Purpose To HOPE - Exposing Injustice - NJ

Email to the judge on 1/1/2024 Fixing An Injust Justice System - Purpose to HOPE

On Mon, Jan 1, 2024, 2:31 PM ThePeople's HOPE wrote:
Good Afternoon,

1. The leaking of interoffice memo referencing Livestock only serves to provide the motive behind the injust actions taking place within the system.
- 98% of cases in New Jersey result in a plea deal.
- Excludable Time removes the use of the 180 day rule and the 2 year rule. In the event that the post indictment date is missed or approaching, the rule is written that a judge can refuse to release an inmate based on the same factors that were already accounted for in the point calculation process and if 6 months or 2+ years have passed, how then can the same criteria be used for that person?

2. The law states that the responsibility of maintaing the discovery shall fall on the prosecutor. Please note on the Excludable Time criteria document, it states that failure of the state to provide complete and timely discovery shall NOT result in excludable time attributed to the defense.
- If the prosecutor loses any portions of discovery and is unable to reproduce the missing item, it is impossible to mark the discovery as complete again and should remain as the indicating factor that drives the post indictment release date to its end since Excludable Time cannot be attributed to the defendant in this case, per court rules.
- How is it possible that a jury can determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with the known knowledge of missing evidence? If 99 pieces of discovery favors towards guilt, the knowledge of missing evidence itself prevents any opportunity to eliminate doubt because there is now the possibilty that the missing piece could prove innocence but there is no way of knowing now. Also, the incident of the missing evidence that was once included in the full discovery raises red flags as to why it was the only part missing and that creates reasonable doubt of justice being served.

3. ISSUES WITH GRAND JURY INDICTMENT - purposely misleading the grand jury to indict by changing the statement of a person in questioning to appear as an admission of guilt. That has to fall under prosecutorial misconduct. Any version of a defendants statement that is being used to to idict, cannot be submitted in partiality. Especially when the full statement states several different responses to the same question being asked. I'm sure this calls for a review of all grand jury proceedings.

EMAIL TO JUDGE SENT 1/4/2024:

Good Afternoon,

The email sent on 11/22 is a request to allow me step in and do exactly what everyone has been waiting for. I received no response nor had there been any changes made to my son's case. It also appeared that you hadnt reached out to Mr. Helmer and associates.

I was under the impression that this much needed destruction of the current state of justice was inevitable yet, for 3 years there has been several opportunities for you to release my son and do the right thing. I have intentionally left you out of the spot light due to my overwhelming feeling that you were being forced to do the opposite of whats write.

I may have expected more from you than what was possible. I had provided you with a several options to choose from to break this horrible system. Please allow me to apologize. That is not something a judge would partake in.

I sent you a copy of initial reform on 11_22 for your reference and for you to experience relief that it would all end soon.

Please note that it not your job to correct the mistakes or others however, it is my job to protect my son from those tnat continue to do him wrong and do so with ni regard for justice.

The Project Hope Plan has focus on the entire system from the beginning of your process down to where we are now- inmates still being held longer than the law allows.

You don't need to concern yourself with any of the details of the plan to reform. I have a few resources willing to assist and hopefully many more will come forward tonight or tomorrow morning to do whatever necessary to ensure their stance on the correct side of justice. Anyone willing to come forward can email [email protected] with thier choice of email used and they will receive an invite to follow next steps and hopefully invite others as well. Subject Line: Hope 2 Help.
Unfortunately, I don't know who is considered corrupt or not in this system and I will not entertain the idea of figuring it out. I provided a direct way to eliminate any confusion, but i do remember almost exactly 2 years ago from today that my son was in your court room while Brent Hopkins surprised us all by coming prepared to present his motion to dismiss the indictment based on lost evidence and that resulted in your honor asking the defense attorney to prove that there was malicious intent on behalf of the prosecutor. I saw a piece of my son's soul die that day and other days as well.

I'm sure many of you will ignore the opportunity to right your wrongs. And that is a personal choice that is theirs to make.

I will send direct messages thru the app should you send an email request and will take it from there.

In addition to any items listed below, I will provide you with what you need to call a court appearance for all parties and finally dismiss tne charges confidently and give me back my son!

I will be in touch once request is made.

Thanks

SOOOOOO.....

MR. SALINGER HAS BEEN CAUGHT SEVERAL TIMES.

HE HAS BEEN TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO LIE ON MY SON AND VERY RECENTLY TRIED GET AN INMATE UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL WITH ME.

MY SON IS GOOD PEOPLE TOO BUT THIS MAN HAS LET HIS PRIDE DESTROY HIM.

Issue of Excludable Time and Discovery

IN THE "RULES THAT GOVERN THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY", EXCLUDABLE TIME CRITERIA IS OUTLINED IN RULE 3.25-4 (I). LINK FOR COMPLETE RULE 3:25 - SPEEDY TRIAL... https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/rules-of-court/dismissal

THE FAILURE BY THE PROSECUTOR TO PROVIDE TIMELY AND COMPLETE DISCOVERY SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED EXCLUDABLE TIME UNLESS THE DISCOVERY ONLY BECAME AVAILABLE AFTER THE TIME ESTABLISHED FOR DISCOVERY

After reviewing countless rules and exceptions, I gathered that timely and complete discovery centers around the date a plea offer is provided by the prosecutor to the defense attorney. Also, there are times when a prosecutor does not need to provide complete discovery however, all parties will be made aware of this at the time discovery is due.

MY QUESTIONS AS A RESULT OF WHAT IS STATED IN THE PARAGRAPH UNDER #13 REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME CRITERIA

How many times has the Judge attributed an Excludable Time Order to the Defense because the state's prosecutor has failed to provide full discovery in a timely manner? Or better yet, how many times has the prosecutor provided additional discovery the day of a court proceeding and now the Excludable Time Order is attributed to the defense because the defense attorney now needs time to review what was JUST provided?

Is the defense attorney supposed to not review the materials that were just received so that the defendant can be updated and counseled accordingly? Why isn't there a "grace period" for review, even if it's just a few days? Again, it is not the defendant's issue that any department within the Judicial system is low on resources to maintain the proper expectations to meet the processing deadlines that are written in black and white and numbered as Rule 3:25 - Rules That Govern The Courts in The State of New Jersey.
Why is the Prosecutor not being held accountable for possibly not meeting expectations in regard to timely request and follow up guidelines? Is there a document that outlines procedures and process flows for the role of Prosecutor? I would like to think that the judicial system has Standard Operating Procedures down to the department level as well as job descriptions and performance expectations for all roles within the system., as well as departments that are put in place to ensure the system is functioning properly by performing routine maintenance checks. Without clear expectations, there is no accountability. No accountability results in no repercussions or opportunities to improve. Then we are left with a system of people that continuously break their own rules yet pass judgement on others for allegedly breaking rules while detaining them under the assumption of guilt. When there are no repercussions to one's actions, that person tends to repeat the same behaviors which in this case, works for the benefit of the majority. The Prosecutor has more time, the defendant suffers, and the "Court Appointed" Attorney gets to move this file down a few weeks on the tickler system and review again the day of the next court appearance.