UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

on

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

Naomi Johnson, Sui Juris, as one of the People of the Constitution, Plaintiff, v. Glen Ridge Township, et al., Defendants. Case No. [Insert Docket Number]

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

I, Naomi Johnson, sui juris, one of the People under the U.S. Constitution, declare under penalty of perjury (28 U.S.C. § 1746):

  1. I filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and NOS 440 for violations of my unalienable rights (4th, 5th, 6th, 14th Amendments, ADA, NJLAD) by Defendants (Glen Ridge Township, Sgt. Anthony Maza, Lt. Thomas, Judge [Name], Prosecutor [Name], Clerk [Name], State of NJ) arising from an unlawful tow on February 24, 2025, improper $500 warrant, and $55 tickets without consent.

  2. From March 1, 2025, to September 27, 2025, I served Defendants via certified mail (tracking numbers: [List, e.g., 7019-9990-0001-2345-6789]) with: Affidavit of Rebuttal, Affidavit of Acquiescence, Notice to Liability and Cure, Motion to Quash Warrant, Motion to Vacate Tickets, and Demand for Proof of Jurisdiction, Contract, Injured Party, and Commercial Use. None responded, admitting truth per maxim "Qui tacet consentire videtur" (16 Am. Jur. 2d § 155).

  3. Defendants’ silence violates due process (Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank, 339 U.S. 306 (1950)) and NJ Court Rules (R. 7:8-9, improper warrant service). Their “account” ($500 warrant) lacks my express consent, breaching contract maxims (American Jurisprudence, 17 Am. Jur. 2d § 74).

  4. Evidence filed includes: patrol car video, call logs, Sgt. Maza’s oath (oath breach, N.J.S.A. 41:2-1), and blog posts ([Insert URLs]) as my court of record, admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 803(8). IRS Form 211 filed for unauthorized “account” (IRC § 7623).

  5. My disability (tremors, mobility issues, 49 CFR § 37.3) was ignored—no accommodation offered post-tow (ADA, 28 C.F.R. § 35.130; NJLAD, N.J.S.A. 10:5-4). Virtual hearing denial violates 6th Amendment (Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977)).

  6. I request a paper ruling (D.N.J. L. Civ. R. 78.1(b)) due to disability and record sufficiency. Relief sought: $10,000,000 ($575 tow, $100,000 distress, $9.9M punitive/bond forfeiture), warrant/ticket vacatur, injunction.

Dated: October 8, 2025 /s/ Naomi Johnson Sui Juris, Newark, NJ

Comments

Post a Comment