Author and Gannett newspaper writer Bob Ingle, author of The Soprano State, once described the New Jersey Supreme Court as a "robed clan of clowns"; Ingle was generous, because the justices are more than mere clowns, and are arguably more dangerous to New Jersey citizens than any violent criminal on the loose. In my case the justices demonstrated that they are willing to sell not only civil law but also criminal law, and that they are willing to hurt an aggrieved citizen in order to protect guilty but connected interests.
On the Introduction page of this site I cited case law that reinforced the already established and well-known legislative intent of the whistle blowing law. In a decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court dated 27 July 2007 (D'Annuzio v. Prudential Insurance Company) the justices repeated their position regarding the interpretation of the whistle blowing law and stated that:
1) their (the justices') goal is to always act in accord with legislative intent;
2) the whistle blowing law is to be considered remedial legislation;
3) courts are to interpret the whistle blowing law liberally in order to encourage conscientious whistle blowing.
THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT TREATED THE WHISTLE BLOWING LAW DIFFERENTLY IN MY CASE
1) The complete absence of remedies to a trial-winning whistle blower is inconsistent with a New Jersey Supreme Court-directive that the whistle blowing law be considered remedial legislation, yet the justices corruptly ignored the well-established remedial intent of the law in my case.
2) A liberal interpretation of the whistle blowing law by trial judge Buczynski required him to allow the presentation of my at-hand evidence of losses to the jury; Buczynski denied on record my request to make that presentation. My claim of Buczynski's bias and prejudice is well-supported (see the page devoted to Buczynski's corruption), therefore a liberal interpretation was precluded in my case.
The justices corruptly ignored the blatant defeat by a demonstrably biased Buczynski of the remedial intent of the law.
In my case the justices corruptly ignored the directive that the whistleblowing law be liberally interpreted in order encourage whistleblowers to report illegal and/or unethical activity.
The nightmare represented by my experiences with a corrupt New Jersey judiciary discourages in the extreme conscientious whistleblowing.
3) In my case the justices corruptly ignored the obvious, specifically that the intent of the whistleblowing law is not to allow trial-winning whistle blowers to suffer career destruction, to be denied compensation for losses due to employer retaliation, and to be denied punitive damages because of employer retaliation.
The justices corruptly disregarded legislative intent in my case because the employer-defendant represented New Jersey's largest health care system.
The justices' corrupt disregard of legislative intent could only have resulted from the acceptance of a bribe that, according to Black's Law Dictionary, can be manifested by a judicial position that is coupled to a minimum $160,000 annual salary and to generous employment benefits.
Without doubt I am the first pro se (note: pro se is the legal term that is used when someone represents himself) registered nurse to win a whistle blowing trial in New Jersey, but I actually lost that trial due to the corrupt actions of a biased and prejudiced trial judge.
That the justices treated the whistle blowing law differently in my case is evidence of gross prejudice that undeniably translates to judicial corruption.
THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT DISREGARDED ITS OWN POLICY IN MY CASE REGARDING MY APPEAL
My appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court that was based upon the decision of Appellate Division judge Kestin was known as a petition for certification.
In most cases petitions for certification are denied by the New Jersey Supreme Court; this denial presumes the honesty of the subordinate Appellate Division, however in my case undeniable evidence was presented that Kestin is a liar who fabricated a reason to deny my request for a new trial so that I could obtain the remedies that are the intent of the law.
The New Jersey Supreme Court supposedly follows guidelines that define the cases that warrant their consideration (click to see a photocopy of those brief guidelines, then click the Back button to return to this presentation).
One of the reasons cited in the aforementioned guidelines involves the conflict represented by two separate Appellate Division decisions that regard a single litigation. My case involved the whistle blowing law, and the pre-trial Appellate Division cited the case law that mandated the liberal interpretation of the whistle blowing law that is to be considered remedial legislation. However, the post-trial Appellate Division made no mention whatsoever to relevant case law that was cited by the pre-trial Appellate Division because that case law contradicted the denial of my post-trial appeal. Therefore the ploy by the post-trial Appellate Division to avoid conflict with the pre-trial Appellate Division is obvious.
However, the guidelines also indicate consideration when an Appellate Division decision conflicts with a decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court; in my case the New Jersey Supreme Court prejudicially ignored its own prior decision that the whistle blowing law be considered remedial legislation, and that their goal is to always determine legislative intent when deciding the outcome of an appeal.
The merits of my appeal were obvious, and the New Jersey Supreme Court could have either granted me an opportunity to argue my case for a new trial, or it could have simply granted a new trial trial without argument (click to see a photocopy of the possible actions that could have been taken by the New Jersey Supreme Court); that the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously denied my petition is evidence that it not only covered up the tangible evidence of judicial corruption of subordinate courts, but that it is also grossly prejudicial hence corrupt (click to read a photocopy of a letter written to me by the clerk of the New Jersey Supreme Court).
In my case Community Medical Center was protected from being held accountable for not only the malicious destruction of my nursing career but also for criminal retaliation.
I presented to the New Jersey Supreme Court the evidence of judicial protection regarding the violation of criminal law; the New Jersey Supreme Court responded by not only covering up that evidence but by protecting the judicial sale of criminal law (click to see a photocopy of another letter written to me by the clerk of the New Jersey Supreme Court that states that the justices do not agree that my evidence supports a claim of judicial corruption).
Presumably every visitor to this cite recognizes the evidence of judicial corruption in my case, therefore the prejudice of the New Jersey Supreme Court is obvious.
Presumably every visitor to this cite also recognizes the evidence, that was provided by the clerk of the New Jersey Supreme Court, that supports a claim that the New Jersey Supreme Court is corrupt and that it sells not only civil law but also criminal law to connected interests.
Stuart Rabner is the chief justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court, and at the time of his appointment to that position there was hope that he would introduce honesty to the supreme court of a state that was reputed to have one of the most corrupt governments in the country; clearly Rabner is not only a liar (as evidenced by the letters written by the clerk of the New Jersey Supreme Court, click1 click2 to see those letters that were written in response to my exhaustive demonstration of evidence of judicial corruption), but he is also a corrupt chief justice who condones the sale of civil and criminal law.
That the chief justice of a state is a corrupt liar is evidence that the state is a nightmare of governmental corruption that seemingly can be fought only by honest federal authorities.
Back to the top
INTIMIDATION BY THE NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE
It seems that the New Jersey State Police will take steps in order to ensure Rabner's security despite the evidence presented in this web site that support my claim that Rabner and his brethren sold not only civil law but also criminal law in my case. I sent a two-sentence letter to Rabner that I copied to his neighbors who live in Caldwell, New Jersey in order to let him know that I intend to advertise the fact that he is a liar and a corrupt justice (click to read that letter that I also copied to the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police); on the reverse side of that letter appeared a partial copy of this web site's Home Page.
In response to my letter to Rabner I received a visit from a New Jersey State Police detective who informed me that my letter jeopardized Rabner's security. I asked the detective if I had broken a law when I sent a letter to Rabner's residence; in response I was told that my failure to include a return address on the mailing envelope was a possible violation of a law. I later checked with the US Postal Service, and there is no law that requires a return address on a mailing envelope; clearly the visit from the State Police detective was an effort to suppress my first amendment right; some may argue that members of the State Police who guard the security of blatantly corrupt governmental officials are only following orders.
The nightmare that is a corrupt New Jersey government is enabled by the New Jersey State Police who attempt to intimidate those who have the temerity to call attention to evidence that might lead to the mitigation of that nightmare.
Back to the top