apmaterialfacts

About

FRUIT OF A POISNOUS TREE: This is a cause of action for Breach of Fiduciary Duties, Duties of Candor, Violations of Attorney Ethics and more to be stated on Court Docket.

================================================ PUBLIC POLICY MANDATE: Private civilians hold absolute ZERO legal authority to contractually waive a crime scene. Pursuant to the non-negotiable mandates of New Jersey Public Policy, a private civilian litigant lacks all legal capacity, standing, or statutory authority to ever waive, release, or contractually absolve an ongoing criminal contempt of a standing Superior Court Order within a civil settlement text. There is no record of criminal contempt and there is a fraudulently concealed motive on why no record exists. These facts cannot be changed, tampered with or denied. However, there is a criminal action "record" submitted to the State Attorney General's Office by the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office that is not civil and cannot be changed or altered.

================================================

The Following FACTS cannot be altered, changed, time barred or defended! The most valid proof of the FRAUD is the lack of actions from the Attorney General's Office, the Hon Judge Feinbergs Court and the Appellate Division Records. The State, Superior Court and Appellate Division did not go through all of that to waive ultra vires acts in defiance of Judge Feinberg's Mandate and Court Order. If so, they would have waived the Monmouth County Prosecutor's initial criminal complaint that started it all.

There were and are no exceptions for the use of prohibited police powers in Judge Feinberg's Mandate and Order which includes overriding a Sworn Superior, having command powers, and operational veto authority.

MANDITORY PUBLIC RECORD: The absolute, historic fact that neither the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office nor the Hon Judge Linda Feinberg of the Superior Court initiated further civil or criminal contempt sanctions against the City of Asbury Park from 2004–2026, "is definitive proof of FRAUD", as the unmasking of what's happening now, would have definitely happened back then. If ANY further action were taken and the fiduciaries follow their oaths, the November 2005 Appellate Division would have addressed this issue on Court Record.

UNMASKED SUCCESS PLAN: There was no media coverage of the criminal contempt, no one was removed from their position, no one was barred from holding future public office that Mr Jordan obtained with the school district, nor were any benefits and or pensions removed that public records would reflect as a matter of law. This all means the agenda was successful and the core reason Mr Jordan was hired as the Director of Security for the Asbury Park Schools System.

UNDISPUTED FACTS: Mr Jordan would have been barred from having the position as Security Director for the school system, had he and the other Fiduciaries, not breached their sworn duties to uphold the law. There would be Court Records of contempt of court and criminal records if these fiduciary duties and duties of candor were not breached. Jordan v the Asbury Park BOE is valid proof of FRAUD in multiple was as confirmed on Court Record and violations of State Attorney Ethics by the previous and current Attorney's for the City of Asbury Park Enterprise. as the Federal Case LCN v Asbury Park and Jordan v Harvey have "clearly and convincingly" proved "without a reasonable doubt".

SMOKING GUN FACTS: The unmasked evidence has been held by an Agency overseen by the NJ State Attorney General's Office "unknowingly" until the vital discovery of another concealment. These unmasked concealed facts are Long out of the reach of the City of Asbury Park's control and circulates right back to the origin of the Attorney General's Cease and Desist Notice and the Hon Judge Linda Feinberg's Mandate and Court Order...

It was easier to deceive the local entrepreneur than it was to face the consequences for violating Judge Feinberg's Judicial Mandate and Superior Court Order!

All Surprise(s), Trick(s), Cunning(s), Dissembling and other unfair ways that is used to cheat anyone is considered as fraud. Kerr, Fraud and Mistake, 1 (7th ed. (1952)). See also 37 Am. Jur.2d, Fraud and Deceit § 1, pp. 17-20 (1968); Riverside Trust Co. v. Collin, 114 N.J. Eq. 157 (E. & A. 1933).

The City not only deceived the Plaintiff, but they also deceived the integrity of the Judicial System, Attorney General's Office, the Insurance Company, the Public, and the Ticketholders...

Continuious Violation

The Supreme Court of New Jersey formally established fraudulent concealment as an independent tort for evidence spoliation in Rosenblit v. Zimmerman, 166 N.J. 20, 766 A.2d 749 (2001)

ATTN: City Attorney Mr Kevin Starkey. In good faith, we invite you to have retired Justice Solomon review the contracts---between us, the Paramount Theatre and the City of Asbury Park NJ---while including the Judicial Mandates put in place by the Hon Judge Linda Feinberg. If your client (The City of Asbury Park NJ) is "legally" in the right, there should be zero issues with this good faith request, as you and your client did the same upon the Redevelopment company for agreements dating back to 2002. These issues should be transparent as they involve violations of Public Policy, the Public's Trust and Contempt of Court regarding a Superior Court Judicial Mandate and Court Order! As an Attorney you are competently aware that "March and July are BEFORE September of the same year"...

Mr Starkey, wrongdoers cannot legally utilize a Court's procedural rules to lock in the success of their own fraud. Certified evidence shows you are defending against a valid Judicial Mandate and Court Order your client and the previous Attorney's "willfully knew about on record" while having the duty to uphold the law and comply with the Judicial Orders. Discrimination is not Contempt. If you are aware of the Court Rules, you clearly are aware of these facts, as an Officer of the Court sir (in good faith).

LCN v Asbury Park 2002 (Federal Court Precedent)

TRANSPARENCY: Based on the City calling upon the Hon Judge Solomon to review contracts the City was looking to break. As a pattern of such, we ask Attorney General Davenport to review our contract with the City and to specifically review the timeline parallel to the Hon Judge Feinberg's Mandate and Order.

In the case Platinum Links Ent v Atlantic City Surf Pro Baseball Club 2002. 3rd Circuit United States District Court Judge the Hon Joseph E. Irenas noted that the City's attempt to block the show was based on a "dislike of the message" and an unfair stereotype of rap fans. The ruling emphasized that Officials could not single out rap music for cancellation while allowing other genres.

NJLAD; Using "public safety" as a justification to cancel or restrict a specific genre of music (like rap) after the police and venue has already approved security measures for the event is discriminatory. It is a pretext for bias against the artists, promoter(s) and the audience.