Assemblywoman Mila M. Jasey

511 Valley Street
Maplewood, New Jersey 07040

1-973-762-6118 (fax) 

or by email, using the contact form below.

  • Daniel Staats
    commented 2016-02-20 12:33:28 -0500
    As a Doctor of Physical Therapy with my own practice in Brick NJ, Bill A1839 is very important to me. Please vote " yes " to this bill! Part of this bill addresses Intramuscular Manual Therapy more commonly known as “Dry needling (DN).” This is a skilled intervention used by physical therapists that uses a thin filiform needle to penetrate the skin and stimulate underlying myofascial trigger points, muscular, and connective tissues for the management of neuromusculoskeletal pain and movement impairments. Dry needling is a western medicine approach and is NOT the practice of Acupuncture or Chinese Medicine. Physical therapists have been safely performing dry needling in the United States for the past 25+ years, according to the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy. Dry needling is confirmed to be within PT scope in 25 states and Washington DC. In most other states this topic is “open”, like new Jersey. The United States Military permits only licensed physicians AND physical therapists to perform dry needling on our military personnel. In NJ, the 87th Medical Group Physical Therapy Clinic at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst offers dry needling as one of their services to active duty service members.

    A study published in 2010 in the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine by an MD and a PhD concluded that “Its (dry needling) effectiveness has been confirmed in numerous studies and 2 comprehensive systematic reviews. Dry needling can be used as part of complex treatment for chronic musculoskeletal pain…”

    Dry needling is only part of a comprehensive physical therapy program which includes neuromuscular, re-education, manual therapy, therapeutic exercises, postural correction, movement re-education, etc.

    Our state needs to be modernized regarding this topic and keep pace with the rest of the country and the world.

    The great people of New Jersey deserve to have access to this intervention performed by Doctor’s of Physical Therapy.

    Please Vote yes to Bill A1839!

    Thank you for your support
  • Edward Modica
    commented 2016-02-12 12:26:07 -0500
    My name is Ed Modica. I am a retired fifth grade teacher from Totowa, New Jersey. I spent my thirty-seven year teaching career in Allendale, New Jersey, and I can honestly say that I thoroughly enjoyed my tenure as a teacher.

    I would like to take this opportunity to explain the nature of my email. On January 17, 2014, Madison Holleran, a former student of mine, died of suicide. Madison was bright, beautiful, and an extremely talented athlete. Madison was a freshman, enrolled at the University of Pennsylvania. Her death left a tremendous void in the hearts of all who were fortunate enough to have known her.

    Shortly after Madison’s passing, I began to research suicide on college campuses. Needless to say, I was shocked to learn that the numbers, in my humble opinion, had almost reached epidemic proportions. Unfortunately, it was too late for Madison, but I was determined to try and help future potential suicide victims in Madison’s honor. I then drafted two pieces of legislation in Madison’s name, and started a petition to gain support for said legislation. To date, 13,869 people have signed the petition, and it continues to draw support daily.

    Jim and Stacy Holleran, although completely devastated by the loss of their precious daughter, continue to speak openly about Madison’s suicide, in an effort to help others avoid the same fate. The parenting skills of the Hollerans are worthy of emulation by their peers.

    I enlisted the services of a very dear friend of mine, Pamela Sinforosa Philipp, who arranged for a meeting with representatives of the 40th Legislative District, where Madison was a resident. Pam collected the information I had gathered, and she forwarded all of the materials to the offices of Senator Kevin O’Toole and Assemblyman Scott Rumana, prior to our meeting on December 3, 2014. When we arrived the representatives of the district had already seen the merit of the proposed legislation.

    Pam and I have worked diligently and tirelessly to bring this vital legislation to fruition. We have received a great deal of support from many individuals in New Jersey, and also from concerned people from across the United States. As you are aware, the Senate of the Higher Education Committee has already voted unanimously in favor of The Madison Hollleran Acts, as they are now called. That action transpired this past June. We are very concerned that the Assembly of the Higher Education Committee has yet to act.

    Please encourage your colleagues to vote now on this vital legislation. Thank you very much for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

    If you have any questions and/or comments please feel free to contact Pam Philipp at 862-571-1168, or Ed Modica at 973-572-7196.

    by le cabri on
  • David Alston
    commented 2016-01-06 18:44:03 -0500
    Dear Assemblywoman: I am David Alston, a senior at Drew University. The Tri-City Branch of the NAACP suggested that I contact you along with John McKeon concerning my case that actually warrants national media attention, David V. Alston v. Kean University, et. al.

    My case concerns how our very own Supreme Court of the United States has committed illegal discrimination against me, empirically based on race and gender, in the conscious deprivation of three civil liberties on behalf of Kean University. The Supreme Court refuses to adhere to their very own Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), Relief from Void Judgments in total disregard of federal common law and especially United Student Aid Funds v. Espinosa (2008).

    I would like to ask whether there is any legislation that you can devise that will be applicable whenever the Supreme Court of the United States refuses to adhere to its only mandate under Title 28, which is to grant a party relief from a judgment rendered under Rule 12(b)(1) with a total want of jurisdiction that is mandatory and not discretionary, after the judgment has been collaterally attacked as void under Rule 60(b)(4) and both the trial and appellate courts refuse to vacate and remand?

    Kean University violated my procedural due process on May 28, 2012 by wrongfully suspending me for two years based on 10 pages of defamation over Sarah Blood, a white female. I filed suit against Kean under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, which generated a Rule 12(b)(1) defense for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction due to 11th Amendment sovereign immunity. And so, because all of the facts would declare me the winner in this case if I refiled under the 14th Amendment under which public school students are an affirmed protected property interest, the District Court, on behalf of Kean, dismissed me with prejudice with a total want of jurisdiction to defeat this constitutional justice under the 14th Amendment.

    I eventually motioned for relief under Rule 60(b)(4) and the motion was denied without any determination of jurisdiction, as is required whenever a motion under Rule 60(b)(4) is ever denied. I appealed to the 3rd Circuit and the Court affirmed, seeing to it in the Opinion never to indicate the number 12 followed by paragraph (b), subsection (1) as the federal rule under which I was dismissed with prejudice. I am persecuted and lied on by the 3rd Circuit in the Opinion when there is no discretion for the District Court or the Appellate Court to refuse to vacate a void judgment, specifically a dismissal with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(1) when the Court explicitly determines a total want of jurisdiction.

    I petitioned the Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari under Case No. 15-6158 and they copped out in an unconstitutional denial of my petition in the face of United Student Aid Funds v. Espinosa (2008) where Justice Thomas gave the opinion and laid out the qualifications for relief under Rule 60(b)(4) that the Court knew that I met in flying colors. They had no discretion to vote on whether or not they were going to perform the normal standard of review under Rule 60

    (b)(4) if they were going to go as far as to refuse to grant relief that is mandatory and not discretionary. I filed a petition for a rehearing and informed the Court that I have contacted Congress and have filed a racial discrimination complaint against them with the NAACP.

    Rather, there should have been an Opinion of dissent. But then all of the Circuits and the world would have seen illegal discrimination and the deprivation of civil liberties being committed by the Supreme Court of the United States. Such an Opinion would adversely affect common law. The world would see the breaching of three constitutional provisions: The 14th Ament; Rule 12(b)(1); and Rule 60(b)(4).

    I declared that the Supreme Court copped out because, for purposes of Rule 60(b)(4), under which the District Court’s judgment was being attacked as void, the Supreme Court should never have denied my petition if they were going to go so far as to refuse to grant my mandatory relief
  • Claire Roberts
    commented 2015-10-24 10:24:54 -0400
    I am in favor of NJ passing the Companion Animal Protection Act or similar legislation statewide.

    Please let me know if Assemblywoman Jasey would actively work towards introducing and getting this legislation passed in the Assembly.

    Thank you.
  • Harold Bobrow
    commented 2015-10-09 09:04:38 -0400
    Put up signs, please contact me