E422 1. Recent cases: Decision on defense attorney informing criminals of deportation not retroactive 2. Two Felony convictions can only be expunged if contemporaneous

From:	Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.
Subject:	E422 1. Recent cases: Decision on defense attorney informing criminals of deportation not retroactive 2. Two Felony convictions can only be expunged if contemporaneous
Reply:	vercammenlaw@njlaws.com

NJ Laws Email Newsletter E422 May 15, 2013         www.njlaws.com    In This Issue: 1. Recent cases: Decision on defense attorney informing criminals of  deportation not retroactive. 2. Two Felony convictions can only be expunged if contemporaneous. ,    1. Recent cases: Decision on defense attorney informing criminals of deportation not retroactive State v Brewster 429 NJ Super. 387 (App. Div. 2013) This PCR appeal addressed Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 176 L. Ed. 2d 284 (2010); State v. Nunez- Valdez, 200 N.J. 129, 138 (2009); and Rule 3:22-12, the limitations period for filing a PCR petition as amended in 2010. The court hold that defendant did not establish factually a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel by alleging that his attorney at the time he pleaded guilty in 1998 to marijuana charges failed to predict correctly that a federal deportation complaint would be filed against him in 2010. The warning contained in Question 17 of the plea form that defendant "may" be deported was correct and sufficient advice. Also, the PCR was untimely filed under R. 3:22-12, in particular, because an attorney told defendant no later than in 2007 that his conviction would cause immigration problems. 2. Two Felony convictions can only be expunged if contemporaneous In Re Expungement of R.Z. 429 NJ Super. 295 (App. Div. 2013) The court reversed and remanded an order expunging an adult conviction for two second-degree crimes - theft by deception and financial facilitation of criminal activity - because petitioner failed to prove the crimes were contemporaneous. N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(a) precludes expungement if a petitioner has been "convicted of any prior or subsequent crime." Crimes are prior or subsequent if committed on "separate occasions." In re Ross, 400 N.J. Super. 117, 122 (App. Div. 2008). The court held the petitioner bears the burden to show one crime was not prior or subsequent to the other. Also, the court hold a crime involving a course of conduct is deemed to occur, for expungement purposes, when the course of conduct begins as well as when it ends, and the court reject the suggestion that the date of commission is determined solely by N.J.S.A. 2C:1-6c, which states, for statute of limitations purposes, a crime involving a course of conduct is committed when the conduct terminates. The court remand to allow petitioner to submit proofs that his two crimes were in fact contemporaneous.             Editorial assistance provided by Rocco Seminerio.  Mr. Seminerio will be entering his third year at Seton Hall University School of Law and is currently participating in Kenneth Vercammen's Spring Internship Program.

E420 Court cannot consider Sup Mt testimony unless agreed by defendant. State v Gibson.

NJ Laws Email Newsletter E420       April   4, 2013       www.njlaws.com    In This Issue:  Recent Cases: Court cannot  consider Sup Mt  testimony unless   agreed by  defendant. State v Gibson.  Bias statute requires  proof of defendant  intended bias, not  victim perception.   State v. Pomianek. Recent Cases: Court cannot consider Sup Mt testimony unless agreed by defendant. State v Gibson __ NJ Super. __ (App. Div. 2013) A-5163-10T2 The court held that in a driving-under-the-influence prosecution, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, due process and fundamental fairness preclude a trial court, absent a defendant's consent, from relying upon the evidence heard in a pre-trial suppression hearing as proof of guilt in the trial on the merits. In this case, defense counsel objected to reliance on the suppression hearing record and moved to dismiss in the absence of other proofs. The court nonetheless found defendant guilty of DUI solely on the basis of evidence elicited at the pre-trial hearing to suppress the fruits of a motor vehicle stop and subsequent arrest. The court reversed the conviction and order entry of a judgment of acquittal. Bias statute requires proof of defendant intended bias, not victim perception. State v. Pomianek 429 NJ Super. 339 (App. Div. 2013)   The court construed one section of the bias intimidation statute, which defendant challenged as unconstitutional. The court held that a conviction under N.J.S.A. 2C:16-1a(3) requires proof of the defendant's biased intent in committing the predicate crime; proof of the victim's perception of the crime is insufficient for a conviction. That construction is consistent with the legislative history and necessary to avoid holding the statute unconstitutional. The court also construed the official misconduct statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2a, holding that under the facts of this case defendant could be re-tried for official misconduct based on harassment by conduct but not harassment by communication.

E418 Later Discovery by Police of Parole Warrant does not Purge Taint of Unlawful Detention. 3. New Expungement Law Permits Crime Expungement in 5 years if Exemplary Life and Public Interest Shown.

From:	Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.
Subject:	E418 1. Please sign Kenneth Vercammen's petition for NJ State Bar 2nd Vice-President- We need 50 more signatures. 2. Later Discovery by Police of Parole Warrant does not Purge Taint of Unlawful Detention. 3. New Expungement Law Permits Crime Expungement in 5 years if Exemplary Life and Public Interest Shown.
Reply:	vercammenlaw@njlaws.com

New Case: Later  Discovery by Police  of Parole  Warrant   does not Purge Taint   of  Unlawful    Detention.  New Expungement   Law Permits Crime  Expungement in   5 years if Exemplary   Life and Public   Interest Shown. New Case: Later Discovery by Police of Parole Warrant does not Purge Taint of Unlawful Detention. State v. Shaw __ NJ __ (A-48-11) 12-13-12                                The police did not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the investigatory detention, which was based on nothing more than a non-particularized racial description of the person sought. The parole warrant was not an intervening circumstance that sufficiently purged the taint from the unlawful detention.    New Expungement Law Permits Crime Expungement in 5 years if Exemplary Life and Public Interest Shown. In re Kollman Petition for Expungement __ NJ __ (A-126-10) July 9, 2012 Defendants seeking relief under the statute's new five-year pathway to expungement have the burden of proving why expungement of a criminal record is in the public interest. Because petitioner appears to have met that burden, the Court reverses the denial of his expungement application and remands to the trial court to assess the petitioner's character and conduct as of the date of its new ruling

E417 No automatic right for DWI defendant to inspect inside of police station. Mandatory 180 jail if driving while suspended while revoked for 2nd DWI even if DWI was prior to 2010.

NJ Laws Email Newsletter E417 March 7, 2013       www.njlaws.com   In This Issue: No automatic right for DWI defendant to inspect inside of police station. Mandatory 180 jail if driving while suspended while revoked for 2nd DWI even if DWI was prior to 2010.     No automatic right for DWI defendant to inspect inside of police station State v Carrero  428 NJ Super. 419 (App. Div. 2012) State v Baluski  A-3232-11T3/ A-4319-11T3 (CONSOLIDATED)  The court reviewed discovery orders separately issued in these two DWI cases authorizing defense counsel and/or defense experts to inspect and photograph rooms within the police stations where their respective clients provided breath samples on the Alcotest device in order to verify that the tests were properly administered. In Carrero, such access was granted to help ascertain whether devices emitting radio frequency interference (RFI) had been located in the station within 100 feet of the testing area. In Baluski, such access was granted to help ascertain whether the interior layout of the station physically prevented defendant from being observed for the required twentyminutes before testing. The court reversed the discovery orders because neither defendant has shown a reasonable justification to conduct the requested inspection. The court concluded that Carrero's request is insufficient in light of the Supreme Court's binding legal and evidentiary determination in State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54, 89 (2008), that the Alcotest is designed in a manner that is " well shielded from the impact of any potential RFI," and also in light of the State's countervailing security interests disfavoring routine civilian access to the interior of a police station. The court concluded that Baluski's request is likewise insufficient because he has presented no affirmative basis to believe that an officer failed to observe him for the twenty pre-testing minutes required by Chun, supra, 194 N.J. at 79, and also in light of the State's countervailing security interests. Note- In the future, defense counsel can make a Evid. Rule 104 motion to inspect with affirmative certifications. Mandatory 180 jail if driving while suspended while revoked for 2nd DWI even if DWI was prior to 2010. State v Carrigan428 NJ Super. 609 (App. Div. 2012) A-3751-11T1  11-15-12      N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b), which became effective on August 1, 2011, makes it a fourth-degree crime for a motorist to operate a vehicle at a time when his or her driver's license is suspended or revoked for a second or subsequent conviction for driving while intoxicated ("DWI") or refusal to submit to an alcohol breath test. Defendant was charged with that crime, upon being found driving a car in September 2011 while his license was suspended due to multiple prior DWI offenses.      The trial court initially dismissed the complaint, concluding that the application of N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b) to defendant violated ex post facto principles, essentially because his ongoing license suspensions had been imposed before the statute's effective date.     The Appellate Division reversed and concluded that a violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:40- 26(b) comprises a new offense based upon new conduct, and that the statute does not impose retrospective punishment for a prior offense. Hence, the law may be constitutionally applied to drivers with suspended licenses, such as defendant, who are caught driving after August 1, 2011, regardless of whether their DWI-based suspensions were imposed before that date.

E416 1. Kenneth Vercammen to run for NJ State Bar 2nd Vice-President 2. NJ Senate proposed Bill 2427 3. Seminar: How to Appeal Your New Jersey Property Taxes and Win! 4. Calendar of Charity Races and Non Profit

From:	Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.
Subject:	E416 NJ Senate proposed Bill 2427
Reply:	vercammennews@njlaws.com

NJ Laws Email Newsletter E416  February 26, 2013         www.njlaws.com   In This Issue: 2.   NJ Senate proposed Bill 2427  2. NJ Senate proposed Bill 2427 NJ Senate proposed Bill 2427 would permit a restricted license for persons suspended for DWI to be able to drive to work. Ken Vercammen testified in favor of the "Restricted Driver's license" Ken also testified in favor of changes to the ignition interlock law to permit persons who do not own a car to be able to get a drivers license back. This bill, as amended, revises penalties for various drunk-driving offenses.  These revisions include mandating the installation of an ignition interlock device in the motor vehicle owned, leased, or principally operated by the offender and the operation of such vehicle under a restricted use driver's license, or alternatively, mandating the offender's forfeiture of the right to operate a motor vehicle if the offender instead does not own or lease a motor vehicle and there is no vehicle the offender principally operates. Whenever a person commits the offense of driving under the influence (R.S.39: 50-4) or refusing to submit to a breath test (section 2 of P.L.1966, c.142 (C.39: 4-50.2)), the person would be required to install an ignition interlock device.  A court would first order the suspension of the person's driver's license for a period of 10 days, during which period the person would have to install the device, unless the person presented to the court at the time of sentencing satisfactory proof that a device is already installed, and additionally, for a second or subsequent offense, the person during this same 10-day period would be required to obtain a restricted use driver's license with various court ordered driving restrictions, issued by the Chief Administrator of the Motor Vehicle Commission in order to operate the affected motor vehicle; if the person did not own or lease a motor vehicle and there was no vehicle the person principally operated, the court would instead order the person to forfeit his right to operate a motor vehicle over the highways of this State.  For a first offender whose blood alcohol concentration is 0.08% or higher but less than 0.10%, the device would remain installed for a period of not less than three months or more than six months, commencing immediately upon the restoration of the offender's driver's license after the 10-day period of license suspension or as indicated on the court order if no suspension occurs due to the prior installation of the device with satisfactory proof of installation to the court.  For a first offender whose blood alcohol concentration is 0.10% or higher, or for refusing to submit to a breath test, the device would remain installed for a period of not less than seven months or more than one year, again commencing immediately upon the restoration of the offender's driver's license after the 10-day period of license suspension or as indicated on the court order if no suspension occurs due to the prior installation of the device with satisfactory proof of installation to the court.  For a first offender who does not own or lease a motor vehicle, or if there is no motor vehicle the offender principally operates, the court would instead order forfeiture of the offender's right to operate a motor vehicle, with the period of forfeiture being the same as the period for which the ignition interlock device would have been installed (not less than three months or more than six months; or not less than seven months or more than one year, if a higher blood alcohol concentration).  The second and third offenders can also apply for a restricted driver's license.   The restricted use driver's license would be in a form prescribed by the chief administrator and be issued in accordance with procedures established by the chief administrator.  The license would be of a color selected by the chief administrator, which readily distinguishes it from other driver's licenses issued by this State.  The chief administrator could impose a fee of not more than $25 for the issuance of a restricted use driver's license.  Along with the restricted use driver's license, the chief administrator would issue a restricted use driver's placard to each approved licensee.  The licensee would be required to prominently display the placard in the rear window, or other location determined by the chief administrator, of the motor vehicle equipped with the ignition interlock device for which the restricted use driver's license is issued. The bill also addresses periods of incarceration and community service requirements for persons who commit multiple offenses generally (but not those more serious offenses that occur on school property or involve driving through a school crossing (detailed in subsection (g) of R.S.39:4-50)).  Under the bill, a person with a second drunk driving related offense would be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not more than 90 days, except that the court could lower this term for each day served participating in a drug or alcohol inpatient rehabilitation program approved by the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center.  Similarly, while a person with a third or subsequent drunk driving offense would be sentenced to imprisonment, the court could also lower this term for each day served participating in an approved drug or alcohol inpatient rehabilitation program.  In both instances, there would be no cap on the potential number of days reduced from the term of imprisonment.  As to community service requirements, the bill would establish that a person with a third or subsequent drunk driving offense be required to perform community service for a period of not less than 60 days, which would be in the form and on the terms as the court shall deem appropriate under the circumstances; this exceeds the current requirement placed upon a person with a second offense, which is the performance of community service for a period of 30 days.  More details at: http://traffic-law.blogspot.com/2013/02/nj-senate-proposed-bill-2427-would.html

E415 1. A3598 Bill proposes a Conditional Dismissal Program in Municipal Court. Kenneth Vercammen, Esq. testified in favor of the passage before the Assembly Judiciary Committee in Trenton. 2. Ken Vercammen has been reappointed as the Metuchen Public Defender.

From:	Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.
Subject:	E415 1. A3598 Bill proposes a Conditional Dismissal Program in Municipal Court. Kenneth Vercammen, Esq. testified in favor of the passage before the Assembly Judiciary Committee in Trenton. 2. Ken Vercammen has been reappointed as the Metuchen Public Defender. 3. Free Office Space for New Attorney and go to Court- Edison, NJ available Feb 10.
Reply:	vercammennews@njlaws.com

NJ Laws Email Newsletter E415      February 13, 2013        In This Issue: 1. A3598 Bill proposes a Conditional Dismissal Program in Municipal Court. I testified in favor of the passage before the Assembly Judiciary Committee in Trenton.    2. Ken Vercammen has been reappointed as the Metuchen Public Defender. 3. Free Office Space for New Attorney and go to Court- Edison, NJ available Feb 10. 1. A3598 Bill proposes a Conditional Dismissal Program in Municipal Court. I testified in favor of the passage before the Assembly Judiciary Committee in Trenton.           This bill establishes a conditional dismissal program in municipal court similar to the existing supervisory treatment programs for pre-trial intervention and conditional discharge.        Currently, the supervisory treatment programs for pre-trial intervention and conditional discharge allow the court to suspend proceedings against eligible defendants while the defendants participate in supervisory treatment.  Persons who are charged with indictable offenses (crimes of the first, second, third, or fourth degree) may be eligible for pretrial intervention ("PTI") pursuant to N.J.S.2C:43-12 et seq.  Persons charged with certain disorderly persons or petty disorderly persons drug offenses may be eligible for conditional discharge pursuant to N.J.S.2C:36A-1.  If the defendant violates a term or condition of supervisory treatment, the court may enter a judgment of conviction or, where the defendant did not previously plead guilty and was not previously found guilty, resume the criminal proceedings.  If the defendant successfully completes the program, the criminal charges are dismissed.          CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL PROGRAM. This bill establishes a similar diversion program in municipal court to be known as the conditional dismissal program.  Under the provisions of the bill, a defendant who is charged with a petty disorderly persons offense or disorderly persons offense may apply to enter into the conditional dismissal program, provided the defendant  has not been previously convicted of any offense or crime under any law of the United States, this State or any other state.  A defendant may make an application to the conditional dismissal program after a plea of guilty or a finding of guilt, but prior to the entry of judgment of conviction.           FINGERPRINTING REQUIREMENT.  To allow sufficient time for verification of the defendant's criminal history by the prosecutor and as a condition of the application, the defendant will be required to submit to the fingerprint identification procedures as provided in R.S.53:1-15 before making an application to the court.           CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY. Conditional dismissal will not be available to any person who has previously participated in conditional discharge, conditional dismissal, or PTI.  In addition, conditional dismissal will not be available if the offense for which the person is charged involved: organized criminal or gang activity; a continuing criminal business or enterprise; a breach of the public trust by a public officer or employee; domestic violence; an offense against an elderly, disabled or minor person; an offense involving driving or operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, intoxicating liquor, narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drug; animal cruelty laws; or any disorderly persons offense or petty disorderly persons offense under chapter 35 or 36 of the Criminal Code (drugs and drug paraphernalia). However, a person who is charged with a disorderly persons or petty disorderly persons offense involving drugs or drug paraphernalia may apply for a conditional discharge in accordance with N.J.S.2C:36A-1.             In addition to these eligibility criteria, the court considering the application must also consider the following factors: the nature and circumstances of the offense; the facts surrounding the commission of the offense; the motivation, age, character and attitude of the defendant; the desire of the complainant or victim to forego prosecution; the needs and interests of the victim and the community; the extent to which the defendant's offense constitutes part of a continuing pattern of anti-social behavior; whether the offense is of an assaultive or violent nature, either in the act itself or in the possible injurious consequences of such behavior; whether the applicant's participation will adversely affect the prosecution of codefendants; whether diversion of the defendant from prosecution is consistent with the public interest; and any other factors deemed relevant by the court.             If the court approves a defendant's participation in the conditional dismissal program over the municipal prosecutor's objection, that order will, upon the request of the prosecutor, be stayed for a period of 10 days in order to permit the prosecutor to appeal the order to the Superior Court.             PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.  After taking into consideration the eligibility criteria, the defendant's criminal history and the prosecutor's recommendation, the court may approve the defendant's participation in the conditional dismissal program andplace the defendant under a probation monitoring status for a period of one year. The court may also impose financial obligations and other terms and conditions in accordance with the bill.  The bill permits the defendant to apply to the court for an extension of the term of conditional dismissal to allow sufficient time to pay financial obligations imposed by the court.  In addition, a judge could extend the term for good cause.             If a defendant who is participating in conditional dismissal is convicted of any offense or crimeunder any law of the United States, this State or any other state, or otherwise fails to comply with the terms and conditions imposed by the court, the court can enter a judgment of conviction and impose a fine, penalty, or other assessment in accordance with the defendant's prior plea of guilty or prior finding of guilt.             If, at the end of the term, the defendant has not been convicted of any subsequent offense or crimeunder any law of the United States, this State or any other state, and has complied with any other terms and conditions imposed by the court, the court may terminate the probation monitoring and dismiss the proceedings against the defendant.             The bill provides that a conditional dismissal of a petty disorderly persons or disorderly persons offense granted pursuant to the program will not be deemed a conviction for purposes of disqualifications or disabilities, but shall be reported to the State Bureau of Identification criminal history record information files for purposes of determining future eligibility or exclusion from court diversion programs.  A conditional dismissal granted will not be deemed a conviction for the purposes of determining whether a second or subsequent offense has occurred under any law of this State.             LIMITATION.  A conditional dismissal can only be granted once with respect to any defendant.        CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL APPLICATION FEE AND ASSESSMENT.  A person applying for admission to the conditional dismissal program will pay to the court an application fee of $75.  The fee would be deposited in the newly created "Municipal Court Diversion Fund" established under the bill. Monies in this new fund will be used to offset the cost of intake and monitoring services related to the conditional dismissal program.  If admitted into the program, the defendant would also be required to pay any restitution, costs, and other mandatory assessments that would have been imposed by law for a conviction of the offense charged.             A municipal court judge may impose an assessment, based on the nature of the offense and the character of the defendant, that shall not exceed the amount of a fine that would have been imposed for conviction of the offense charged.  Such assessment would be distributed in the same manner as a fine for the offense.             A defendant would be advised of these financial conditions prior to seeking entry into the program.             The bill allows the defendant to apply for a waiver of the fee by reason of poverty.  The court may also permit the defendant to pay the conditional dismissal fee and other assessments in installments or order other alternatives pursuant to section 1 of P.L.2009, c.317 (C.2B:12-23.1).  Under the provisions of that enactment, the court has several options available if it finds that a person does not have the ability to pay a penalty in full or has failed to pay a previously imposed penalty.  The court may reduce, suspend, or modify the installment plan; order that credit be given against the amount owed for each day of confinement if the court finds that the person has served jail time for the default; revoke any unpaid portion of the penalty; order the person to perform community service in lieu of payment of the penalty; or impose any other alternative permitted by law.         MUNICIPAL COURT DIVERSION FUND. The bill establishes a new dedicated, non-lapsing fund to be known as the "Municipal Court Diversion Fund," which will be administered by the Administrative Office of the Courts.  The fund will be the depository of the $75 application fee for the conditional dismissal program.  Monies in the fund will be used to offset the cost of intake and monitoring services for defendants under the conditional dismissal program.       CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE. Currently, the conditional discharge statute, N.J.S.2C:36A-1, provides that the $75 fee which is charged for this program is used to defray the costs of juror compensation. However, this provision is outdated since these monies are no longer used to defray the costs of juror compensation, but instead are paid to the State Treasurer to for deposit in the General Fund. This bill updates this section of law accordingly.          Under the current provisions of the conditional discharge statute, a person is not eligible for conditional discharge if that person has committed disorderly persons or petty disorderly persons drug offense under any law of the United States, this State or any other state. The bill amends section a. of N.J.S.2C:36A-1 to also provide that a person who has participated in any supervisory treatment program or the conditional dismissal program established under the bill will not be eligible for participation in the conditional discharge program.             SUPERVISORY TREATMENT (PTI).  Similar to the conditional discharge statute, the PTI statute, N.J.S.2C:43-12, provides that the $75 fee charged for the program is used to defray the costs of juror compensation. Since these monies are no longer used to defray the costs of juror compensation, the bill updates this section of law accordingly.         Under the current provisions of N.J.S.2C:43-12, PTI may only occur once and any person who has previously received PTI is not eligible for subsequent PTI. This bill expands this provision by providing that a person who has participated in either conditional dismissal or conditional discharge will not be eligible for PTI.             The bill amends the conditional discharge and PTI statutes to provide that the court may allow the payment of the fees and other financial obligations in installments.         EXPUNGEMENT. The bill amends N.J.S.2C:52-6 concerning expungement of arrests not resulting in conviction to allow for expungement of charges dismissed pursuant to conditional discharge or conditional dismissal six months after the entry of the order of dismissal. Currently, this section allows for expungement for a person who has had charges dismissed as a result of participation in a supervisory treatment program.            The bill was voted on favorably by the Assembly Judiciary Committee, chaired by Peter Barnes III, Widener Law School Class of 1985. 2. Ken Vercammen has been reappointed as the Metuchen Public Defender.                        I serve as Public Defender in Metuchen on Wednesday nights at 6:30 and every other Friday at 9am. If attorneys are in a jam and need help with a Metuchen case, I may be able to help. 3. Free Office Space for New Attorney and go to Court- Edison, NJ available Feb 10        Kenneth Vercammen's Law Office has space sharing opportunity for new lawyer or recent free agent to get experience and go to court and learn NJ Law office procedures. We serve as a Public Defender and handle many Municipal court and Criminal matters This is a mentoring experience where you can learn NJ Law Office Procedure.        We need someone for Friday 9am-2pm to help handle Public Defender cases and client calls, and another new attorney for other Municipal court and Criminal matters on other days.        Attorney will be provided with use of desk on main floor, plus if needed private office space in furnished basement to start their practice, rent-free. They can see clients in first floor office rooms. In return they will handle municipal court appearances, Telephone communications with courts, prosecutors, clients, etc, Will signings and other legal work and criminal law website updates in lieu of rent for maximum 5 hours per week.        Go to court and get trial experience. Excellent opportunity to jump-start your career. You will get to represent people in Municipal Courts in Middlesex, Union and Monmouth County and meet the top Prosecutors and Judges. Must be admitted in NJ and have a car.        Learn to interview potential Municipal Court/Criminal clients. Also learn to draft Wills and work on Litigation files. Attorney may also help provide legal assistance to members of prepaid legal plans and public defender clients. Follow up contact calls with clients, courts, prosecutors and bar associations.       Excellent mentoring position for the right attorney. Are you hardworking and aggressive?         Visit our website: www.njlaws.com to learn about our office. If interested, fax email or mail a resume and cover letter to: KENNETH VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC ATTORNEY AT LAW 2053 Woodbridge Ave. Edison, NJ 08817 (Phone) 732-572-0500 (Fax) 732-572-0030 vercammenlaw@njlaws.com