THE 34TH DAY T MINUS THREE ZERO THIRTEEN: A VERY CURIOUS COINCIDENCE

DO YOU SEE WHAT EYE SITS BY THE SEA?
SECOND JANUARY THE DAY OF THREE THIRTEEN ONE
[ENLARGE]
SECOND JANUARY TWO-THOUSAND NINETEEN
AND ON THE VERY SAME DAY
THREE-THIRTEEN IS OUT
THE PRINCETON MUNICIPALITY
DID YOU CATCH IT?
FOLLOWING FROM

THIRD FEBRUARY TWO-THOUSAND NINETEEN, THE 34TH DAY T MINUS THREE ZERO FIVE: ONOFRI HAS SOME EXPLAINING TO DO, AND THE UNCERTAIN CONCLUSION OF THE CASE NAMED HEREUPON BAETYL PICKETTERS’ CHARGE.

TWENTY-FIRST DECEMBER TWO-THOUSAND EIGHTEEN, THREE ZERO THREE

EIGHTEENTH NOVEMBER TWO-THOUSAND EIGHTEEN, THE 34TH DAY T PLUS THREE THIRTY-FOUR: THE OPRA HARVEST

SEVENTEENTH NOVEMBER TWO-THOUSAND EIGHTEEN, “REPORTING THAT THE ACCUSED TOOK A PHOTO OF SOMEONE ELSE’S PHONE WITH SECURITY CODES AND PUBLISHED IT ONLINE. CALLER WAS ADVISED OF HIS RIGHTS TO SIGN COMPLAINTS”

SEVENTEENTH NOVEMBER TWO-THOUSAND EIGHTEEN, THE 34TH DAY T PLUS THREE THIRTY-THREE: THE MANIFESTO OF JOSEPH CLARK, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE TOWNSHIP OF HOWELL

SIXTEENTH NOVEMBER TWO-THOUSAND EIGHTEEN, THE 34TH DAY T PLUS THREE TWO: TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE, REFER TO THE THIRTY-FOURTH PAGE ENUMERATED THIRTY-SIX IN THE FIFTY-TWO PAGE DISCOVERY PACKET FOR PICKETTERS’ CHARGE THAT WAS EXHIBITED ON SIXTEENTH NOVEMBER SANS COMMENTARY ALBEIT WITH NECESSARY REDACTIONS. THAT PRESENCE OF THAT PAGE AND THE NAME THEREUPON, CARA MCCOLLUM, HATH BEEN REMARKED UPON IN THE ORIGINAL SEQUENCE OF THE 34TH DAY. HOWEVER, THAT DOCUMENT IN THAT SPACE REMAINS A MYSTERY FOR WHICH NEITHER THE MERCER COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, NOR THE TOWNSHIP OF LAWRENCE HATH PROFFERED AN EXPLANATION. THAT PAGE APART OF TWO THREE NINE.

FOURTEENTH NOVEMBER TWO-THOUSAND EIGHTEEN, THE 34TH DAY T PLUS THREE THIRTY: ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC AND THE MISSING EMAIL

THIRTEENTH NOVEMBER TWO-THOUSAND EIGHTEEN, TWO FOUR THREE AND TWO FOUR FOUR

FIRST NOVEMBER TWO-THOUSAND EIGHTEEN, THE 34TH DAY T PLUS THREE SEVENTEEN: THREE MORE DOCUMENTS FROM BEHIND THE CURTAIN AND A STRANGE ARTICLE OBSERVED IN THE ASBURY PARK PRESS, WHEN THE LINE HATH BEEN REVERSED ON THE PLOT OF NINE TWENTY-THREE, NOT FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME, THOUGH THIS TIME RATHER ELEGANT IN TANDEM WITH TWO MORE IN THE TRIO, ONE ABOVE AND ONE BELOW, TWO THREE FOUR AND TWO FOUR THREE, THANK YOU MUCH, THE ARTICLE FROM THE ASBURY PARK PRESS EXHIBITED ON THE FIRST OF NOVEMBER DATED THE SAME, THE SAME DATE A TRIO AGAINST LAWRENCE ISSUED DATE THE SAME, THAT ARTICLE REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE HOWELL TOWNSHIP MUNICIPALITY ON THE SAME TOPIC OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW OF LAND IN THE MATTER OF THE OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT, DAMAGE CONTROL AFTER THE FIRST SALVO UNLEASHED AGAINST THAT TOWN SOME DAYS BEFORE, NUMBERED ONE, TWO AND THREE FOLLOWING FROM TWO-HUNDRED THIRTY-FOUR.

TWENTY-SIXTH OCTOBER TWO-THOUSAND EIGHTEEN, TWO THREE FOUR, TWO THREE FIVE, AND TWO THREE SIX, WHERE FOLLOWING FROM THE HOWELL TOWNSHIP MUNICIPALITY MOST CERTAINLY DID RETALIATE AGAINST THE REQUESTOR NAMED THRICE BELOW.

TWENTY-THIRD OCTOBER TWO-THOUSAND EIGHTEEN, THE 34TH DAY T PLUS THREE EIGHT: THE MOBIUS DEFINED, COUNTY MONMOUTH THROUGH ZONE, COUNTY MERCER

WHAT DID WE LEARN?

RETALIATION IS ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE MATHS OF OBTAINING PUBLIC RECORDS FROM THE MUNICIPAL RACKET, YES INDEED, FACTORED INTO WHAT OTHERWISE SHOULD BE ROUTINE AND LAWFUL CONDUCT OF ENTITIES IN THIS STATE WHEREIN RETALIATION AS SUCH HATH BEEN SO NAMED HEREUPON BAETYL MANY TIMES, EYE FOR AN EYE, FOR EVERY SINGLE THING IN FAVOR OF THE TARGET, ONE POINT, AYE, THE ADVERSARY DEMANDS AN EYE IN REVENGE, AYE AYE.

IN ONE OR MORE CASES, THAT EYE IS LEFT OF FIELD TO THE FIELD OF PLAY, BROUGHT TO FIELD IN PRINT THE VERY SAME DAY, ABOUT THE RACKET, MAYBE AFTER A CALL TO THE PRESS, CALL IN A FAVOR, PLEASE TO THE PUBLIC, PUT THE TRUTH UNDER DURESS.

IN ONE OR MORE CASES STILL, RETALIATION DID INDEED OCCUR IN THE CASES ALREADY THEN BEFORE A COURT, THE HOWELL TOWNSHIP BUT OF COURSE, WHEREIN THE VERY ACT OF LITERACY RISKS LIFE AND LIMB, WHERE ONE NEED REQUEST AT REGULAR INTERVALS IF THE COURT HATH APPOINTED COUNSEL IN SECRET, AND WHEREUPON BECOMING INFORMED OF THE VERY FACT THAT COUNSEL HATH BEEN APPOINTED SURREPTITIOUSLY, THE NEXT EYE IS SOUGHT AFTER THE LAST EYE HATH BEEN FOUND, THE CASE OF TWENTY-SIXTH OCTOBER TWO-THOUSAND EIGHTEEN, WHEREUPON THE VERY SAME DAY THE FIRST THREE BECAME KNOWN, TWO THREE FOUR, FIVE AND SIX, THE COURT APPOINTED ONE ITS OWN EMPLOYEES AS DEFENSE COUNSEL, HID THAT FACT FOR GREATER THAN TWO WEEKS, THEN LIED ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT INVOLUNTARY APPOINTMENT WHICH WAS ONLY DISCOVERED FOLLOWING FROM PERSISTENT INQUIRIES AS TO WHETHER COUNSEL HAD APPOINTED APPOINTED IN SECRET, AS THAT COURT DID THE VERY SAME THING IN THE PAST. OF NOTE, BOTH FEMALE APPOINTEES DID FAIL TO INFORM THEIR CLIENT THEY HAD BEEN APPOINTED, AND THE ALL FEMALE STAFF OF THE COURT DID ALSO FAIL TO PROVIDE ANY NOTICE WHATSOEVER. VERY GROTESQUE ACTS COMPOUNDED BY LIES ABOUT THOSE SAME ACTS.

AT WHICH TIME WE RETURN TO SEVENTH DECEMBER TWO-THOUSAND EIGHTEEN

FIRST, A FACTUAL DESCRIPTION OF EVENTS, HERETOFORE PUBLISHED ON THIRTY-FIRST JANUARY OF THIS YEAR, AND AGAIN REPRODUCED BELOW TO PROVIDE FULL CONTEXT FOR WHAT FOLLOWS FROM.

Pursuant to P.L.1963, c.73 (C.47:1A-1 et seq.), records kept or maintained by the Township of Howell, the Howell Township Municipal Court, the Howell Township Police Department and/or any other department in the jurisdiction of the Township of Howell, are requested and again marked required on this date of Request, January 30, 2019, to be in possession of both named parties in MUNICIPAL APPEAL NO: 18-040 that has been FILED and is now pending in SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, LAW DIVISION – CRIMINAL PART, MONMOUTH VICINAGE, and despite receiving no less than one form of notice marked FILED in the present year, no formal acknowledgment of that matter has been forthcoming from the Township of Howell, with that notice consisting of a one page document stamped “DAVID F. BAUMAN, P.J.Cr.”, whereupon the date of “JAN 10 2019”, the Howell Township Municipal Court was ORDERED to pay all fees and costs associated with preparation of the court transcript from the Municipal Hearing that did take place on just the one Hearing date of December 7, 2018, despite a multitude of other Hearings that did take place and are all directly related. Of note, the Violation enumerated “220-C” and/or “220-2” that did result in MA 18-040 was coerced on December 7, 2018, on which date a plea was agreed upon in light of a false presumption provided to this requestor while seated in the Howell Township Municipal Court with no less than one Howell Township Police Officer standing nearby following from alleged threats that on this date of Request have are not described in language beyond the general description of “threats”otherwise absent any official record(s) known to this requestor. The aforementioned proximity was maintained by HTPD on what had been scheduled as the first day of a trial, during which time each and every moment this requestor was present within either the Howell Township Municipal Court or in the antechamber that presence was maintained by the female Howell Township Police Department Officer whose badge number was identified #676 upon request and subsequently identified in a handwritten OPRA Request dated December 7, 2018 that was transmit on or about 12:10 PM EST to “Dianne”, who in all likelihood is or was employed by the Howell Township Police Department Records Bureau on that date. Furthermore, that Request has not yet been fulfilled or acknowledged as of the present time, and the text of that OPRA Request dated “12/07/18” was photographed on or about 12:08 PM EST and is reproduced in full, including errors, as follows hereafter: “All written documents in possession of Howell Police and/or the Township of Howell describing thereupon all alleged threats this requestor made, allegedly, against Howell Court staff, the judge(s) of Howell Court, and/or other Township of Howell employees, specifically following from the allegation made by PTL S. Regin (sic), #676 that SGT. J. Lopez as her supervisor ordered one to one monitoring of this requestor following from unspecified, allegedly and explicitly false claims that threats were made one or more (sic) employees of the Township of Howell.” The OPRA Request was handwritten on one of the handful of blank four page “OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST FORM” packets observed stacked on the counter of the public facing side of the Howell Township Police Department Records Bureau window that is also located in the antechamber to the Howell Township Municipal Court. Furthermore, that packet was obtained and completed in both physical and visual proximity to the male HTPD Class II Officer #324, whose surname remains unknown, and the female HTPD Officer PTL S. REGINA #676, as prior stated. Both HTPD Officers were so kind as to state their badge numbers aloud following from requests for identification made in the moments prior to handing the completed Request form to “Dianne”, despite only identifying #676 thereupon. The specific record(s) requested herein are the very same requested on December 7, 2018 and in at least one OPRA Request dated prior, both of which remain unfulfilled, wherein the prior dated and nearly identical Request regarding alleged threats is highlighted in GRC Complaint 2018-303 entitled Miller v. Twp. of Howell (Monmouth), for which the original Denial of Access Complaint submit by this requestor was stamped “RECEIVED” by the New Jersey Government Records Council on “2018 DEC 3 PM 1 26” at such time four GRC Complaints entitled Miller v. Twp. of Howell (Monmouth) had already been filed. Furthermore, the specific government record(s) that would bear the requested, required and otherwise absent information are not known to be anything other than police reports. As such, any and all Howell Township Police Department reports are requested herein, if not otherwise exempt, thereupon describing any and all threats allegedly made by this requestor against anyone who claims to have been threatened by that very same person in the period between the present date of January 30, 2019 and the nominal date of September 23, 1986.

SECOND, DOES THE CONDUCT OF LOPEZ PRIMA FACIE CONSTITUTE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST THAT REQUESTOR FOR MAKING TERRORISTIC THREATS? CONVERSELY, IF NO THREATS WERE ACTUALLY MADE BY THE ACCUSED, AS IS THE FACTUAL REALITY, DOES THE CONDUCT OF LOPEZ, WITH PERHAPS OTHER ACTORS, CONSTITUTE ONE OR MORE VIOLATIONS OF,

 N.J.S.A. 2C:13-5. Criminal coercion

SPECIFICALLY IN REGARD TO 2C:13-5 A(2), 2C:13-5 A(4), 2C:13-5 A(6), AND/OR 2C:13-5 A(7), DESCRIPTIONS OF WHICH CAN BE FOUND IN THE TEXT OF THE NEW JERSEY CRIMINAL CODE EXHIBITED BELOW FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

CRIMINAL COERCION
[ENLARGE]
AN ACTOR COMMITS CRIMINAL COERCION IF HE OR SHE PURPOSEFULLY AND UNLAWFULLY RESTRICTS A PERSON’S ABILITY TO ENGAGE OR REFRAIN FROM ENGAGING IN CONDUCT THROUGH THREATS:

N.J.S.A. 2C:13-5 A(2), CONSISTING OF FALSE ACCUSATIONS THAT A PERSON COMMITTED A CRIMINAL AND/OR OTHER OFFENSE.

 

N.J.S.A. 2C:13-5 A(4), CONSISTING OF AN ACTION TAKEN OR WITHHELD BY AN OFFICIAL, OR CONSISTING OF AN ACTION THAT WOULD CAUSE AN OFFICIAL TO TAKE OR WITHHOLD ACTION.

 

N.J.S.A. 2C:13-5 A(6), CONSISTING OF PROVIDING TESTIMONY OR INFORMATION, OR WITHHOLDING TESTIMONY OR INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO A PERSON’S LEGAL CLAIM OR DEFENSE.

 

N.J.S.A. 2C:13-5 A(7), CONSISTING OF ANY OTHER ACT THAT IS INTENDED TO HARM A TARGETED PERSON WITH REGARD TO HIS OR HER HEALTH, SAFETY, BUSINESS, CALLING, CAREER, FINANCIAL CONDITION, REPUTATION OR PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS.

THIRDWITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE DESCRIBED ALBEIT NON-SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS THAT THREATS WERE MADE, WE FIRST CONSIDER POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF,

N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3. Terroristic threats

WITH ABBREVIATED TEXT OF THAT STATUTE EXHIBITED BELOW AS EXCERPTED FROM THE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATABASE MAINTAINED THE NEW JERSEY STATE LEGISLATURE.

TERRORISTIC THREATS
[EXPAND]
AN ACTOR IS GUILTY OF MAKING TERRORISTIC THREATS IF HE OR SHE,

N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3 (A), THREATENS TO COMMIT ANY CRIME OF VIOLENCE WITH INTENT TO TERRORIZE THE TARGETED PERSON, OR MAKES A THREAT THAT RESULTS IN THE EVACUATION OF A BUILDING, PUBLIC SPACE AND/OR OTHER DEFINED LOCATIONS, AND THE SEVERITY OF THE VIOLATION IS GREATER IF THE ACT IS COMMITTED DURING A TIME OF DECLARED EMERGENCY. FURTHERMORE, THE ACTOR SHALL BE STRICTLY LIABLE UPON PROOF THAT THE CRIME OCCURRED.

 

N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3 (B), THREATENS TO KILL ANOTHER PERSON WITH INTENT TO PUT THE TARGETED INDIVIDUAL IN IMMEDIATE FEAR OF DEATH.

FOURTH, AGAIN CONSIDERING THE UNSPECIFIED NATURE OF THE ALLEGED THREATS, THE DESCRIPTIONS OF CRIMINAL HARASSMENT AND CYBER-HARASSMENT FOUND IN CHAPTER THIRTY-THREE ARE IN ALL LIKELIHOOD WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED NEXT FOR ALLEGED COMMUNICATIONS NOT EXPLICITLY THREATENING THE LIFE OF AN INDIVIDUAL. EXCERPTS BELOW FROM THE TEXT DESCRIBING VIOLATIONS OF,

N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4. Harassment

AND

N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4.1. Cyber-harassment

AN ACTOR COMMITS A PETTY DISORDERLY PERSONS OFFENSE OF HARASSMENT IF HE OR SHE PURPOSEFULLY HARASSES ANOTHER PERSON:

N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4 (A), BY MAKING OR EFFECTING COMMUNICATION(S) KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN INITIATED BY THE ACTOR AT VERY INCONVENIENT HOURS, USING OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE, OR IN SUCH A MANNER LIKELY TO CAUSE ANNOYANCE OR ALARM.

 

N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4 (B), BY EITHER STRIKING, KICKING, SHOVING, OR OFFENSIVELY TOUCHING THE VICTIM, OR THREATENING TO DO SO.

 

N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4 (C), BY ENGAGING IN ANY OTHER COURSE OF ALARMING CONDUCT OR BY REPEATEDLY COMMITTING ACTS INTENDED TO ALARM OR SERIOUSLY ANNOY THE VICTIM.

 

N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4 (E), WHEREBY THE OTHERWISE NON-FELONY CRIMINAL ACTS DESCRIBED IN THE PRECEDING THREE SUBSECTIONS ARE GRADED AS A CRIME OF THE FOURTH DEGREE IN THE EVENT THE ACTOR ENGAGES IN SUCH CONDUCT WHILE SERVING A TERM OF IMPRISONMENT, WHILE ON PAROLE, OR WHILE ON PROBATION FOLLOWING FROM CONVICTION OF AN INDICTABLE OFFENSE UNDER THE LAWS OF NEW JERSEY, ANY OTHER STATE OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

AN ACTOR COMMITS THE FOURTH DEGREE CRIME OF CYBER-HARASSMENT IF HE OR SHE MAKES A COMMUNICATION IN AN ONLINE CAPACITY USING ANY ELECTRONIC DEVICE OR THROUGH A SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE WITH THE PURPOSE TO HARASS THE TARGETED VICTIM THAT DOES:

N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4.1 (A)(1), THREATEN TO INFLICT INJURY OR PHYSICAL HARM TO THE TARGETED VICTIM OR HIS OR HER PROPERTY.

 

N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4.1 (A)(2), KNOWINGLY SEND, POSTS, COMMENTS, REQUESTS, SUGGESTS, OR PROPOSES ANY LEWD, INDECENT OR OBSCENE MATERIAL TO OR ABOUT A PERSON WITH THE INTENT TO EMOTIONALLY HARM A REASONABLE PERSON OR PLACE A REASONABLE PERSON IN FEAR OF PHYSICAL OR EMOTIONAL HARM.

 

N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4.1 (A)(3), THREATEN TO COMMIT ANY CRIME AGAINST THE TARGETED VICTIM OR HIS OR HER PROPERTY.

 

N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4.1 (B), OF NOTE, WHEN COMMUNICATIONS ARE MADE CONTRARY TO THE PRECEDING THREE SUBSECTIONS AT SUCH TIME THE ACTOR IS OVER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE AND THE TARGETED VICTIM IS A MINOR, THE ACT BECOMES A VIOLATION OF THE THIRD-DEGREE.

WHEN THE ACTOR IS MINOR UNDER THE AGE OF SIXTEEN, THE COURT MAY ORDER AS A CONDITION OF SENTENCE:

N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4.1 (C)(1), A CLASS OR TRAINING PROGRAM INTENDED TO REDUCE THE MINOR’S PROCLIVITY TO COMMIT ACTS IN VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE.

 

N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4.1 (C)(2), A CLASS OR TRAINING PROGRAM INTENDED TO INSTRUCT THE MINOR TO THE DANGERS ASSOCIATED WITH CYBER-HARASSMENT.

WHEN A PARENT OR GUARDIAN FAILS TO COMPLY THE CONDITIONS OF SENTENCE SET FORTH IN (C)(1) AND C(2) ABOVE, THAT PARENT OR GUARDIAN IS ADJUDICATED:

N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4.1 (D), A DISORDERLY PERSON WHO SHALL BE FINED NO MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS FOR A FIRST OFFENSE AND NO MORE THAN ONE-HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR EACH SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE.

FIFTH, THE CASE OF PICKETTERS’ CHARGE DID INCLUDE FOR A PERIOD OF SIXTY-SEVEN DAYS THE PERCEIVED THREAT OF IMMINENT ARREST OR SERVICE OF PROCESS OF ONE OR MORE BRAND NEW CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS FOR ONE OR MORE ALLEGED CRIMINAL ACTS DESCRIBED AS “CYBER-HARASSMENT” BY A FEMALE INDIVIDUAL WHO DURING THAT SIXTY-SEVEN DAY PERIOD WAS ALLEGEDLY THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY OF THE ONE DEFENDANT IN PICKETTERS’ CHARGE, AND SHE WHO DESPITE NO LESS THAN THREE NOTIFICATIONS THAT HER SERVICES WERE NOT DESIRED DID IGNORE THOSE REQUESTS FOR SUBSTITUTION AS DID ANOTHER FEMALE EMPLOYEE OF THE MERCER COUNTY TRIAL REGION OPD WHO DID CLAIM TO BE HER SUPERIOR. FURTHERMORE, THE ATTORNEY DID MAKE A COMMUNICATION ON OR ABOUT TWENTY-NINTH NOVEMBER TWO-THOUSAND EIGHTEEN BY PHONE CALL PLACED TO HER CLIENT, DURING WHICH TIME SHE DID STATE MULTIPLE TIMES THAT “THE MERCER COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE IS LOOKING TO CHARGE YOU”, FOR COMMUNICATIONS DESCRIBING A VICTIM THAT SHE DID NOT IDENTIFY BY NAME AND SPECIFICALLY REGARDING PUBLIC DISCLOSURES RELATED A DIVORCE THAT WERE ALSO NOT SUBSEQUENTLY DESCRIBED BY DOCKET NUMBER, IDENTITY OF A JUDGE, THE NAME OF EITHER PARTY OR BY WHAT SPECIFIC PUBLIC DISCLOSURES WERE DEEMED CONTRARY TO N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4.1 (A) et seq. THE COMMUNICATIONS AS SUCH WERE NEVER DESCRIBED AS HAVING BEEN MADE OR CAUSED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE DEFENDANT, NEVER CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE ON ANY ELECTRONIC DEVICE OR THROUGH A SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE THAT WAS IN ACTUAL FACT OWNED OR OPERATED BY THE DEFENDANT, AND OF THE HIGHEST SIGNIFICANCE SOMETHING WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN POSTED TO A WEBSITE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS “SOMETHING AWFUL”, AND REGARDLESS OF WHAT SPECIFIC DOMAIN WAS UTTERED BY THAT ATTORNEY, THE DEFENDANT REMAINS UNAWARES OF ANY PUBLIC DISCLOSURES RELATED TO THE CASE POSTED TO ANY WEBSITE THAT SHE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE ACTUALLY NAMED, AND FURTHERMORE THE DEFENDANT HER THEN CLIENT WAS CERTAINLY NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY WEBSITE AS SUCH.

THE FOLLOWING CLAIMS WERE ALSO MADE BY THAT ATTORNEY DURING THE TWENTY-NINTH NOVEMBER PHONE CONVERSATION:

ONE, ASSERTION THAT ANY DIVORCE PROCEEDING INVOLVING THE ALLEGED VICTIM IN PICKETTERS’ CHARGE ACTIVE CONCOMITANT TO THE CASE COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE RELEVANT TO AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. THIS CLAIM WAS MADE VERY EMPHATICALLY, IN MANNER ONE MIGHT DESCRIBE NEAR BORDERLINE HYSTERICAL, REPEATEDLY ASSERTED, APPROX “THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY IT COULD BE RELATED”.

 

TWO, EXPLICIT REFUSALS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER A OR THE DIVORCE PROCEEDING RESULTED IN FINANCIAL GAIN OR LOSS FOR EITHER PARTY.

 

THREE, WOULD NOT ENTERTAIN POSSIBILITY THAT DEFENDANT MAY HAVE BEEN SUBJECT OF DIVORCE ON-RECORD TESTIMONY AND/OR DESCRIBED IN OTHER COURT DOCUMENTS. OF NOTE, ATTORNEY WITH NO KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORY BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND ALLEGED VICTIM PROVIDED BY DEFENDANT UNLESS SHE DID READ DOAC SERES VS LAWRENCE, NOTE RETURNED TWENTY-EIGHTH JANUARY TWO-THOUSAND NINETEEN, INCLUDING INVITE TO WEDDING OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM AND HUSBAND, BOTH OF WHOM NAMED ON EACH OF THREE VERSIONS OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER THAT DID APPEAR TO BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR USE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IN A SIMULTANEOUS CRIMINAL PROCEEDING CONTRARY TO N.J.S.A. 2C: 25-29 BY VIRTUE OF INCLUSION IN FIFTY-TWO PAGE DISCOVERY PACKET FIRST PROVIDED TO DEFENDANT FIRST OCTOBER TWO-THOUSAND EIGHTEEN AT INITIAL DISPOSITION CONFERENCE.

 

FOUR, CLAIM THAT ENTIRE DOAC SERIES VS LAWRENCE DID NOT MATTER, UNCLEAR IF SHE WAS EVEN AWARE OF CONTENT OR HOW THAT CONTENT RELATED TO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.

SIXTHTHE HISTORY OF PICKETTERS’ CHARGE AS RECORDED BY ZONE ON FOURTEENTH JANUARY TWO-THOUSAND NINETEEN, EXHIBITED IN THE TWENTY-TWO IMAGES SEEN BELOW,

SEVENTH, THE TWENTY-EIGHTH JANUARY TWO-THOUSAND NINETEEN SERIES OF A NEARLY IDENTICAL GROUP OF SHEETS THIS TIME DIRECTLY REQUESTED USING THE FORM EXHIBITED IN POSITION ONE WHICH DID YIELD THIS SERIES PURPORTING TO DESCRIBE A HISTORY OF PICKETTERS’ CHARGE. SPOT THE DIFFERENCE FROM THE FOURTEENTH JANUARY LOT IN THE TWENTY-SEVEN IMAGES EXHIBITED BELOW,

EIGHTH, THE FOURTH FEBRUARY TWO-THOUSAND NINETEEN SERIES THAT DID MARK THE CONCLUSION OF PICKETTERS’ CHARGE IN ZONE IS EXHIBITED IN FIVE IMAGES BELOW, AND DO INDEED PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE REMARK ON CORRESPONDENCE ALLEGEDLY NEVER SENT TO HUNTERDON COUNTY.


STAY TUNED!

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s