Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Monica Birch-Min, Petitioner v. Middlesex County Board of Social Services, et al.

Docket No.

,*>.

In the Supreme Court of the United States//^_

\

MONICA BIRCH-MIN, Individually and as Executrix of the

Estate of Aung Min and as Administrator Ad Prosequendum

on behalf of the Estate of Aung Min, Appellant Birch-Min,

Petitioner,

v.

oupreme Court, U S

FILED

AUS | 0 2019

OFFICE OF THE Cl Frk-

MIDDLESEX COUNTY BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES;

PLAINSBORO POLICE DEPARTMENT;ADULT

PROTECTIVE SERVICES; DOES 1 THROUGH 100

INCLUSIVE,

Respondents.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Monica Birch-Min

Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se

Apartment 9E

801 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, NJ 07208

609-423-4296

Email: monicamin3@aol.com

1

Questions Presented

1. Whether the US Supreme Court will permit Government agencies,

like Middlesex County Adult Protective Services and local Police in

this case, to take away Senior Citizens’ Constitutional Rights for due

process and the necessity of having a Court Order before invading

their private home and removing them for Guardianship?

2. Whether Federal Judges, who did not hear the case, have the

authority to misquote or reverse the State Surrogate Court’s trial

Judge’s decision and final Order in the matter of declaring persons

incapacitated and needing a Guardian? Can these Federal

Judges being Appealed also reverse the Federal Magistrate Judges’

Orders, who sat on the bench and heard the case?

3 Whether the Judiciary Branch of government 3rd Circuit Court of

Appeals can exert power over the Executive Branch in

Administrative Law investigating criminal and other violations?

Can they refuse to make the necessary corrections for rule 60b

evidence?

4. Does the 3rd Circuit Appeals Court Policy to prioritize defending the

Judges under appeal meet the standards of the Constitutional Right

of the people to a fair and unbiased hearing with a search for the

truth based on empirical evidence? Can a Judge make false

statements and conclusions about the submission of this evidence?

5. Are Federal Judges above the law when they make decisions?

2

List of Parties

All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

In addition, the term “Two Camps of Judges” applies to the parties as the follows::

1. The term “Appealed Judges” in this Certeriori Petition refers to US District

Court Judge Brian Martinotti and the US Third Circuit Appeals Court Judges,

Morton Greenberg, Steven Bibas, and Michael Chigares. They wrote Orders under

appeal without any hearings and contrary to:

2

The Trial Judges/Hearing Judges, refer to NJ State Surrogate Court Judge

Frank Ciuffani and US Magistrate Judge Douglas Arpert. These Judges are not

under appeal and supported the Plaintiff Min’s facts about the case with their

Opinions and Orders. They heard the entire case in their respective Courts and

Roles.

m

List of Proceedings\

1. In re: Birch-Min US District Court Docket No. 3:14 cv-00467

2. In re Birch-Min, Docket No. 18-2467, United States Court of Appeals for

the Third Circuit, final judgment Request for Rehearing entered May 20,

2019.

3. In re Birch-Min, United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit Writ

Prohibition No. 17-1827 and Certeriori for Interlocutory Appeal at the

District Court level No. 16-1287

IV

Appendix

Opinion of Third Circuit................................................

Order Denying Rehearing..............................................

District Court Opinion Granting Summary Judgment

District Court Opinion Denying Rule 60 Motion.........

vi

A1

A6

A9

A20

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

FEDERAL CASES

Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (1980)........................................................

6, 11

Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564 (1985)................

6, 25

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007)

6, 15

Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (1989)..........

6, 12

Elliot v. City of Hartford, 823 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2016)

6, 15

Fla. Ass’n for Retarded Citizens, Inc. v. Bush, 246 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir.2001).... 6, 16

Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334 (9th Cir. 1986).........................

6, 12

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).................................... ..............

6, 13

Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306 (1983).....................................................

6, 11

KH Outdoor, LLC v. City of Trussville, 465 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2006)

6, 15

Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461 (1982).............................

... 6, 11

Lehman v. Revolution Portfolio L.L.C., 166 F.3d 389 (1st Cir.1999)....

... 6, 16

Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist., 465 U.S. 75 (1984)..............................

6, 11

Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).... .....................

4,6

United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983)............................................ .

6, 12

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)........................................... .....................

6, 13

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988)...........................................................

6, 12

STATE CASES

Bondi v. Citigroup, Inc., 423 N.J. Super. 377 (App. Div. 2011), certif. denied, 210

N.J. 478, 45 A.3d 983 (2012)................................................................................ 6, 11

First Union Nat’l Bank v. Penn Salem Marina, Inc., 190 N.J. 342, 921 A.2d 417

(2007)..................................................................................................................... 6, 11

FEDERAL STATUTES

28 U.S.C. § 1738............. ;....

2, 6, 11

28 U.S.C. § 2107..................

6, 15

42 U.S.C. § 1983..................

4, 6, 11, 12

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii)

6, 15

Fed. R. Civ. P. § 1738\.......

11

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)............

6

Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4)............

6, 16

Fed.R.Civ.P. 58....................

2, 6, 15

U.S. Const, Arndt. IV..........

2

STATE STATUTES

N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:31-1, et seq

N.J. Stat.Ann. § 2A:15-3, et seq.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

vu

4

4

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the

judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

The Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has

not been designated for publication and is reproduced in the Appendix It was

decided by Judge Morton Greenberg, Steven Bibas and Michael Chagares.

The Opinions of the United States District Court for the District of New

Jersey are unreported and may be found in the Appendix. It was decided by

Judge Brian Martinotti.

JURISDICTION

The Court of Appeals issued its decision on January 23, 2019. A timely

petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc was denied on May 20, 2019. A copy of

the order denying rehearing and rehearing en banc may be found in the Appendix.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

vm

2

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED\\\

U.S. Const., Amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,

and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be

violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,

supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place

to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

28 U.S. Code § 1738:

The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the

United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the

seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto.

The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any suchState, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or

admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories

and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court

annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the

court that the said attestation is in proper form.

Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so

authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court

within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they

have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or

Possession from which they are taken.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 58:

a) Separate Document. Every judgment and amended judgment must

be set out in a separate document, but a separate document is not

required for an order disposing of a motion:

(1) for judgment under Rule 50(b);

(2) to amend or make additional findings under Rule 52(b);

(3) for attorney's fees under Rule 54;

(4) for a new trial, or to alter or amend the judgment, under Rule 59; or

(5) for relief under Rule 60.

rx

3

Statement of the Case

A. Proceedings Below

Petitioner, Monica Birch-Min and Aung Min who was live at the time and

granted the right to proceed with Mrs. Min, sued the Middlesex County Department

of Social Services and the Plainsboro Police Department in the United States

District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging a violation of the couple’s Due

Process rights.

More specifically, she alleged that her husband, who at the time was 93 years

old, was unlawfully taken from her care and imprisoned against his will by the

Division of Adult Protective Services and forced.to participate in unnecessary

medical testing, treatment, and institutionalization.

The case US District Court 3:14-cv-000467 was first filed on January 16,

2014 in US District Court, Newark, NJ, and transferred to Trenton, NJ, Federal

Court, as a Civil Rights Color of Law complaint with Constitutional violations of the

law on the event beginning on January 20, 2012, January 24, 2012, and January

26, 2012 by Middlesex County the Police, Adult Protective Services for

compensation from the Wrongful Guardianship case won in New Jersey Surrogate

Court case number 235478.. There was an Amended complaint filed for more

clarity.

After Aung Min’s passing and with a licensed Attorney in a second amended

complaint to change the names of Plaintiffs filed a written contract of Agreement in

the Order of Consent Docket #58 which was signed by the Court and the two

Defense Attorney’s to Grant Mrs. Min the status Prosequendum and represent her

4

husband’s claim as herself. Petitioner then asserted four causes of additional action:

(1) a survival/wrongful death claim, pursuant to N.J. Stat.Ann. § 2A:15-3, et seq.,

and N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:31-1, et seq.; a Monell claim, see Monell u. Dep’t of Social

Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Middlesex

County Social Services; a Monell claim against the Plainsboro Police

Department; and a conspiracy claim.

The defendants moved separately for summary judgment and Petitioner

moved for summary judgment. In an order entered on March 16, 2017, the District

Court awarded summary judgment to the defendants and against Petitioner.

Petitioner timely filed her Summary Judgment as planned and the Judge

accepted it as timely, but she was subsequently barred by Judge Martinotti to file a

motion for reconsideration because he closed the case on 3/16/17 and wrote

Terminated with Prejudice inside. She then moved to disqualify the District Court

and had to file a Writ to the Appeals Court in attempt to proceed properly. She also

filed a notice of appeal on March 27, 2017, resulting in the appeal docketed in the

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The appeal was stayed

pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A).

In an order entered on April 18, 2017, the District Court denied Petitioner’s

motion to disqualify Judge Martinotti or recuse himself and stated in its opinion

that the matter of reconsideration was administratively closed. The Rule 4(a)(4)

stay in this Court was lifted but the appeal to Prohibit Judge Martinotti from

deciding was then denied by the Appeals Court. The Case Closed words remained

5

on the case.

Petitioner sought to reopen the appeal since it was improperly closed

according to the official written procedure for closing a case and made report to the

(AO) Administrative Office of the Courts of the violations of administrative law and

the Judge was inappropriate. The Executive Branch AO were blocked and usurped

by a Judiciary Policy 3rdCA to handle it among themselves and defend the Judge..

The Third Circuit denied the motion but granted her leave to resubmit her already

filed volumes of paperwork and documents of evidential proof to the Third Circuit

Judge because Judge Martiotti claimed they were never filed in the case. And they

favored their Judge Martinotti’s decision not to recuse himself. But Judge

Martinotti then Granted Plaintiff the right to enlarge the time and file a motion for

Reconsideration, which she did. He placed it on the docket as if the case was now

open. Somehow the words “Case Closed” were never removed, but the case

proceeded on time as an open case on the Court Docket. (Although the Third Circuit

opinion states that Plaintiff never did send any of her documents to them, this is

not so She did file these documents at the time of fifing her brief on appeal).

On May 1, 2017, Petitioner filed a second motion for reconsideration. In an

order entered on November 28, 2017, the District Court denied it. On December 8,

2017, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate the March 16, 2017 summary judgment

order and November 28, 2017 order denying reconsideration, pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b).

Petitioner argued in a supporting affidavit that the summary judgment in

6

favor of the defendants was void and should be vacated because it was based on

facts of fraud, errors, and abuse already decided by the trial Judges. In an order

entered on May 17, 2018, the District Court denied the Rule 60(b) motion.

Petitioner timely moved for reconsideration of that order.

In an order entered on May 30, 2018, the District Court denied

reconsideration. On June 29, 2018, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the Third

Circuit seeking review of the District Court’s March 16, 2017 order granting

summary judgment to the defendants and against her, and orders denying her Rule

60(b) motion and motion for reconsideration of the order denying her Rule 60(b)

motion.

The Third Circuit denied the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction to the

extent that Petitioner sought review of the District Court’s March 16, 2017 order

awarding summary judgment to the defendants and against her and affirmed the

District Court’s denial of the Rule 60(b) motion. A motion for rehearing and

rehearing en banc was denied. Oral Argument as well as a Settlement Conference

was also denied.

B. The FactsW

This action is based on an original case 235478 with evens beginning January

20, 2012, concerning the same events with the same parties, Middlesex County,

Adult Protective Services and Plainsboro Township Police. Petitioner and her

husband, an elderly couple, were suddenly, violently, invaded in their home.

Petitioner called 911 and filed a report against the invaders for forced entry and the

7

abduction of her husband without any Court Order or necessary papers. The

intruders claimed an alleged anonymous caller made a report which was found to be

false.

Dr. Aung Min was kidnapped by government personnel, falsely imprisoned in

a medical institution that day, and received harmful treatment contrary to his

treating physician and under police order. Without a proper court order and without

due process, under wrongful Guardianship, all his assets were confiscated by a

newly appointed Guardian and Aung Min became legal property or “chattel” owned

by a strange Guardian. He lost his Right to Life Liberty and the pursuit of

Happiness for over 5 and % months. Petitioner was separated from her husband by

the Police’s uncalled for removal of Aung Min from their home together on January

20, 2012. Her Loss of Spouse Consortium claim began that day.

On January 24, 2012 Mrs. Min was illegally abducted by the local Police without

Court Order while she was attempting to file her Police Officer Bauman 911 call for

help report written during the event January 20, 2012. She was suddenly taken

with force to a Hospital by the Police for medical testing and a permanent stay. But

she was released in couple of days, cleared of having any medical issues. However,

this delay obstructed her from filing a complaint against the Defendants in

Plainsboro City Hall Criminal Court based on her 911 urgent call Police report.

Illegal home entry, without a search warrant is considered a crime.

During her absence, without notification, she discovered her husband was

placed under a temporary Guardian. She had to go to court to release him as a Pro

8

Se.

Briefly stated, Middlesex County filed a complaint against Aung Min for

Incapacitation and claimed that he needed Guardianship. Mrs. Min filed opposition

based on Pretrial dismissal of classic seven points 1. Police misconduct 2. Willful

and deliberate fraud and deception in the compilation and distribution to the Courts

3. Gross distortion in the facts reported in the case. 4 Medical Doctors given grossly

falsified information. 5. Age, racial, religious cultural, and ethnic bias abuse.

6.Failure to follow proper procedure. 7. Out of Jurisdiction. All these points charged

by Mrs. Min against Middlesex County and others involved in the subject event

were investigated and certified by the Surrogate Court and the case was finally

dismissed in the Mins favor, which is written in the NJ Surrogate Court. To avoid

harassment by the Agencies the Mins had to relocate to Montserrat, which is

written in the Court Order.

The Mins presented their plans for Summary Judgment based on a Judicial

Notice and appearance of the Trial Judge from the original case, which is written in

the transcripts of the US District Court 3;14-cv-000467 on June 5, 2014. Magistrate

Judge Douglass Arpert presided. The Defendants’ attorneys agreed and sued each

other in cross complaints for 100% cause and liability, not the Mins, after the

clarification of the base original case by New Jersey trial Judge Frank Ciuffani and

United States Honorable Magistrate Judge Douglas Arpert. Page 6 line 1-2 , is a

conclusion of the US District Court in the transcripts June 5, 2014. The Plaintiff

Monica Birch-Min’s statement of facts was correct, and the final Order 6/21/12

9

included and settled all the Orders before.

Petitioner argued that res judicata applied to this case, under Full Faith &

Credit, because it was already tried to the Mins' favor for cause and liability and

internal investigation, discovery and medical doctors’ testimonies substantiated the

injuries and loss. Dr Aung Min was never mentally incapacitated and could not

make his own decisions. These matters cannot be retried finding a different result

either to the fact that the Mins won and did everything right, not the Middlesex

County agencies or local police called by Adult Protective Services (APS). None of

the Plaintiffs complaints were ever dismissed by Honorable Judges Freda Wolfson

or Judge Peter Sheridan before the last-minute appointment of Judge Brian

Martinotti. Judge Wolfson approved the Plaintiffs request to file a Summary

Judgment for the case after complete discovery and Judge Peter Sheridan approved

the Plaintiffs use of Federal Criteria in the Plaintiffs final calculation for

compensation and the US, DOJ Criteria for Victims of a Crime Compensation Fund,

they used in their Summary Judgment.

The Defendants accepted the Plaintiffs financial claim presented to them as

satisfactory in front of Judge Arpert and discussed all the items. They did not file

any opposition within the time permitted. The Plaintiff also filed a separate direct

independent Notice of Non-Opposition to the Defendants for this claim published on

PACER. Also, there was no response or opposition filed by the Defendants to this

notice in time as required.

10

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI

A. The Decisions Below Conflict with this Court’s Decisions Concerning

the Scope of 28 U.S. Code § 1738

Under the full-faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, federal courts in §

1983 actions must give state court judgments the same preclusive

effect they would receive in state court under state law. Migra v. Warren City Sch.

Dist., 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984); Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94—95 (1980). See also

Haring u. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 313-14 (1983). This principle controls so long as the

federal litigant against whom preclusion is asserted had a full and fair opportunity

to litigate his federal claims in state court. A full and fair opportunity to be heard

requires only that state judicial procedures meet minimal procedural due process

requirements. Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 480-81 (1982); Allen,

449 U.S. at 95.

Under New Jersey law, collateral estoppel bars the prelitigation of an issue

that has been adjudicated in a prior litigation if: “(1) the issue to be precluded is

identical to the issue decided in the prior proceeding; (2) the issue was actually

litigated in the prior proceeding; (3) the court in the prior proceeding issued a final

judgment on the merits; (4) the determination of the issue was essential to the prior

judgment; and (5) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted was a party to or

in privity with a party to the earlier proceeding. Bondi v. Citigroup, Inc., 423 N.J.

Super. 377, 423, 32 A.3d 1158, 1185 (App. Div. 2011), certif. denied, 210 N.J. 478,

45 A.3d 983 (2012) (quoting First Union Nat'l Bank v. Penn Salem Marina, Inc., 190

N.J. 342, 352, 921 A.2d 417 (2007).

These criteria are clearly met. The competence of the Petitioner’s decedent,

Aung Min, was at issue as well as the right of the defendants to seize him and place

him under restraint. There was no basis for the courts below to refuse to apply

collateral estoppel.

B. Claim is Meritorious

A seizure is “per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth

11

Amendment unless it is accomplished pursuant to a judicial warrant issued upon

probable cause and particularly describing the items to be seized.” United States v.

Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701 (1983)). There is no question that a plaintiff may recover

damages under section 1983 for "unreasonable seizure" of his person in violation of

the Fourth Amendment. See Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 595—600 (1989)

(determining that use of blind roadblock was a Fourth Amendment seizure, and

remanding to determine, inter alia, if seizure was reasonable).

To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiffs must plead that (1) the

defendants acting under color of state law (2) deprived plaintiffs of rights secured by

the Constitution or federal statutes. Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338

(9th Cir. 1986). “A public employee acts under color of state law while acting in his

official capacity or while exercising his responsibilities pursuant to state law.” West

v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988).

In addition to the preliminary § 1983 requirements, a claim of unreasonable

seizure of person requires “government actors [to] have, ‘by means of physical force

or show of authority, ... in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.’” Graham v.

Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10 (1989) (omissions in original) (quoting Terry v. Ohio,

392 U.S. 1, 19 n.16 (1968)).

Inasmuch as Plaintiff established all of these elements, it was error to

dismiss her claims .All three of her Civil Rights Color of law complaints first filed

January 16, 2012 in US District Court Newark transferred to Trenton un 3;14-cv

000476 were valid and never dismissed by any hearing District Court Judge

including Honorable Freda Wolfson, and Honorable Peter Sheridan who sat on this

case with Magistrate Judge Douglas Arpert. Only District Court Judge Brian

Martinotti, a last-minute new appointment assigned on the case, decided to dismiss

the Plaintiff Min’s case and oppose the other Judges decisions who heard

proceedings including the original Trial Judge Frank Ciuffani. The Appeals Panel

supported Judge Martinotti using a extremely biased 3rd circuit written Operating

Policy to prioritize Defending this Appealed Judge Martinotti.

C. Appeal to the Third Circuit Timely

12

The Third Circuit erected a procedural thicket for no reason whatsoever. It

would have made sense to simply reinstate the appeal that had been provisionally

dismissed based upon the new information in the Appellant’s brief and stamp

Reversal on the Decision to deny the Plaintiffs Min Summary Judgment. All their

documents were satisfactorily filed and proven. It is a statement of falsehood for the

Appealed Judges to say there was not a “shred of evidence filed by the Plaintiffs.”

There was an Administrative Law Violation in closing the case prematurely without

the required due process and the complete exhaustion of remedies. Letters were not

mailed to all parties with 30 day notice and the Plaintiffs were blocked from

proceeding through the normal Justice process with a Motion to Vacate under rule

60b. Fraud, waste, and abuse, of authority legislating from the bench took place is

his approval for Adult Protective Services illegal activities or they were successful

in winning the case. Denying the Min’s their rights without hearing any part in

the case causes dangers for the public’s safety and wellbeing with his approval for

new unconstitutional legal standards for home invasions and the removal of persons

for Guardianship purposes against their will. Precedent is always set in appeals.

Law Schools already read their decisions based on illegally obtained information.

There must be a continued freeze until the corrections are made.

The Plaintiff has proof of submitting her so called “missing” documents to the

District Court via Judge Arpert in Order # 124. In Order #107 the Judge Grants the

Plaintiff Min a Court Injunction against Defense Attorney Stone, for submitting the

erroneous, false, information which was Vacated by Trial Judge Ciuffani and stated

the Plaintiffs medical claims were of a serious nature and harmful to the Mins.

Judge Arpert put this information under Seal. The Defendants broke two Judges

Orders who heard the case and a written Order of Protective Seal to erroneously

present this material for their Summary Judgment. Judge Martinotti Appeals

Court supported this action and went against the Original trial Judge and

Magistrate Judge. Order of Consent and agreement written by NJ licensed Attorney

for the Plaintiffs # 58 Plaintiff Monica Min Prosequendum status as herself for her

Husbands’ claim was signed by Defense Attorneys and the US

13

District Court. All the Plaintiffs claims were valid and could not be dismissed by the

Appealed Judges when they took over authority at the end years later.

Traditionally the Executive Branch of government overseas administrative law

violations. The order denying reinstatement explicitly contemplated that

procedure. No matter. The appeal was properly before that Court.

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 58, a separate document had to be entered upon the

order granting summary judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii), says that a

judgment is deemed to be entered on the earlier of the Rule 58 judgment or 150

days after a dispositive order is entered on the civil docket. The only jurisdictional

requirement is the need for an appeal within 30 days of the judgment or an

extension. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107 ; Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 127 S.Ct. 2360,

168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago ,----U.S.

, 138 S.Ct. 13, 199 L.Ed.2d 249 (2017), tells us that supplemental or

implementing provisions in the Rules of Appellate Procedure are not jurisdictional.

Hamer concerned Rule 4(a)(5)(C); its holding applies equally to Rule 4(a)(7)(A)(ii).

A a pro se notice of appeal “must be viewed liberally, and not every technical

defect in a notice of appeal constitutes a jurisdictional defect.” Elliot v. City of

Hartford, 823 F.3d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted); see

also, e.g., KH Outdoor, LLC v. City of Trussville, 465 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir.

2006).

In any event, two Writs, Prohibition and Interlocutory Cert, to the Appeals

Court, were filed on March 27, 2017 within 28 days from 3/16/17 denial, together in

person and accepted by the Clerk of this Court. Only one fee was attached they said

Later, the Certiorari Writ for the Appeals Court was closed for lack of additional fee

and reopening was denied. But the Plaintiff applied and was granted a Pauperis

Order to proceed on the Writs, but it was misfiled. The Writs do not constitute a

full-blown appeal of the summary judgment determination. Plaintiff were entitled

to file the appeal, according to the Court's decision, when they exhausted all

remedies in District Court. Cf. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4). Proper sequence and timing

show that the appeal was properly and timely taken and that the docketing fee was

14

paid. There was a mishandling of the Plaintiffs Documents in the Court

Administrative errors found by Order July 16, 2019 from the Appeals Court titled

Administrative Error Found.

D. Administrative Closing Improper

“Administrative closings comprise a familiar, albeit essentially ad hoc, way in

which courts remove cases from their active files without making any final

adjudication

This means that a court may reopen a closed case—either on its

own or at the request of either party—even if it lacks an independent jurisdictional

basis for doing so.” Lehman u. Revolution Portfolio L.L.C., 166 F.3d 389, 392 (1st

Cir.1999) (citing Fla. Ass'n for Retarded Citizens, Inc. v. Bush, 246 F.3d 1296, 1298

(11th Cir.2001)).

Thus, if the case was administratively closed, the order was not a final

appealable order and no final adjudication had been made. Thus, the appeal could

not be deemed untimely.

Administrative Law Violations were filed by the Plaintiffs for the lack of due

process in closing the case and the improper procedure by Judge Martinotti. There

were no letters mailed to all parties 30 days in advance of the closing date or 60-day

period to comply for the Plaintiffs. This is not just an error, but a deliberate

consistent pattern of the Judges under Appeal to cover up for the violent crimes and

abuse the Plaintiff Mins were victims caused by the Defendants. Decisions were

made by the Judges in the Judiciary Branch of government among themselves

without checks and balance or search for truth and weighing of empirical evidence

from the Plaintiffs. Their written operating Policy prioritized defending the Judge

and their reputation without any proper restraint of the law or impunity applied to

their performance on behalf of the public.

The blocking of Administrative Office of the Courts and FBI, DOJ, and the

Executive Administrative Branch of government including the President POTUS

from performing their roles violates the separation of powers set down in the US

Constitution. Federal Judges are now permitted to belong to the private sector NJ

Bar Association. These private Attorneys Associations meet at the top level with

15

Federal Judges and have influence on the Judiciary Conference, who write the

Policies of the 3rd Circuit Appeals Court and all Court processes. The NJ Bar

Association publicizes its dedication to defend the Judges and protect their

reputation against any criticism or false, accusation, complaints, or comments from

the public or news media which damages their reputation or harms them. Fact

finding and search for truth was undermine by the Policy of the 3CA to handle all

these matters among themselves and removing any checks or balances of the

Judges or other personnel. Who is there in the system that defended the Plaintiff

Monica Birch Min. about unfair attacks of her and her husband’s high-profile

reputation or the public?

The Plaintiff Min’s were falsely accused by these Federal Judges of losing the

first case. An Dr Aung Min, who was never declared incapacitated before these

Adult Protective Service employees came to their Mins home that day 1/20/12

without any notice or legal right. And caused them terrible damages to their

reputation and falsified the facts of the case final conclusions 6/21/12 regarding the

mental state. These 3CA opinions and decisions now as well as the public lost

quality for accurate decision and are deprived by this deficiency in judicial process.

They Waste fraud and abuse excessive cost and time has resulted unnecessarily for

the Plaintiff Monica Birch-Min from the suspension of this oversight authority of

the other branches of government to readily correct the errors and take proper

action. Fraud cannot be overlooked in this case caused by the actions of these

Appealed Judges Brian Martinotti, and Appeals Panel Judges Steven Bibas,

Michael Charges and Morton Greenberg- US District Court Documents number 1- follow with the Original Trial Judge Frank Ciuffani’s Final Order dated 6/21/12

Vacating the Incapacitation Order and Guardianship Order is indisputably the

FINAL ORDER in the original case number 235478, not one dated March 13, 2012

before the trial was completed. There were no unsettled Orders to be decided by

these Federal Judges under appeal who did not hear any part with the Plaintiff. It

is a issue of Federal Judges making false statements falsifying Plaintiffs evidence

by discarding it, misquoting the trial Judge Ciuffani and reversing Magistrate

16

Judge

Douglas Arpert Orders, who sat on the bench and heard everything in their cases.

The Judges that are Appealed also denied oral argument, a Settlement

Conference request made by the Plaintiff and a Writ for an Interlocutory Appeal at

the District Court level. A proper hearing panel including the hearing Judge

Magistrate Judge Douglas Arpert or even Judge Frank Ciuffani who once served on

the 3CA should have been permitted to decide prior to writing the decisions

between the two Summary Judgments the Plaintiffs and the Defendants submitted.

These issues before the US Supreme Court are not simple issues of errors or

relitigating a case that was already decided against the Mins. These issues are of

serious criminal fraud and violent vicious crimes which the Plaintiff Monica Birch

Min and her husband Dr. Aung Min were victims of serious injuries and

outstanding economic loss caused by the Defendants 100%. They admit this fact. A

Vacate decision is not negotiable. Yet this last-minute appointed District Court.

Judge Martinotti, who refuses to hear anything, disrupts the law and order in the

Court and overruns the other Judges to harm victims Plaintiff Min needlessly

without restraint.

Even one violation of Administrative Law or Violation of the Constitution would

have sufficed for the Granting the Plaintiff Min their complete claim These

appealed Judges wrote repeatedly that by law the Plaintiff Mins would have won

the claim. Only a higher-level Authority like the US Supreme Court and/ or he US

Solicitor General can stop these vicious crimes now authorized by the Appeals Court

and make necessary changes to the system to protect the citizens from this kind of

crime and oppressive government.

Taking away innocent people’s lives and Guardianship, which turns people into

chattel owned by a strange Guardian, is a serious matter to be left unaddressed or

rectified by the US government. The decision against the Plaintiff Min should be

simply reversed in their favor. It should have been done a long time ago without all

this fraud, abuse and waste of time added to their lives by a government that is

17

supposed to protect them.

The Appealed Judges’ conclusions “there was not a shred of evidence”, they

(Defendants) did everything right and were successful in the original case, there

were no Constitutional or other violations that the Plaintiff Min were deprived, it

was Judge Ciuffani’s final Judgment Order (March comes after June?) which are

found throughout their written decisions included in the Plaintiff s Appeal. In

comparison of the two Camps of Judges, there is a direct contradiction. Proofs are

attached from Court records pp. 19-23 located in this document under Reasons for

Granting the Writ Certiorari. This comparison confirms that the Plaintiff is right

and should have won everything, not the reverse. The Plaintiff did not damage the

Defendants, the Defendants damaged the Plaintiffs.

The following documents pp30-35 decided by the Hearing /Trial Judges (1) NJ

Court final Order 6/21/12 and (2) US Court portion of transcript 6/5/14 prove the

misquote of Appeals Judges (3) Order 124 contain facts concerning Plaintiffs

submission of medical, and other evidence serious injuries claimed in her Summary

Judgment reviewed by the Magistrate Judge. (4) Order #107 placing defense

Attorney Stone for the Police under a Court Injunction restraining Order for using

erroneous sensitive information from the illegal home invasion 1/20/12 which was

vacated and placed under Protective Seal Order.

In contrast to the Appeal Judges Opinion January 23,2019 p.7 claim that Dr

Aung Min was finally declared incapacitated and the opposite is fact. Page 7 is

entirely distorted that there was an Order left unsettle not Vacated in the original

case and Mrs. Min ‘s role in the Court case pro se. was declared the opposite by the

Trial Judge in US Court transcript. The Appealed Judges stated “not a shred of

evidence was submitted’” is contradictory to #107. There were no violations and the

agencies did everything right is contradictory to #124 issued by the trial Judges.

The Appealed Judges reversed the Court Injunction Order against the Defendants

and broke the Trial Judge Ciuffani’s Protective Seal for publishing the erroneous

materials vacated and obtained illegally.

18

Challenge to the Court to Produce the Following Documents Necessary for

Support of Their claim Against the Plaintiff Monica Birch-Min and Dr

Aung Min

1.The Appealed Judges should produce the required documents claimed by

the Defendants to support their decision to Grant the Defendants /Appellees their

Summary Judgment Motion against the Plaintiffs and “make new settled law” from

the bench. These documents should exist and should have been submitted to the

court. The Plaintiffs proofs are well documented.

The following must be included: Search warrants signed by Court Order

Judge before entry into the Plaintiffs home on 1/20/12 or any time preceding the

date on which the claim for damages began. A Court Order to abduct Dr. Aung Min

from his home. A Court Order for the abduction against Monica Birch-Min’s will by

the Plainsboro Police on 1/24/12 in handcuffs with use of excessive force in City Hall

while she was filing a complaint in City Court based on her 911 Police call for help

against the Defendants.

2. Were there any criminal citations before, during, or after filed against the

Mins for this activity by Adult Protective Services and the Plainsboro Police? None

were ever produced in the case discovery, investigations or existed.

3.Produce the Proof of Service filed in the Middlesex County Surrogate Court

and date it was served on the Mins prior to the hearing and Judgement on the

Plaintiffs Min for Aung Min's temporary Guardianship by Adult Protective Services

Agency staff. The Court records indicate this Notice of hearing is a necessary prior

to the process The Court record for Pre-Notice shows it was posted in Feb.6, 2012

after the 1/26/12 decision. This delay denied the Mins the right to defend

themselves against the claim for Guardianship or obtain Attorney. This Court

Document was filed in the Plaintiffs' Federal case as a Constitutional Violation to

due process.

19

4.Produce Medical documents and pharmacy reports of mental incapacity of

Aung Min before the illegal invasion by APS and Plainsboro Police. None were

submitted in the trials or for the Defendants Summary Judgment Claim against the

Plaintiff Mins.

5.Why did the Appealed Judges state there was "not a shred of evidence

submitted" by the Plaintiffs Min when these supportive documents for their claims

for Summary Judgment appeared officially on PACER in transcripts and Federal

Magistrate Orders 124 and 121 granted in the Plaintiffs' favor? A Court Injunction

against the Defendants adversary Attorneys and the Plaintiffs satisfactory

completion of her Summary Judgment, including a Justification Report, had these

attached documents.

What was the reason for the Appealed Judges to deny the findings and

conclusions of the Trial Judges or Federal Judge Arpert's Orders? This is a gross

disparity and cover up between the two camps of decisions: Appealed Judges verses

Trial Judge's Orders.

6. A challenge is made on inquiry to the Supreme Court of the misquoting of

the NJ State Court trial Judge Honorable Frank Ciuffani's final decision on June

21, 2012 by the two Appealed Judges. The words written on the final order 6/21/12

of the case 235478 by trial Judge Ciuffani are quoted as “ORDER VACATING the

JUDGMENT OF INCAPACITY AND THE ORDER APPOINTING A GUARDIAN”.

The words clearly state judgment against Aung Min for being incapacitated was

wrong or vacated. He also stated in the Order that appointment of a Guardian was

wrong and vacated. How and why did the Appealed Judges state the Defendants

won and did everything right against the Plaintiff Mins to the point of writing new

settled law, when there was no such medical or other history characterizing the

couple in this derogatory way. The discrepancy between the two Camps is matter of

fact.

7. Judge Ciuffani testified in Federal Court and wrote orders supporting this

claim. Also Judge Arpert, who heard all the Federal proceedings from the beginning

20

stated, in the Court transcript dated _June 5, 2014 page 6 line 1, the Court Judge

states “Whatever the purpose was, I do have an order vacating the prior

orders of the Court.” There was no outstanding unsettled Order from the original

case.to be open for interpretation Judge or Jury. It was a fact that all the preceding

orders were "Vacated" and Middlesex County Attorney Downs interpretation of this

Order from the original case was barred. Where are the proofs of the Defendants to

support their claim for a Summary Judgment against the Plaintiffs when the trial

Judge Ciufanni appeared and held discussion with them on Judicial Notice with

Judge Arpert as reported in transcripts dated June 5, 2014?

CONCLUSION

This case presents issues of exceptional importance. An urgent request for

correction is necessary. If left standing, the public would be in grave danger of their

life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the Plaintiff Min’s were. With the new

“settled law” written by Appealed Judge Martinotti in effect now and sustained by

the Appeals Panel, the legalization of unconstitutional, dangerous procedures

deprives the public, of safety and security, in their private homes and encourages

crimes.

Anyone can come to the door of a private home without notice or any

documentation and claim they were from government agency or police and that they

were entitled to break in and enter in force against residents’ protest. People were

not entitled to resist, or they could shoot them, ransack your home, seize property,

shoot your dog etc at will. These intruders could publicly make unsubstantiated,

demeaning, derogatory, and slanderous accusations about one without permitting

one to respond or have recourse.

Also, the “new settled law “for operating procedure makes anything else these

intruders do proper procedure with no violations according to the Appealed Judges’

decision in favor of the Defendants. It would be illegal to resist or file suit, because

21

the new laws gave the government agencies and Police the Constitutional Rights,

not private citizens or ‘We the people.” The trial Judge (Ciuffani with Judge Arpert)

was misquoted and reversed by the Appealed Judges (Martinotti and 3CA Panel) on

the decisions in this case who supported the Plaintiffs Min as having the

Constitutional Rights. The Third Circuit Appeals Court unfairly states their Policy

of prioritizing defense for the Appealed Judge as being the most extreme compared

to other US Appeals Courts. These ethics are questionable for the public’s best

interest and a Right to a fair trial.

The Defendants lost the original case and their claim after a trial with a Vacate

Order. It was thrown out entirely. The Plaintiff Min should never have been

bothered that day. The Public wants assurance that they can be safe from these

kinds of intrusions, harm and mistreatment, when they did nothing wrong or

unlawful. Intruders can disguise themselves as Police. Are people now supposed to

obey them and let them in?

The Policies written, operating or practiced of any government entity may never

override the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens or break any of the laws is a

traditional rule applied. The government personnel take an Oath of Office for this.

The Third Circuit departed from applicable precedents of this Court and those of

sister circuits

Certiorari should be granted.

Dated: Revised and submitted October 14, 2019

I

---7

mmi

/S/ Monica Birch-Min

Jersey

Apr.

22