Former Officials for Asbury Park NJ fraudulently destroyed an Entrepreneur.
It was easier to deceive the Plaintiff than to face the consequences from the State & Judicial System. Palpably Unreasonable
It was easier to deceive the Plaintiff than to face the consequences from the State & Judicial System. Palpably Unreasonable
In the case Platinum Links Ent v Atlantic City Surf Pro Baseball Club 2002. United States District Court, New Jersey. The Hon Judge 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.
This case can be over quickly by addressing these 3 issues.
This is why the Paramount did not obtain proof of the City's Special Events Permit being approved "PRIOR" to the booking. IT WAS NOT NEEDED. These facts were intentionally concealed from the Plaintiff, and it was proven by the Defendant City of Asbury Park on January 21, 2026!
The City of AP, Led by Civilian Police Director Louis Jordan planned and colluded to come up with a way to cancel the Plaintiff's event after agreeing to increased security levels (50 Officers and 40 Bonded Security Guards from 25 Officers and 40 Bonded Security Guards).
Using public safety as a pretext after making an agreement for security are violations of NJLAD and the NJCFA. The Plaintiff was not the only one discriminated against. The Defendants, led by Civilian Police Director Louis Jordan discriminated against an entire genre of people and denied equal accommodations and equal protections under the law. These are Civil Rights Violations.
In a PRECEDENTIAL DECISION, the Superior Court, Appellate Division, in Catena v. Raytheon Company, et al.,(August 18, 2016), held that the Discovery Rule applied to common law fraud claims (Fraudulent Concealment) as well as fraud claims under New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) and was held 17 years later.
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).
In New Jersey, municipalities are not immune from claims of fraudulent concealment. While public entities enjoy broad immunity from liability under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (Title 59), this protection does not extend to intentionally fraudulent conduct.
A party may not benefit from its own fraudulent conduct. Joe D'Egidio Landscaping, Inc. v. Apicella, 337 N.J. Super. 252, 257 (App. Div. 2001).
Copyright © 2025 AP Materia Facts - All Rights Reserved.
Powered by FACTS
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.