Shenanigans in the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Hackers have already affected the spacing of this essay, continuing illegal (criminal) interference with free speech rights must be expected. Does the commission of crimes by public officials not create the reality as opposed to the appearance of impropriety? Isn't the reality of criminal violations of free speech rights much worse than the alleged "appearance" of impropriety in New Jersey? I think so. I will do my best to keep writing. My computer is always under attack and there may come a point when I can no longer post essays. Any prolonged silence will not be voluntary. July 24, 2007 at 4:14 P.M. the following sites have been blocked this afternoon:

http://view.atdmt.com/CNT/iview/msnnkcin04700

http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N3340.msn/B231326...

Why are you trying to suppress these essays? Guilty conscience? Can you think of a better way to demonstrate the truth of my allegations than these continuing harassments and censorship efforts?








David W. Chen, "Highest Court in New Jersey Censures One of its Justices," in The New York Times, July 21, 2007, at p. B2.


Peter Seinfels, "An Evangelical Call on Torture and the U.S.," in The New York Times, July 21, 2007, at p. B5.










"TRENTON, July 20 -- The New Jersey Supreme Court on Friday meted out the harshest judgment in its history against one of its own."






"In a 5-to-0 decision, with one justice of the seven member court not participating, the court censured Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto for creating an appearance of impropriety by intervening in a dispute between his son and a high school football teammate."






Most people in the world, including attorneys in many other societies, look at this farce and wonder at the absurdity of it all. New Jersey is a state saturated with organized crime. Criminal families control many government positions and judges -- including, allegedly, two justices of this same Supreme Court -- and they are worried about whether one judge handing someone his business card and asking for no special treatment may have created an "unintended appearance of impropriety." This is nonsense. (Have N.J. hackers affected the spacing of paragraphs in this essay?)





Clearly, all of this is a smoke-screen for hypocrisy and continued criminality, as well as depravity, by those judging the ethics of others in New Jersey. Curiously, the one Latino member of the court was chosen for a starring role in this farce. I wonder why they selected him? How many of the 200 officials convicted (so far!) in New Jersey happen to be Latino? Less than 25%, probably. Latino attorneys are disproprotionately selected for harassment and sanctioning by the OAE. I wonder why that is?





"Concurring with the recommendation for censure issued last week by a state advisory panel, the court found that Justice Rivera-Soto had violated judicial standards by handing out business cards or otherwise identifying himself as a justice to local officials."





How else should he identify himself? He is a justice? Should he assume a false name? That is also an offense -- and a more serious one.





"[New Jersey] has removed or suspended 16 judges, including 9 at the state level, and censured 13, including 4 at the state level. But only once before has the court disciplined a colleague. ..."





These numbers represent a tiny fraction of the judges who are either inept or corrupt in the Garden State, including several tainted justices on the current Supreme Court itself. What is this really about?





New Jersey is aware of becoming an international horror story and joke in light of the duplicity, malice and hypocrisy in the U.S. legal system during recent years together with the visible decline in intellectual standards. Judicial opinions were once impressive essays in political and social thinking, aside from their technical virtuosities. Judicial opinions have now become irrefutable evidence of mediocrity and politically biased decision-making in dismal and foul-smelling places, like New Jersey. Often they are also fraudulent. Readers have to guess at the real reasons for decisions as opposed to the rhetoric dispensed for public consumption.

Continuing harassments of me -- and new attempts to censor my work -- leave me with no alternative but to persist in pointing out the hypocrisy and incompetence as well as unethical conduct of New Jersey's judges and justices. My response to newly discovered "errors" in this essay, accordingly, will be to turn to a new post examining the laughable incompetence of Judge Tolentino. Judge Schaeffer along with semi-judges like Romano and Bolstein will be next.





The goal of this theater of the absurd is to convey the impression that this court and these judges are above reproach, even as they cover-up psychological torture by so-called therapists like Tuchin and Riccioli, acting on behalf of the OAE or the court itself. This tribunal winks at continuing efforts to suppress the free speech of critics, like me -- in violation of federal criminal laws -- and then pontificates about not handing out business cards. (Notice the spacing in this essay and the "errors" routinely inserted in these writings -- I have just corrected this very sentence, again, after a flagrant "error-insertion" by protected criminals.)





To get appointed to the New Jersey Supreme Court a person must be a politician. Such a politician must be on friendly terms with the big bosses of the political machines in the state ("the Barons"), who really call the shots in complex cases. One theory concerning the true source of the complaints against Rivera-Soto is the Camden "organization" and its friends on the court. Find out who is connected to the Camden machine in the New Jersey Supreme Court and you'll know who was really behind the effort to smear Rivera-Soto. Virginia? Jaynee? Stu?



Here is what the world thinks is unethical: "17 prominent evangelical leaders and scholars issued 'An Evangelical Declaration Against Torture: Protecting Human Rights in an Age of Terror.' ... "



"... 'We renounce the resort to torture [including psychological torture] and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees, call for the extension of procedural protections and human rights to all detainees, seek clear government-wide embrace of the Geneva Conventions, including those articles banning torture and cruel treatment of prisoners, and urge the reversal of U.S. government law, policy or practice that violates the moral standards outlined in this declaration. ...' "



I am asking, PUBLICLY, for any and all reports pertainting to me prepared by Tuchin or anyone else, claiming to be a therapist or other expert of any kind, all video tapes and notes, documents of all sorts or recordings prepared in any manner pertaining to the use of hypnosis or any other coercive psychological process or questioning techniques of any kind, by anyone, of which I was or have been the subject and/or a topic, submitted to any state or federal agency or court, at any time from 1988 to 2008 and beyond, or withheld from me as part of any expert's confidential records. A copy of my letter to Physicians for Human Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union will be posted here soon.