E349 1. Benefits and Pitfalls of Pre-nup Agreements by Angela Barker, Esq. RECENT CASES: 2. Protective Sweep of Area by Police Som

NJ Laws Email Newsletter E349 Kenneth Vercammen, Attorney at Law September 15, 2010 Office Phone Number: (732) 572-0500 In This Issue: 1. Benefits and Pitfalls of Pre-nup Agreements by Angela Barker, Esq. RECENT CASES: 2. Protective Sweep of Area by Police Sometimes Permitted on Private Property. 3. A Review of Your Estate Plan is Essential After Divorce By Angela Barker, Esq. 4. End Of The Running & Exercise Streak 5. Next Events Greetings Kenneth Vercammen, Esq., 1. Benefits and Pitfalls of Pre-nup Agreements By Angela Barker, Esq. In New York and New Jersey prenuptial agreements (agreements entered into by couples prior to marriage) are valid and enforceable agreements. A prenuptial ("prenup") agreement, once it is prepared and executed in the proper manner, and it reflects the intention of the parties, is very often viewed as any other contract is viewed and in the absence of any evidence of undue influence or very exceptional circumstances it would be the terms of the prenup that governs the division of assets and other financial issues upon divorce. Very often a person (very often the one with the least assets) will telephone my office and state "We need a prenup. Can my fiancée and I come to your office and you draft it for us?" Other times they would say, "I got your number I just want you to look at my prenup because my fiancée's lawyer told me I had to have a lawyer but don't make a big deal of it. I am sure its fine, I just want to sign it." Usually, the prenup is not "fine." It is often extremely one-sided and would have you give away a lot of rights that are afforded to you under the family law statutes of your state. In addition, the same attorney should never represent both parties to a prenup agreement. Each side must have their own counsel to ensure that negotiations are fair and both parties' interests are protected. In every pre-nup negotiation there must be full financial disclosure. In addition, you must pick an attorney of your own choosing. Most importantly, you must listen to your attorney and if he/she tells you the document is one-sided try to negotiate a better agreement. You will not be released from your rights and obligations if you knowingly sign a one-sided prenup. It is important that you understand the terms of a prenup and that you fully comprehend the impact of those terms in the event, however unlikely, of a divorce. For example, waiving alimony or maintenance may mean that after years of being a stay-at-home parent, or the one reducing your career opportunities for the sake of your family, you may not have sufficient resources to get back on your feet post-divorce. For more information, go to : www.angelabarkerlaw.com RECENT CASES 2. Protective Sweep of Area by Police Sometimes Permitted on Private Property.State v. Davila ___ NJ ___ (2010) (A-20-09) 7/14/10 A protective sweep conducted on private property is not per se invalid merely because it does not occur incident to an arrest. Law enforcement officers may conduct a protective sweep only when (1) the officers are lawfully within private premises for a legitimate purpose, which may include consent to enter; and (2) the officers on the scene have a reasonable articulable suspicion that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger. The sweep will be upheld only if it is (1) conducted quickly, and (2) restricted to areas where the person posing a danger could hide. When an arrest is not the basis for entry, the police must be able to point to dangerous circumstances that developed once the officers were at the scene. 3. A Review of Your Estate Plan is Essential After Divorce By Angela Barker, Esq. The recent news report regarding deceased actor Gary Coleman is illustrative of the fact that you should review your estate plan after divorce. As I have repeatedly stated, an estate plan is not something you do once, then hide it away in a drawer. Rather it should be reviewed at least every three years and after major life changing events such as births, deaths and divorce. In Mr. Coleman's case it was learned that he and wife Shannon Price were divorced in August 2008. However, the parties still lived together. It appears that Mr. Coleman granted Ms. Price authority to make medical decisions on his behalf. It was not clear whether that grant of authority was given prior to the divorce or at the time Mr. Coleman was admitted to the hospital for the injury which caused his death. If it were the latter there is no cause for concern. The newspapers reported that Mr. Coleman was lucid and presumably able to give informed consent for the directive. However, if the consent was given prior to the divorce, it is not clear that, post-divorce, Mr. Coleman would have wanted his ex-wife to make any decisions, especially health care decisions on his behalf. In many jurisdictions, estate planning documents such as power-of-attorney, wills, trust, health care proxies, designation of remains directives, and living wills are given literal interpretation and very often a subsequent divorce may not cut off the rights of former spouse named in these documents. Very often ex-spouses inherit assets that the deceased would surely have wanted to go to others. It is essential that upon your divorce you review your estate plan to ensure that these documents reflect your current desires and goals. For more information, go to: www.angelabarkerlaw.com 4. End Of The Running & Exercise Streak Ken Vercammen had knee surgery on September 14 and will be on crutches for 6 weeks. I have requested some area attorneys help me to cover nearby court appearances since I will not be able to get around much. I will miss attending running races and outdoor events during that time. I did not miss a day running or working out since July, 2006. My initial running streak started on September 15, 1982. I was in my first year of law school and needed a stress reliever. The streak started as a disciplined way to force me to run every day. I was a Varsity Cross Country runner at University of Scranton. The streak helped me continue to get up early in the morning and on vacation. That running streak lasted until 1999 when I had heel surgery. My next running streak was 1999-2006, when I crashed on my bike and broke my collarbone. During my break from running, I will devote more time to lecturing and writing on legal topics. I hope to be back jogging in November. 5. Next Events The next meeting of the Municipal Court Practice Section will be on Monday, September 20, 2010 at 5 pm at The New Jersey Law Center in New Brunswick Program Topic: "Municipal Court Case Law Update" Get up to date on all the latest Municipal Court Practice cases, rules and statutes. Start the fall knowing that you have the knowledge to practice with confidence. Whether, judge, prosecutor or defense attorney, don't miss this valuable opportunity to stay at the very top of your game. Speakers include: Jeffrey Evan Gold, Esq., Chair, NJSBA Municipal Court Practice Section and Kenneth Vercammen, Past Municipal Court Practitioner of the Year This program has been approved for the following CLE credits: 1.2 New Jersey, 1.0 Pennsylvania, NY Pending Editorial Assistance provided by Diana Ramos. Ms. Ramos currently attends The New Jersey Institute of Technology and is participating in Kenneth Vercammen's Internship Program.

E348 August 31, 2010 1 Recent cases: Police can ask questions but cant lift up shirt

E348 August 31, 2010

1 Recent cases:

Police can ask questions but cant lift up shirt

State v. Privott _____ NJ ______ (2010) (A-7-09) 6/29/10

Based on the totality of the circumstances, there were specific and particularized reasons for the officer to conduct an investigatory stop and to frisk defendant Tysen R. Privott. However, the officer’s conduct in lifting defendant’s shirt exceeded the scope of a reasonable intrusion that is permitted as part of a Terry stop.

2. Recent Court Rule changes:

On July 23, 2010 the Supreme Court approved changes to two Appendices to the Rules of Court that are used in Special Civil Part cases, with those changes to be effective September 1, 2010. These are AMENDMENTS TO “TENANCY SUMMONS & RETURN OF SERVICE”

(RULES APPENDIX XI-B) AND “EXECUTION AGAINST GOODS

AND CHATTELS”

Evictions Summons must be revised

3. Fly the Flag on 9/11




,GET YOUR FLAG READY!

 Please join us in this FLY THE FLAG campaign and PLEASE forward this Email immediately to everyone in your address book asking them to also forward it. 


If you forward this email to least 11 people and each of those people do the same ... you get the idea.


 


THE PROGRAM:


 


On Saturday, September 11th, 2010, an American flag should be displayed outside every home, apartment, office, and store in the United States . Every individual should make it their duty to display an American flag on this seventh anniversary of one our country’s worst tragedies. We do this honor of those who lost their lives on

9/11, their families, friends and loved ones who continue to endure the pain, and those who today are fighting at home and abroad to preserve our cherished freedoms.


 


In the days, weeks and months following 9/11, our country was bathed in American flags as citizens mourned the incredible losses and stood shoulder-to-shoulder against terrorism. Sadly, those flags have all but disappeared. Our patriotism pulled us through some tough times and it shouldn’t take another attack to galvanize us in solidarity. Our American flag is the fabric of our country and together we can prevail over terrorism of all kinds.


 


Action Plan:







So, here's what we need you to do ....







(1) Forward this email to everyone you know (at least 11 people). Please don’t be the one to stop this chain. Take a moment to think back to how you felt on 

9/11 and let those sentiments guide you.







(2) Fly an American flag of any size on 9/11. Honestly, Americans should fly the flag year-round, but if you don't, then at least make it a priority on this day.

4. Next community events:

9/5/2010 Jimmy D 5k New Brunswick 9am free beer

9/5 Woodbridge 5k 9am

9/6/2010 So Plainfield 3m

9/6/10 Monday Pier House 5k 8:30

9/11 Cranbury Day 5k 9am

9/11 Brielle 10k 9am & beer garden

9/11 911 Memorial run Belmar

9/12/2010 Great Atlantic Seaside Triathlon 7am [paid]

November 6, 2010 U of Miami Football v Maryland at Miami Shores, Florida Sun Life Stadium [formerly Dolphin Stadium] We wished Brendan Vercammen well as he started his college life at University of Miami with academic scholarships in pre-med program.

NJ Laws Email Newsletter E344 Kenneth Vercammen, Attorney at Law July 21, 2010 In This Issue: 1. You are invited..... Friday, July 30, 2010 4-7 P

NJ Laws Email Newsletter E344

NJ Laws Email Newsletter E344
Kenneth Vercammen, Attorney at Law
July 21, 2010

In This Issue:

1. You are invited.....
Friday, July 30, 2010 4-7 PM

2. Supreme Court Affirms Constitutionality of Domestic Violence Act.

3. Police cannot search home without warrant.

4. Erase & Eliminate Criminal Arrests

Office Phone Number:


(732) 572-0500
Greetings Kenneth Vercammen,

1. You are invited.....
Friday, July 30, 2010 4-7 PM

Happy Hour, Open House, Client & Community Appreciation Social. Open to the public

Where: 2053 Woodbridge Avenue, Edison, NJ 08817

RSVP -Yes, We will be attending the party

Name: _____________________________



Email: _____________________________






2. Supreme Court Affirms Constitutionality of Domestic Violence Act. Crespo v. Crespo 201 NJ 207 (2010)



The Prevention of Domestic Violence Act is constitutional. Judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in the thorough opinion of Judge Fisher. Note - Judge Fisher wrote that discovery can be ordered by Trial Judge.









3. Police cannot search home without warrant. State v. Jefferson __ NJ Super. ____ (App. Div. 2010) A-1945-06T4 (05-21-10)



(1) In the absence of a warrant or a recognized exception from the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, the police could not lawfully enter defendant's home to conduct a Terry type detention and investigation of defendant.



(2) A police officer's wedging herself in the doorway to prevent defendant from closing his front door was entry into the home.



(3) The police failed to show either "hot pursuit" exigent circumstances or a community caretaking exception from the warrant requirement.



(4) Although the police entry was unlawful, defendant had no right to resist physically, and the search of his person incident to arrest was lawful.



(5) Consent to search defendant's apartment, given by defendant's wife, was tainted by the unconstitutional police conduct and was not shown to be voluntary.




4. Erase & Eliminate Criminal Arrests





Attention individuals with criminal arrested from their pasts. Legally erase criminal arrests. If someone has been arrested or even had a private criminal complaint signed against them in the Municipal Court, they have a criminal record, even if the charges were dismissed.



Under NJSA 2C:52-1 et seq. past criminal arrests and convictions can be expunged/ erased under certain instances. We always recommend individuals hire an attorney to obtain an expungement. The process for all Expungements are held in the Superior Court. It takes a minimum of three months for the court to grant the expungement. The requirements are very formal. There can be a waiting period between 6 months up to 10 years after the criminal cases is finished.



When retaining the attorney, obtain a "certified disposition" of the court's decision, from the Court itself. Court costs and Legal fees for expungement range from $1,500- $2,500.

Editorial Assistance provided by Nikhil Joshi, who attends The New Jersey Institute of Technology as a Graduate Student. Mr. Joshi obtained his Bachelor's Degree from the University of Washington and is currently participating in Kenneth Vercammen's Summer Internship Program.

NJ Laws Newsletter E347

Greetings! RECENT CASES: 1. Defendant Must Invoke Right to Remain Silent. Berghuis v. Thompkins ___ S. Ct. ____ (2010) June 01, 2010 No. 08-1470. Defendant Thompkins' silence during the interrogation did not invoke his right to remain silent. A suspect's Miranda right to counsel must be invoked "unambiguously." Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 459. If the accused makes an "ambiguous or equivocal" statement or no statement, the police are not required to end the interrogation, ibid., or ask questions to clarify the accused's intent, id., at 461-462. There is no principled reason to adopt different standards for determining when an accused has invoked the Miranda right to remain silent and the Miranda right to counsel at issue in Davis. Both protect the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination by requiring an interrogation to cease when either right is invoked. The unambiguous invocation requirement results in an objective inquiry that "avoid[s] difficulties of proof and ... provide[s] guidance to officers" on how to proceed in the face of ambiguity. Davis, supra, at 458-459. Had Thompkins said that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk, he would have invoked his right to end the questioning. He did neither. 2. Judge Can Suspend DL for Willful Traffic Offense. State v. Moran ______ NJ _______ (2010) (A-55-09) July 13, 2010. The license suspension provision of N.J.S.A.39:5-31, which is published in the Motor Vehicle Code of the New Jersey Statutes Annotated, is not "hidden," and defendant, like all motorists, is presumed to know the law. To ensure that license suspensions meted out pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:5-31 are imposed in a reasonably fair and uniform manner, so that similarly situated defendants are treated similarly, the Court today defines the term "willful violation" contained in N.J.S.A. 39:5-31 and enunciates sentencing standards to guide municipal court and Law Division judges. 3. TRANSFER OF ASSETS TO DISABLED CHILDREN By Thomas D. Begley, Jr., Esquire The current federal Medicaid statute has been in effect since 1989.[1] Generally, the statute provides that if an individual makes an uncompensated transfer of resources, the value of those resources are divided by the average monthly cost of a nursing home and the resulting quotient is the number of months during which the applicant will be ineligible for Medicaid benefits.[2] The statute further provides that "an individual shall not be ineligible for medical assistance by reason of [the transfer penalty rules] to the extent that...the assets were transferred to, or to a trust...established solely for the benefit of the individual's child [who is blind or disabled]."[3] For 20 years New Jersey interpreted that statute to mean that if a parent transferred assets directly to a disabled child, the transfer was exempt from the Medicaid transfer of asset penalty. In 2009, without any change in federal or state statute or regulations New Jersey changed its interpretation and said that if assets are transferred directly to a disabled child, a transfer of asset penalty would be imposed. The state's position was that only assets transferred to a trust solely for the benefit of the disabled child were exempt from the imposition of the transfer of asset penalty. In a recent case, two individual transferred assets directly to their disabled children. The State rejected the Medicaid applications and imposed transfer of asset penalties. The State asserted that only those transfers that were made to an irrevocable trust established for the sole benefit of a disabled child are eligible for an exemption from the transfer penalty rules. The plaintiffs filed suit in U.S. District Court to obtain a preliminary injunction enjoining the State of New Jersey from treating an outright transfer of assets to a blind or disabled child as a penalized transfer.[4] The District Court held that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim and that irreparable harm would result to the plaintiffs in that there is a serious risk of discharge from nursing facilities and an inability to recover improperly withheld benefits after trial on the merits. The court granted the preliminary injunction. In its analysis, the Court said that the relevant statute reads, "An individual shall not be ineligible for medical assistance by reason of paragraph (1) to the extent that...the assets were transferred to, or to a trust (including a trust described in subsection (d)(4) of this Section) established solely for the benefit of, the individual's child [who is blind or disabled]." The dispute between the parties concerned the phrase "solely for the benefit of." The Medicaid applicants argued that the phrase applies only to transfers made to a trust, while the State insisted that the phrase also applies to transfers made to the individual's child. The Court held that the State's position was untenable. "The phrase 'solely for the benefit of' follows the words 'a trust.' The clause is set off by commas from the rest of the passage, suggesting that the 'solely for the benefit' language is suppose to apply to the noun that immediately precedes it. Once that clause is set off from the rest of the sentence the passage reads, 'An individual shall not be ineligible for medical assistance by reason of paragraph (1) to the extent that...the assets were transferred to the individual's child.' The rating is further supported by the fact that the 'solely for the benefit of' language appears to be modifying the word 'established.' The word 'established' must in turn be referring exclusively to 'a trust.' In summary, it is syntactically implausible to maintain that the 'solely for the benefit' language applies to transfers directly to the applicant's child." Consequently, the statute has the effect of exempting any transfer of resources made directly to an applicant's blind or disabled child, regardless of whether the transferor makes special arrangements to ensure that the transfer is for the child's sole benefit. The Court also noted that the State Medicaid Manual specifically states that the transfer of asset penalty does not apply if "assets were...transferred to the individual's child, or to a trust...established solely for the benefit of the individual's child." The result of this case is that transfers of assets made directly to a disabled child are exempt from the Medicaid transfer of asset penalty just as they have been for the past 20 years. [1] 42 U.S.C. §1396p. [2] 42 U.S.C. §1396p(c)(1)(A) & (B). [3] 42 U.S.C. §1396p(c)(2)(B)(iii). [4] Sorber v. Velez, United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Civ. No. 09-cv-3799 (Oct. 23, 2009). Source: Begley, Begley & Bookbinder, P.C., 509 South Lenola, Building 7, Moorestown, NJ 08057 (800)-533-7227 The firm services southern and central New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania. Tom Begley Jr. is one of the speakers with Kenneth Vercammen at the NJ State Bar Association's Annual Nuts & Bolts of Elder Law and co-author with Kenneth Vercammen, and Martin Spigner of the 400 plus page book on Elder Law. Should you or a family member require assistance with respect to obtaining guardianship of an individual, please contact Begley, Begley & Bookbinder at (800)-533-7227.

4. Next Events: Belmar 1 Mile Ocean Swim [no running required] RACE DATE: Sat. August 21 2010 RACE TIME: 8:30 AM CHECK IN: 7:30 AM 10th Ave Beach on boardwalk ENTRY FEE: $22.00 $25 ONLINE AT: WWW.RACEFORUM.COM/TRIPLECROWN $25 Day of Race INFORMATION: (732) 319-0282 or:peter@newjerseyraceclub.com PRIZES: Race T-Shirt for every swimmer 1st Male & Female Overall 2nd Male & Female Overall 1st Male & Female over 35 1st Male & Female over 50 RIBBONS: 1st/2nd/3rd in age group Male & Female AGE GROUPS: 14&UNDER, 15-19, 20-24, 25-29 30-34, 35-39, 40-44 45-49, 50-54, 55-59 60-64, 65-69, 70+ WETSUIT WEARERS ARE ALLOWED AND ELIGIBLE FOR AWARDS In the event of rough ocean surf, Check NJRC website: newjerseyraceclub.com or call 732-319-0282. AUGUST 22, 2010 Wall Ocean Mile Swim, 1 mile ocean swim, 8am, Sea Girt NJ 908-596-0425 Editorial Assistance provided by J. Edmund Bryak. Mr. Bryak, is an Army Veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and a second year law student at Temple University. Mr. Bryak is currently a summer intern at Kenneth Vercammen and Associates, P.C.

NJ Laws Email NewsLetter E347

NJ Laws Newsletter E345

NJ Laws Email Newsletter E345
Kenneth Vercammen, Attorney at Law


July 30, 2010

NJLaws.Com LINKS
Main Website with 500 + articles and 1,000 + links


In This Issue:

1.REMINDER INVITE: Happy Hour, Open House, Client & Community Appreciation Social.

RECENT CASES:

2. PTI Dismissal Does Not Automatically Permit Civil Suit.


3. Assignment Judge Can Designate Other Municipal Court Judges to Sign a Warrant.

4. Next Legal Seminar.

5. Speaker's Bureau


Office Phone Number:

(732) 572-0500
Greetings Kenneth Vercammen,

1. Reminder Invite: Happy Hour, Open House, Client & Community Appreciation Social.

Open to the Public

Friday, July 30, 2010 4-7 PM

Kenneth Vercammen Law Office
2053 Woodbridge Avenue,
Edison, NJ 08817

732-572-0500

Thank you to the many persons I've had the pleasure of meeting at community activities, running races, Bar Association events and educational seminars over the past 25 years. You are invited to our 25th Anniversary Party.

RSVP

-Yes, We will be attending the party
Name:____________________________

Email:____________________________


Recent Cases:

2. PTI Dismissal Does Not Automatically Permit Civil Suit. Bustamante v. Borough of Paramus __ NJ Super. ____ (App. Div. 2010) A-1869-08T2 (05-07-10)

Plaintiff's complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C.A. §1983, and common law assault and battery, was dismissed pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e). Plaintiff had been indicted for resisting arrest and aggravated assault upon two of defendant police officers. After pleading guilty to resisting, plaintiff entered PTI and all charges against him were dismissed. Defendants argued that plaintiff's civil complaint was barred by the "unfavorable result" of his guilty plea and entry into PTI, relying upon the holding in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994), and Gilles v. Davis, 427 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2005). The trial judge agreed and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Appellate Division concluded that plaintiff's civil claims are barred by the disposition of his criminal charges only if a potential verdict in the civil case was inconsistent with the underlying criminal charges. Because plaintiff alleged that the officers continued to assault him after he was in custody, his claims were not barred as a matter of law, and should not have been dismissed pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e).



3. Assignment Judge Can Designate Other Municipal Court Judges to Sign a Warrant. State v. Broom-Smith 201 NJ 229 (2010)

The Court affirms the Appellate Division's determination that N.J.S.A. 2B:12-6 and Rule 1:12-3, which address the designation of judges, were broad enough to authorize the Berkeley Township municipal judge to issue the search warrant for defendant's house in Dover Township under the circumstances presented in this case.

4. Next Legal Seminar

Monday, August 9 - Municipal Court Practice CLE Seminar - 4:30 p.m.

Topic:

2009-2010 Significant Municipal Court Cases & Other Oldies, But Goodies

2.0 NJ CLE Credits

Speakers:

William G. Brigiani, Esq.

&

Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.

Place:

MCBA Office, 87 Bayard Street, New Brunswick.

Cost to attend is $20 for MCBA YLC Members, $25 for MCBA Members and $50 for all others. To RSVP online or print out a registration form click here - August 9th Mun Ct Seminar

5. Speakers Bureau


If you are interested in having an Attorney from Kenneth Vercammen & Associates speak at an event, please the Law Office at 732-572-0500 or kenvnjlaws@verizon.net

Editorial Assistance provided by Nikhil Joshi, who attends The New Jersey Institute of Technology as a Graduate Student. Mr. Joshi obtained his Bachelor's Degree from the University of Washington and is currently participating in Kenneth Vercammen's Summer Internship Program.

2010 Significant Municipal Court Cases August 9th

2010 Significant Municipal Court Cases

August 9th Monday,
4:30 p.m. MCBA Office - 87 Bayard Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901
Speakers

Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.

Kenneth Vercammen & Associates – Edison
William G. Brigiani, Esq. BRIGIANI & Cohen - East Brunswick 
William G. Brigiani, Esq. BRIGIANI & Cohen - East Brunswick
Some of the featured cases will include:
-State v. Handy (suppression granted where search based on dispatcher error)
-State v. Marquez (refusal does not stand if driver doesn’t understand English)
-State v. Moran (Judge can suspend Drivers License for Traffic Offense)
-State v. Tsetsekas (DWI dismissed where more than 360 days lapsed)
-State v. Ugrovics (State must prove 20-minute observation prior to breathtest by clear and convincing evidence, but arresting officer can testify to observation)
-State v. Ciancaglini (prior refusal counts for 3rd DWI)
The cost to attend is $20 for Young Lawyers, $25 for MCBA Members and $50 for all others. Light refreshments will be provided.
This program has been approved by the Board on Continuing Legal Education of the Supreme Court of New Jersey for 2.0 hours of total CLE credit.

To reserve online, click on the "Register for Event Now" button above. To reserve by mail, print out a meeting reservation form (see link below) and return with payment to: MCBA, 87 Bayard Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901.
August 9th Municipal Court Seminar Reservation Form (pdf)
Info call 732-828-3433, x.102
http://www.kennethvercammen.com/Significant.Municipal.Court.Cases.nj.html