WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF FORMER JUDGE SUSSWEIN REASSIGNMENT, READ DISBARMENT, AS THOSE TANS ARE NONSENSICAL AND WE HAVE VERBAL AFFIRMATION FROM STAFF OVER THERE THAT NO SUBSEQUENT RE-EDITION OF MOST CRITICAL TRACK ASSIGNMENT NOTICE WILL BE DONE, WHICH MEANS THERE IS NO LAW AND ORDER IN THE STATE [PREVIEW]

THE 34TH DAY T MINUS TWO ZERO TWENTY-THREE: EMERGENCY MEETINGS IN MERCER

SUCH IS LIFE IN THE ZONE

COULD IT BE RELATED?

HASH-TAG REKT

THE 34TH DAY T MINUS TWO ZERO TWENTY: PUBLIC NOTICE, SERVED IN LIEU OF STANDARD SERVICE OF PROCESS SET FORTH IN R. 4:5A-2

REFERENCE

THE 34TH DAY T MINUS TWO ZERO NINETEEN: KORNGUT

FIRST PAGE BELOW THE FOLD

CONTINUED

ADAM MILLER VS. “DONNA DOE”, LIKELY COURT OFFICER OF LAWRENCE TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL COURT WHO MAY IN BE FACT BE THE “RATTZO” IN MER L DASH ZERO ZERO ZERO FIVE TWO FIVE DASH ONE NINE

ISN’T THAT SOMETHING?

ISN’T THAT THE LAW? CIVIL SUIT FILED AGAINST FEMALE INDIVIDUAL WHO ON MANY DATES INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY FIFTH MARCH TWO-THOUSAND NINETEEN DID REFUSE TO IDENTIFY HERSELF TO PLAINTIFF. SO NO, DONNA DOE, PLEASE DO LEAVE AND HEAD STRAIGHT TO COURT SO A NAME MAY BE ENTERED UPON THE RECORD, AS IS, WAS, AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN REQUIRED OF COURT EMPLOYEES CONDUCTING ROUTINE BUSINESS IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY WITH THOSE PERSONS BEING PROSECUTED BY THAT COURT.

NOTE, SERVED.*

CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT

COMPLAINT PAGE ONE

COMPLAINT PAGE TWO

*PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT, TENTATIVE TO POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT

THE 34TH DAY T MINUS THREE ZERO NINETEEN: THE QUAKERBRIDGE ROAD OFFENSIVE

WHAT DID SHE MEAN BY THIS?

THE DIVORCEE SO NAMED BELOW, “AS”, WHOSE NAME WAS ABSENT THE SPARINGLY FEWS COURT DOCUMENT TO DO WITH PICKETTERS’ CHARGE UNTIL FIRST OCTOBER ONE LAST YEAR, WHO DID IN ALL LIKELIHOOD FREQUENT AN ESTABLISHMENT CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH A FEMALE INDIVIDUAL WHO AT ONE TIME RESIDED IN PRINCETON WHO WAS STALKED BY “AS”, WITH THE EXTENT OF THAT STALKING AT PRESENT TIME UNKNOWN, ALBEIT FIRST CONFIRMED TO BE KNOWN OF BY LAW ENFORCEMENT IN LAWRENCE TOWNSHIP ON SIXTH SEPTEMBER TWO-THOUSAND SEVENTEEN.

“WE ARE DIVORCED

“BECAUSE WE HATE EACH OTHER SO”

NOTE, JUDGE FITZPATRICK IS THE HANDLER OF KANE/KENYON IN THE FAMILY PART OF THE MERCER VICINAGE. THE REMAINING FIVE PAGES OF THE SIX PAGE RECORD OBTAINED FROM THE FAMILY PART OF THE MERCER VICINAGE ARE EXHIBITED BELOW.

NOTE THE DATE ON THE COMPLAINT, TWENTY-NINTH OCTOBER TWO-THOUSAND SEVENTEEN, THE DATE FILED, THIRD NOVEMBER TWO-THOUSAND SEVENTEEN, AND THE DATE OF FINAL JUDGMENT, TWENTY-FIRST MAY TWO-THOUSAND EIGHTEEN.

BOTH NAMED PARTIES ABOVE, NAMED ON ONLY ONE OF THE TWO SETS SEEN BELOW. YET SET NUMBER TWO ABSENT FROM THE FIRST OCTOBER TWO-THOUSAND EIGHTEEN DISCOVERY, HOWEVER THE FIRST SET WAS OBSERVED IN THAT FIFTY-TWO PAGE PACKET PRODUCED IN TRIPLICATE, INEXPLICABLY, AND AS SUCH BOTH FULMINO AND SREENIVASAN WERE FORMALLY NAMED IN PICKETTERS’ CHARGE, HOWEVER NO MENTION OF ANY DIVORCE PROCEEDING DID OCCUR UNTIL SUCH TIME AN APPOINTED ATTORNEY DID CLAIM THAT,

“THE MERCER COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE IS LOOKING TO CHARGE YOU AGAIN…THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY A DIVORCE COULD BE RELATED TO THIS CASE…THE MERCER COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE IS LOOKING TO CHARGE YOU AGAIN…THE MERCER COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE IS LOOKING TO CHARGE YOU WITH CYBER-HARASSMENT FOR POSTING ABOUT A DIVORCE ON…” [SOMETHING NOT RELATED TO BAETYL, BAETYL & CO. WHATSOEVER]

TO WHICH ONE CAN ONLY REPLY, DIVORCE RECORDS ARE PUBLIC, ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ARE TWO NAMES, A COUNTY, AND A TEN YEAR RANGE. FITZPATRICK NEEDS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE BENCH AND PROSECUTED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. (SOMETHING ABOUT A DIVORCE HERE)

NOTE, ONE OF THREE SETS IN THE DISCOVERY WAS A TYPE HERETOFORE UNSEEN AND SUBSEQUENTLY NOT PROVIDED BY THE MERCER COUNTY FAMILY PART IN THE RECORDS EXHIBITED BELOW THAT WERE OBTAINED FOLLOWING FROM A COURT RECORDS REQUEST TRANSMIT PRIOR TO FIRST OCTOBER.

PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE FAMILY PART OF THE MERCER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT SPOTTED TWICE IN RELATION TO PICKETTERS’ CHARGE VERSIONS ONE AND TWO, WHEREIN VERSION ONE THE IDENTITY OF THE VICTIM WAS CONCEALED FOR THREE-HUNDRED AND NINETY DAYS.

THAT IS NOT JOKE.

NO NAME OF ANY VICTIM IN THAT CASE WAS IDENTIFIED ON ANY DOCUMENT FOR GREATER THAN ONE YEAR.

IS THE OBSCENE DURATION OF THE CASE OR CASES THE RESULT OF HIDDEN INTERFERENCE FROM JUDGE FITZPATRICK?

IF SO, WHY EXACTLY?

HERE WE ARE YET AGAIN

AGAIN WE FIND NO VICTIM NAMED ON THE SOLE DOCUMENT THAT MAY OR MAY NOT DESCRIBE VERSION TWO, SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD ON THE DATE FIVE-HUNDRED AND THIRTY-ONE DAYS FOLLOWING FROM THE START OF VERSION ONE.

VERSION TWO WITH NEW CLAIMS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT OF ALLEGED ACTS ON SIXTH SEPTEMBER TWO-THOUSAND SEVENTEEN.

SO WHAT IS TO BE DONE WITH THESE THINGS ABOVE AND BELOW?

TWO DATES

REPORTS FAIL TO MENTION CASH STOLEN FROM WALLET IN EXACT AMOUNT OF LAWSUIT FILING FEE. OR WHO RECOVERED THE WALLET.

TWO WORDS, ONE BOROUGH, ROCKY HILL, NOT ROCKHILL

APPARENTLY MERCER COUNTY CAN SEND LETTERS, ALTHOUGH MEETING NEVER OCCURRED DESPITE MULTIPLE REQUESTS, NO CALLBACKS EITHER. JUST THREATS.

MEANWHILE DURING THE SAME CASE

HOW MANY COUNTIES INVOLVED? ALL BUT MERCER. NONE BUT MERCER. MERCER PTS WAS BOOTED FOLLOWING FROM NTH ATTEMPT TO EFFECT FALSE IMPRISONMENT OF THE DEFENDANT BY SCHEDULING CALL FOR THREE-FIFTEEN AM, WHICH THE DEFENDANT HAD TO CALL IN PRIOR TO DATE AND INFORM ALLEGED EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY INDEED A COMMUNICATION TO BE MADE AT RATHER UNREASONABLE TIME.

WHAT EXACTLY IS A MISTRIAL?

NOTE THAT THESE MATTERS HAVE NEVER REACHED TRIAL.

CLAIM REMANDED MATTER HAD ALREADY BEEN DISMISSED

ARE THE COMMUNICATIONS IN THE POST AND ELSEWHERE MADE WITH PURPOSE TO HARASS?

NO.

THEY ARE MADE IN PURPOSE OF SELF-DEFENSE. RATHER OBVIOUS TO SOME, HOWEVER THREATENING TO THOSE AGAINST WHOM LAWFUL, PEACEFUL, AND EXPLICITLY LEGAL SELF-DEFENSE IS REQUIRED.