UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
____________________________________
Mosher, Gary
Plaintiff
VS.
The State of New Jersey
&
Judge Deanne M. Wilson,
Judge William Hunt Dumont,
Judge Dennis Cavanaugh,
Patriot Media
Defendants ____________________________________ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CIVIL ACTION No. 06-2526
MOTION TO
Amend Complaint
and Add Defendants |
Proposed Amendment to plaintiff's Complaint
Relevant factual history
Issue #1
1. On Sept. 27th 2005 the West Morris Regional School Board conducted a special election seeking voter approval of a referendum that would allow the school board to transfer up to $2 million from a capital reserve fund to a school expansion fund. It was explicitly stated that the transfer would have "no tax impact" clearly implying a cancellation of capital reserve projects die-funded by the transfer.
2. In the weeks previous, and after, the election plaintiff made repeated requests to be provided Basic Information regarding what capital Reserve Projects would be canceled. These requests ultimately included an ADA request to have pertinent questions read during the "public comment" portion of a school board meeting. The available evidence indicates that the questions were not read, and certainly no answer/response was provided to the plaintiff.
3. Newspaper reports of November and December 2006 suggest that no capital projects were canceled and that the plaintiff, and all voters, were defrauded by an unfulfilled promise that the transfer of funds would not have a negative tax impact.
Issue #2
4. In September of 2004 plaintiff became aware that a local veterans' memorial was to be constructed in front of the local high-school. Although the plaintiff was, and is, of the opinion that a high-school entrance, were exposure is required, is an improper place for the display of War propaganda, plaintiff pursued no legal redress, and confined his opposition to commentary on a on-line public message board.
5. In June of 2005 the plaintiff purchased a "inscribed 4 x 8 paver stone" which the memorial organizers were SELLING stating "You can inscribe your name, family name, business name or put a message on the stone." The plaintiff chose the message:
"WAR IS HELL"
DoNotGo There
InMendham.com
....and his $100.00 payment was accepted.
6. On November 20, 2006 there was an unveiling of the memorial at the high-school.
7. 18 months after the purchase of his paver stone, on December 8, 2006, the plaintiff received a check for $100 from the school board referenced as a "reimbursement for paver". The plaintiff received no explanation for the unrequested reimbursement, and apparent rejection of his sponsorship.
8. The plaintive claims that the West Morris Regional School Board has demonstrated through these two events a malicious violation of the constitutional, and statutory rights of the plaintiff.
9. Plaintiff demands just compensation for the unconstitutional personal deprivation of rights endured, and just punitive penalty for crimes committed against The United States Constitution, relevant state and federal statutes, and the rule of law.
Argument in support of Motion to amend complaint
1. Again, plaintiff request the Court's indulgence to permit further amendment of this actions complaint consistent with the guidance of the entire controversy doctrine.
2. As the court has been previously advised, it is plaintiff's belief that a unwillingness of the state judicial system to protect fundamental constitutional rights has emboldened corrupt elements of local government in their efforts to subvert just limitations on their exercise of power. Under such a circumstance, plaintiff contends that this court has a heightened responsibility to ensure that constitutional justice is done, and that any rights destroyed be protected from further abuse, through decisive, and appropriately harsh action by the court.
3. As set forth in plaintiff's proposed amended complaint, plaintiff wishes to add parties, and claims, to this legal action that are not directly relevant to the matters already before this court. However, the indirect relationships are substantial, and I would argue the interest of justice, and practicality, strongly suggest, if not demand, the court's approval of this motion.
4. The new claims are based on events that substantially parallel the events that originated the other claims brought before this court. The events that form the basis of the new claims, like the similar events referenced in the original complaint involve rejected requests for ADA accommodation, a claim of unlawful discrimination in violation of NJLAD, and unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental fair access, and free-speech (federal 1983). Undoubtedly the court of jurisdiction will be required to apply an almost exactly similar legal analysis in defining plaintiff's coverage, and the defendant's responsibilities, under the applicable statutes and constitutional amendments.
conclusion
5. For the reasons stated, and in absence of a harm to fairness, or other compelling rationale for opposition, the motion should be granted.
I certify under penalty of perjury that all the foregoing is true and correct.
DATE:
_________________________________
Gary Mosher Plaintiff Pro-Se
|
