests on an impermissible basis.
[directive] 적용된다면, 어느 것입니까?  If so, which one?  날짜/Date 피고인/Defendant 피고측 변호인/Defense Attorney 검사/Prosecutor 지령 제01-18호(02/23/2018)에  의거 공포된 양식, 페이지2/2  CN 11172-Korean Form Promulgated by Directive #01-18, (02/23/2018), CN 11172-Korean page 2 of 2  AVISO:  Este é um documento público, o que significa que o documento tal como apresentado estará disponível ao público mediante solicitação.  Portanto, não inclua dados de identificação pessoal, tais como número de Social Security, número da carteira de motorista, número da placa do veículo, número da apólice de seguro, número de conta financeira ativa ou número de cartão de crédito ativo.  NOTICE:  This is a public document, which means the document as submitted will be available to the public upon request.  Therefore, do not enter personal identifiers on it, such as Social Security number, driver’s license number, vehicle plate number, insurance policy number, active financial account number, or active credit card number.
[brief] ”  \(^{33}\)  See In the Matter of Jack L. Seelig, 180 N.J. 234 (2004).  If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures.  A lawyer shall not fail to disclose to the tribunal a material fact with knowledge that the tribunal may tend to be misled by such failure.  \(^{34}\)  See Triffin v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., 411 N.J.Super. 292, 986 A.2d 8 (2010); see also Baxter v. Bressman, 874 F.3d 142, 2017 U.S.App. (A court may set aside a judgment based upon its finding of fraud on the court when an officer of the court has engaged in egregious misconduct.
[directive] Similarly, am this Directive. of VII Section in described as efforts education the distribute website public and its on Standards post the Criminal to Justice of Division Police.  Jersey including New State the agencies, enforcement law all state document to Agencies Enforcement Law by Assault Incidents  Sexual of Notification Immediate I.  Offices  Prosecutors' County to local agencies—including state multiple involve often investigations  Sexual assault crucial Offices—and is it Prosecutor's and County offices, examiner medical departments, police handled is investigation ensure each that seamlessly to together work agencies these that chief law the as Offices, Prosecutor's County objectively. and promptly, thoroughly, role.
[brief] Furthermore, [...]’s Rules on claim and party joinder provide that a Demand for Arbitration shall include claims for only one accident unless the claims are for the same injured person.  Ibid.  A Demand for Arbitration shall include the claims of only one injured person, except that one Demand for Arbitration may include the claims of a maximum of four injured persons who occupied the same vehicle on the same date of accident.  Ibid.  Here, [...]’s complaint seeks damages related to fraudulent treatment in over 800 medical claims due to a conspiracy among thirty-six defendants.  (Pa23-34; Pa123-44).  The defendants include non-medical provider corporations, and a layperson and attorney, who are not insureds or injured persons.  Within these confines, [...]’s IFPA claims cannot be heard according to [...]’s Rules.
[brief] (1T31-15, 2T7-3)  [...]:  I have a lease here and it’s $1,200 a month, it’s not 15.  THE COURT: Do you understand that I’m not accepting that as true?  That’s my ruling.  (1T31-15)  Concluding its accounting, the court declared [...] owed to Plaintiff either $22,400 or $8,000 depending on “how you do your math.
[brief] Ibid.  [...] was to release the additional $1,385,250 under the MOU “[u]pon such date as [[...] and her husband] provide necessary and adequate proof of bank financing in order to acquire the Property” and [...] was to obtain a “second mortgage on the Property in the amount of the Bundled Loan. ”  Ibid.  However, the MOU was terminated by mutual agreement of the parties shortly after its execution.
[brief] State v. Robinson, 217 N.J. 594, 604 (2014).  The ordinary term for a second-degree offense is between five and ten years, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(a) (2), and thus defendant's sentence of ten years subject to the NERA, complied with the sentencing guidelines.  Bolvito, 217 N.J. at 228.  In determining the appropriate sentence to impose within that range, judges “must identify any relevant aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a) and (b) that apply to the case.
[directive] ATT~ )RNEY GENERAL LAW ENFORCE VIENT DIRECTIVE NO. 2012-2 (Investigati an of Human Trafficking)  Human trafficking is a form of me dem-day slavery.  It is not only a violation of fundamental human rights but also a serious crime under New Jersey law codified at N.J.S.A. 2C:13-8.  Unfortunately, this crime often goes und~ tected and unreported.  Human trafficking victims, given the coercive nature of the crime, feel ~olated and powerless, and often are unable, afraid, or otherwise unwilling to seek assistance fr, m law enforcement.  Some of these victims feel ashamed, and many are reluctant to identify thems~ ..lves as victims.  Law enforcement agencies an~ officers, meanwhile, may not have the training and experience to recognize the telltale indica :ors of human trafficking when conducting investigations of other offenses that may be associated ~ ith human trafficking enterprises, such as prostitution.  As a result, some law enforcement officers r aay not know to pose questions during the course of their investigations that might expose a humm trafficking violation.  Police officers in this State shoulc be aware of and watchful at all times for the indicators of human trafficking activity.  Vigilance by ~w enforcement officers is especially important when their duties bring them into contact with the kinds of commercial establishments or places that, past experience has shown, may be used to har ~or and conceal human trafficking activities, such as "strip clubs" and other sexually oriented busine sses, massage parlors, or nail salons.  By way of example, a police officer should know to take note fhe or she were to see evidence that suggests that persons are living or sleeping at a commercial establishment that is not ordinarily considered to be a residential premises.  propriate to enhance and c~ordinate the State’s efforts to  For the foregoing reasons, it is a identify, investigate, and prosecute this :’orm of criminal activity.  Accordingly, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of this State, and in furtherance of securing the benefits of a uniform and efficient enforcement of the criminal law pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:17B- 97  I hereby promulgate the following DIRECTIVE to all law enforcement agencies and et seq., officers operating under the authority of the laws of this State:  New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer.
[brief] It denied, without prejudice, reconsideration of its December 2023 Order denying [...]’s first application for an order to show cause because it was not ripe.  It denied without prejudice [...]’s second application for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the Complaint, without prejudice, because the issues around the Restrictive Covenant became moot when [...]’s employer voluntarily rescinded its offer.  The Court made this clear in its opinion on which the 2024 Order is based:  There is at this point in time no live controversy, and the plaintiff’s request at this time would amount to an advisory opinion…so I am denying the plaintiff’s application, and I am going to grant the application filed by the defendant, because there is simply no claim left—open at this time, but it’s done without prejudice.  [(3T10:18-25) (emphasis added). ]  The Trial Court’s amplification of that Order similarly confirmed that the dismissal was without prejudice and not a decision on the merits.  (Ra1).  Contrary to [...]’s insistence that the 2024 Order disposed of all of the issues between the parties, the Trial Court actually found that no live issues existed for it to decide.  The Court merely reserved [...]’s right to refile his Complaint should a live controversy arise.  That is the opposite of a final order.  No live controversy arose because as predicted by the Chancery Court, [...] was able to find alternate employment outside the restricted radius.  Thus, no justiciable issue exists even now.  [...] is now employed and not in violation of the Restrictive Covenant; and he is pursuing a new complaint in the Law Division.  No concrete issue exists for this Court or the Chancery Court to decide with respect to this appeal.  It is precisely for this reason that the Trial Court dismissed the Complaint in the first place.  This is not a case where the interests of justice warrant this Court’s deciding an appeal of a non-final order.  See Johnson, 476 N. J. Super. at 370 (allowing appeal where deadline to amend complaint had passed); Caggiano v. Fontoura, 354 N.J. Super. 111, 125 (App. Div. 2002) (allowing appeal of interlocutory order where “serious allegations” concerning law enforcement were at issue).  [...] faces no bar to his claims.  Just as the Chancery Court dismissed [...]’s Complain, this Court should dismiss his appeal because it is improper, baseless and a waste of this Court’s resources.  That was true before [...] filed his new complaint in the Law Division and obtained his new job, and it remains true now.
[brief] In support of her claim that she was “constructively discharged,” Plaintiff [...] points to an alleged statement by her Supervisor (Da29) and statements supposedly told to her by co-workers that “someone” was spreading “rumors” that she was transferred to the Camden DCPP office “because she was having sexual relationships with multiple people at her prior office. ” (Pa277, ¶2).  However, with respect to both claims, Plaintiff (during her deposition) could not identify the basic details of these alleged statements, when they were made, who told her of the alleged statements, who made the alleged statements, and even conceded it may have involved DCPP employees starting said rumors.  (Pa324, Plaintiff’s deposition transcript, T135:22-T136:11; T139:9-T141:9).  Aside from not constituting the type of intolerable conditions necessary to succeed on a “constructive discharge” claim, these allegations constitute hearsay.
[brief] Instead, Appellant sought enforcement of the purported settlement agreement by way of application for injunctive relief to the Superior Court and now seeks this Court excuse them of their obligation to exhaust administrative remedies by way of the instant Appeal.  This is improper as Appellant could have and should have petitioned the Civil Service Commission for relief.  In other words, Appellant has not exhausted its administrative remedies, and it is only proper that the requested relief be denied pursuant to the well-established doctrine of administrative remedies.  The instant appeal should be denied.
[brief] \footnote{The jury convicted [...] of the lesser offense of attempted aggravated assault on [...].  (Da 3, 5)}  See Blanks, 313 N.J. Super. at 64 (“With respect to jury charges, [e]rroneous instructions on matters or issues that are material to the jury's deliberation are presumed to be reversible error in criminal prosecutions) (internal quotations omitted).  If the jury found that [...] was not under arrest at the time of this altercation, they could have acquitted him based on finding that the altercation was the equivalent of a scuffle between private individuals and that [...] acted in regular self-defense.  If the jury found that [...] was under arrest at the time of the altercation, they could have acquitted him on the basis that he acted in self-defense in response to the officers’ unlawful use of force.  The court’s failure to properly instruct the jury on self-defense deprived [...] of a fair trial, requiring reversal.
[brief] As it did at the trial level, [...] argues that Plaintiffs did not offer any credible evidence to establish that the settlement in the roadway at the abutment joint was in a dangerous condition.  Specifically, [...] argues that the video provided by Plaintiffs, the T&M Memo, the Biennial Bridge Inspection, and Plaintiffs’ expert’s report and testimony are all unreliable.  [...] also suggests that Plaintiff’s deposition testimony is unreliable, however, it does not actually articulate a basis for its position on that issue.  As discussed above, in the context of a summary judgment motion where the facts, including all favorable inferences that arise from those facts, are to be viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, [...] suggestion that the aforementioned evidence lacks reliability is disingenuous at best.  Nevertheless, Plaintiffs’ response to each argument presented in [...] opposition is below.
[brief] ”  (Da 21-35)  Among other things, the Court held that it was error to permit the jury to hear [...]’s opinions that “he knew defendant was lying” about his alibi and that “video recordings from the area contradicted defendant’s story. ”  (Da 21)  For example, at the first trial, the State admitted [...]’s opinions that [...] was not telling the truth about turning onto Governor Street and that he instead kept walking “past Governor Street” and “past Lafayette Street” toward the scene of the crime.
[directive] Any questions concerning the interpretation or implementation of this Directive shall be addressed to the Executive Director of the Office of Public Integrity and Accountability, or their designee.  13  D. compliance.  Every law enforcement agency operating under the Implementation and authority of the laws of the state of New Jersey shall implement or adopt policies consistent with this Directive.  Any officer who knowingly violates the requirements of this Directive or the agency’s policy, standing operating procedure, directive, or order, or applicable laws, shall be subject to discipline.  __________________________  [...]  Attorney General Dated: November 15, 2022  ATTEST: ________________________________
[brief] 19, 35, 39, 40, 42 N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1(a)(1)(o) ..............................................................................  35 N.J.S.A. 17:33A-1 ............................................................................................  15 N.J.S.A. 17:33A-2 ............................................................................................  33, 39 N.J.S.A. 17:33A-4(a) .......................................................................................  34  N.J.S.A. 17:33A-7 ............................................................................................  26, 33, 39, 40 N.J.S.A. 17:33A-16 ..........................................................................................  36  N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1 .............................................................................................  41 N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1.1 .........................................................................................  27, 36, 37 N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1.2 .........................................................................................  22 N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4 .............................................................................................  7 N.J.A.C. 11:3-4.9(a)(3) ..................................................................................................................  14 N.J.A.C. 13:35-6.16 ..........................................................................................................................  4  Other Authorities  11A Couch on Ins. § 168:1 (3d ed.) .................................................................................................  25 P.L.1972, c. 70 ..................................................................................................................................  22 P.L.1998, c. 21 .................................................................................................................................  22, 23 P.L.2003, c. 89 .................................................................................................................................  22, 35, 38  TABLE OF JUDGMENTS, ORDERS, AND RULINGS ON APPEAL  October 27, 2023  Order granting the [...]’ Motion to Compel Arbitration…………………………………………………Pa0001 October 27, 2023  Order granting the [...]’ Motion to Dismiss……………………………………………………………..Pa0009 October 27, 2023  Order granting [...]’s Motion to Dismiss……………………………………………………………..Pa0016  APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS
[brief] See Pa138, (p. 1 – first two conditions, both medical) (Conf.).  Very tellingly, the prosecutor did not fill in that psych treatment box.  If they had asked him to see a therapist, I’d have agreed.  Indeed, [...]’s not suicidal, the [...] refused him his anxiety medication, then they refuse to call his dad/lawyer, then they lied to him that I had abandoned him.
[brief] Appellant, [...], appeals a September 20, 2023 final administrative action of the Commission, and a subsequent January 17, 2024 determination by the Commission denying [...]’s reconsideration request, finding that he violated the New Jersey State Policy Prohibiting Discrimination in the Workplace (State Policy) stemming from a September 14, 2022 complaint made by [...]\(^1\) (Aa1-12; Aa13-18).
[brief] The instant matter involves an application by Plaintiff in June 2021 to obtain a front yard variance in the R-25 Neighborhood Zone in order to construct a single-family residence.  The Planning Board for the [...] correctly found that the Doctrine of Res Judicata applied to the application, as the same parties and/or their privies six months earlier sought substantially the same relief previously sought from the Planning Board in January 2021 and denied the application for that reason.  There is more than ample evidence in the underlying record to support this decision and/or a denial of the variance application on its own merits as held by the trial court.  PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[brief] Approximately 15 years ago, while serving as a zoning commissioner, Appellant discovered that an affordable housing ordinance that had been passed by the [...] in 1988 had — to use the words of the Zoning Board’s planner at the time — “never been implemented. ”  Appellant recruited the nonprofit organization [...] and helped set in motion an effort which yielded passage of a new affordable housing ordinance in Hoboken.  [...]’s efforts in this matter have included litigation in the NJ Superior Court, Appellate Court and – at least as regards certification – the Supreme Court.
[brief] In additional to the analytical framework demanded by Cole as discussed above, it further is recalled that, for most of this litigation, [...] was a pro se litigant which makes the Appellate Division’s decision Spaeth v. Srinivasan, 403 N.J. Super. 508 (App.  Div. 2008) all the more relevant.  In Spaeth, much like this case, a pro se defendant was a party to a contract in dispute.  Six months after the Complaint was filed, the pro se defendant moved for dismissal of plaintiff’s claim due to the arbitration clause.  Id. at 512.  The trial court denied this request for dismissal, and the pro se defendant appealed.  Id.  On appeal, the this Court reversed the trial court’s ruling, finding that the pro se defendant “did not initiate the subject legal action or choose the judicial forum selected by her adversary. ”  Id. at 516.  This Court reasoned that “given Defendant’s uncounseled status, we assume the relatively short delay in asserting her right to arbitration was more inadvertent than deliberate, more the result of unfamiliarity with court procedure than planned strategy. ”  Id.  This Court then remanded the matter to the trial court for the entry of an order compelling arbitration.
[directive] The county a or prosecutor agency executive of municipal law enforcement agency shall - qf or -determine the existence other owners, lessors a persons holding a perfected security interest in seized property.  Property held by a lessor the ordinary course of business held or in 1. by person holding a perfected security interest shall not be affected a by seizure unless shall appear that such person had knowledge of it consented any act or omission upon the right of forfeiture which or to based.  is  The county treasurer, at the direction of the county from prosecutor, may make payment the County Law Enforcement Trust Account to lessors or persons holding a perfected security interest for their interest seized property.
[brief] CIVIL ACTION  On Appeal from Superior Court Law Division, Civil Part, Passaic County Final Orders Dated August 8, 2023, and December 19, 2023 Sat Below: Hon. [...], P.J.S.C., Retired & Hon. [...], P.J.S.C.  Trial Court Docket No. [...]  REPLY BRIEF & APPENDIX OF APPELLANT [...]  [...] [...] P [...]  Of counsel and on the brief: [...], ESQ – 029151982 E [...] Attorneys for CoPlaintiff/Petitioner, [...] Date: May 28, 2024  #
[directive] NOT WEAPONS PURSUANT TO HAVE CERTAIN TO PERSONS  ERPO 2C:39-9(L)(1)  3 - WEAPONS-MANUFACTURE  3D  UNLICENSED USING PRINTER 2C:39-9(M)  3  WEAPONS/MANU/TRANSPORTS /UNDETECTABLE FIREARMS COVERT 2C:39-9A  3  WEAPONS-MANU/TRANSPORT/DISP/DEFACEMENT- MACHINE GUN 2C:39-9B  3  WEAPONS-MANU/TRANSPO/DISP/DEFACEMENT-SAWED SHOTGUN OFF 2C:39-9E  3  WEAPONS-MANU/TRANSP/DISP/DEFACEMENT-DEF FIREARM DEFACED 2C:39-9E  4  WEAPONS-MANU/TRANSPO/ DISP/DEFACEMENT-DEFACED FIREARM 2C:39-9G  3  WEAPONS-MANU/TRANSPO/DISP/DEFACEMENT-ASSAULT FIREARMS 2C:39-9I  2 WEAPONS-MANU/TRANSPO/DISP/DEFACEMENT-INTO STATE 2C :39-9M 3