VERIFIED COMPLAINT. Mary Ann Ryan. (Pal.)

Transcription

1 Richard Gutman 9 Prescott Avenue Montclair, NJ (voice & fax) rickggg@yahoo.com Attorney for Plaintiff Jesse Wolosky JESSE WOLOSKY, v. Plaintiff, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION, CIVIL PART SUSSEX COUNTY DOCKET NO. TOWNSHIP OF SPARTA Defendant. Civil Action VERIFIED COMPLAINT Plaintiff Jesse Wolosky, by way of complaint against Defendant Township of Sparta, states as follows: Summary 1. This is an action under the Open Public Records Act ("OPRA") for public access to a Sparta Township Police Department general complaint and five related witness statements. Parties 2. Plaintiff Jesse Wolosky is an individual residing at 1 Vista Drive, Sparta, New Jersey.. 3. Defendant Township of Sparta is a political subdivision of the State of New Jersey located in Sussex County. Cause of Action 4. Jesse Wolosky requested from the Township of Sparta the August 15, 2013, Sparta Police Department general complaint regarding David Troast, as well as related voluntary statements by Gil Gibbs, Molly Whilesmith, Christine Quinn/Barbara Quinn, David Troast and Mary Ann Ryan. (Pal.)

2 5. At the time David Troast was the former Sparta Township manager, Gilbert Gibbs was the Sparta Township mayor, Molly Ann Whilesmith was the Sparta Township deputy mayor, Christine Quinn was a Sparta Township councilperson and Mary Ann Ryan was a Sparta Township resident. 6. On September 13, 2013, Sparta Township denied Mr. Wolosky access to all the requested records in their entirety. (Pa2-3.) 7. On October 1, 2013, Mr. Wolosky's counsel faxed and ed Sparta Township a letter arguing that the records were not exempt under OPRA and indicating that litigation would ensue if the Township did not grant access to the requested records by October 6, (Pa6.) 8. On October 4, 2013, the Sparta Township Municipal Attorney responded to Mr. Wolosky's counsel, reiterating the Township's denial of access. (Pa7.) follows: 9. The Township's denial of access to the records violated the Open Public Records Act. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Wolosky demands judgment against the Township of Sparta as A. An order that Township of Sparta grant Mr. Wolosky access to the requested records within 10 days of service of the order; B. An award of costs and attorney's fees; and C. Such other relief as the Court deems equitable and just. Respectfully submitted, / October 6, 2013 Richard Gutman 2

3 Designation of Dial Counsel Plaintiff designates Richard Gutman as trial counsel in this action. Certification Pursuant to R. 4:5-1(b) Plaintiff certifies that the matter in controversy is not the subject of any other action pending in any court or arbitration proceeding and that be is not contemplating any other action or arbitration proceeding regarding the subject matter of this action. Plaintiff is not aware of any other party that should be joined in this action. certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment..t Executed on October 6, 2013 Richard Gutman 3

4 From: J Wolosky <jessewotosky@yahoo.com > To: Mary Coe <Mary.Coe@spartanj.org > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, :34 PM Subject: OPRA request 9111/13 Sparta OPRA Request to the Records Custodian From Jesse Wolosky 1 Vista Dr Sparta NJ On September 11, 2013 for records request Pursuant to the Open Public Records Act,?pen Public Meetings Act and the New Jersey common law right of access: Records Request of 6 items: 1) A copy of each and every page from the Sparta Police Department General Complaint report dated August regarding David Troast. 2) A copy of the Voluntary Statement of Gil Gibbs from the General Complaint report dated on or about August 15, 2013 regarding David Troast. 3) A copy of the Voluntary Statement of Molly Whilesmith from the General Complaint report dated on or about August regarding David Troast. 4) A copy of the Voluntary Statement of Christine Quinn/Barbara Quinn from the General Complaint report dated on or about August 15, 2013 regarding David Troast. 5) A copy of the Voluntary Statement of David Troast from the General Complaint report dated on or about August 15, 2013 regarding David Troast. 6) A copy of the Voluntary Statement of Marry Ann Ryan from the General Complaint report dated on or about August regarding David Troast. For item 1 to 6 Requested Medium for Response and for Records Responsive to Request: Please respond to this request in electronic format via . Please label the attach file. to icsscwolosky yahoo.com

5 TOWNSHIP OF SPARTA 65 Main Street Sparta, New Jersey '986 Fax: (973) September 13, 2013 Mr. Jesse Wolosky 1 Vista Drive Sparta, NJ Dear Mr. Wolosky: I am responding to your September 11, 2013 OPRA request for the following six government records: 1) A copy of each and every page from the Sparta Police Department General Complaint report dated August 15, 2013 regarding David Troast. 2) A copy of the Voluntary Statement of Gil Gibbs from the General Complaint report dated on or about August 15, 2013 regarding David Troast. 3) A copy of the Voluntary Statement of Molly Whilesmith front the General Complaint report dated on or about August 15, 2013 regarding David Troast. 4) A copy of the Voluntary Statement of Christine Quinn/Barbara Quinn from the General Complaint report dated on or about August 15, 2013 regarding David Troast, 5) A copy of the Voluntary Statement of David Troast from the General Complaint report dated on or about August 15, 2013 regarding David Troast. 6) A copy of the Voluntary Statement of Maly Ann Ryan from the General Complaint report dated on or about August 15, 2013 regarding David Troast. I must deny your OPRA request. As you are aware, Mr, Troast was a former Sparta Township employee, last holding the position of Township Manager, While the Sparta Township Police Department investigated an incident regarding Mx, Troast on August 15, 2013, it was in his capacity as a Sparta Township employee. No criminal charges were filed against anyone, leaving the matter strictly as a personnel issue involving Mr. Troast as a Sparta Township employee, Section 10 of OPRA states that ",..the personnel or pension records of an individual in the possession of a public agency, including but not limited to records relating to any grievance filed by or against an individual, shall not be considered a government record and

6 shall not be made available for public access...". Therefor; I must deny your OPRA request. Sincerely yours, p,-11 Mary C;oe, RWIC Municipal Clark 3a

7 From: J Wolosky <jessewolosky@yahoo.com > To: Mary Coe <Mary.Coe spartanj.org > Sent: Friday, September 13, :14 PM Subject: OPRA request 8/11/13 Sparta RE: Jesse Wolosky OPRA request dated September 11, 2013 VIA September 13, 2013 To Mary Coe, RMC Municipal Clerk Sparta Twp Thank you far your . Regarding your response dated September 13, 2013 you stated under "Section 10 of OPRA states that..." You should be aware that the General Police Complaint that I am requesting does not fall under the category of a Grievance. Please read the "PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL AND EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK". Please fulfill my OPRA request dated September 11, Thank you

8 TOWNSHIP OF SPARTA 65 Matti Street Sports, 'vow JorsGy , 986 Far: (973) September 17, 2013 Mr. Jesse Wolosky 1 Vista Drive Sparta, NJ Dear Mr, Wolosky: I have received your September 13, 2013 c-mail regarding your OPRA request dated September I I, I disagree with your conclusion and there is nothing in your September 13, that would cause me to change my prior ()PRA response to you, Sincerely yours, Mary J. Coe, RMC Municipal Clerk 5y

9 RICHARD GUTMAN, P. C. ATTORNEY AT LAW 9 PRESCOTT AVENUE MONTCLAIR, NEW JERSEY TELEPHONE dff FAX rickg goyahoo.00m October 1, 2013 Mary Coe Township of Sparta Municipal Clerk (fax) Mary.Coe@spartanj.org Dear Ms. Coe: I represent Jesse Wolosky regarding his September 11, 2013, ()PRA and common law request for a copy of the August 15, 2013, Sparta Police Department general complaint regarding David Troast and five related five witness statements. As you may recall, because the criminal investigation became a personnel investigation, you denied Mr. Wolosky's request for those police records on the grounds of the OPRA exemption for personnel records. But a record does not become a personnel record merely because it is used in the course of a personnel investigation. The records at issue are police records, not personnel records. In order to avoid litigation, please fax or me the requested records by October 6, ; Very truly yours, i r) Richard Gutman

10 Thomas N. Flyan trvanalcriamoorn LADDEY, CLARK &RYAN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 60 BLUE HERON ROAD SUITE 300 SPARTA, NEW JERSEY (973) FAX: (973) October 4, 2013 Richard Gutman, Esq. Richard Gutman, P.C. 9 Prescott Avenue Montclair, NJ Re: September 11, 2013 OPRA Request Our Fite No Dear Mr. Gutman: The undersigned is the Municipal Attorney for Sparta Township. I am responding to your letter of October 1, 2013 to the Township Clerk, Mary Coe, regarding Mr. Wolosky's September 11, 2013 OPRA and Common Law Request for a copy of the August 15, 2013 Sparta Township general complaint form regarding David Troast and five related witness statements. Ms. Coe denied your client's OPRA Request on the basis that OPRA makes employee personnel records non-disclosable except for certain very limited ;nformation which M. Wolosky did not request. It is my advice to Ms. Coe that after considering your letter, that she not change her position regarding the release of the records in question, Your assertion that Mr. Troast's personnel records are subject to disclosure because the incident was investigated by the Sparta Township Police Department is simply not valid. The Township Police Department investigated a matter involving Mr. Troast and an issue of the Township's Personnel Policy. it was not a criminal matter and the fact that the police may have investigated it does not transform a personnel issue into a criminal complaint. Under OPRA, a records custodian does not have a choice to release or not release the personnel records of a public employee. OPRA clearly states what is and is not a government record involving a public employee and a public employer must keep the employees personnel records confidential except for "an individual's name, title, position, salary, payroll record, length of service, date of separation and the reason therefore, and

11 ... October 4, 2013 Page 2 the amount and type of any pension received shall be a government record;", N.J.S.A. 47:1A- 10. Any other personnel information of a public employee is confidential and a custodian may not by law reveal it to any outside party. Your letter also refers to your client's common law request for the records. As you are aware, under the last part of the Common Laws three-part test to determine whether or not a government record is disclosable, the records custodian must engage in a balancing test weighing the need for confidentiality against the public right to know. When engaging in that balancing test, the records custodian must consider OPRA's compelling mandate of protecting the privacy rights of public employees and their personnel records. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10 merely codified the policy in effect in New Jersey regarding personnel records that had been in existence for 25 year's before OPRA was adopted. Weighing that strong public long-standing policy against the public's right to know it is clear that the personnel records in question should remain confidential under the Common Law as well. Very truly yours, TNR/lal cc: Mary j. Coe, RMC, Township Clerk A13k 14i 160, 1PRA.OPM AVtga Ky eplrn.be11j. 2011UVRA krquissa201:1 to 01(.,,tra, Jot, Thomas N. Ryan )..)

12 Richard Gutman 9 Prescott Avenue Montclair, NJ (voice & fax) rickggg@yahoo.com Attorney for Plaintiff Jesse Wolosky JESSE WOLOSKY, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY Plaintiff, LAW DIVISION, CIVIL PART SUSSEX COUNTY v. DOCKET NO. TOWNSHIP OF SPARTA Defendant. Civil Action CERTIFICATION OF RICHARD GUTMAN I, Richard Gutman, hereby certify and say as follows: 1. 1 am plaintiff's attorney in the above titled lawsuit. 2. All attached documents are true copies and have not been redacted, changed, modified, adjusted or otherwise altered in any manner by me or my agents. I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that i ['any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. Executed on October 8, 2013 Richard Gutman

13 Richard Outman 9 Prescott Avenue Montclair, NJ (voice & fax) rieliggayahoo.00m Attorney for Plaintiff Jesse Wolosky JESSE WOLOSKY, v. Plaintiff, SUPERIOR. COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION, CIVIL PART SUSSEX COUNTY DOCKET NO. TOWNSHIP OF SPARTA Defendant. Civil Action CERTIFICATION OF JESSE WOU)SKY I, Jesse Wolosky, hereby certify and say as follows: 1. 1 ant the plaintiff in the above titled lawsuit 2.1 have personal knowledge of the facts alleged in the Complaint 3. The factual allegations of the Complaint are true. I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment 1:\ Executed on October 6, 2013 Jesse Wolosky

14 JESSE WOLOSKY, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY Plaintiff, LAW DIVISION, CIVIL PART SUSSEX COUNTY v. DOCKET NO. TOWNSHIP OF SPARTA, Civil Action Defendant. Brief of Jesse Wolosky in Support of Order to Show Cause October 8, 2013 Richard Gutman Richard Gutman, P.C. 9 Prescott Avenue Montclair, NJ (voice & fax) rickggg@yahoo.com Attorney for Plaintiff Jesse Wolosky

15 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES _ STATEMENT OF FACTS..,..... * , 1 ARGUMENT I. Under OPRA, Township Has Burden of Proving That the Requested Records are Personnel Records, Not Police Records 2 IL A Police Record Does Not Transform into a Personnel Record Simply Because it is Later Used in a Personnel Investigation _. 4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Burnett v. County of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408 (2009) O'Shea v. Township of West Milford, 410 N.J.Super. 371 (App. Div, 2009) 4-5 Statutes N.J.S.A. 47:1A N.J.S.A. 47:1A e N.J.S.A. 47:1A Ordinances Sparta Township Code Sparta Township Code , 4

16 Statement of Facts Sparta resident Jesse Wolosky requested the following records from Sparta Township under the Open Public Records Act ("OPRA") and the common law: 1) A copy of each and every page from the Sparta Police Department General Complaint report dated August 15, 2013 regarding David Troast. 2) A copy of the Voluntary Statement of Gil Gibbs from the General Complaint report dated on or about August 15, 2013 regarding David Troast. 3) A copy of the Voluntary Statement of Molly Whilesmith from the General Complaint report dated on or about August 15, 2013 regarding David Troast. 4) A copy of the Voluntary Statement of Christine Quinn/Barbara Quinn from the General Complaint report dated on or about August 15, 2013 regarding David Troast. 5) A copy of the Voluntary Statement of David Troast from the General Complaint report dated on or about August 15, 2013 regarding David Troast. 6) A copy of the Voluntary Statement of Marry Ann Ryan from the General Complaint report dated on or about August 15, 2013 regarding David Troast. (Pal.) At the time David Troast was the former Sparta Township manager, Gilbert Gibbs was the Sparta Township mayor, Molly Ann Whilesmith was the Sparta Township deputy mayor, Christine Quinn was a Sparta Township councilperson and Mary Ann Ryan was a Sparta Township resident. On September 13, 2013, Sparta Township denied Mr. Wolosky access to all the requested records in their entirety for the following reason: I must deny your OPRA request. As you are aware, Mr. Troast was a former Sparta Township employee, last holding the position of Township Manager. While the Sparta Township Police Department investigated an incident regarding Mr. Troast on

17 August 15, 2013, it was in his capacity as a. Sparta Township employee. No criminal charges were filed against anyone, leaving the matter strictly as a personnel issue involving Mr. Troast as a Sparta Township employee. Section 10 of OPRA states that "...the personnel or pension records of an individual in the possession of a public agency, including but not limited to records regarding any grievance filed by or against an individual, shall not be considered a government record and shall not be made available for public access...". (Pa2-3.) Mr. Wolosky then wrote Sparta Township that a general police complaint is not a grievance. (Pa4.) Sparta Township then reiterated its previous denial of access. (Pa5.) Mr. Wolosky's counsel then faxed and ed Sparta Township a letter stating, "a record does not become a personnel record merely because it is used in the course of a personnel investigation. The records at issue are police records, not personnel records." The letter also indicated that litigation would ensue if the Township did not grant access to the requested records. (Pa6.) In response to Mr. Wolosky's counsel, the Sparta Township Municipal Attorney reiterating the Township's denial of access and added, The Township Police Department investigated a matter involving Mr. Troast and an issue of the Township's Personnel Policy. It was not a criminal matter and the fact that the police may have investigated it does not transform a personnel issue into a criminal complaint. (Pa7.) Mr. Wolosky will mail David Troast the signed order to show cause and the complaint. I. Under OPRA, Township Has Burden of Proving That the Requested Records are Personnel Records, Not Police Records Jesse Wolosky requested from Sparta Township a specific Sparta Police Department report and five related witness statements. (Pal.) The Sparta records custodian denied access on the grounds that, after the police investigation concluded without criminal charges, it became a "personnel issue" and thus the records are exempt as personnel records. (Pa2-3). The Sparta 2

18 Township Municipal Attorney added, The Township Police Department investigated a matter involving Mr. Troast and an issue of the Township's Personnel Policy. It was not a criminal matter and the fact that the police may have investigated it does not transform a personnel issue into a criminal complaint. (Pa7.) The Municipal Attorney's explanation implies, whether intended or not, that the Sparta Police Department carried out the personnel investigation and that the records at issued were created as part of that personnel investigation. Thus, the Township has apparently alleged the following: 1. In August 2013 the Township carried out a personnel investigation of Township Manager David Troast; 2. The Township Police Department created the requested police reports in the Township's role of employer, not law enforcer; and 3. The requested police records were used during the personnel investigation. Under OPRA, the Township has the burden of proof. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6. ("The public agency shall have the burden of proving that the denial of access is authorized by law.") Placing the burden of proof on the Township is appropriate because the Township, not record requestor Wolosky, has complete knowledge of the content of the requested records and the factual circumstances of their creation. As yet the Township has submitted no evidence to support its burden of proof. The Township Record Custodian's and Municipal Attorney's unworn assertions are not evidence. Mr. Wolosky will respond if, and when, the Township submits admissible evidence, However, certain facts and governmental principles cause skepticism regarding the Township's assertions, in particular its apparent assertion that the Sparta Police Department created the requested police 3

19 records as part of a personnel, rather than law enforcement, matter. Police departments investigate violations of municipal ordinances and state criminal statutes, not violations of personnel rules by non-police personnel. Instead, Sparta Township personnel matters are investigated by a Personnel Officer, Code 2-6.6, pursuant to the Township of Sparta Policies and Procedures Manual. (Code 10-1.) Therefore, the specific police reports requested would concern law enforcement, not employment, and indicate that they were prepared for law enforcement purposes, not employment purposes. II., A Police Record Does Not Transform into a Personnel Record Simply Because it is Later Used in a Personnel Investigation In its September 13, 2013, denial of access letter, the Township asserted that the police reports were exempt under OPRA personnel record exemption because the police investigation of David Troast later became a "personnel issue." (Pa2.) But OPRA exemption must be narrowly interpreted. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 (any limitations on the right of access accorded by [OPRA] shall be construed in favor of the public's right of access." A non-personnel record is not transformed into a personnel record for purposes of OPRA merely because it is used in the course of a personnel investigation. For example, a bill paid by an employee does not become a personnel record for purposes of OPRA merely because the employee is the subject of an internal investigation regarding his payment of the bill. O'Shea v. Township of West Milford, 410 N.J.Super. 371 (App. Div. 2009) involved an OPRA request for a police Use of Force Report. The Township denied access on the grounds, among others, that the Use of Force Report might become part of a internal affairs or criminal investigation and thereby is exempt as an internal affairs record or a criminal investigative record. Id. at "Internal affairs" are employee disciplinary matters within a police department. 4

20 The Appellate Division affirmed for the reasons stated by the trial court judge, Id. at 376, including that the Use of Force Report was not exempt as an investigative record merely because it may be used during an investigation. Id. at A criminal investigatory record was limited to "a record created while a criminal investigation is going on[,] ' or 'the work product of... the people investigating.'" Id. at 378. Similarly, the courts held that Use of Force Reports are not exempt from OPRA merely because that are "used internally." Id, at 378, Thus, just as a Use of Force Report is not an police personnel disciplinary record or criminal investigative record merely because it may be used in a police personnel disciplinary investigation or criminal investigation, so too the police reports in the case at bar are not OPRA exempt personnel records merely because they may have been used in a personnel disciplinary investigation. The requested records neither describe the personnel investigation nor were generated as part of the personnel investigation. A personnel disciplinary investigation of the Township Manager is carried out by the Personnel Officer, not the police. Under Sparta Township's argument, it can lawfully deny any and all OPRA requests for copies of records revealing Sparta Township corruption or other misconduct if Sparta Township is using those records as part of a disciplinary investigation of a Township official or employee. Such a policy is contrary to the purpose of OPRA to enable "citizens and the media [to] play a watchful role in curbing wasteful government spending and guarding against corruption and misconduct." Burnett v. County of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408, 414 (2009). Respectfully submitted, Richard Gutman 5

21 Richard Gutman 9 Prescott Avenue Montclair, NJ (voice & fax) rickggg yahoo.com Attorney for Plaintiff Jesse Wolosky FI_ED on 13 Emma V. OPOINON JUDGE'S CliAIGER3 SU3SEX CGoi :TY =IRMO= JESSE WOLOSKY, v. Plaintiff, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION, CIVIL PART SUSSEX COUNTY DOCKET NO; S S TOWNSHIP OF SPARTA Civil Action Defendant. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE SUMMARY ACTION ' I '''"4" #11:et c,,t3-005 THIS MATTER being brought before the court by Richard 'Gutman, attorney for plaintiff, Jesse Wolosky, seeking relief by way of summary action pursuant to R. 4:67-1(a), based upon the facts set forth in the verified complaint filed herewith; and the court having determined that this matter may be commenced by order to show cause as a summary proceeding pursuant to N..T.S.A. 47:1A-6 and for good cause shown. IT IS on this 47 day of October, 2013, ORDERED that the defendant Township of Sparta appear and show cause on the, slay of ec A"-, 201, before the Superior Court at the Courthouse in..1.1akani, New Jersey at r,41 /1 o'clock in the noon, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, why judgment should not be entered for: A. An order that Township of Sparta grant Mr. Wolosky access to the requested records; B. An award of costs and attorney's fees; and C. Such other relief as the Court deems equitable arid just. And it is further ORDERED that:

22 . A copy of this order to show cause, verified complaint, brief and all supporting affidavits or certifications submitted in support of this application be served upon the defendant personally within 7 days of the date hereof, in accordance with R. 4:4-3 and R. 4:4.4, this being original process. 2. The plaintiff must file with the court his proof of service of the pleadings on the defendant no later than three (3) days before the return date. 3. Defendant she( file and serve a written answer, a brief, an answering affidavit or a motion returnable on the return date to this order to show cause and the relief requested in the verified complaint and proof of service of the same by /Vv.) ( The answer, brief, answering affidavit or a motion, as the case may be, must be filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court in the county listed above d a copy of the papers must be sent directly to the chambers of Judge 6/41`1, The plaintiff must file and serve any written reply to the defendant's order to show cause opposition by Alvl ti, The reply papers must be filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court in the county listed above and a copy of the reply papers must be sent directly to the chambers of Judge 5. If the defendant does not file and serve opposition to this order to show cause, the application will be decided on the papers on the return date and relief may be granted by default, provided that the plaintiff files a proof of service and a proposed form of order at least three days prior to the return date. 6. If the plaintiff has not already done so, a proposed form of order addressing the relief sought on the return date (along with a self-addressed return envelope with return address and postage) must be submitted to the court no later than three (3) days before the return date. 2

23 7. Defendant, take notice that the plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against you in the Superior Court of New Jersey. The verified complaint attached to this order to show cause states the basis of the lawsuit. If you dispute this complaint, you, or your attorney, must file a written answer, an answering affidavit or a motion returnable on the return date to the order to show cause and proof of service before the return date of the order to show cause. These documents must be filed with theeeafifaty Clark of the Superior Court. A directory of these offices is available in the Civil Division. Management Office in the county listed above and online at deptvelexklawretpdf. Include a $ filing fee payable to the "Treasurer State of New Jersey." You must also send a copy of your answer, brief; answering affidavit or motion to the plaintiff's attorney whose name and address appear above, A telephone call will not protect your rights; you must file and serve your answer, brief, answering affidavit or motion with the fee or judgment may be entered against you by default, 8. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may call the Legal Services office in the county in which you live or the Legal Services of New Jersey Statewide Hotline at LSNJ-LAW ( ). If you do not have an attorney and are not eligible for free legal assistance you may obtain a referral to an attorney by calling one of the Lawyer Referral Services, A directory with contact information for local Legal ServiCes Offices and Lawyer Referral Services is available in the Civil Division Management Office in the county listed above and online at dentyclerklawref.pdf. 9. The Court will entertain argument, but not testimony, on the return date of the order to show cause, unless the court and parties are advised to the:contrary, no later than days before the return date. 3

24 EDWARD V. (,-ANNON.C. Oiedeve. allkd /0.q/c96/3

25 Mn1 MYTY XFAXYA WIT! JUNCIAb NAPIP l'j KOVI,E1r, 00,OlS0, 17g1 - :OUPT IMPOWI *4, W31 M - 1; +, 00Ta PAVF; q1dmi W. Wligff V titla TAY Vltti pax -(+ttro :1S INf 410[ 04 AW; AS21C E0 to: JUI I. A.OM4i'; fr*4 NOVI:FY 150 PAYS AO rintil rfpg Ax00 OR io Woi 5EP.V:q OA tlit t1?010 is YRitHAL &NE WINO IS1 hor OvAtal ':, 006 '4! r09119v, OSW1 t ,5n) IF rot qt4m 104 1HI taci IS IAPOnWI z.ityanl.;;aa^.!ti! h I4 le.s,a MIA110, XU 5T SPvt 0i,ID a T lli rt,w,1 q! 0fWr, PARtIts IA AU1;FGAi(1 1Vii AITOTION: lulbl41 OMAN WNW PRSOII AV/hrri ROMMAIP 1J 00i;-M

26 o U1 0 tg