More than anything else, the system has to know regular Joe out there is not some illiterate idiot who can be ignored. Just like professional standards and internal affairs, its far more important to report incidents than leaving them be, even if we know nothing good may out of it immediately.
Imagine every applicant out there sending registered mail with a personal statement including this directive attached and request to process their dang application within the timelines outlined.
100% agree with you. I wanted it so I could reference it if needed in my phone call. I’m aware it’ll make little to no difference but still wanted to have it.
That said, your link would indicate that the NJ Supreme Court directed the Administrative Director to release this document, thus giving it some weight.
Again, I agree with you, I’m just saying that in a just world the mention of a directive issued by the state Supreme Court should be enough to get them moving.
Again, that is nicely written, but it appears to me that Glenn A. Grant's role as Administrative Director of the New Jersey Courts is advisory. I see nothing to suggest that he has any specific authority to force a Superior Court judge to comply with these rules. I suppose that might be different if Chief Justice Stuart Rabner specifically backed him on a particular issue. AFAIK, Rabner has been silent on this issue, and I am skeptical that will change. As CJack wrote, the directive could certainly be used as evidence against the practices of a judge in a lawsuit, but I don't think that an applicant would enjoy much success in using it on his own to pressure a sitting judge to expedite his or her application. I'd be happy to be wrong on this.
New Jersey Court Rule 1:33 (scroll down to 1:33-3 )