Tort Claim / Final Notice of Default – Unlawful Warrant, Traffic Citations, License Suspension, and Constitutional Violations

 PUBLIC RECORD NOTICE

The documents contained on this page, including but not limited to affidavits, rebuttals, tort claim notices, and related submissions concerning the Glen Ridge Court, Glen Ridge Police Department and public officers, are intended to serve as a public record.

These documents have been made publicly accessible in accordance with principles of:

• Transparency and accountability in government operations;

• Public Rights Doctrine and Popular Sovereignty, recognizing the people as the ultimate authority;

• New Jersey Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq., supporting access to governmental records;

• U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. §552, supporting public disclosure of information concerning government conduct;

Purpose:

• To preserve a legal and historical record of official actions, including investigations, internal affairs reports, and civil rights concerns;

• To provide public access for review, transparency, and accountability;

• To document the timeline and content of government actions for potential legal reference.

Usage:

• The contents may be freely accessed, downloaded, and referenced for educational, journalistic, civic, or legal purposes.

• Users must not modify the original documents.

Disclaimer:

• Personal information unrelated to public officers or government action has been redacted where necessary to protect privacy.

• This notice is not intended to replace any legal filings or proceedings; it supplements legal documentation by providing public access.

Date of Record Creation: August 30, 2025

Author / Beneficial Owner: Naomi Johnson, We The People / Private Woman

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tort Claim / Final Notice of Default – Unlawful Warrant, Traffic Citations, License Suspension, and Constitutional Violations

Naomi Johnson

Private Woman / Beneficial Owner

Address:

Town, State and Zip Code 

Email: 

Phone: 

Date: August 26, 2025

To:

Risk Management Department

Essex County Municipal Court

50 West Market Street, 7th Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Re: Tort Claim / Final Notice of Default – Unlawful Warrant, Traffic Citations, License Suspension, and Constitutional Violations

I am a private woman, Naomi Johnson, not a corporate entity or artificial person. Municipal courts are tribunals of limited jurisdiction, created by statute, and may only operate by consent or upon a valid claim supported by a sworn complainant. Absent proof of jurisdiction, delegation of authority, and consent, any attempt to compel appearance or enforce commercial instruments (tickets, warrants, accounts) constitutes administrative overreach, commercial trespass, and violation of unalienable rights under Article I of the New Jersey Constitution and the United States Constitution. I do not consent to be treated as a corporate franchise, debtor, or account. I appear only specially, to challenge jurisdiction. See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) – A plaintiff (or prosecutor) must establish standing with a “concrete and particularized injury.” Without standing, the court lacks jurisdiction.

To treat me as a criminal by issuing a warrant in my name with the language stating: “YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT WHOSE NAME AND ADDRESS ARE SHOWN BELOW AND BRING HIM/HER BEFORE THIS COURT TO ANSWER A COMPLAINT(S) CHARGING AN OFFENSE(S) IN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT OR HOLD THE DEFENDANT TO BAIL BEFORE AN AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL IF AN AMOUNT OF BAIL IS SHOWN ABOVE” is unlawful and without constitutional authority. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998),  Courts may not proceed without jurisdiction established on the record; “hypothetical jurisdiction” is unconstitutional. The misplaced action of treating me as a criminal, absent proof of bodily injury to another or damage to property, is an overreach beyond the quasi-criminal jurisdiction of a municipal court. See Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196 (1948), Defendants must be tried only on valid charges supported by evidence; courts cannot proceed on assumptions. Not only did the court issue an unlawful warrant, but it also demanded bail without evidence or standing. Without standing, there is no controversy and the court cannot act.

The Glen Ridge Municipal Court and prosecutor have failed to establish a valid case or jurisdiction against me, Naomi Johnson in traffic court. Therefore, the proceeding against me must be dismissed. Municipal traffic courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They must show jurisdiction on the record and require the prosecutor to provide evidence by statute, title, or an actual injured party. See Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1975), The burden is not on Naomi Johnson, it is on the prosecution to prove every element of a charge beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecutor cannot produce a sworn affidavit of injury, a witness with firsthand knowledge, or statutory authority properly applied, then the matter is void and dismissal is mandatory under In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970).

You are demanding that I come to court for an arraignment to enter a plea. All of the language being used against me is criminal in nature, though municipal courts are only quasi-criminal in jurisdiction. I have the right to invoke my Sixth Amendment protections. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), Defendants have the right to confront witnesses and evidence; without such confrontation, prosecution collapses. I have already sent multiple documents to cure this issue, including Judicial Notice to disqualify the judge presiding over my case, and Notices to the prosecutor and administrative clerk to cease and desist their actions. Despite this, they continue to press forward with unlawful tickets and enforcement of a warrant issued against me on the false claim that I failed to answer a complaint. This is untrue. I have certified mail proving I did respond to the court’s complaint.

I also provided evidence in good faith to address the allegations, even though the burden of proof was not mine to bear. The court has failed to provide me with any of the evidence I requested in order to properly defend myself. After my requests to cure the two traffic tickets and remove the warrant, the court ignored me and instead proceeded to suspend my license for alleged non-payment of an unlawful ticket.

I have been forced to pay for an unlawful $500 warrant, two $55 tickets, $575.69 in unlawful towing fees, and repeated certified mailing costs in an effort to correct this issue. Every public official involved, each having taken a sworn oath to uphold the New Jersey and United States Constitutions, has violated that oath.

All those officials who infringed upon my natural and unalienable rights fail to remember that “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people.” Furthermore, “All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.”

This Tort Claim and Final Notice of Default is submitted by Naomi Johnson, a private woman and beneficial owner, in connection with the ongoing unlawful actions of the Glen Ridge Municipal Court, including Judge Mark A. Clemente, Prosecutor Elizabeth Brewster, and Clerk Denise Iandolo, as well as law enforcement officer Sgt. Anthony Mazza of the Glen Ridge Police Department.

Despite repeated submissions, notices, and motions filed from March through August 2025, the defendants refused to correct unlawful actions, including:

• The issuance of two traffic tickets that did not require a court appearance

• An unlawful $500 bench warrant submitted May 1, 2025

• Suspension of Plaintiff’s driver’s license

• Denial of ADA accommodations for Plaintiff, a medically disabled woman with handicap plates

See Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U.S. 199 (1960) – A conviction based on no evidence is a violation of due process.

Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies and provided formal notice of all rights violations. No corrective action has been taken, creating liability under New Jersey Tort Law, constitutional law, and 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Factual Allegations

1. On February 24, 2025, Plaintiff was stopped by Sgt. Anthony Maza and her vehicle was unlawfully towed without a judicial warrant. Plaintiff was forced to walk home, violating ADA requirements and constitutional protections.

2. Plaintiff received traffic tickets that did not require a court appearance. Despite this, a $500 bench warrant was issued unlawfully.

3. From March–August 2025, Plaintiff filed multiple documents to challenge jurisdiction, unlawful towing, and tickets, including:

◦ Motion to Dismiss / Vacate Warrant

◦ Judicial Notice of Disqualification

◦ Affidavits of Truth and Facts

◦ True Bill to the towing company

◦ Notice to Prohibit Destruction of Evidence (Body Camera Footage)

◦ Notices of Due Process Violations and Constitutional Breaches

◦ Evidence proving non-commercial use of her vehicle

4. All filings were ignored, and coercive letters and threats of arrest were issued.

5. Plaintiff requested exculpatory evidence per Brady v. Maryland, but none was provided.

6. Plaintiff request for proof of jurisdiction over subject matter, personal jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction, but none was provided.

7. Plaintiff requested from the court any binding contract to show she made any contractual agreement between any Municipal government agent, actor or public servant of the Township of Glen Ridge but was not provided.

8. Plaintiff requested proof of nature of the cause charges, but not provided.

9. The defendants’ actions interfere with Plaintiff’s freedom of movement, happiness, and liberty, in violation of 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, as well as ADA protections.

Legal Authority

• Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412 (1987) – Right to judicial tribunal

• Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972) – Due process before property deprivation

• Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) – Disclosure of exculpatory evidence

• Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) – Laws repugnant to the Constitution are void

• Maxims of Law: One is presumed to know the law; government officials are bound by their oaths.

• ADA Title II, 42 U.S.C. §12132, and 23 C.F.R. §35.130(b)(7)

Doctrines & Principles

• Presumption of Innocence: The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty with competent evidence (Winship).

• Doctrine of Void Judgments: A judgment without jurisdiction or evidence is null and void (Zerbst).

• Doctrine of Standing: Without an injured party who can prove harm, the case must be dismissed (Lujan).

Plaintiff demands:

1. Immediate dismissal of all traffic tickets and unlawful bench warrant

2. Immediate reinstatement of Plaintiff’s driver’s license

3. Written confirmation that Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, including ADA accommodations, will be respected in all future proceedings

4. Corrective action against Judge Clemente, Prosecutor Brewster, Clerk Iandolo, and Sgt. Maza for violating their oaths of office and ignoring lawful filings

Notice of Intent to Sue

This is the final notice. If corrective action is not taken within 30 days, Plaintiff will pursue civil action in Federal Court under 42 U.S.C. §1983, seeking both compensatory and punitive damages against the individuals in their personal capacities.

Conclusion

Plaintiff has acted in good faith, fully exhausting all administrative remedies, providing proper notice, and attempting to cure the unlawful acts of the municipal court and law enforcement. The defendants’ continued refusal to comply with constitutional and statutory law makes them liable for all resulting damages and costs.

Estoppel / Acquiescence

By continuing to ignore Plaintiff’s formal submissions, motions, and notices, the defendants are estoppel from claiming ignorance of the constitutional and statutory violations. Their continued inaction constitutes acquiescence to the unlawful circumstances and establishes personal liability.

Demand for Corrective Action

Respectfully submitted,

Naomi Johnson

Private Woman / Beneficial Owner

Sui Juris – One of the People