Plaintiff

                       Defendants 

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

1. While I have no confidence that this court will provide for the fair disposition of any issues that I bring before it, it seems probable even a filing of a new complaint will not permit escape from this judge's jurisdiction, as the [new] issues are unquestionably intertwined with those already under this courts jurisdiction.

2. As I advised the court in my complaint:

"De facto law written: The right to civil prosecution has no meaning in practical reality. Governments may violate civil/constitutional rights with immunity from realistic accountability. The U.S. Constitution has no judicial protector and therefore has no meaningful reality."

3. and later in my argument opposing the motion for summary judgment regarding the state defendants:

"As for the claims against the municipal governments: The inaction and malicious suppression of my claims in the courts of New Jersey has facilitated a clear and obvious escalation of the destruction of my first, seventh and 14th Amendment rights, as well as the destruction of statutory rights defined in legislation like the ADA, and NJLAD. To this very day, because of court collusion in criminal tyranny, I must endure a class of American citizenship where my house can be threatened to be condemned for merely attempting to exercise, the minor right, to equally speak at a town council meeting. 8. Clearly my claims made in this court do not merely seek restitution for past injustices... they seek the restoration of constitutional rights that continue to be suppressed and remain practically inaccessible. ..."

4. The destruction of my due process rights by the judges named in my complaint has left me vulnerable to the continuing destruction of other constitutional rights. On October 16, 2006 another flagrant violation of my First Amendment rights and the Americans with disabilities Act was perpetrated by the mayor and council of the Borough of Mendham. Clearly these violations will continue as long as my due process rights, to prosecute these crimes in a fair and timely manner remain "immune" to practical accessibility.

5. As to the events of October 16th they, in context, just represent another link in a long chain of unconstitutional personal abuse and oppression I've had to endure at the malicious will of my local American government. The evidence of the crimes alleged is abundant, and in the form of an unimpeachable record, and fair scrutiny of that evidence, can only lead to one decisively reasonable conclusion.

6. It seems it would be an insult to any Americans intelligence to explain, and argue, that it is unconstitutional for a government body to provide a means for "public question and comment" that is not required to respect the demands of the First Amendment. The evidence provided clearly proves an unconstitutional discrimination, oppression, and censorship ...and it almost quite literally speaks for itself.

-----The October 2nd recorded public comments made by Councilman at a official meeting of the town council. [CD marked CD-P1: MvsM/KOOK.WAV]

-----My public comment questions (routinely submitted over the last year previous to council meetings) sent in an e-mail request for accommodation. (A request made in the context of other requests specifically referencing ADA accommodation) [CD marked CD-P1: MvsM/061016e.htm]

-----The October 16th recorded public comments of the mayor, and generally silent town council.[CD marked CD-P1: MvsM/pub2.wav]

7. As stated there has been a long history of such crimes. In 2003 I attempted to protect my constitutional rights by filing the still pending legal action against the Borough referenced in my complaint. On October 17, 2005 events made it necessary for me to request to amend the complaint in that case to add evidence and defendants... the court of jurisdiction denied that request in spite of obvious good cause. As with this more recent event, the behavior of Borough officials on October 17th 2005 provided clear evidence of malicious intent to destroy my constitutional rights.

8. Between the 2005 court decision denying me proper expansion of my claims, and the most recent crime of the town government, there have been other violations of federal statutes and constitutional rights... specifically and most importantly, an effort to unconstitutionally obstruct my legally required access to a "public access" cable television channel. The clear intent of the obstruction, was, and is, to destroy my First Amendment Rights under The Constitution.

9. This Borough "public access" crime, is substantially interwoven with the similar crimes of "Mendham Township" which I attempted to prosecute in the Township case maliciously dismissed by Judge Wilson and referenced in my complaint. The claims made against Patriot Media in this litigation are also undeniably "connected". 10. By reasonable interpretation of the good purpose of "the entire controversy doctrine" it seems sensible that these cases and defendants be combined as prosecution will require a substantial portion of evidence of common relevance to all cases. As the record clearly demonstrates state courts that have, or had, jurisdiction over the undeniably related past issues will not permit reasonable consolidation, expansion, or even any rational adjudication... so I demand that this court provide the reasonable action required to provide for fair due process adjudication I have been unable to secure through state provided judicial redress.

11. Individuals to be added as defendants: The Township of Mendham The Borough of Mendham Borough Mayor Richard Kraft Former and current Borough councilmember's: Louis Garubo, Stanley Witczak, Lawrence Haverkost, David Murphy, Neil Henry, Barbara Stanton, and Brad Badal.

12. Charges relevant to the individual defendants:

13. The Township of Mendham: The administration of this municipalities government is responsible for malicious and deliberate obstruction to access to documents and other public facilities (a "public access" cable television channel as example) and accommodations, in violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. It is claimed that the violations were also overt acts of discrimination perpetrated in violation of the Americans with disabilities Act and the New Jersey law Against Discrimination.

14. The Borough of Mendham: The administration of this municipality's government is responsible for many years of malicious abuse and deliberate obstruction to access to documents and other public facilities (a public access cable television channel as example) and accommodations, in violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. It is claimed that the violations were also overt acts of discrimination perpetrated in violation of the Americans with disabilities Act and the New Jersey law Against Discrimination.

15. Borough Mayor Richard Kraft: Is responsible for a theft of services and conversion of a Services Contract with the plaintiff. Mr. Kraft was an accomplice to the constitutional violations of October 17th, 2005, and a primary participant in the constitutional violations of October 16, 2006. As Mayor, Mr. Kraft signed both the franchise agreement with Patriot Media and the inter-local agreement regarding the production of the public access channel [PEG] "Mendham TV 25", and is responsible for the damages caused by unconstitutional provisions, and uninforced provisions.

16. Former and current Borough Councilmembers:

17. Louis Garubo: Endorsed by silence, the entire council's overt and malicious destruction of the plaintiff's constitutional rights on October 17th of 2005, and October 16th of 2006. This Councilmember also supported and voted for the cable channel inter-local agreement destroying the plaintiff's constitutional rights to fair equal access. This defendant has also supported, and voted for, changes to local ordinances overtly and maliciously intended to destroy the plaintiff's constitutional, and statutory right to access Public Information held by government.

18. Neil Henry: Endorsed by silence, the entire council's overt and malicious destruction of the plaintiff's constitutional rights on October 17th of 2005, and October 16th of 2006. This Councilmember also supported and voted for the cable channel inter-local agreement destroying the plaintiff's constitutional rights to fair equal access. This defendant has also supported, and voted for, changes to local ordinances overtly and maliciously intended to destroy the plaintiff's constitutional, and statutory right to access Public Information held by government.

19. Stanley Witczak: Endorsed by silence, the entire council's overt and malicious destruction of the plaintiff's constitutional rights on October 17th of 2005, and October 16th of 2006. This Councilmember also supported and voted for the cable channel inter-local agreement destroying the plaintiff's constitutional rights to fair equal access. This defendant has also supported, and voted for, changes to local ordinances overtly and maliciously intended to destroy the plaintiff's constitutional, and statutory right to access Public Information held by government.

20. David Murphy: Endorsed by silence, the entire council's overt and malicious destruction of the plaintiff's constitutional rights on October 17th of 2005, and October 16th of 2006. This Councilmember also supported and voted for the cable channel inter-local agreement destroying the plaintiff's constitutional rights to fair equal access.

21. Barbara Stanton: Endorsed by silence, the entire council's overt and malicious destruction of the plaintiff's constitutional rights on October 17th of 2005, and October 16th of 2006. This Councilmember also supported and voted for the cable channel inter-local agreement destroying the plaintiff's constitutional rights to fair equal access. 22. To be named later: One of the above referenced council members is also irresponsible for the statement "we should condemn his goddamn House" made during a public meeting of the town council....

23. Lawrence Haverkost: On October 17th of 2005 This council member overtly damaged the constitutional rights of the plaintiff by making "class bigoted" remarks... precisely stating: "why even answer, he [the plaintiff] doesn't pay property taxes". This defendant also supported and voted for the cable channel inter-local agreement destroying the plaintiff's constitutional rights to fair equal access. This Councilmember has also supported, and voted for, changes to local ordinances overtly and maliciously intended to destroy the plaintiff's constitutional, and statutory right to access Public Information held by government.

24. Brad Badal: Endorsed by silence, the entire council's overt and malicious destruction of the plaintiff's constitutional rights October 16th of 2006. This Councilmember also supported and voted for the cable channel inter-local agreement destroying the plaintiff's constitutional rights to fair equal access. 25. In an effort to be clear, the only defendants I propose to add to this litigation, who were, or are, defendants in related state litigation are the two municipalities. The state case naming the "Township of Mendham" was dismissed in the state court, without prejudice, and with a clear statement by the judge that the claims could be refiled. In the pending state case against the Borough of Mendham the judge has not allowed proper amendment of the complaint to incorporate, any new evidence, charges, and defendants.

conclusion

26. For the reasons set forth above and in the interest of justice plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint and add defendants should be granted.

27. I certify under penalty of perjury that all the foregoing is true and correct.

DATE:

_________________________________ Gary Mosher Plaintiff Pro-Se