you read the below court order, issuede by the new jersey supreme court on january 10, 2006, stood in lioght as is, til march 17 2008, when the order became moot in the final decision in chun, rtead my take on eacvh paragraph in bold, then tell me how any other take cxould come out, ok?, the nj supreme court ordered the cases to proceed, they never overed ruled the order , and it stoood for the entire liofe of it, ... which is to my adsv antage, because it is moot, and thus stood for its ebntire life, now you tell me, omk?
NJ SUPREME COURT ORDER OF JANUARY 10, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
September Term 2005
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
v. O R D E R
JANE H. CHUN, et al.,
The Court having previously certified the within matter directly pursuant to Rule 2:12-1 and having contemporaneously appointed retired Appellate Division Presiding Judge Michael XXXXX XXXXX as Special Master,
And the Court having remanded the matter to Judge King to develop a record, conduct hearings, and report his findings and conclusions on an accelerated basis,
And the Court having concluded that it should expand on its prior Order by addressing issues that affect the prosecution of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 offenses statewide,
And good cause appearing;
IT IS ORDERED that this Order shall apply to all N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 prosecutions in Municipal Courts and appeals in the Law Division and Appellate Division of Superior Court; and it is further
The first part above is clearly saying that what they are going to order below needs to be applied to all dui in nj, from this date forward, jan 10, 2006, until the order is vacated, and it was on march 17, 2008
ORDERED that N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 prosecutions and appeals that do not involve the use of an Alcotest device are to proceed in the normal course;
this should be no problem to anyone, no special order is given within this order that would affect these cases of non alcotest
and it is further
ORDERED that the prosecution and appeal of cases involving repeat offenders under the statute shall proceed in the normal course, and sentences imposed on such defendants shall not be stayed unless the conviction is based solely on Alcotest device readings; and it is further
Here we see the first indication the nj supreme court fully expected the bac from the alcotest to be submitted into evidence at a trial. how can convictions be made based on the alcotest, unless it is submitted into evidence?so of course, it needed to be submitted . now, here it is ordered to proceed in normal course, meaning no stay, ... but lets read further down.
ORDERED that first offender prosecutions involving the use of an Alcotest device shall proceed to trial based on clinical evidence when available, including but not limited to objective observational evidence, as well as the relevant Alcotest readings; and it is further
Here the nj supreme court is explicity ordering the cases for first offenders to proceed to trial, taking out the "normal course" language used above, here in this part of the order, they are ORDERING THE PROSECUTION TO PROCEED TO TRIAL. so now not only are stays not allowed, they should even be proceeding in normal course, thee cases should be proceeding to trial, to anyone who understands language, this clearly means get on your horse and do it, trial these cases, and not in normal course, but right now! And it is clearly saying to use observations and the bac from the alcoterst, relevant bac, meaning anything 0.08 or above.
ORDERED that at the conclusion of each such first offender trial, if the court determines that the defendant is guilty of an N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 offense, it shall include, whenever applicable, an articulation of the alternative bases for that finding when imposing a sentence pursuant to the statute, see State v. Sisti, 209 N.J.Super. 148, 151 (App.Div. 1986), State v. Kashi, 360 N.J.Super. 538, 544 (App.Div. 2003);
Here the court is again indicating that the trials needed to occur under this court order, with the bac, as decribed in the previous section, and how to make a sentence, if possible, but does not have to be alrternative finding of guilt, ... lets read futher.
and it is furtherORDERED that the execution of sentences imposed on first offenders shall be stayed pending disposition of the within appeal unless the court determines, after considering the severity of the incident and the prior record of the defendant, that the public interest requires the immediate execution of the sentence;
Here the court is clearly saying that first offenders, even if the guilty finding , after a trial, is found to be based solely on the bac, that sentence did not have to be stayed, this part of executing sentence at this point was totally up to the trial judge, at his discretion.
and it is further
ORDERED that any and all requests for a reliability hearing in respect of Alcotest devices are stayed pending the filing of the Court's final decision herein, at which time all pending challenges to an Alcotest device's reliability shall be decided consistent with the Court's disposition;
So here the court is saying, in all the above sections, to proceed to trial, enter the bac into evidence, try to find another reason for guilt, but the defense is not allowed to challange the bac on reliability. this is a clear court order, and it does not matter if it is unconstitutional, wrong, or that no one agrees with it, ... i believe there are sound legal reasons for this, and i stand firmly with the nj supreme court . i believe there are public saftey issues too, and due process issues . people needed trials, and lets read below the rememdey...
and it is further
ORDERED that any and all orders of municipal courts and the Superior Court, including but not limited to the December 12, 2005, orders of Judge Walter R. Barisonek, A.J.S.C., (State v. Casey L. Grogan) and Judge B. Theodore Bozonelis, A.J.S.C. (State v. Michael Dilger, et al.) are vacated to the extent that they conflict with this Court's Order of December 14, 2005, as modified and supplemented by the within Order;
HERE THE NJ SUPREME COURT IS SAYING, LISTEN, NO MORE STAYS ON TRIALS, LETS MOVE ON THESE CASES NOW, ANY STAY IMPOSED BY THE MIDDLESEX COUNTY JUDGE IS VACATED, AND NO MUNCIPAL COURT JUDGE CAN PUT A STAY ON TRIALS. THEY ARE MAKING THIS EXTREMELY CLEAR HERE, ANY STAY IMPOSED BY ANY MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE WOULD BE IN CONFLICT OF THIS ORDER, SO WHEN JUDGE WEBER ADMITTED ON RECORD IN MY HEARING TO DISMISS THAT EVERYONE HAD TO WAIT, SO DO YOU, IS AN ADMISSION THAT HE, WEBER, IS IN CONFLICT WITH THIS COURT ORDER, IN VIOLATION OF MY DUE PROCESS RIGHTS! LETS READ BELOW
and it is further
ORDERED that consistent with the Court's prior reminder in its December 14, 2005, Order that
all Superior Court and Municipal Court judges before whom N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 proceedings are pending, or before whom such proceedings are brought during the pendency of this appeal, must ensure that the Court's Guidelines for Operation of Plea Agreements in the Municipal Courts of New Jersey are strictly enforced,
NO PLEA DEALS ALLOWED. CLEAR ENOUGH. BUT MY FIRST ATTORNEY TOLD ME THAT JUDGE WEBER HIMSELF WAS GOING TO WRITE A PLEA DEAL IN MY CASE, ACTUALLY WRITE IT ON PAPER, SIGN IT, AND HAND IT TO US FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. I THOUGHT THIS WAS COMPLETE BULLCRAP, AND IN VIOLATION OF MY DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
a defendant who challenges the use of Alcotest-related evidence may enter a conditional guilty plea pursuant to Rule 7:6-2(c), reserving the right to apply for relief from the municipal court should the appeal before the Court result in a determination that the Alcotest devices are not reliable;
haere thery are saying one may put in a conditional guilty plea, and wait for chun, however it does not adress straight out not guilty pleas, which of course, any defendant could re open for post conviction relief at any time, .. in other words, this section of the order was the proper "out" for the courts, state, and defense attorneys, who couldnt be bothered actually holding trials, ... however, under representation, a person pleading straight out, not guilty, then the order of events goes to the top of this order, and works its way down in due course- proceed to tyrial, enter a bac result, due process occurs as this order sees fit, money paid for a defense is worth spent, as a defense and cross examination is brought to the stop and field sobriety tests, and the sentence may still be stayed, pending chun, .. so here it is clear, they all had an out, it is not my fault i didnt allow thewm to take it, i pleaded and continue to this day to plead in court not guilty, throughXXXXXappearances over 1294 days, without one hearing ever taking place on the charges against me
and it is further
ORDERED that the Acting Administrative Director of the Courts shall circulate this Order forthwith to all judges of the municipal courts and the Superior Court, Law Division and Appellate Division.
Here the nj supreme court ordered that this order in its entireity be sent to every municipal court in nj. someone violated my rights, and maybe through the federal 2201 general question, i will be allowed to file interogatories, and find out who actually violated my right and how it came to be this way,.. not "why" mind you, but "how", because why goes to motive, i and although of course emotionally i want to know why, i know intelectually, i can only ask how
WITNESS, the Honorable Deborah T. Poritz, Chief Justice, at Trenton, this 10th day of January, 2006.
/s/ Stephen W. Townsend
Clerk of the Supreme Court
CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and ASSOCIATE JUSTICES LONG, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI, ALBIN, WALLACE, and RIVERA-SOTO join in the Court's Order.