Weiss v. State of New Jersey

MOTION for Summary Judgment

D.N.J.July 5, 2017

Stanley Weiss, Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT v DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY State Of New Jersey, Defendant Case Number 2:17-CV-01406-JLL-JAD Plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgment This motion is filed to promptly enforce the ruling of United States v Jones, 565 U.S. 945 (2012) which renders unconstitutional the New Jersey Supreme Court Rule 7:2-2(a)(3) (hereafter "The Rule") that authorizes any code enforcement officer (hereafter "CEO") to trespass on private property and seize interests in it without obtaining a judicial probable cause warrant. The need for prompt enforcement arises because one such CEO, with the protection of New Jersey Courts, has already caused the trespass on plaintiffs (hereafter "Weiss") property, the removal of one of his trees and the assertion of a lien on his property for the costs incurred. At this point the basic dispute is simply who pays for the costs of the removal - the Town of South Orange (hereafter "SO") or Weiss - and Jones requires SO to pay. SO is a local government agency that is abusing its power in this case. This motion for summary judgment is supported by many facts in addition to those set forth in the complaint. For example, shortly after the decision in Jones Weiss sent papers about this case to the Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court and asked for the exercise of the Court's original jurisdiction to address the impact of the Jones case on The Rule. tn1 The Court's ultimate response was a letter sent by the Clerk of the Court listing the various routine rules that need to be followed to obtain access to the Supreme Court. Another example is a motion Weiss made to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court for relief pursuant to Rules 7:13-1 and 2:2-3 (b). The motion was denied. Many other facts that support the summary judgment motion are set forth below. Often the facts are contained in the various exhibits, accurate copies of which are attached as Exhibits A-G and which provide relevant information. By way of background, please note: (a) SO has had four different fnl- The Chief Justice, who preceded the current Chief Justice had responded favorably to an earlier request by Weiss for the exercise of original jurisdiction in another case, totally unrelated to the present matter. Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8 Filed 07/05/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 27 CEOs in the past four years; (b) Charles Murray was the CEO in the third year when Weiss moved in the Superior Court pursuant to Rule 3:24 (a) for leave to appeal the third case brought against him for failure to remove the same tree which Mr. Murray never claimed posed any hazard to any person; (c) Anthony Grenci is the fourth CEO, and he caused the actions referred to in the first paragraph above and sent Weiss a letter attached as Exhibit A; (d) while Weiss's Rule 3:24(a) motion was pending, SO filed a proceeding in the Municipal Court (without joining or even notifying Weiss of same) which led to a dismissal of the 3:24(a) motion; (e) Weiss had previously sent Mr. Grenci a letter marked as Exhibit Band when he learned of the dismissal he filed a motion in the Superior Court, see Exhibit C, to reconsider the dismissal; (f) the Superior Court then sent a letter, see Exhibit D (without the Weiss handwritten phone numbers on it); and, in anticipation of the hearing scheduled for May 26, 2017,Weiss sent the letter marked Exhibit E. What happened next borders on the unbelievable and provides the most recent evidence of the protection provided by the New Jersey Courts to the CEO. See Exhibit G, the transcript of the hearing and Exhibit F the order entered on that day. Weiss was so stunned by what occurred that he didn't correct the most shocking aspect-ie., namely that Garcia Roberto Montilus, whom Weiss knows very well for more than three years, was not there. Weiss has never seen or heard of the man pretending to be Mr. Montilus; and it is obvious that someone arranged for his corrupt presence. There are a number of other problems with the Court's order. The order says that the Court had considered the arguments of counsel. In fact, there had been no arguments before the order was entered. The Court's letter, marked Exhibit D, anticipated that the State (or SO) would file a brief in opposition to Exhibit C, the Weiss motion to reconsider the Municipal Court dismissal. No such brief was filed. The order provides that the Weiss appeal is dismissed as moot without explaining why the Court had sent Exhibit D anticipating that the State or SO would submit a brief on the merits. Moreover, the Court stated at the hearing that the real reason for the order was that the Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed. This was a brand new issue stated without any explanation of its basis or citation to any case law that would support it; and Weiss stated his disagreement on the issue. The Court's opinion is therefore deeply flawed and corruptly so in view of the man pretending to be Mr. Montilus. While the specific matter addressed did not in theory involve the constitutional Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8 Filed 07/05/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 28 issue; in fact, the sole significance of the ruling is the question it left open of who should pay for the costs of removing the tree and Jones provides the answer, SO should pay. The Court was aware of the underlying constitutional issue. It had received Exhibit B which stressed the importance of the constitutional issue and Exhibit E which explains SO's role in removing the tree and ignoring the protection Weiss and his wife are entitled to under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, Weiss does not believe that Judge Rosero knew that a stranger was pretending to be Mr. Montilus or that she would have ruled as she did if Weiss had told her. Did SO arrange for the corrupt presence of that stranger? Weiss will serve these papers on SO so that it can appear and offer whatever proof it wishes at the hearing. CONCLUSION Weiss contends that in the absence of a compelling factual rebuttal or legal argument, the facts asserted above are sufficient to justify the granting of the summary judgment motion-and particularly so in light of the immediate dispute over who pays for the costs of removing the tree and SO's expressed intention to assert a lien on the property for those costs. It is time for a court to finally recognize the existence of the majority opinion in Jones and to apply it even in New Jersey. Respectfully submitted, Stanley Weiss, prose A brief is not necessary because it is a fact that no New Jersey Court has protected Weiss's constitutional rights as defined in the Jones case. ~0~ Stanley Weiss, pro se Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8 Filed 07/05/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 29 EXHIBIT A Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8-1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 1 of 24 PageID: 30 Township of South Orange Village April 6, 2017 Stanley and Leah R. Weiss 278 Underhill Rd. South Orange, NJ 07079 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Weiss, Building Department 76 South Orange Ave. Suite 302 South Orange, NJ 07079 973-378-7715 x 7700 Fax: 973-378-5830 You are hereby given notice pursuant to Village Code Sections 56-3 and 56-5 (also see N.J.S.A. 40:48-2.13 and 2.14) that a hazardous condition exists on your property, namely a dead and decaying tree. Pursuant to the referenced code and statute sections you are hereby directed to remove the subject tree from your property within 10 days of receipt of this notice. Failure to remove the tree shall result in its removal by the Township of South Orange and a lien for the cost of removal aced on your property. or of Code Enforcement and Inspections Township of South Orange Village I 101 South Orange Avenue I South Orange I Essex County I New Jersey I 07079 p. 973.378.7715 ext. 7700 I f. 973.378.5830 \ agrenci@southorange.org \ www.southorange.org Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8-1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 2 of 24 PageID: 31 Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8-1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 3 of 24 PageID: 32 Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8-1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 4 of 24 PageID: 33 EXHIBIT C Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8-1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 5 of 24 PageID: 34 The State of New Jersey v Stanley Weiss Municipal Appeal# 2017-002 ./ DEFENDANMOTION TO RECONSIDER THE DISMISSAL OF THE ABOVE APPEAL A defendant letter, a true copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, was recently delivered to Mr. Anthony Grenci, who is a new South Orange director of code enforcement, setting forth major problems raised by letters he and a law firm have sent defendant. These problems are relevant to defendant's present motion. Defendant has been advised that a motion to dismiss this appeal was made and granted in the Municipal Court though neither he nor his wife were made parties to said motion. In fact, defendant first learned about the motion to dismiss from a phone conference with an assistant to Your Honor. Defendant contends that his motion to reconsider should be granted because of the following. First, the issues raised in Exhibit A including the fact that Mr. Grenci lacks the power to act since he has never sued the defendant or his wife. Second, fundamental due process considerations required the joinder of defendant in the dismissal motion filed in the Municipal Court. It is unusual, to say the least, that any court would even consider-let alone grant- a motion affecting the interests of defendant without giving the defendant the opportunity to be heard on such a matter. Accordingly, Defendant respectfully requests that the above appeal not be dismissed and that the Court should then either grant or deny defendant's Rule 3:24(a) motion for leave to appeal based upon the extensive arguments previously submitted. Stanley Weiss April 18, 2017 '~J~ lJLv~ cc: ~ .. 1r. lll).nthony Grenci The above motion papers will be delivered to Mr. Grenci's office today -(~l~J~. Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8-1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 6 of 24 PageID: 35 EXHIBIT A Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8-1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 7 of 24 PageID: 36 Ill Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8-1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 8 of 24 PageID: 37 Ill Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8-1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 9 of 24 PageID: 38 Ill EXHIBIT D Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8-1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 10 of 24 PageID: 39 Ill SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY ESSEX VICINAGE CHAMBERS OF MARYSOL ROSERO JUDGE Stanley Weiss 278 Underhill Road South Orange, New Jersey 07079 Garcia Robert Montilus, Esq. South Orange Prosecutor's Office 1618 Springfield A venue Maplewood, New Jersey 07040 Re: State v. Stanley Weiss Municipal Appeal# MA 2017-002 Dear Counsel/ Appellant: ESSEX COUNTY COURTS BUILDING NEWARK. NEW JERSEY 07102 C!f73 . 77? ~ f Cf s ~) April 24, 2017 Please be advised that the court is in receipt of defendant-appellant's Motion to Reconsider the Dismissal of the Above Appeal, dated April 18, 2017. The State's brief in opposition is to be filed with this Court by May 12, 2017. Oral argument in this matter is scheduled for Friday, May 26, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, ~~ Hon. Marysol Rosero, J.S.C. Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8-1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 11 of 24 PageID: 40 EXHIBIT E Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8-1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 12 of 24 PageID: 41 To: The Honorable Marysol Rosero From: Defendant, Stanley Weiss Re: Municipal Appeal #MA 2017-002 On May 23, 2017 Mr. Grenci sought to moot the hearing you scheduled for argument at 2 pm on May 26, 2017 by having a group of men take down the tree in question. When my wife and I returned from our early morning errand, we saw the group and I spoke to the person in charge of the group and told him that he was trespassing on my property and that I objected to it and wanted him to leave. His answer was that it was a dangerous dead tree (which I deny) and the town had authorized him to act. Mr. Grenci, as the new CEO, apparently thinks that he has the power to do as he sees fit without regard (a) to the rights of others, or (b) the Municipal Court rules governing his conduct, or (c) the constitutional protections set forth in United States v Jones, 565U.S.945. (2012). See the six reasons set forth in my brief submitted on 3/9/17 in anticipation of a March 31 hearing-which was cancelled when Mr. Grenci could not respond on the merits and so arranged for the unilateral Municipal Court dismissal proceeding. On April 27, 2017 at 3:35 pm, I called Mr. Grenci, who was not there, and I left a message on his answering machine offering to consent to the removal of the tree and withdrawal of all pending State proceedings if he would agree that the township would pay the costs-a result required by footnote 5 of the majority opinion in the Jones case. Mr. Grenci never responded to the settlement offer: And it is now withdrawn. Mr. Grenci's conduct is both legally wrong and otherwise improper.Accordingly, I ask the Court to (a) grant our pending motion to reconsider the dismissal, {b) decide our Rule 3:24 (a) motion for leave to appeal, and (c) adjourn the hearing scheduled for 2pm on May 26, 2017 and set a new hearing date, if considered appropriate. Respectfully submitted _QL~(j~ Stanley Weiss May 24, 2017 P.S I will call your chambers tomorrow to inquire about "(c)" above. cc. Mr. Grenci hand delivered to his office today. Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8-1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 13 of 24 PageID: 42 EXHIBIT F Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8-1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 14 of 24 PageID: 43 PREPARED BY THE COURT STATE OF NEW JERSEY Plaintiff, V. STANLEY WEISS Defendant. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION - ESSEX COUNTY MUNICIPAL APPEAL NO. MA-2017-002 CRIMINAL ACTION :AY 2~ 201~ Wi L I Marysol Rosero, JSC THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court by way of Municipal Appeal from an Order issued by the South Orange Municipal Court by Defendant-Appellant Stanley Weiss, pro se; Gracia Robert Montilus, Esq., Township Attorney for the Township of West Orange, appearing on behalf of the State; and the Court having reviewed the record below, and having considered the briefs submitted by defendant, and arguments of counsel, and it appearing that summons number SC-2016-33566 (the subject of this appeal) was dismissed on April 4, 2017, and for the reasons stated on the record: IT IS on this 26th day of May, 2017; ORDERED that defendant's Municipal Appeal is hereby dismissed as moot. A copy of this Order was served by the Court on this 26th day of May, 2017. Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8-1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 15 of 24 PageID: 44 EXHIBIT G Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8-1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 16 of 24 PageID: 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, vs. STANLEY WEISS, Defendant. BEFORE: SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION: CRIMINAL PART ESSEX COUNTY MUNICIPAL APPEAL NO.: MA-2017-002 A.D. # ~~~~~~~~~~- TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING Place: Essex County Veterans Crthse. 50 West Market Street Newark, NJ 07102 Date: May 26, 2017 HONORABLE MARYSOL ROSERO, J.S.C. TRANSCRIPT ORDERED BY: STANLEY WEISS, (278 Underhill Road, South Orange, NJ 07079) 16 APPEARANCES: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GRACIA ROBERT MONTILUS, ESQ., (Municipal Prosecutor) Attorney for the State STANLEY WEISS, ESQ. Defendant, Pro Se Transcriber: Bonny Wtulich King Transcription Services, LLC 3 South Corporate Drive, Suite 203 Riverdale, NJ 07457 Audio Recorded Recording Opr: Dale Watters Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8-1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 17 of 24 PageID: 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDING Hearing Judge's Decision Ill 2 I N D E X PAGE 3 4 Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8-1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 18 of 24 PageID: 47 Ill 1 THE COURT: So we are on the record now. Good 2 afternoon. This is in the matter of the State of New 3 Jersey versus Stanley Weiss, on Municipal Appeal MA-2017- 4 5 002. If I could have your appearances please? MR. MONTILUS: Good afternoon Judge. Gracia 6 Robert Montilus, Prosecutor for the Township of South 7 Orange Village. 8 9 10 THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. MR. WEISS: I'm Stanley Weiss, the defendant. THE COURT: Okay, very well. Good afternoon 11 gentlemen. And you can be seated. Thank you for coming 12 in. There was an appeal, and then there was some 3 13 correspondence. So it's important for everyone to be here 14 so I can address this matter. 15 So this appeal pertains to a Summons that issued 16 on July 26th, 2016. That's Summons Complaint Number 17 Summons, I'm sorry, SC-2016-33566. The Summons was issued 18 against Mr. Weiss for failure to remove a dead tree on his 19 property, in violation of Ordinance 117-38. On December 20 20th the defendant appeared before the Honorable Jonathan 21 Rosenbluth, Judge of Municipal Court in South Orange, and 22 moved for dismissal under Rule 7:7-1. Following oral 23 argument on that date defendant's Motion was denied. The 24 Judge also denied defendant's application for a State 25 pending an appeal, and set the matter down for trial on Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8-1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 19 of 24 PageID: 48 Ill 1 January 17th, 2017. 2 The defendant then sought to leave -- of this 3 Court. Prior to being scheduled for oral argument before 4 this Court, on April 4, 2017 the Summons in question was 5 dismissed by the Municipal Court on the Motion of the 4 6 State. Now on April 18, 2017 the defendant filed a Motion 7 to reconsider the Motion of appeal, the dismissal of the 8 appeal on the alternative to grant a deny of defendant's 9 Motion for leave pending oral argument. 10 Now since the Summons in question, the Summons 11 in question here, the basis for the appeal is Summons, the 12 number, CS-2016-33566. That has been dismissed on April 13 4th, 2017. As such, this Court does not have jurisdiction 14 to hear any other collateral matters. The sole issue 15 before this Court is the appeal that is based on the -- 16 the denial of the Motion to dismiss, which ultimately it 17 was dismissed. So as such, the defendant's appeal in this 18 matter must be dismissed. Okay? 19 MR. MONTILUS: Thank you Judge. 20 THE COURT: So I have entered an Order to that 21 affect. I have copies for the parties. And you're 22 welcome to approach, or we can just -- 23 MR. MONTILUS: Thank you Judge. Thank you 24 Judge. And Judge just for the record Your Honor, just so 25 that the record properly reflects the Summons Number that Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8-1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 20 of 24 PageID: 49 Ill 1 was dismissed at the Municipal level. THE COURT: Yes. 2 3 MR. MONTILUS: Yes. At one point, the Court 4 correctly stated that it was SC-2016-33566. At another 5 5 point during the -- during the Court's verbal opinion that 6 it flipped the CF with the SC using CS. Just want to 7 8 THE COURT: No, it's SC. MR. MONTILUS: Yes, just wanted to properly 9 reflect that on the record. 10 11 is SC -- 12 13 THE COURT: Thank you. Thank you very much. It MR. MONTILUS: Thank you. MR. WEISS: Your Honor if I may, I'm a little 14 confused. That's a Summons not by the present CEO, the 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Summons of the prior CEO? THE COURT: The subjects Summons, it's a Summons itself. That's what the issue of the Municipal -- MR. WEISS: Well the Summons -- of the prior CEO. The present CEO did not issue a Summons to me. THE COURT: I understand. Sir, but the appeal MR. WEISS: Oh I'm sorry. THE COURT: The appeal before this Court is 24 based on that Summons SC -- 25 MR. WEISS: The prior Summons, yes. Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8-1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 21 of 24 PageID: 50 1 2 3 4 5 excused? 6 7 Ill THE COURT: The subjects, yes. MR. WEISS: Yes, okay. THE COURT: The subject Summons. MR. MONTILUS: Thank you Judge. May I be THE COURT: You are excused. MR. MONTILUS: Thank you Your Honor. Have a 8 great weekend. 9 10 THE COURT: Have a good holiday, thank you. MR. WEISS: And you denied my Motion to 11 reconsider the -- 12 THE COURT: That application's not before this 13 Court. 6 14 MR. WEISS: Well I made it. That's what we were 15 here for. THE COURT: I only have jurisdiction --16 17 MR. WEISS: I filed a Motion -- I filed a Motion 18 to reconsider the dismissal. 19 THE COURT: Sir, at this point that's -- I 20 cannot address it. Counsel, I closed the record, and the 21 appeal is dismissed. The appeal that was -- okay? I do 22 not have jurisdiction over that matter. 23 MR. WEISS: You're denying my Motion to 24 reconsider the dismissal. 25 THE COURT: I do not have jurisdiction sir to Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8-1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 22 of 24 PageID: 51 Ill 7 1 consider it. This Court does not have jurisdiction. 2 MR. WEISS: I respectfully disagree with that 3 Your Honor. 4 THE COURT: Thank you sir. Have a good 5 afternoon. 6 (Hearing concluded.) 7 8 Certification 9 I, Bonny Wtulich, the assigned transcriber, do hereby 10 certify the foregoing transcript of proceedings on CD No. 11 l_, from index number 2:29:34 to 2:35:04, is prepared in 12 full compliance with the current Transcript Format for 13 Judicial Proceedings and is a true and accurate non- 14 compressed transcript of the proceedings as recorded. 15 16 bl PJ3f'MtnJf, °lf/tulwh Bonny Wtulictt AOC #629 17 18 19 KING TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES 3 South Corporate Drive, Suite 203 20 Riverdale, NJ 07457 (973) 237-6080 21 22 23 24 25 f{J})ate .. o/o/17 (Date) Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8-1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 23 of 24 PageID: 52 ~' ., I Stanley Weiss 278 Underhill Rd. South Orange, NJ 07079 I ' !' I' ' 1·1 ! ! ' I' I Ii! I I!. . l ! ''II! 1111 !1 11· 1il!!1• 1: 1dP" 11 ,l·i'"ii 11 '! 1Hlrl'! 1!1il' · ' ........ I .... " ............ . ., .\ ".,, \··. 'j \•/ ', . /. \ ' \<" \ ·, . '. ·. __ /,;;.\§.~ n \I . ' (.~ .. , C '1~ t CIL h U ~ . j) I 51 · - OJ&:':\ t _). /- I /~ (-; I : t ' } a. I N \). \ ,.- c.._ ,. \...) 'v"--' I"\\...- \ , .. ,__> \ . .. \l\J ew fie L 1 NS C7 I c2 ~ us PO $0~ Flf! Mailed From 0107§ 06/30/2017 - 032A 006183561 ._.!= ;~ 1 . ~~~ E" Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8-1 Filed 07/05/17 Page 24 of 24 PageID: 53 UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Case Number 2:17-CV-01406-JLL-JAD Dear Sir, Please find enclosed the original of my motion for summary judgment including my statement that no brief is necessary. I have scheduled the argument for August 7 and hope that a judge will hear the motion. Please advise me if the date is inconvenient of if I have failed to follow any of your local rules, and I will do what is necessary to correct my error. I request that you send any comments to me at my home 278 Underhill Rd. South Orange, NJ 07079 because I am not computer literate and the person I rely upon with computer skill may not be available. Stanley Weiss Certification I Stanley Weiss, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the motion for summary judgment has been served upon the office of the New Jersey Attorney General and Mr. Grenci on behalf of the 3() Township of South Orange by placing the same in the U.S mail, properly addressed on this :29th day of June, 2017. Stanley Weiss ~w~ cc: NJ Attorney General Mr. Grenci Case 2:17-cv-01406-JLL-JAD Document 8-2 Filed 07/05/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 54