They Make Good Films These Days (Just Not in Hollywood) - #19

We do not live in a "litigious society." We live in a world that is afraid to be litigious because of the relentless jokes and talking points paid for by the US Chamber of Commerce and other lobbyist vampire squid groups like them. We need to be more litigious. There is no other way to settle legitimate disputes and redress real grievances. watch this film. it's amazing.

So Sayeth the King of Funny Faces!

Hold Your Ears, Folks

Faces of Victims of Family Court and Child Protective Services

Know Your Rights

RULE 4:19. PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PERSONS

In an action in which a claim is asserted by a party for personal injuries or in which the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy, the adverse party may require the party whose physical or mental condition is in controversy to submit to a physical or mental examination by a medical or other expert by serving upon that party a notice stating with specificity when, where, and by whom the examination will be conducted and advising, to the extent practicable, as to the nature of the examination and any proposed tests. The time for the examination stated in the notice shall not be scheduled to take place prior to 45 days following the service of the notice, and a party who receives such notice and who seeks a protective order shall file a motion therefor, returnable within said 45-day period. The court may, on motion pursuant to R. 4:23-5, either compel the discovery or dismiss the pleading of a party who fails to submit to the examination, to timely move for a protective order, or to reschedule the date of and submit to the examination within a reasonable time following the originally scheduled date. A court order shall, however, be required for a reexamination by the adverse party's expert if the examined party does not consent thereto. This rule shall be applicable to all actions, whenever commenced, in which a physical or mental examination has not yet been conducted.

Note: Source-R.R. 4:25-1; amended July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994; amended July 5, 2000 to be effective September 5, 2000; amended July 12, 2002 to be effective September 3, 2002.

Rule 4:52

What a bullshit rule!

4:52-1. Temporary Restraint and Interlocutory Injunction-Application on Filing of Complaint

(a) Order to Show Cause With Temporary Restraints. On the filing of a complaint seeking injunctive relief, the plaintiff may apply for an order requiring the defendant to show cause why an interlocutory injunction should not be granted pending the disposition of the action.

So much for innocent until proven guilty.

There is an Oxymoron in the N.J. Criminal Code

Yes, that's right folks, an oxymoron in the New Jersey Criminal Code. Posted below is what you call an "optional law":

2C:4-5. Psychiatric or Psychological Examination of Defendant With Respect to Fitness to Proceed.

a. Whenever there is reason to doubt the defendant's fitness to proceed, the court may on motion by the prosecutor, the defendant or on its own motion, appoint at least one qualified psychiatrist or licensed psychologist to examine and report upon the mental condition of the defendant.� The psychiatrist or licensed psychologist so appointed shall be either:

(1) From a list agreed to by the court, the prosecutor and the defendant; or

(2) Agreed to by the court, prosecutor and defendant.

Alternatively, the court may order examination of a defendant for fitness to proceed by the Department of Human Services.The department shall provide or arrange for examination of the defendant at a jail, prison or psychiatric hospital. However, to ensure that a defendant is not unnecessarily hospitalized for the purpose of the examination, a defendant shall not be admitted to a State psychiatric hospital for an examination regarding his fitness to proceed unless a qualified psychiatrist or licensed psychologist designated by the commissioner determines that hospitalization is clinically necessary to perform the examination. Whenever the qualified psychiatrist or licensed psychologist determines that hospitalization is clinically necessary to perform the examination, the court shall order the defendant to be committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Human Services for placement in a State psychiatric hospital designated for that purpose for a period not exceeding 30 days.

A qualified psychiatrist or licensed psychologist retained by the defendant or by the prosecutor shall, if requested, be permitted to examine a defendant who has been admitted to a State psychiatric hospital.

b. The report of the examination shall include at least the following: (1) a description of the nature of the examination; (2) a diagnosis of the mental condition of the defendant; (3) an opinion as to the defendant's capacity to understand the proceedings against him and to assist in his own defense. The person or persons conducting the examination may ask questions respecting the crime charged when such questions are necessary to enable formation of an opinion as to a relevant issue, however, the evidentiary character of any inculpatory statement shall be limited expressly to the question of competency and shall not be admissible on the issue of guilt.

c. If the examination cannot be conducted by reason of the unwillingness of the defendant to participate therein, the report shall so state and shall include, if possible, an opinion as to whether such unwillingness of the defendant was the result of mental incompetence. Upon the filing of such a report, the court may permit examination without cooperation, may appoint a different psychiatrist or licensed psychologist, or may commit the defendant for observation for a period not exceeding 30 days except on good cause shown, or exclude or limit testimony by the defense psychiatrist or licensed psychologist.

d. The report of the examination shall be sent by the psychiatrist or licensed psychologist to the court, the prosecutor and counsel for the defendant.

L.1978, c.95; amended 1979, c.178, s.13A; 1997, c.77, s.1; 1998, c.111, s.1.

By using the word may instead of must in the above law, the legislature of New Jersey has made this law unenforcable. This should concern everyone.

Please write to your legislators and tell them to read US Supreme Court cases Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966); and, Porter v. McKaskle, 466 U.S. 984 (1984) before any more tragedies happen.

"It is well settled that, if evidence available to a trial judge raises a bona fide doubt regarding a defendant's ability to understand and participate in the proceedings against him, the judge has an obligation to order an examination to assess his competency, even if the defendant does not request such an exam."
-Justices Marshall & Kennedy's Opinion
Porter v. McKaskle

Not so, apparently. Not so in New Jersey.

Like I said, this should concern everyone.

Please repost this information far and wide. This issue needs as much attention as possible.


Doing something about it, like writing to a NJ Legislator about it, or perhaps running for a seat in the assembly or the senate yourself would be greatly appreciated, too.
Warm Regards,

Erik B. Anderson
The King of Funny Faces
Independence Township, New Jersey
Established 1782