I just read the Complaint in it's entirety. I am not an expert on law-speak, but it looks to me like page 26 is the bottom line. The previous 25 pages are just their side of the story.
So if I read this right Section A; is for the Fed court to over rule the new township ordinance. Section B; I have no idea what they are asking for? Section C; they want us to give them special treatment in their application. Sections D,E,F; Ireland's favorite thing $$$$$$$$$$$.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant the following relief:
(a) A declaration that Rockaway Township Ordinance No. 05-10, on its face, and as applied to the Church, violates (1) the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, (2) Plaintiffs’ right to free exercise of religion under the United States and New Jersey Constitutions, (3) Plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech and assembly under the United States and New Jersey Constitutions, (4) Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection of the laws under the United States and New Jersey Constitutions, (5) The Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act, (6) the New Jersey Stormwater Rules, and (7) the New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law, and therefore is void and invalid;
(b) A declaration that Defendants have engaged in a pattern of misconduct aimed at and causing discrimination against Christ Church in violation of (1) the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, (2) Plaintiffs’ right to free ex-ercise of religion under the United States and New Jersey Constitutions, (3) Plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech and assembly under the United States and New Jersey Constitutions, (4) Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection of the laws un-der the United States and New Jersey Constitutions, and (5) the New Jersey Mu-nicipal Land Use Law, and therefore is void and invalid;
(c) An injunction in favor of Christ Church requiring Defendants to cease their dis-criminatory actions in relation to Christ Church’s application before the Planning Board;
(d) An award of such compensatory damages against Defendants in favor of Plain-tiffs as the Court deems just for the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ right to the free ex-ercise of religion, the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ right to the equal protection of the laws, and expenses incurred by Plaintiffs and caused by Defendants’ actions;
(e) An award to Plaintiffs of costs and attorney fees arising out of this litigation, pur-suant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
(f) Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate.
All of us here have also read it, and none of us are lawyers either. But there is a consensus about it. We all think that it is too early to have initiated such a complaint. The reason is that we have not completed the process of evaluation yet. The PB has been diligent thus far in hearing their application, and it is an ongoing activity. Thus, it is too soon to initiate a lawsuit since the outcome of the PB process is not known.
Exactly my point Rat. You have to have a decision made against you before you can complain about the decision that was made. You cant sue based on what you perceive may happen sometime in the future. They saw the handwritting on the wall. Agilent didnt want to wait anymore and was putting the property back on the market, so its their last ditch attempt to make some $$$$$$. I dont even believe they have any legal standing to challenge the ordinance since they have not been legally damaged by it. We know its "constitutional" as it stands. It was reviewed in detail by some of the best legal minds in the country before being drafted. I just hope the PB shuts them down now pending the litigation outcome. Then we can talk about it again in about 10 years.
