Motion For Stay Denied!
July 1 Orders Stand!
Borough Compelled To Comply.
Exclusive eyewitness account:
Judge Gummer heard oral argument this morning on an expedited basis on the Borough’s motion for a stay Judge Gummer’s July 1, 2016 Order requiring the Borough Clerk to file the current pay-to-play ordinances with the Secretary of State and schedule a referendum on Ordinance No. 2016-01.
After questioning the Borough’s attorney, Ramon Rivera, Esq., at some length about why it took so long for the Borough to move for a stay (their motion was filed on July 8th, a week after the Judge put her decision on the record), the Judge denied the Borough’s motion, and read her decision into the record. She stated that when she used the term “immediately” in her July 1, 2016 Order to state the time within which Borough Clerk April Claudio was to file the prior four ordinances with the Secretary of State and schedule the referendum, she did not mean 13 days. It was clear from her tone of voice that the Judge was not pleased with the Borough’s failure to abide by her Order, and failure to act promptly in seeking a stay.
The Plaintiffs filed an Order to Show Cause In Aid of Litigant’s Rights late yesterday, seeking to enforce the July 1, 2016 Order. Judge Gummer gave the Borough until 7 a.m. tomorrow to file any opposition to the Plaintiffs’ papers and ordered counsel for both sides to appear in her courtroom at 8:30 a.m. tomorrow for oral argument. The Plaintiffs’ motion requests that rather than simply reiterating the prior language, the Court enter an Order providing that if the Borough Clerk does not file the Ordinances with the Secretary of State within two business days, that Plaintiffs’ counsel, Kenneth E. Pringle, be appointed to do so on the Borough’s behalf, and that if the Borough Clerk does not schedule a referendum within two business days, that the County Clerk be appointed to schedule and conduct the referendum at the Borough’s cost.
The Plaintiffs’ brief in opposition to the stay:
The Plaintiffs’ request for relief via an Order to Show Cause:
10 Comments
I leave Belmar in good “Gummer” hands. Sorry that Matt and his cronies failed to buy this judge. Just kidding. How much do we taxpayers pay for Mr. RAMON RIVERA and the Bill Northgrave of NJ lawyers ? Chances are
the stupid voters that control this town will continue in November to drive Belmar over the cliff. I will pray for you all. Gotta go.
The Mayor and council members took an oath I believe to uphold the constitution. Belmar is the ONLY municipality in NJ that has not filed the compliance pay to play ordinance, you people either are mentally deficient or just plain incompetent?
When is the recall petition being filed?
#3. When you get off your ass and start the rcall petition drive. I hope my comment is clear.
Please let me sign before my lights go out.
About “buying judges”, I recall Doherty flippantly commenting at a Mayor and Council meeting quite a while back when confronted with an earlier of the list of lawsuits that would follow, that “we will have to find a judge to throw that out” or something very close. Keep smiling, Matt, and pooh-poohing the “frivolous” attempts to find lawful and true resolution against your devious and harmful deeds to the residents of Belmar. Judge Gummer has become your worst nightmare and Ken Pringle, justice’s hammer. Have another burrito.
Ms.P He is totally delusional, along with the council, and Claire and her gang.
Just Vote NO. I repeat, just Vote NO.
What are the GOP Council candidates doing to defeat Matt’s Law referendum? They better be doing something substantial.
I repeat JUST VOTE NO
Post a Comment