Wednesday, November 30, 2016

New Jersey Appellate Division Ruled Aggregation of Two Types of CDS Not Permitted

The Appellate Division on November 14, 2016 held that Judge Marilyn C. Clark, J.S.C. was correct in ruling that N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(c) does not permit the aggregation of two different types of drugs, which in this case was Heroin and Cocaine for the purposes of charging the defendant with a first degree crime.

Judge Clarke held at the trial level, which the Appellate Division affirmed that under the plain language of the statute and under the doctrine of lenity, the language of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) states that it is illegal to “manufacture, distribute or dispense, a controlled dangerous substance.”  The key word being substance, not the plural, substances, as the prosecutor argued to the court.  Judge Clark did however ruled that aggregation is permitted with the same substance, sold on different dates to reach the first degree level.  Further, because possession with intent to distribute different substances do not merge is further support that Title 35 controlled dangerous substance crimes, are crimes that must be dealt with separately.  State v. Jordan, 235 N.J. Super. 517, 520 (App. Div. 1989).

In joint prosecution for co-defendants, the jury must also decide under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(c), the court noted: “Where the degree of the offense for violation of this Section depends on the quantity of the substance, the Quantity involved shall be determined by the trier of fact... in determining the grade of the offense, whether distribution or dispensing is to the same person or several persons.”

This is a good decision for the defense bar because it interprets an area of the New Jersey Drug Law which is often misinterpreted.

Quote of the Day: “God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose.  Those who choose repose receive release from the mandates of truth; but it is only temporary. No man or woman can reject truth forever.  Those who choose truth, on the other hand, have no rest—and so they continue to fight for justice.”  Ralph Waldo Emerson. 

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

Elizabeth, N.J. Union County, Essex, County, Ocean, Monmouth, Hudson County, Bergen County, Passaic County

Telephone: (908) 354-7706

Friday, November 4, 2016

The Evil of Moral Relativeness

In 1992, Justice Anthony Kennedy, wrote in Planned Parenthood vs. Caseythat “at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
That is the type of disordered thinking that can lead to the absurd judicial decision, to wit, the killing of the unborn child for any reason based on the subjective belief of the mother that the physical or mental wellbeing of the mother could be adversely affected.   Yes, even under the absurd pretext that it would cramp the mother’s life style.  Justice Kennedy should be reminded that our founding Fathers actually believed that the right to life is given to us in the Bill of Rights by our Creator, and not by the Supreme Court.

No Justice Kennedy, this type of thinking leads to moral relativeness, which means that there is no objective truth, that anyone can decide what is true, and it is for the individual to decide what is truth, no matter how absurd and evil that might be.  If everything is true, as Justice Kennedy says, there is no absolute truth.  No Justice Kennedy there is objective moral truth, and to turn ones back on objective moral truth will lead to the absolute destruction of a civilized society as we know it.

There is no question that this type of disordered thinking leads us down the road to moral destruction.  If we can kill the unborn baby because an individual decides that this is not a person and has (“defined one’s own concept of existence”), why not kill the infirmed, the mentally handicapped or the elderly.   For that matter anyone that does not follow one’s own concept of existence. 

A distorted view of the natural law as espoused by Justice Kennedy is simply a recital of the positive law concept espoused by dictators and tyrants, who have turned their backs on God and the natural law.  History has gave us a multitude of tyrants and evil dictators, especially in the 20th Century who decided who was a person, and who was worth of having the protection of the state.  Wasn’t it Adolph Hitler who decides that people of the Jewish faith were none person, worthy to be only to be murdered by the State. 
Where does such disordered thinking end.  If our judges of the highest court in the United States ascribe to such nonsense is anyone safe?  What has the sexual revolution brought us but the seeing of another, not being of beauty made in the likeness and imagine of God, but rather an object to be used and sometimes sadly even abused.

Equally troubling is the dictatorship of the followers of this post-pagan hearses.  These proponents of such disordered thinking will not hesitate to demonize anyone who will not follow and subscribe to this type of pagan and destructive thinking.  They falsely label themselves as progressives and people of acceptance and inclusion, but in reality they are the ones who in the end will force all of us to accept, or be eliminated, if their “concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” is not accepted. The dictatorship of moral relativism is already upon us and few of us even know what is happening.

In a true democracy it is not so much as what we can do, but what we ought to do.  When we fail to do what is “right and justice” there can be no real true freedom.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
Elizabeth, (Union County, Essex County) New Jersey
(908) 354-7006