[brief] At no point in time did the Defendant’s father testify on the defendant’s behalf as indicated in the Plaintiff’s brief [AP 4] and contradicts their narrative in their opening statement along with misstating the incorrect charge [AP 61].  However, with the initial trial court Judge, he habitually referred to the incorrect charge to the point, the Defendant submitted her concern(s) in a form of a complaint, along with an informal request for the municipal court Judge to recuse himself.  Defendant’s disability and rights under the Americans with Disability Act has been consistently dismissed and ignored including while under de novo counsel, [...], Esquire, who waived the Defendant’s appearance due to the court denying her right to enter the Superior court under the federal statute, Americans with Disability Act.  This is the same Superior Court that has consistently approved alternate access with success in conducting her hearings in virtual format or alternate day where her health status was in a stronger state.  The Plaintiff mentions Superior Court [...] found it difficult to determine [...]’s credibility due to the Defendant, when in fact he emphasizes two reasons: (1) the questions asked to him were deemed as leading and (2) his answers when transcribed, were dictated as indiscernible.  The Plaintiff begins their argument mentioning, “Defendant’s arguments as to effective assistance of counsel were not raised at the trial court level”.  The Defendant’s right to court access were violated; this is the same issue raised at the municipal court level with a partial highlight in their de novo brief by the Plaintiff to the municipal court Judge.  Same for Defendant’s ADA Claims and Discovery Request; there were before the Superior Court, Law Division and Municipal Court and are part of the record that can be considered on appeal  Both courts have an establish habit of not allowing persons entry into the court according to court rules, state and/or federal laws and procedures.  There was not sufficient credible evidence on the record to prove the Defendant guilty of disorderly conduct beyond a reasonable doubt.  The Plaintiff did not provide any evidence to support the Defendant’s downgrade.  The Plaintiff’s sole witness utilized hearsay by the Defendant’s family member and introduced rap music lyrical content by some unknown rap musician.  Lyrical content is not misplaced as the Plaintiff argues; their sole witness introduced lyrical content as part of his testimony to characterize and insinuate the Defendant as a racist and disorderly.  [...] furthers his characterization of the Defendant when he misplaced the Defendant at these chronological alleged crime scenes screaming the word “Nigger” and “I’m going to kill you” which in turn was utilized to charge the Defendant initially with a felony and then downgraded to a municipal.  Information was supplied to both of the courts to recount the Defendant’s whereabouts along with a subpoena to the Plaintiff’s witness to equally show his whereabouts; this pertinent information is simply ignored.  For these reasons, the Defendant requests the Appellate Division to reverse the Defendant’s conviction and sentence.