In 2013, before Judge Lee A. Solomon became a New Jersey Supreme Court Judge, he facilitated the incarceration of Whistleblower Bruce Aristeo, and then deliberately assigned an excessive $75,000 Cash bail Bruce Aristeo could not afford. Bruce Aristeo was in the Camden County Jail for six (6) months before Judge Solomon rendered additional special bail conditions ordering that in exchange for his release prior to his trial, Bruce Aristeo must forfeit his constitutional rights to free speech.
So what prompted Judge Solomon to violate Federal laws, and oppose nearly eighty (80) years of United States Supreme Court rulings? (Click the link below for the full transcript)
Whistleblower Bruce Aristeo posted videos and website reports exposing foul-play by Camden Prosecutors and Judges, some were Judge Solomon’s comrades. Other videos were parody (humorous) videos about animals.
Judge Solomon reasoned, “It doesn’t seem to require that we wait until somebody is hurt or killed.”
NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT: PETS ARE FAMILY
Using the interpretation of this New Jersey Supreme Court Judge, it seems that animals require special speech exceptions from First Amendment protection. In fact, one might interpret that Judge Solomon considers pets as family members, and to protect them, he devised a plan to deter “deaths by video.”
This is a first for New Jersey Supreme Court jurisprudence, because legislature makes law and not the courts. Here you’ll find the step-by-step procedure for making law. As a matter of law, the Constitution of New Jersey forbids such an aggressive move by a judge of the New Jersey Supreme Court. Article Three (III) states:
The powers of the government shall be divided among three distinct branches, the legislative, executive, and judicial.
No person or persons belonging to or constituting one branch shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others, except as expressly provided in this Constitution.
FEDERAL LAW SAYS YOUR PET IS PROPERTY
Opposing the New Jersey Supreme Court Judge Lee A. Solomon‘s belief, under our Fourth Amendment protections, the government considers animals property and the rights associated with the Search and Seizure Clause. Supporting this fact, in Fuller v. Vines, 36 F.3d 68 (9th Cir. 1994), where the Fuller family of Richmond, California, alleged that police officers’ wrongful shooting of their dog constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure.
In layman’s terms, the police took/seized the life of their dog.
A United States Court of Appeals agreed, ruling that:
A dog is “property” and that the destruction of property is a “meaningful interference” constituting a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
Today, there are identical cases in almost every federal court throughout the country.
So why are New Jersey citizens at risk? Jim Walsh and the Courier Post South Jersey local news should report on the underlying relationship between property (pets), its owners, and the New Jersey Supreme Court Judge’s opinion.
If pets are property and considered members of the family, then property can be misinterpreted as family. The conundrum would provide Camden Prosecutors and New Jersey Supreme Court Judge Solomon with a loophole to circumvent the First Amendment protections and charge that a post about property is now prohibited speech.
If, posting your thoughts online about an animal is prohibited, and animals are property, then your thoughts about the neighbors new Nissan GTR is prohibited because a car is property. Now, if speaking about property is prohibited, because it’s considered a member of family, then it must be true that speaking about people is prohibited.
Therefore, speaking about someone or something is prohibited.
But the United States Supreme Court disagrees!
The precedent has been made clear, under First Amendment protections speaking about a person to an audience is protected expression; absent narrowly defined exceptions.
PETS AS PROPERTY AND PROPERTY AS PEOPLE
ULTIMATELY, the loophole would prohibit you from speaking to others about something really important like: a post directed to others about a teacher who abused your child, or about a person in your town who committed a crime, or even about a person who gave you poor service at your favorite restaurant.
Even Liking or Sharing that information has serious repercussions for two reasons: 1) Because the people you spoke about to others are family members (like a pet or loveseat), and 2) Liking or Sharing generates a new post thus violating the law.
And… Let’s take that further; you could even be arrested and charged with stalking by Liking, Sharing, and discussing online a politician’s position, regardless of them acting inappropriately or in their official capacity.
INCOMPETENT SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES
The New Jersey Supreme Court’s judicial pool, the Court that decides on our Constitutional issues, is now tainted by the very judge who deliberately violated constitutional law, then supported and enforced the violation by compounding a second order removing the rights of speech from the accused in this case.
The order is called a “prior restraint on speech.”
The State’s citizens are in great peril. A citizen can be arrested, detained, and robbed of their property at anytime without notice for posting an opinion on the Internet about a pet, even if only to family and friends.
At this time you should be questioning why Jim Walsh and the Courier Post South Jersey local news are not reporting this unconstitutional plan of censorship that shall chill Camden County, and later the State of New Jersey.
Don’t forget, post your opinions below.