As you scroll down the page just mouse over some empty space where the menu was, and it will pop back into view.
|
|
MOSHER VS THE DIVISHION OF TAXATION
Mendham:
NO JUSTICE in NEW JERSEY:
MOSHER VS THE DIVISHION OF TAXATION
     By . . on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 10:22 am: |
MOSHER VS THE DIVISHION OF TAXATION
(all papers filed and evidence submitted available at linked website)
Initiated in Tax Court (2002)... appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court (certification denied-2004)
The case involves the general issue of cigarette taxation.... but the numerous "reversible errors" committed by the attorneys and judges involved are a "cause of action" on to themselves. Summarizing the most pertinent issues:
1. A plaintiff follows New Jersey court rules and legally challenges the constitutionality of excessively taxing, at dramatically unusual levels, a minority vice (smoking) that saves both the state and national economy billions of dollars (by killing most users after their most productive years and before they can collect many times their contribution from health care and retirement programs) and has been proven to kill no innocent victims (beyond the number that broccoli or gardening may kill) --unlike other majority vices that destroy families and kill or injure many thousands of innocent men, women and children of all ages. In violation of due process rights and "the right to redress of grievances" the New Jersey courts refused to hear argument on the subject of "excessive taxation" and merely proclaims "that it is legal to tax cigarettes" The New Jersey Supreme Court validates this blatant denial of constitutionally mandated "redress" by refusing to grant certification (to judge the issue).
2. A plaintiff follows New Jersey court rules and legally challenges the constitutionality of the state using a 1950 law (established before the Internet or widespread use of credit cards, and intended to regulate distributors) to covertly (without notice or consent) monitor credit-card purchases. Also challenged is the right of the state to use that information to apply a tax (on average eight months after the purchase) and to also apply a sales tax that is in substance a tax on taxes. The court explains that convicted child molesters can have their privacy violated as an element of probation and therefore cigarette smokers are not entitled to 14th Amendment rights. --other relevant issues are ignored, and the New Jersey Supreme Court again endorses this preposterous injustice.
3. A plaintiff follows New Jersey court rules and legally challenges the constitutionality of a tax amnesty program that requires all persons assessed an unpaid tax, including those who have paid for a legal challenge, to give up all claims challenging the tax and accept the provisions of the tax amnesty or be required to pay a 5% penalty on the tax owed. This is nothing short of government endorsed extortion and the plaintiff appropriately labels it "threat bargaining" and demonstrates through extensive logical evidence that it is a blatant violation of Constitutional law to extort confessions through threat of added penalty. The courts refused to address the challenge made again blatantly denying constitutionally mandated "redress". |
|
