now browsing by category
I do not believe that there is any statute that gives the Judge an ability to impute. In Monmouth County, the Judge in Barry Weinstein’s case referenced NJ ONLY case law to that effect, after Barry had cited the US Constitution and US Supreme Court cases to the point of you can not force a man into slavery based on your whim. Judge Lacasio made the statement that if it wasn’t a NJ Case, then it didn’t matter. Judge Lacasio then declared that Barry was tilting at windmills in having fought off the False Allegations that he kidnapped his own son in accordance with a court order, in filing motions to the effect that he wished for the courts to enforce his visitation rights once the charges were “dismissed with prejudice” and that he has been investigating Judicial corruption.
On Appeal, the Appealate Court ruled that Barry was being held in Debtor’s Prison, and that he must be released immediately. The specific wording from the ruling is:
The record before us is devoid of any evidence that defendent has assets that can be used to satisfy the release amount ordered by the court.
Indeed, the judge made no such finding, and, thus, violated the rule of “Pierce v. Pierce, 122 N.J. Super. 359 (App. Div. 1973). The recent amendment to R. 1:10-3 makes “clear that enforcement by incarceration was never intended to create a so-called debtor’s prison.” Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment R. 1:10-3.
Yesterday, Judge Hazier (sp?) in Monmouth County let 30 guys go! A few of them he instructed to find a small amount of money and return in 30 days, but instead of putting them all back in, which is the standard practice, he let them go!
Something tells me that there is a change in the wind..