Will Artie Lange be found guilty of NJ DWI?
Jul 13th, 2009 | By Michael L. Saile, Jr., Esq. | Category: Blogs, DUI-DWI-DAI (Drunk Driving)Artie Lange of the Howard Stern Show was charged last Friday with driving while Intoxicated (DWI) as a result of a minor NJ car accident that he caused in Toms River, New Jersey.
Today on the Stern show Artie claimed that he did not ingest any alcohol, nor had any illegal drugs in his system. He did mention that he was taking the prescribed drug, Lexapro.
A person can be found guilty of DWI if the prosecution can prove that the driver was intoxicated by a chemical substance. Drug related DWI charges are usually very difficult for the prosecution to prove in court. Unlike the common affects of alcohol use, the affects of drug use (whether legal or not) vary significatly.
Because of the diverse affects of drug use, NJ law requires that a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) be used to examine the DWI suspect and make a determination of whether the suspect was actually intoxicated.
Drug Recognition Experts are usually specially trained police officers. We have had NJ DWI cases dismissed because the DWI suspect is not promptly examined by a DRE.
Artie Lange’s urine was tested for the presence of chemical substances. Even if a high level of Lexapro is present in Artie’s urine, the prosecution will still have to prove that he was intoxicated.
Lexapro’s website does warn against using Lexapro and operating machinery and automobiles until the user is aware of the effects of the Lexapro.
Do you think Artie will be convicted?
I READ THE STORY IN THE NEWS PAPER TOO,,….. NO, HE WAS NOT ALCOHOL INTOXICATED, WAS NOT HIGH ON POT, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, …. AND LIKE YOU SAID, …. IT IS EXTREMELY HARD TO PROVE,….
I HAVNT HEARD THE STERN SHOW SINCE THEY MOVED TO SATILITE RADIO, … BUT ARTIE WAS ON IT WGHEN THEY WERRE STILL AT WXRK NY, … AND IF YOU LOIOSTEN TO HIM, HE SOUNDS WASTED DRUNK 100% OF THE TIME, …. THAT IS HIS NORMAL VOICE, LOL, SO BE IT, …
THE OFFICER PROBABLYT MISTOOK HIS NORMAL VOPICE, HAVING NEVER HEARD IT BEFORE, AS SLUURED SPEECH, ….. THIS IS COMMON, …. ESPECIALLY FOR NON RESIDENTS WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF ACCENTS, OR EVEN SPPECH IMPEDIMENTS, OR, EVEN TIREDNESS, OR QUIET , LOW TALKING, …. I READ THE ARTCLE, OBVIOUSLY HE WASNT DRUNK, …..
FURTHERMORE, … TOMS RIVER, IT IS A RATHER CONFUSED PLACE TO DRIVE AROUND IN, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARENT USED TO IT, …
I CAN SEE A MINOR FENDER BENDER OCCURING QUITE EASILY IF A PEWRSON WITH A LOT ON HIS MIND, WAS DRIVING AROUND TOMS RIVER, HAVING REALLY NEVER BEEN THERE BEFORE, …
TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, NO, IT ISNT DUI, …
BUT ARTIE SHOULD NOW BE QUITE ABOUT IT, IT WILL GO AWAY
HE ISNT AS BIG A STAR AS TO MAKE AN EXAMPLE OIT OF HIM, …
AS HE ISNT GUILTY,
SO HE SHOULD HIRE A REGULAR GOOD ATTORNEY, NOT A TOP DUI GUIY, … SOMETIMES THE TOP DUI GUYS HAVE VENDETTAS AGAINST THEM BY THE LOCAL COURTS, ..
JUST A REGUALAR ATTORNEY, HE CAN APPEAR FOR ARTIE WITHOUT ARTYIES PRESENCE, AS ARTIE I GUESS LIVES IN NY
AND EVERYTHIN G SHOULD GO AWAY, ..
DO YOU AGREE WITH ME?
BELOW IS THE WIKIPEDIA DEFINITION OF THIS DRUG. VERY FEW SIDE AFFECTS.
I DO NOT THINK IT IS A BEZO CLASSIFIES DRUG LIKE ZANAX OR OTHERS.
IF EVERYONE THAT TOOK ANTI DEPRESSANT HAPPY PILLS , EVERYDAY, AS PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR, SHOULDNT BE DRIVING, THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW, ….. THERE ISNT A LAW.
THE FACT IS, TOO MANY PEOPLE ARE ON ANTI DEPRESSANT MEDS IN NJ, AND NY STATE,… TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO DRIVE A CAR.
SORRY TOMS RIVER,
YOU GOT THIS ONE WRONG
Escitalopram (trade names Lexapro, Cipralex) is an antidepressant of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) class. It is approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder; other indications include social anxiety disorder, panic disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Escitalopram is the S-stereoisomer (enantiomer) of the earlier Lundbeck drug citalopram (Celexa), hence the name escitalopram. Escitalopram is noted for its high selectivity of serotonin reuptake inhibition and, as a result has fewer side effects not related to its serotonergic activity.[1] According to a meta-analysis of 12 new-generation antidepressants, escitalopram and sertraline are the best in terms of efficacy and acceptability in the acute-phase treatment of adults with major depression. [2][3]
OF COURSE, THE PROSECUTOR IN TOMS RIVER WANTS TO MAKE A NAME FOR HIMSELF, AND THE JUDGE IN TOMS RIVER , THEN BY ALL MEANS, …. HIGHER A TOP DUI GUY, ……. LIKE EVAN LEVOW, …… OF CHERRY HILL, … AND FIGHT IT OUT TO THE BITTER END, ….
NJ COURTS ARE ALWAYS LOOKING TO MAKE NEW LAW, … AND TEND TO MAKE THE LAW AS THEY GO, ON EVERY LEVEL OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM ,..
HOWEVER, ,. IN THE INSTANCE OF LEXAPRO DUI, .. LOL, THE PROSECUTOR AND JUDGE IN TOMS RIVER DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE THIS NEW LAW,…
ANTI ANXIETY DRUGS, AND ANTI DEPRESSANTS, IF USED AS PRESCRIBED, …. CAN NOT FACILITATE A DUI, ….. TOO MANY PEOPLE TAKE THEM IN BOTH NJ AND NY, TO GET TO EVERY LEVEL OF JOB, … FROM THE STREET SWEEPER, TO THE DIRECTOR OR PRESIDENT OF A FACILITY, …
IF THIS IS DUI, THEN IT IS ILLEGAL FOR 20-30 PERCENT OF THE WORKFAORCE TO BE BARRED FROM DRIVING,..
AGAIN, SORRY TOMS RIVER, … YOU GUYS DONT HAVE THE CLOUT TO SHUIT DOWN 1/3 OF THE WORKFORCE OF 2 STATES, BECAUSE SOMEONE GOT IN A FENDER BENDER IN A CONFUSED TRAFFIC FLOW TOWN AS IT IS ANYWAY, …
I WAS ARRESTED FOR DUI IN , I THINK, THE FALL OF 84, OR AROUND THERE , I WAS 17, ….. STILL IN HIGHSCHOOL, ….. I BLEW A 0.00,,… B EFOTRE I BLEW THAT, I WAS IN A CAR ACCIDENT, I WAS NOT STOPPED FOR DUI, OR ANY TRAFFIC VIOLATION, ….IT WAS A RATHER BAD ACCIDENT, ….I MADE A LEFT HAND TURN, HEADED INTO MY NEIGHBORHOOD, AGAINST TRAFFIC, AND BAMM, I WAS 17, … I DIDNT SEE THE CAR, IS WAS AN ACCIDENT, NOT PURPOSEFUL, …
I HAD A CONCUSSION, WAS WEARY, AND WAS ARRESTED FOR DUI, ….
AS I WAS NOT DRINKING, I BLEW A 0,00 BAC.
THE OFFICERS WERE DUMBFOUNDED, … I DID THE TEST MORE THAN 3 TIMES, … ALL ON VIDEOTAPE,
IU HIT MY HEAD ON THE WINDSHIELD, AND HAD A CONCUSSION,..
THOSE IDIOT OFFICERS , INSTEAD OF TAKING ME TO THE HOSPITAL TO SEE IF MY BRAIN WAS SWOLLEN OR BLEEDING, ARESTED ME FOR DUI, ….
(WHICH WE HAVE SEEN MANYU DEATHS LATELY OF)
AT THE COURT, IT WAS ONE APPEARANCE I THINK, IN MUNICIPAL COURT, ….. WE HIRED A DEMOCRAT, FROM THE OLD DAYS OF RFREEHOLD TOWNSHIP, BEFORE THE INMFUSION OF THE REPUBLICANS IN 1966, THAT HAVE HAD A STRONGHUOPKLD EVER SINCE
HE WAS A POLITICAL DEMOCRAT DEFENSE ATTORNEY, OUSTED BY THE REPUBLICANS YEARS EARLIER, …
HE WAS STILL PRACTICING IN FREEHOLD BORO, HIS NAME I THINK WAS ZLOTNICK, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT,..
ANYWAY, … IT CAME DOWN TO A DRE EXPERT, WHO WAS THE SEARGENT ON THE FREEHOLD TOWNSHIP FORCE AT THAT TIME ( NOTE BORO AND TOWNSHIP 2 DIFFERENT ENTITIES, AND ZLOTNEXK WAS OUSTED FROM THE TOWNSHIP INTO THE DEMOCRATIC BORO)
ANYWAY, …WE ALL WENT INTO INTO THE JUDGES CHAMBERS, VIEWED ALL THE VIDEO TAPE, … AND THE JUDGE ASKED ME QUESTYIONS, TO COMPARTE MY VOICE, AND SEE HOW I SOUNDED,
WE COULDA WENT TO TRIAL AND WON, INSTEAD I TOOK THE 5 POINT RECKLESS DRIVING, MY PARENTS DECISION, ONE COURT APPEARANCE, …….AND WAS ON DMV DRIVING PROBATION, I GUESS I MIGHTA LOST MY LICENSE FOR A FEW MONTHS, …
WHEN YOU ARE YOUNG LIKE THAT, IT DOESNT MATTER TO MUCH, YOU DONT THINK ABOUT IT, .. AND IT WAS ONLY A MOTOR VEHICLE 5 POINT VIOLATION, ..
YES, DID I MAKE LEFT TURN ONTOP OF TRAFFIC, ABSOLUTLEY, … WAS I DRUNK OR STONED, HELL NO, …
BACK IN THE DAY, CASES LIKE THAT GOT TAKEN CARE OF IN ONE OR TWO APPEARANCES,
THERE WAS NO 47 MONTHS, 26 COURT ppearances, for a routine traffic stop, no accident, run of the mill dui, ..
boy oh boy, has nj changed
but i do think artie lange is nort guilty, .. i know how much confused toms river is , if you never been there,
and lexapro, lol
stop 1/3 of the nj/ny workforce , for anti deprrssenants, or anti an xiety, …. good luck idiots, … you guys dont have the power, and the njj supreme court will never buy it, ..
IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!!!
OK, SO THAT WAS MY FIRST DUI ARRESRT, 0.00 BAC, NOT FROM A TRAFFIC STOP, . BUT FROM AN ACCIDENT AND CONCUSSION, …. AND IT RESULTED IN A 5 POINT RECKLESS, …….LUCKLIY IT WAS 1983 OR 84, AND NO ONE DIEDC, SIMPLY A TERRIBLE ACCIDENT, ..
IT COULDNT OF BEEN FALL 84, CAUSE I WAS IN COLLEGE IN SEPT 84 WITH NO CAR, . I GOT MY LICENSE AT AGE 17, IN NOVEMBER OF 83, HAVING TURNED 17 IN AUG OF 83,, … I THINK IT WAS AROUND JUNE 84, . MAYBE, SOMETIME AFTER I GOT MY LICENSE, AND BERFORE I WENT TO COLLEGE, …
MY NEXT DUI ARREST DID NOT OCCUR UNTIL SEPTEMBER OF 2005.
THIS CASE OS STILL PENDING, ….
I HAVE MADE 26 COURT APPEARANCES, AND DISCOVERY IS STILL NOT COMPLETED, ….
47 MONTHS FOR MY NEXT COURT APPEARANCE IN AUGUST, MY 27TH, FOR THIS ONE CHARGE, …
I STARTING WRITING ON HERE IN JULY OF 2007 ABOUT THE DELAY AND CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, .. CONSIDERING THE NJ SUPREME COURT ORDERED MY CASE TO PROCEED TO TRIAL ON JAN 10, 2006, IN A COURT ORDER, …. NOT EVEN A DECISION, OR CASE LAW, … A DIRECT, AND CLEAR, COURT ORDER.
THE DUI WAS A RESULT OF A ROUTINE TRAFFIC STOP FOR SPOEDDING ON RT 18, ….. WHICH I WAS NOT SPEEDING, .. AND THOUGH THE OFDFICER CLAIMES TO BE RUNNING RADAR FROM ST THOMAS CHURCH PARKING LOT ON RT 18, …. NO DOCUMENTATION OF ANY OFFICER FROM OLD BRIDGE RUNNING RADAR OF RT 18 THAT TIME WAS SUBBIMEYTED OR EXISTS, ….
IT WAS A BOGUS STOP, A BOGUS CHARGE, …
AMONG OTHER THINGS, BOGUS BECAUSE I HAD TO READ THE SEARGENT THE MINI MANUal on how to operate the alcotest, and i touched the power cords, and the key board, ands helped , and basically ran my own alcotest against myself, which resuilted in a 0,09 bac……..
the time line and police department logs dont match whathaPPENED, … I RAN MY OWN ALCOTEST, .. AND THERE IS NO RECORD OF ANY OLD BRIDGE POLICE OFFICER RUNNING RADAR ON RT 18 AT THAT TIME, ….
BUT THE REPORT SAYS HE WAS, …
NEW LAW, MAYBEY, ….. BUT HOW ARE THEY GOING TO GET OPUT OF 26 APPEARANCES OVER 47 MONTHS, AND ONGOING, ?, … IN WHICH THE CASE WAS ORDERED TO PROCEED TO TRIAL BY THE NJ SUPREME COURT IN JAN OF 2006, …
MY RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED,
I HAVE TRIED EVERY THING I CAN THINK OF TO GET A TRIAL, …
THE NEWEST THING I THOUIGHT OF WAS THE NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK, MAYBE AL SHARPTON CAN HELP ME,
PEOPKE SHOULDNT BE SUBJECTED TRO THIS TOTAL IRREVENCE OF THE NJ SUPREME COURT
JAMES GILLETTE
YOU UMNDERSTAND, ….. WELL, MAYBE YOU DONT, LET ME EXPLAIN FUTHER,…
BETWEEN JUE OF 1984 MY FIRST DUI ARRESRT WITH 0,00 BAC, AND SEPT 2005 WITH A 0,09 BAC, MY 2ND DUI ARREST, .,..
BETWEEN THOSE 2 DATES, I ACCUMULATED MANY POINTS, ACCIDENTS, SPEEDING, REDLIGHTS, . YOU NAME IT, NO DUIS, … WAS EVER LET OUT OF SPEEDING 3 TIMES ROADSIDE UPON PLEADING, …
ALL THOE STPS,. DOZENS OF STOPS, NEVER A DUI, …..
WHY?
BECAUSE I DONT DRIVE DRUNK
IF I DROVE DRUNK, I WOULD HAVE HAD NUEROUIS DUI’S , FOR ALL THE TIMES IVE BEEN PULLED OVER, ….. NOT A ONE, …. UNTIL SEPT 17, 2005.
I AM NOT THE EVIL CRIMIMINAL THEY THINK I AM,
I DROVE ALOT, LONG COMMUTES TO WORK, EARLY MORNINGS, LATE NIGHTS AT WORKS, FOR 20 YEARS, ….
I AM NOT THE EVIUL BASTARD THEY THINK I AM
I AM JUST A REGULAR NJ CITIZEN, THAT FOR SOME UNEXPLAINABLE REASON, HAS HAD EVERYU CIVIL RIGHT, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGFHT, AND HUMAN RIGHT, .,. TAKEN AWAY AWAY FROM HIM ,…..
WHAT THE F—
IT IS INSANE, 27 COURT APPEARANCES, OVER 47 MONTHS, FOR A FIRST OFFENSE, LKOWEST LEVEEL, NO ACCIDENT, ROUTINE TRAFFIC STOP, DUI, IN NJ, ..
NOT WIRTHSTANDIN THE NJ SUPREME COURT ORDERING MY CASE TO PROCEED TO TRIAL ON JAN 10, 2006…
IT IS SO UNBELIEVABLE, ,,,, I GUESS MANY READING THIS WONT EVEN BELIOVE IT,
BUT IT IS TRUE,
AS TRUE AS THE TRUEST,…
JAMES GILLETTE
BELOW IS MY 5TH DRADFT I WROTE MYSELF OF THE FEDERAL FILING BELOW, .. SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, … WITH NJ SUPREME COURT ORDER4, ANT ANY REGULAR PERSONS UNDERSTANDING OF IT….
READ , IF YOU DARE WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO FIGHT INJUSTRICE, IT IS CALLED THE FEDERAL 2201 and 2202 motion. ./… can be brought angainst any court anywhere,in any us distyrict court …. read and weap you guys, …
5th draft of Federal filing below
In The
United States District Court
District of New Jersey
Statement of the Case
Petitioner is currently in NJ Municipal Court for State DUI violation. Petitioner is unable to defend himself in any pending criminal proceeding or civil litigation until a declaration of his rights to Due Process and Speedy Trial is made.
Jurisdiction
1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to :
2. 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the general federal question statute
3. 28 U.S.C. § 2201 , the federal declaratory relief statute, to declare the rights of parties
4. 28 U.S.C. § 2202 , the federal injunctive relief statute
Identification of Parties
.
Petitioner
5.James Gillette is a private citizen with a residence of
Respondant[s]
6.Judge Weber is a Municipal Court Judge in Old Bridge Township New Jersey, with a business address of
7. W. Lane Miller is a Municipal Court Prosecutor in Old Bridge Township New Jersey, with a business address of
8. Judge Toth is a MunicipalCourt Judge in the City of Perth Amboy,
9. Alan Papp is a Municipal Court Prosecutor in the City of Perth Amboy
10. Defendant Dave Anderson is the acting administrator of NJ Courts, with a business address of
Statement of Facts
11. Petitioner James Gillette was summonsed into Municipal Court in Old Bridge and Perth Amboy 21 times, over 1294 days, continuing to date, since being charged with the violation of NJ 39:-4-50 on September 17, 2005.
12. The New Jersey Supreme Court issued an Order to all New Jersey Municipal Courts on Jan 10 , 2006 ordering the prosecution to proceed to trial. See Exhibit A.
13 In Violation to that Order, to date both defendant judges stand in absolute violation of the previously cited NJ Supreme Court Order and refuse absolutely to schedule a trial on petitioners DUI charge, in violation of NJ and Federal Law.
14. Respondent’s right to a speedy trial in New Jersey Law has been ignored; it appears the law and Respondent’s rights are mere suggestions in the hands of these New Jersey Court bureaucrats.
15. It is black letter law, in both New Jersey State Law and Federal Law that the State of New Jersey must obey its own statutes and rules.
16. Judge Weber stated on record everyone has to wait, so do I, in direct violation of the New Jersey Supreme Court Order
17. The actions of the respondents in this petition hopefully will so shock the conscious of this Federal Court that it will immediately declare these NJ Judges to be in violation of New Jersey Law and to injoin them from the deleterious conduct they have visited upon petitioner and / or any other person within there grasp.
Legal Claims / Causes of Action
18. Is it a violation of my rights under the Federal and NJ constitution to be denied a trial in NJ in violation of the New Jersey Supreme Court Order?
19. Does Old Bridge Township Municipal Court have to obey New Jersey Supreme Orders directed to it?
20. At the rate NJ is moving, I will be tried on my 104th birthday. Is that process lawful?
21. Is it lawful for a Municpal Court Judge to deny defandants a trial bvecause he disagreed with a New Jersey Supreme Court Order to proceed to trial?
22.
Relief Requested
Mr. Gillette requests a declaration of rights concerning the right that the NJ Supreme Court Order of January 10, 2006 needed to be obeyed. And a permanent injunction against the State of New Jersey in their pursuit of a prosecution in the DUI case against him.
i need to get 2 things
third circuit US DISTRICT COURT NJ
next, you need a 3rd Cit appeals ruling that sez the states must obey their own laws
copy of the court order with my understanding of it written in bold
NJ SUPREME COURT ORDER OF JANUARY 10, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
September Term 2005
58,879
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. O R D E R
JANE H. CHUN, et al.,
Defendants-Respondents.
The Court having previously certified the within matter directly pursuant to Rule 2:12-1 and having contemporaneously appointed retired Appellate Division Presiding Judge Michael Patrick King as Special Master,
And the Court having remanded the matter to Judge King to develop a record, conduct hearings, and report his findings and conclusions on an accelerated basis,
And the Court having concluded that it should expand on its prior Order by addressing issues that affect the prosecution of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 offenses statewide,
And good cause appearing;
IT IS ORDERED that this Order shall apply to all N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 prosecutions in Municipal Courts and appeals in the Law Division and Appellate Division of Superior Court; and it is further
The first part above is clearly saying that what they are going to order below needs to be applied to all dui in nj, from this date forward, jan 10, 2006, until the order is vacated, and it was on march 17, 2008
ORDERED that N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 prosecutions and appeals that do not involve the use of an Alcotest device are to proceed in the normal course;
this should be no problem to anyone, no special order is given within this order that would affect these cases of non alcotest
and it is further
ORDERED that the prosecution and appeal of cases involving repeat offenders under the statute shall proceed in the normal course, and sentences imposed on such defendants shall not be stayed unless the conviction is based solely on Alcotest device readings; and it is further
Here we see the first indication the nj supreme court fully expected the bac from the alcotest to be submitted into evidence at a trial. how can convictions be made based on the alcotest, unless it is submitted into evidence?so of course, it needed to be submitted . now, here it is ordered to proceed in normal course, meaning no stay, … but lets read further down.
ORDERED that first offender prosecutions involving the use of an Alcotest device shall proceed to trial based on clinical evidence when available, including but not limited to objective observational evidence, as well as the relevant Alcotest readings; and it is further
Here the nj supreme court is explicity ordering the cases for first offenders to proceed to trial, taking out the “normal course” language used above, here in this part of the order, they are ORDERING THE PROSECUTION TO PROCEED TO TRIAL. so now not only are stays not allowed, they should even be proceeding in normal course, thee cases should be proceeding to trial, to anyone who understands language, this clearly means get on your horse and do it, trial these cases, and not in normal course, but right now! And it is clearly saying to use observations and the bac from the alcoterst, relevant bac, meaning anything 0.08 or above.
ORDERED that at the conclusion of each such first offender trial, if the court determines that the defendant is guilty of an N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 offense, it shall include, whenever applicable, an articulation of the alternative bases for that finding when imposing a sentence pursuant to the statute, see State v. Sisti, 209 N.J.Super. 148, 151 (App.Div. 1986), State v. Kashi, 360 N.J.Super. 538, 544 (App.Div. 2003);
Here the court is again indicating that the trials needed to occur under this court order, with the bac, as decribed in the previous section, and how to make a sentence, if possible, but does not have to be alrternative finding of guilt, … lets read futher.
and it is furtherORDERED that the execution of sentences imposed on first offenders shall be stayed pending disposition of the within appeal unless the court determines, after considering the severity of the incident and the prior record of the defendant, that the public interest requires the immediate execution of the sentence;
Here the court is clearly saying that first offenders, even if the guilty finding , after a trial, is found to be based solely on the bac, that sentence did not have to be stayed, this part of executing sentence at this point was totally up to the trial judge, at his discretion.
and it is further
ORDERED that any and all requests for a reliability hearing in respect of Alcotest devices are stayed pending the filing of the Court’s final decision herein, at which time all pending challenges to an Alcotest device’s reliability shall be decided consistent with the Court’s disposition;
So here the court is saying, in all the above sections, to proceed to trial, enter the bac into evidence, try to find another reason for guilt, but the defense is not allowed to challange the bac on reliability. this is a clear court order, and it does not matter if it is unconstitutional, wrong, or that no one agrees with it, … i believe there are sound legal reasons for this, and i stand firmly with the nj supreme court . i believe there are public saftey issues too, and due process issues . people needed trials, and lets read below the rememdey…
and it is further
ORDERED that any and all orders of municipal courts and the Superior Court, including but not limited to the December 12, 2005, orders of Judge Walter R. Barisonek, A.J.S.C., (State v. Casey L. Grogan) and Judge B. Theodore Bozonelis, A.J.S.C. (State v. Michael Dilger, et al.) are vacated to the extent that they conflict with this Court’s Order of December 14, 2005, as modified and supplemented by the within Order;
HERE THE NJ SUPREME COURT IS SAYING, LISTEN, NO MORE STAYS ON TRIALS, LETS MOVE ON THESE CASES NOW, ANY STAY IMPOSED BY THE MIDDLESEX COUNTY JUDGE IS VACATED, AND NO MUNCIPAL COURT JUDGE CAN PUT A STAY ON TRIALS. THEY ARE MAKING THIS EXTREMELY CLEAR HERE, ANY STAY IMPOSED BY ANY MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE WOULD BE IN CONFLICT OF THIS ORDER, SO WHEN JUDGE WEBER ADMITTED ON RECORD IN MY HEARING TO DISMISS THAT EVERYONE HAD TO WAIT, SO DO YOU, IS AN ADMISSION THAT HE, WEBER, IS IN CONFLICT WITH THIS COURT ORDER, IN VIOLATION OF MY DUE PROCESS RIGHTS! LETS READ BELOW
and it is further
ORDERED that consistent with the Court’s prior reminder in its December 14, 2005, Order that
all Superior Court and Municipal Court judges before whom N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 proceedings are pending, or before whom such proceedings are brought during the pendency of this appeal, must ensure that the Court’s Guidelines for Operation of Plea Agreements in the Municipal Courts of New Jersey are strictly enforced,
NO PLEA DEALS ALLOWED. CLEAR ENOUGH. BUT MY FIRST ATTORNEY TOLD ME THAT JUDGE WEBER HIMSELF WAS GOING TO WRITE A PLEA DEAL IN MY CASE, ACTUALLY WRITE IT ON PAPER, SIGN IT, AND HAND IT TO US FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. I THOUGHT THIS WAS COMPLETE BULLCRAP, AND IN VIOLATION OF MY DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
a defendant who challenges the use of Alcotest-related evidence may enter a conditional guilty plea pursuant to Rule 7:6-2(c), reserving the right to apply for relief from the municipal court should the appeal before the Court result in a determination that the Alcotest devices are not reliable;
haere thery are saying one may put in a conditional guilty plea, and wait for chun, however it does not adress straight out not guilty pleas, which of course, any defendant could re open for post conviction relief at any time, .. in other words, this section of the order was the proper “out” for the courts, state, and defense attorneys, who couldnt be bothered actually holding trials, … however, under representation, a person pleading straight out, not guilty, then the order of events goes to the top of this order, and works its way down in due course- proceed to tyrial, enter a bac result, due process occurs as this order sees fit, money paid for a defense is worth spent, as a defense and cross examination is brought to the stop and field sobriety tests, and the sentence may still be stayed, pending chun, .. so here it is clear, they all had an out, it is not my fault i didnt allow thewm to take it, i pleaded and continue to this day to plead in court not guilty, through 21 actual court appearances over 1294 days, without one hearing ever taking place on the charges against me
and it is further
ORDERED that the Acting Administrative Director of the Courts shall circulate this Order forthwith to all judges of the municipal courts and the Superior Court, Law Division and Appellate Division.
Here the nj supreme court ordered that this order in its entireity be sent to every municipal court in nj. someone violated my rights, and maybe through the federal 2201 general question, i will be allowed to file interogatories, and find out who actually violated my right and how it came to be this way,.. not “why” mind you, but “how”, because why goes to motive, i and although of course emotionally i want to know why, i know intelectually, i can only ask how
WITNESS, the Honorable Deborah T. Poritz, Chief Justice, at Trenton, this 10th day of January, 2006.
/s/ Stephen W. Townsend
Clerk of the Supreme Court
CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and ASSOCIATE JUSTICES LONG, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI, ALBIN, WALLACE, and RIVERA-SOTO join in the Court’s Order.
Artie, more or less, said that he was not drinking & driving. He also mentioned that DUI’s are not to be taken lightly and someone could have been seriously injured. Everyone involved was fine, and not hurt.