RBC HISTORY


	RBC: THE HISTORY

Background to Short Chronology of Township of Waterford v. Renaissance Broadcasting Corporation, Docket ## L-1116-80, A-2428-80T1 and A-5114-92T1

A. The “New Jersey Water Supply Law, 1958”

The New Jersey Legislature, on May 12, 1958, enacted the “New Jersey Water Supply Law, 1958.” The law established the Wharton State Forest, originally known as the Wharton Tract, as a State water supply facility reservation; prohibited all courts from hearing and deciding municipal lawsuits that seek to apply municipal zoning ordinances to State water supply facilities; authorized the state to lease land within State water supply facilities for the construction and operation of commercial television broadcasting transmission systems and necessary antenna towers; designated such commercial television broadcasting transmission systems and necessary antenna towers as water supply facilities and; authorized the State to assign State water supply facility reservations to be held as State forest park reservations. The Legislature further determined that the “New Jersey Water Supply Law, 1958” was not to become operational unless and until the voters of the State passed the “New Jersey Water Bond Act, 1958” at a general election, which took place on November 4, 1958.

B. Renaissance Broadcasting Corporation

Renaissance Broadcasting Corporation (RBC), a majority African American owned corporation, was awarded a construction permit, on February 1, 1979, to construct and operate commercial television broadcasting station, WRBV-TV, channel 65, Vineland, New Jersey. The only feasible site for the Channel 65 antenna tower was within the Wharton State Forest and the Preservation Area of the New Jersey Pinelands on Block 266, Lot 3, Waterford Township, Camden County, New Jersey (Block 266, Lot 3).

C. Girard Bank/RBC loan and security agreement

Prior to closing on the April 10, 1980, $4,750,000 loan and security agreement between Girard Bank and RBC, the costs for equipment and construction had increased by more than 40%. Specific terms of the loan and security agreement prevented RBC from raising the required funds through the sale of stocks or loans from other willing financial institutions. Hence, RBC’s only option was to financially reorganize itself under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code after the completion of construction and the start of broadcast operations.

Short Chronology of Township of Waterford v. Renaissance Broadcasting Corporation, Docket ## L-1116-80, A-2428-80T1 and A-5114-92T1

August 21, 1980 – DEP prepares lease agreement that omits any reference to the “New Jersey Water Supply Law, 1958.”

September 3, 1980 – Township relies on the omissions to file complaint that seeks to enjoin RBC from beginning construction within the Wharton State Forest unless and until RBC complies with Township’s site plan ordinance.

January 9, 1981 – Law Division Judge H Hurlburt Tomlin relies on the omissions to incorrectly presume that he has the authority to entertain the complaint and to falsely state that DEP did not have statutory authority to execute the DEP/RBC lease.

January 13, 1981 – Judge Tomlin enters order that enjoins RBC from beginning construction unless and RBC complies with Township’s site plan ordinance. The order is stayed pending action on RBC’s anticipated appeal.

May 14, 1981 – DEP withholds the critical importance of the “New Jersey Water Supply Law, 1958” and reinforces Judge Tomlin’s completely false presumption.

June 23, 1982 – New Jersey Appellate Division relies on the omissions to affirm Judge Tomlin’s orders for the completely false presumptions stated in Judge Tomlin’s opinion.

June 23, 1982 to present – State and federal courts rely on the baseless June 23, 1982 Appellate Division judgment to steal and cover-up the theft of Channel 65 without due process.

April/2007 – RBC discovers the special reports and out-of-circulation statute book, which prove that the “New Jersey Water Supply Law, 1958”, regulates the Wharton State Forest The discovery proves that all of the prior judgments were entered by courts without power to consider the matters presented. Hence, all of the proceedings and judgments against RBC are legal nullities without legal force or effect.

June 7, 2007 – RBC files motion based on the recent discoveries, which prove 27 years of oppressive abuse of the judicial system to prevent RBC ownership and control of Channel 65.

July 2, 2007 – All of the responses to RBC’s June 7, 2007 motion rely, exclusively, on a judgment by a court without jurisdiction. Such a judgment has no legal force or effect. It is ironic that the illegal judgment in question arbitrarily accused RBC abusing the judicial process, because RBC refused to accept utterly false judgments by courts without the power to entertain any of the civil suits filed against RBC.