Anti-Bullying Law of New Jersey is Un-Constitutional & Anti-Minority

Your blog URL:http://blogs.siliconindia.com/davemakkar/ SILICONINDIA BLOCKED THIS ARTICLE ON 9-05-13 FOR MATERIAL BENEFITS?

ANTI-BULLYING LAW OF NJ IS ANTI-MINORITY & UN-CONSTITUTIONAL

Thursday 05th, September 2013

views (90270)

Dave Makkar

Cfo

New Jersey Anti-Bullying Law is Anti-Minority & Un-Constitutional. It can damage 8-14 yrs old emotionally, mentally & physically; especially from minority communities. 

Governor Christie the Anti-Minority Face of Republican Party & Assemblyman Chivukula the Anti-Minority Face of Democrat Party.

A PETITION WAS FILED BY ATTORNEY HINDS TO NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR, ASSEMBLY & SENATE ON FEB. 18, 2012 FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION ON THIS LAW. ALL OF THEM ARE TAKING NO ACTION.

The ill-educated absentee Governor Chris Christie along with ill-educated Lawmakers in Senate and Assembly passed an Anti-Minority and Anti-JuvenileAnti-Bullying Law One Size Fits All in Jan. 2011 without reading it without caring for the emotional, mental and physical well being as well as self esteem of 8 to 14 years old. This law is applicable to 8yrs old to 28yrs old students of New Jersey. No public comments were ever asked for such a sensitive Law concerning 8-14 yrs old especially minority students from their parents, teachers, psychiatrist and social workers. It was implemented in Schools in Sep. 2011 and at majority of the Schools no prior training was ever given to the students about the Law and consequences of its violation. Some School administrators have yet to implement this Law because along with some other organizations they have strong reservations about this “One Size Fits All Anti-Bullying Law” designed by Law makers of New Jersey famous for not reading any Bill even if it will be adopted as Law concerning juveniles. 

On Dec. 15, 2011 it was brought to the notice of all the Lawmakers and Governor that there are serious flaws in the Law as far as 8-14 yr old are concerned. Despite numerous written requests and a representation by Attorney Lennox Hinds on behalf of a parent Mr. Mohan Gandhi on Feb. 18, 2012 to Governor, Senate and Assembly, the lawmakers have no time to reply to this important issue concerning the well being of NJ children. 

They are ignoring the fact that even the United States Supreme Court says that"children cannot be viewed simply as miniature adults" because a child's age is more than a chronological fact." Rather, it is a fact that "generates commonsense conclusions about behavior and perception.' "Children generally are less mature and responsible than adults." "They often lack the experience, perspective and judgment to recognize and avoid choices that could be detrimental to them."  

This law is denying due process rights of self or legal representation, to present material evidence or cross examine witnesses in violation of US constitution. Under this law 8-14 yr old can be interrogated in the absence of their parent or guardian and a biased Educator can even force them to admit in writing that they have done bullying that they may not have done. This forced admission is then used against that child even with no prior history of any wrong doing and with excellent academic record that he/she has done bulling for punishment as well as put on their School record permanently. They are not provided with the charging instrument and have no right to cross examine their accuser or witnesses or the educators who made the report. Now the child is branded as a bully on his School Record and among his/her piers. To Fight this gross injustice one needs $15,000.00 to $30,000.00 and more than one year to get the record straight. The ill-educated unionized Law makers of New Jersey; majority are attorneys have deliberately crafted this Bill to fill up the pockets of Attorneys and in some cases their own pockets if they are practicing attorneys in School Related Matters.

ATTORNEY LENNOX HINDS

The New Jersey Anti-Bullying Policy Is Subject to Constitutional Challenges On the Grounds of Overbroad & Vague Statutory Language

Federal constitutional law provides that a regulation is unconstitutionally vague, and thus a violation of due process, if it does not give fair notice of the regulation's reach and requires students to guess as to the contours of its proscriptions. Although a school has a certain degree of flexibility in its disciplinary procedures, its regulations may still be found to be unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. The most common reason for a court to sustain a vague or overbroad challenge of a school policy is when specific terms within the policy are not defined. Specificity of terms is especially important when the policy’s regulations are content-based regulation of speech.

A plain review of the New Jersey ’s anti-bullying law and anti-bullying policy shows that they are susceptible to overbroad and vagueness constitutional challenges. For example, the Policy’s prohibition against harassment, intimidation, and bullying applying to “any gesture, any written, verbal or physical act, or any electronic communication” “that has the effect of insulting or demeaning any pupil or group of pupils” can easily be construed as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because it seeks to regulate public school students and officials speech and behavior without compass or guidance as to the parameters of the policy.

LIST OF LAWMAKERS ADMITTING THEY NEVER READ THE BILL BEFORE SIGNING IT & A LAWMAKER ON FACEBOOK

Senator Linda Greenstein: Mr. Gandhi talked to her for almost 20 minutes at a Indian event her husband was also there. I kept her asking point balnk “did she read the bill before signing it?” She kept on circumventing the question by saying attorneys review it and even Governor’s office his legal staff vetted the Bill. She was explained in details about the objections of Attorney Lennox Hinds. She said send me all the information I will look into it. That was sent next day and she has yet to reply despite repeated reminders.

"Kean T., Sen. D.O." To: Mohan Gandhi  

Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 4:36 PM

Subject: NJ Anti-Bullying Laws

Dear Mr. Gandhi:  Thank you for contacting our offices regarding the state’s Anti-Bullying Law. We can assure you that the legislation underwent a thorough legal and constitutional review as a piece of legislation and then underwent a second review by the Governor’s Counsel before the bill was signed into law. However, we will keep your comments under advisement. Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with us on a matter of personal importance. 

Sincerely,

Senator Thomas H. Kean

Assemblyman Jon M. Bramnick

Assemblywoman Nancy F. Muñoz

   

Senator Sam Thompson: Admitted that he never read the Bill at a Iftar Party (Aug. 16) His reason is attorneys draft it.

Assemblyman Chivukula: “I never read it and no one reads the Bills unless that person is seriously involved with the Bill. (August 26 in a Indian gathering at Warren)

FACEBOOK CONVERSATION WITH ASSEMBLYMAN CHIUSANO

FYI, I did not vote for or support this bill.Gary Chiusano 9-9-12

Reply by Gandhi 9-10-12

Give this statement to media to expose those who signed it without reading it. Republican Senator Sam Thompson & Democrat Assemblyman Upendra Chivukula has admitted that they never read the bill before signing it. Their excuse is it was written by attorneys and no one reads the bills!

Gary Chiusano 9-10-12

I read the bills. In the future, if you want to discuss any legislative items with me, please contact me through my legislative office. Do not use Facebook to contact me regarding legislative issues. Thank you.

Reply by Gandhi 9-10-12

Please be advised all the lawmakers including you were sent numerous e-mails on this issue. When my own Representatives Tom Kean, Bramnick & Munoz has failed to respond then I have no complaint against you. Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver received written communication from me in Dec 2011 and Jan. 2012 from my Attorney Hinds should have shared that information with her Assembly colleagues including you. It is almost a year she has not replied to me or my attorney. The worst is Big Fat Fraud Governor Christie he received every thing by mail, by hand on Dec.21, 2011 at Spotswood and again by mail in Jan 2012 from my attorney Lennox Hinds; has yet to respond. 

I have been forced to raise this issue on Social Media with NJ Lawmakers because of their apathy and probably lack of concern for the minorities; especially children in the age group of 8-14yrs old. I am trying to digest how could these lawmakers can disrespect US Supreme Court with impunity in broad day light?  How could these lawmakers can make a law “ONE SIZE FITS ALL” for 8yrs old to 28yrs old Student? They are ignoring the fact that even the United States Supreme Court says that "children cannot be viewed simply as miniature adults" because a child's age is more than a chronological fact." Rather, it is a fact that "generates commonsense conclusions about behavior and perception.' "Children generally are less mature and responsible than adults." "They often lack the experience, perspective and judgment to recognize and avoid choices that could be detrimental to them."

Harassment, Intimidation, Bullying Definition from NJSA: 18A:37-14:

"Harassment, intimidation or bullying" means any gesture, any written, verbal or physical act, or any electronic communication, whether it be a single incident or a series of incidents, that is reasonably perceived as being motivated either by any actual or perceived characteristic, such as race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or a mental, physical or sensory disability, or by any other distinguishing characteristic, that takes place on school property, at any school-sponsored function, on a school bus, or off school grounds as provided for in section 16 of P.L.2010, c.122 (C.18A:37-15.3), that substantially disrupts or interferes with the orderly operation of the school or the rights of other students and that:

(A) a reasonable person should know, under the circumstances, will have the effect of physically or emotionally harming a student or damaging the student's property, or placing a student in reasonable fear of physical or emotional harm to his person or damage to his property;

(B) has the effect of insulting or demeaning any student or group of students; or

(C) creates a hostile educational environment for the student by interfering with a student's education or by severely or pervasively causing physical or emotional harm to the student. 

L.2002, c.83, s.2; amended 2007, c.129, s.1; 2010, c.122, s.11.

FOR MORE INFO ON HIB POLICY

http://www.springfieldschools.com/hib/fmg.html

  

A REPRESENTATION FOR CHANGES IN CURRENT ANTI-BULLYING/HIB POLICY WAS MADE ON DECEMBER 15, 2011 TO NJ SENATE, ASSEMBLY & GOVERNOR BY A PARENT. THAT WAS FOLLOWED BY THEIR ATTORNEY LENNOX HINDS LETTER TO THEM ON FEB. 18, 2012. TILL TO DATE THERE IS NO REPLY FROM THEM EXCEPT SENATE PRESIDENT SWEENEY’S STUPID REPLY OF JAN. 11, 2012 HE WILL NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES.

REPLY OF SENATE PRESIDENT SENATOR SWEENEY

REPRODUCTION FROM THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT

NEW JERSEYSENATE

STEPHENE M. SWEENEY

Senate President

Email:SenSweeney@njleg.org

January 11, 2012 

Mohan Gandhi

New Jersey

Dear Mr. Gandhi:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding your concerns on New Jersey ’s recently enacted, “Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act.” I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns on this issue.

As you are aware, Assembly Bill 3466 was passed by both the houses of the New Jersey Legislatures, and signed into law by Governor Chris Christie on January 5, 2011 . This law, which I supported, implements a number of recommendations made by the New Jersey Commission on Bullying in Schools, which was created to examine New Jersey ’s approach to the issue of bullying. Please rest assured that I believe that any accusations of discrimination must be taken seriously, and it is possible that changes may need to be made to this law in the future, but I also believe that we must allow for time to fully implement this law before making decisions that could impact the wellbeing of our state’s children.

Once again, thank you for contacting my office to express your opinion on this matter.

Sincerely,

Signed

Stephen M.. Sweeney

Senate President

Third Legislative District

SILICONINDIA BLOCKED THIS ARTICLE WITH 90,270 VIEWS ON 9-05-13 TO SAVE HINDU LEADERS & THEIR MASTERS FROM BEING EXPOSED MAY BE FOR MATERIAL BENEFITS. BY MUZZLING THE TRUTH SILICONINDIA HAS ALSO VIOLATED MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

US Media Terrorized 12yrs old Hindu for Demanding Equal Rights with Jews & Christians of his Town & Changes in Anti-Bullying Laws  86,288 views

“The New Jerseymedia especially the Jewish media was reprehensible. They were disappointing. It is reprehensible that those kinds of personal and crude attacks could be leveled at someone like this young 12 year old Middle school student who was simply expressing his opinion on a matter of public policy and doing it with a great deal of poise.”

“He was respectful, sincere, and spoke with conviction with Governor Christie. He provided a model of civil discourse,” “And yet, some of those who disagreed with his position – especially the Jewish Media and commentators throughout the blogosphere – responded with behavior that can only be described as misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of this student on the issue of racial equality and changes in the existing Anti-Bullying Laws.”

READ THE FULL STORY ON SILICON AMERICA

http://americafraud.blogspot.com/2013/09/GandhiTerrorizedforDemandingEqualityInUSA.html

12yr old Sumit Gandhi in a public meeting to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie please ensure "I have Equal Rights with Jews & Christians of my Town and bring age appropriate Changes in Anti-Bullying laws" in a Public Meeting in Spotswood NJ.