“NJWEEDMAN

“NJWEEDMAN.COM”

EDWARD FORCHION

P.O. Box 1302.,

BROWNS MILLS, N.J. 08101

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCKET NO. 06CV623(JBS)

DISTRICT of NEW JERSEY

1 GERRY PLAZA

CAMDEN, N.J. 08101

Amended

…………………………………………..x : COMPLAINT

: 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

EDWARD FORCHION : CIVIL RIGHTS :

(Plaintiff) :

Vs., :State Sanctioned/condoned

:RELIGIOUSPERSECUTION

JUDGE MORLEY, SWEENEY, AMEIDA, :

LIHOTZ, BELL, STATE of NEW JERSEY : LINDA HOLDEN : (Defendants) : Violation of Free Speech

: Deliberate 14^th Amendment

: (equal protection clause)

: Violation of Human Rights

:per: United Nations Human

………………………………………….x : Rights Declaration

THE PARTIES

Plaintiff: Edward Forchion who publicly goes by the name “NJWEEDMAN.COM”. The State of New Jersey refused to allow Edward Forchion to legally change his name to “NJWEEDMAN.COM”. Plaintiff use’s it anyway. (For details of this denial of “Freedom of Expression” see: www.njweedman.com/namechange.htm )

Defendant(s): Judge Morley of the Burlington County Superior Court, Judge Sweeney of the Burlington County Superior Court, Judge Almeida of the Burlington County Superior Court, Judge Lihotz of the Burlington County Superior Court, Judge Bell of the Burlington County Superior Court, The State of New Jersey and U.S. Government employee (EPA), Mother of Plaintiffs Child Linda “Scorned Woman” Holden of XXXXXXXX, Lumberton N.J.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The jurisdiction of this court is invoked under the powers and functions provided by title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ( 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) and (42 U.S.C. § 1983), The Plaintiff seeks out the Federal Courts specifically because the actions alleged in the instant matter are a continuation of the actions before this court in Forchion Vs State of New Jersey, 240 F.Supp. 2d 302 those actions were deemed “illegal and unconstitutional” by the Federal Court in 2003 by the honorable Judge Irenas. The Plaintiff was made a “Political Prisoner” in 2002 is once again being persecuted by the same state for voicing his same “public, political, religious views”.

The New Jersey Attorney General’s office legal responsibility is to protect the “RIGHTS” of all citizens, but refuse’s to protect the RIGHTS of this plaintiff because of his “public, political, religious views”. Plaintiff is repeatedly abused because of his “public, political, religious views” and the State Attorney General’s Office refuse’s to protect his RIGHTS and has in fact fought to shut-up Plaintiff with “political imprisonment” in Forchion Vs State of New Jersey, 240 F.Supp. 2d 302. It is clear that the State of New Jersey is incapable of being “fair” to this plaintiff. Examples: (1) Plaintiff was fired from his job (www.njweedman.com/fired) when he announced his intention to run for Governor under the Legalize Marijuana Party and state attorney General declined to protect Plaintiff’s Rights. (2) Plaintiff was attacked by a New Jersey State Trooper for wearing a political shirt that said “LEGALIZE MARIJUANA PARTY” at the statehouse (www.njweedman.com/attacked.html ) . State attorney General has since supported the actions of this State Trooper. Plaintiff was attacked and arrested by local; cops in Seaside Heights on memorial day 2005 for advocating Legalization on the boardwalk (www.njweedman.com/seaside_heights.htm), the New Jersey Attorney’s Generals Office refused to issue a memorandum to the Police Agencies of New Jersey that Plaintiff had the right to openly advocate “LEGALIZATION” as his platform for political office.

(http://www.njweedman.com/AG_letter_July_27th.htm). And now as alleged in this action before this court here the Plaintiff alleges once again for his “public, political, religious views” he is being denied parental rights.

In addition it is further RIGHTEOUS for this action to be heard before a Federal Court for the fact that the Plaintiff alleges that the actions of the State of New Jersey are clear “HUMAN RIGHTS” abuses per the 1947 Human Rights Declaration signed by the United States Government on Dec 10^th, 1947.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

COMPLAINT(s)

(1) – Denial of religious freedom the plaintiff alleges that he is keep from his daughter because of the Religion he has freely chosen to follow. Plaintiff publicly proselytizes about his beliefs just as Christian proselytize about their beliefs. (Anti-Abortion rights activist).

(2) - Denial of Freedom of Speech the plaintiff alleges that he is keep from his daughter because the state and the mother of his daughter don’t like how he has chosen to utilize his “freedom of Speech”. Plaintiff is a very vocal advocate for the total legalization of the sacrament of his faith: Marihuana. The Burlington County Judge’s have taken his visitation and parental rights for saying “Legalize Marijuana” in public.

(3) – Denial of Right to “Political Expression”, plaintiff alleges he is punished for expressing his “public, political views” by having his child re-named and denied visitation because of his “PUBLIC VIEWS”.

(4) Violation of equal protection clause. – Plaintiff alleges that on dozens of occasions the defendant LINDA HOLDEN refuses to comply with court ordered visitation and the state of New Jersey has never held her in contempt or otherwise punished her for violating these valid court orders. While at the same time over the years the plaintiff been arrested, had his license suspended and been punished when he refuses in retaliation (for denied visitation) to comply support orders. Most recently April 2006.

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

For a complaint in this action plaintiff Edward Forchion who goes by the public persona “NJWEEDMAN.COM” alleges as follows upon information, fact and belief. “That I am the victim of State Sanctioned Religious Persecution and open violation of my First Amendment Rights as well as Civil Rights”. The State of New Jersey, specifically the Judge’s of the Burlington County Superior Court are a willing party to overt Constitutional violations of my Rights as a parent based on my Religious, Political, cultural views as well as punishment for exercising my Free speech rights to speak out against Government policies.

Linda Holden of 30 Ginger Drive Lumberton, N.J. 08048 the natural mother of my child “Ajanea” (11 Years old) and a born-again Christian has relentlessly pursued a “Christian crusade” to keep Plaintiff from his child because plaintiff openly does not follow the European version of Christianity (The Whiteman’s Religion) forced onto African-Americans thru the Christian Institution of Slavery. Slavery ended over 141 years ago. There is no longer a requirement that African-Americans follow the religion forced onto us by our white slavers anymore. We “Africans” have no obligation to follow the Whitemans religion. Plaintiff is personally miffed as to why 70% of African continue to follow the Whiteman’s faith but that is their freedom. Here in America we are supposed to have freedom of religion so plaintiff has no problem with Africans who chose to continue to follow our slavers version of Christianity. Plaintiff has freely chosen not to, and follows the African based religion of *RASTAFARI and Plaintiff openly proselytizes about his faiths beliefs and practices. Linda Holden refers to Plaintiff as a “criminal minded heathen” and refuses to allow Plaintiff visitation or a normal relationship with his child because of his “PUBLIC VIEWS”. Linda Holden has in effect sicced the Whiteman (NJ Government) on Plaintiff in order to keep his child from him. Infact it is Plaintiff’s belief that had he no child custody conflict he would never have been incarcerated, for it was the attention of the Government in his child custody/visitation case presented to the Government by Linda that brought the Government action in his 1997 arrest for conspiracy to posses the sacrament of his faith: marijuana. Linda has capitalized on the racism, religious intolerance and outright discrimination African men receive at the hands of white jurist in a similar manner that “house niggers” told slave master about “field niggers” who refused to accept white dominance, religions or sought to escape the Christian institution of slavery. Linda in fact hired a private detective and turned over the report to the bigots on the Burlington County Superior court bench in order to keep plaintiff from his child six months prior to his arrest.

The State of New Jersey has on numerous occasions violated plaintiffs RIGHTS since learning he is not a do-good nigger (CHRISTIAN) and in this case has sided with the Christian (did Linda’s biddings) in refusing to allow Plaintiff to have a normal relationship with his daughter because (he proselytizes about his faiths beliefs and practices which offend many followers of the Whiteman’s religion.

RASTAFARIANISM: Is a religion which first took root in JAMAICA in the ninth century and has since gained adherents in the UNITED STATES. See: Mircea Eliade, Encyclopedia of Religion pages 96-97 (1998 edition). It is among the 1,558 religious groups sufficiently stable and distinctive to be identified as one of the existing religions in this country. See J.Gordan Melton, Encyclopedia of American Religious pages 870-71 (1991 edition). Standard descriptions of the religion emphasize the use of marijuana in cultic ceremonies designed to bring the believer closer to the divinity and to enhance unity among believers. Functionally, marijuana known as GANJA in the language of the religion --operates as a sacrament with the power to raise the partakers above the mundane and to enhance their spiritual unity. UNITED STATES Vs BAUER, 84 F.3d 1549, 1556 (9th Cir.1996)), MCBRIDE Vs SHAWNEE CITY, 71 F.Supp. 2d 1098, 1100 (5th Cir) 1999,STEELE Vs BLACKMAN, 236 F.3d (3rd Cir.) 2000

The Plaintiff in this case rejected Christianity as his faith at 12. Once Plaintiff was old enough to realize what a Christian was and how Christians had forced Africans to be Christians thru the Christian Institution of Slavery he rejected it as his faith and sought out others. Plaintiff tried several religions before accepting Rastafari as his faith. In 1994 when Ajanea was conceived Plaintiff did in no way present himself as a Christian. Linda Holden willing had sex with this non-Christian plaintiff. Defendant Linda Holden then willing and voluntarily agreed to have a child with this non-Christian Plaintiff and only after the relationship broke-up did plaintiff’s “religion” become a factor. Ajanea was no accident.

Over the last 11 years plaintiff has repeatedly gone to the State of New Jersey for assistance in enforcing his parental rights to no avail because the defendants on the bench are racially, religiously and political intolerant of plaintiffs views, religion, and political opinions. Plaintiff first filed for visitation on Oct 16^th, 1995. On several occasions Plaintiff actually did get granted visitation but LINDA HOLDEN constantly, routinely, and predictably refuses to comply with court orders and the Judge’s on the Burlington County Superior Court “refuse” to hold her in contempt or to enforce plaintiff’s visitation orders. At present plaintiff has not had a visitation since July 2005. While the state refuse’s to allow Plaintiff a normal relationship with this child he has a very loving normal relationship with his other 3 children. The state’s visitation orders are not enforced. Judge’s Bell, Morley, Schlosser, Ameida and Lihotz have entered into a “unofficial” Christian conspiracy to prevent plaintiff from having a normal relationship with his child “Ajanea” because her Christian mother LINDA objects to his “PUBLIC VIEWS”. None have enforced his parental rights and all have restricted his parental rights based on his “PUBLIC VIEWS” even after the Federal ruling in Forchion vs State of New Jersey, 240 F.Supp.2d 302

The First Amendment exists so as to promote debate on issues of public importance. In this case, the advocacy of the legalization of marijuana is a legitimate political position in this country. The Libertarian Party, whose presidential candidate received over 380,000 votes in the 2000 election, advocates the legalization of drugs. Libertarian Party website at http://www.lp.org/issues/relegalize.html and http://www.lp.org/campaigns/pres/. Many elected public officials have called for a liberalization of the nation's drug laws. Simply put, Plaintiff's place in this debate will do nothing to harm a public that is already itself debating the current state of our nation's drug laws. Forchion vs State of New Jersey, 240 F.Supp.2d 302 (2003) Irenas

The genesis of the original Forchion vs. State of New Jersey case was this very same “child custody case”. On June 3^rd, 2002 the plaintiff stood outside the Burlington County Superior Courthouse protesting a family court ruling by Judge Almeida. (May 2002) The plaintiff was seeking a visitation order and when the defendant Judge Almeida asked the plaintiff why he lost visitation in the first place Plaintiff responded “Judge Bell took my visitation in 1998 because I publicly advocate the legalization of marijuana”. Plaintiff was running for congress under the Legalize Marijuana Party. Judge bell said, “I don’t care about your first amendment rights it’s about the child”. Defendant Judge Almeida simply asked plaintiff “if he still believed marijuana should be legal” when plaintiff responded in the affirmative Judge Almeida denied visitation and ended the hearing. Once again plaintiff was punished for expressing his political views.

(Judge Bell took plaintiff’s parental rights in 1998 after Plaintiff ran for Congress under the Legalize Marijuana Party slogan, at the time she said, “I don’t care about your first amendment rights its about the child.)

Immediately after Judge Almeida’s May 2002 ruling Plaintiff filed a civil rights lawsuit in state court and on June 3^rd,2003 Plaintiff stood outside the Burlington County Courthouse (see Attached news article) and publicly “petitioned the Government for a redress of grievances”. While this protest was totally legal Judge Schossler called ISP manager Tom Bartlett and asked him to have plaintiff removed. Plaintiff was then illegally jailed by a illegal warrant signed by Ocean County Superior Court (Catholic) Judge Giovine and State Intensive Supervision Program manager (Christian) Tom Bartlett from June 6^th – June 10^th, 2002 for this legal protest. In anger at that jailing Plaintiff made three first amendment political ad’s. On August 19^th, 2002 Plaintiff was jailed once again by Judge Giovine and Tom Bartlett because they didn’t like how Plaintiff utilized his “Freedom Speech Rights”.

Plaintiff filed a “writ of habeac corpus” and a statute 1983 complaint from the Burlington County jail. After 5 months in jail on January 24^th, 2003 Federal Judge Irenas ordered the State of New Jersey to release plaintiff. On March 22, 2003 Judge Lihotz granted Plaintiff visitation with a stipulation that plaintiff not talk about his beliefs to his child. On April 4^th, 2003 State granted these very same Judge immunity and the civil rights lawsuit was dismissed. (Since plaintiff had received what (visitation) he wanted anyway “visitation” plaintiff didn’t appeal).

In Feb of 2004 Linda Holden petitioned Judge Sweeney to change Ajanea last name from FORCHION to HOLDEN because of plaintiff’s “PUBLIC VIEWS”. On the actual petition to change our daughters name Linda listed my “PUBLIC POLITICAL VEIWS” as the only reason to change our daughters name. The same views that she claims is justification to keep Ajanea from Plaintiff. Over the 1^st Amendment objections of Plaintiff his Childs name was changed by Judge Sweeney. Once that was accomplished she then renewed her quest to eliminate Plaintiff from child life.

Numerous times from April 2003 thru July 2005 defendant Linda Holden petitioned the Judge’s of Burlington County state court with one bogus excuse after another to have the state eliminate plaintiffs visitation orders. Linda routinely would deny visitation and neither Judge Lihotz nor Judge Morley would punish her for violating the court ordered visitation. In July 2005 she totally stopped allowing visitation. The state Judge’s were infact letting her get away with denying plaintiff visitation and allowing her to ignore court orders. She in-effect was granted her wishes simply by not complying. The Judge’s became her allies with their non-action, non enforcement of visitation orders. For example on November 28^th, 2005 Linda petitioned Judge Morley to end plaintiffs visitation while plaintiff simultaneously petitioned for enforcement of visitation. Judge Morley denied elimination, made a halfass statement to Linda not to deny plaintiff’s visitation again. (Which just encouraged her?) She did the very next week, she infact has never complied again. On Dec 6^th, 2005 Judge Morley refused to hear plaintiff’s subsequent motion for enforcement with the statement “The child will not suffer any harm if visitation is not resumed”. Then on Feb 22^nd, 2006 Judge Morley granted Linda Holden’s request to end visitation. Plaintiff’s visitation once again because Linda Holden doesn’t like Plaintiff’s Political/Religious or public Views. Judge Morley rewarded Linda Holden for ignoring his own court orders. In March 2006 Plaintiff had an arrest warrant issued and his license suspend when he declared he won’t comply with support orders either. Why isn’t Linda Holden arrested or held in contempt when she ignores court ordered visitation, while Plaintiff is held in contempt for the same thing. (Equal protection under the law)

LEGAL FACTS

The plaintiff in this case is the same Plaintiff in Forchion vs. State of New Jersey, 240 F.Supp.2d 302 and alleges for the ex-act same reasons he is once again having his “RIGHTS” as an American violated by State officials. The state of New Jersey in direct contradiction of the ruling in Forchion has once again punished this plaintiff for exercising his RIGHT(s) as an American. This time by taking his child before it was his freedom.

The plaintiff in this case “NJWEEDMAN.COM” is a natural born citizen of the United Stated States of America. This plaintiff is an African-American. The Bill of Rights very First Amendment guarantees all citizens the Right to “FREEDOM of RELIGION and SPEECH.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The U.S. Constitution was signed and accepted as the law of the land on 12/15/1791. At that the time the Rights of the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to Africans neither free nor slave, that changed on 12/6/1865 with the enactment of the 13^th amendment,

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”.

and enforced with the enactment of the 14^th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

followed by the civil rights act of 1866.

"all persons shall have the same rights...to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws..."

On December 10^th, 1947 the United States Government signed the Universal Human Rights Declaration which declared “freedom of religion and expression” human rights.

This was further enforced with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, or religion. Title VI prohibits public access discrimination, leading to school desegregation.

The Federal Courts have already ruled on this issue in Forchion vs State of New Jersey, 240 F.Supp.2d 302

In 2000 when Christian do-gooders in the state of Florida kidnapped little Ilian Gonzales in a “Christian attempt” to keep him in America because they don’t like the Communist form of Government used in Cuba, and Ilian Gonzales father was a card carrying communist. Our Federal Government (Janet Reno) said, “a fathers political views doesn’t diminish his rights to be a father” and ordered Ilian returned to Cuba over the objections of the Christian kidnappers. In fact the Federal Government rescued Ilian from the Christian kidnappers at gun point. Ineffect respecting the “political views” of Ilian Gonzales father. While at the same time the Judge’s of the Burlington County Superior Court were keeping this plaintiff from his child because of his political views ( Plaintiff is the founder of the Legalize Marijuana Party) and was running for Congress at the time against Congressman Rob Andrews.

Just recently in Afghanistan a father “Abdul Rahman's” returned from Italy to get his twin 16 year old daughters and the local Afghani Government put him on trial for being a Christian. The Muslim family there like Linda Holden here sicced the local Government on him because they didn’t a like his religion (Christianity) and they didn’t want him to have his children because of his religious beliefs. Our Government bitched, complained, and put pressure on the Afghani government to intercede. Our Government labeled it Religious persecution and made RIGHTEUOS statements with threats of sanctions. The U.S. press reported it as a national story. Yet, right here in America the same thing has happened to the plaintiff in this case a non-Christians and no such response. Congressman Rob Andrew once a opponent of the Plaintiff made this public statement (below).

I have called upon Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to urge the Government of Afghanistan to ensure the safety of Abdul Rahman, who faced a penalty of death because he converted from Islam to Christianity. Our forefathers escaped similar persecution; religious tolerance remains one of America's bedrock principles.

Newly liberated Afghanistan holds its own beliefs and should not mimic the U.S. They must, however, uphold their own constitution and international law which guarantees freedom of worship. Islamic beliefs should not be used to support a culture of intolerance whereby a person must forfeit the way he worships or forfeit his life.

I have cosponsored Congressional Resolution H.RES.736 which condemns the enforcement of laws against apostasy. We must continue to work with our Afghan friends to expand religious freedoms while respecting Islam. While great challenges still exist for this fledgling government in the struggle to balance individuals' rights with the teachings of Islam, I am heartened by the release of Mr. Rahman. I ask that President Hamid Karzai continue to uphold Afghanistan's human rights obligations so that no Afghan is deprived of their fundamental right of religious freedom in the future.
U.S. Congressman (d) Rob Andrews 1^st Dist. N.J.

The defendant Judge’s on the Burlington County Court would have been taken to task if the Plaintiff was a Jew or a Muslim, two religions that are “acceptable” to Christian beliefs. African based religions are viewed with distain by most Christian who call them cults, Satanic, or Heathenistic. Plaintiff follows a African based religion and thus is not afforded the same “political correctness” that those “Christian acceptable religions” have here in America. What the Judge’s of the Burlington County Superior Court are ineffect doing is following the DRED SCOTT DOCTRINE. Historically Africans were prevented from following African religions by their Christian masters. One method was to take the children of non-Christian slaves to prevent them from accepting the beliefs of the non-Christian African slave. Currently the Burlington County Superior Court Judge’s are keeping Plaintiff from his child in a similar manor at the behest of the Child’s Christian mother: LINDA HOLDEN.

IN 1857 The U.S. SUPREME COURT in the landmark DRED SCOTT VS SANDFORD, 19 U.S. 393, 407, 15 L.ED. 691, decision essentially said, "No whiteman was bound to respect the RIGHTS of a (nigger) African".

It is apparent to this Plaintiff that very little has changed in the last 150 years, in Burlington County New Jersey. Strong willed African-Americans such as Plaintiff still find they aren't afforded the same protections of the "U.S. CONSTITUTION" by the Christian anglo-saxton system unless they puppet their former masters belief’s.

The persecution this plaintiff faces from state Government authorities for publicly opposing this nations “policies” is totally unconstitutional and in violation of accepted international law. To take a persons child for his/her public views in inhuman. Had the exact same thing happened to this citizen if he resided in China, Saudi Arabia or Cuba this same U.S. Government and its press would publicly be calling him a “political prisoner, dissident, persecuted person a victim of a tyrannical government”. If this citizen presented such a case before another nation in an asylum request it would be no doubt granted.

CONCLUSION : The Questions before this court is clear

The questions this court must answer is this: Is it a requirement in America that a father be a Christian, Democrat or Republican in order to have a relationship with his child? Do father have the Right to Religious Freedom or only religions acceptable by the Christian majority? Do fathers have a right to “political opinions”? If yes, the court should order Plaintiff visitation if not order plaintiff to stay away from his child!!! Please don’t be a judicial coward and avoid the issue(s). Are “Nigger Religions” protected by the principals of Freedom of Religion this county was founded on?

OVEIW OF ACTION SOUGHT

This action contains two causes of action

(1) for a declaratory judgment: Declaration that the actions/inactions of the State of New Jersey and it’s officials are in violation of this Plaintiff’s Human Rights and U.S. Rights.

(2) injunctive relief: under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibited discrimination for reason of color, race religion or national origin. I.E. refer the matter to the Attorney General of the United States with a recommendation that an appropriate civil action be instituted

Respectfully Submitted,

_________________

Edward Forchion

6/6/06