Whether the denial of a motion to intervene violated the petitioner's due process rights

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Supreme Court of New Jersey denied the Petition for Certification and dismissed the Appeal as of right from a decision of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, which had affirmed the decision of the Superior Court of New Jersey, denying Petitioner’s motion to intervene in a case where the Petitioner was not a party, but Petitioner was judicially criticized by the judge sitting on the case in a decision which rose to a level of public reprimand and Petitioner was referred to Office of Attorney Ethics for investigation by the Appellate Division. All of those activities were carried out in the absence of the participation of the Petitioner. Three questions are presented: ‘ 1. Whether the New Jersey Judiciary’s ; . denial of the motion to intervene by the Petitioner in the an action on the basis that Petitioner does not have “an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the transaction,” which directly conflicts with its prior holdings that intervention can be granted in an action when the applicant’s interest could be adversely affected by the outcome of the litigation, violated Petitioner’s constitutionally protected due process right when his good name, professional ' reputation, honor, or integrity was adversely affected by the outcome of the litigation as a non-party. 2. Whether New Jersey Judiciary’s ' treatment of its officers of court violated the equal protection clause of the constitution when minority attorneys are presumed dishonest and no due process is iu needed to. protect them, while attorneys deeply connécted with the judiciary systems can walk away with no punishment for committing fraud upon the court, which had caused the minority attorney to suffer harms in relating to his good name, professional reputation, honor, or integrity in his legal profession. 3. Whether New Jersey Judiciary’s failure to implement pertinent due process procedures required by the federal laws to safe guard the officers of the court, such as, the Petitioner or attorneys similarly situated from being maliciously prosecuted by fraud upon the court where the Petitioner or attorneys similarly situated are not a party to the action and are not given opportunity to defend themselves created a hostile work environment for its officers of the court. |