Frank Bright v. New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Housing Inspection

Is Due Process violated when the State (Bureau of Housing Inspection) fails to provide timely discovery, including exculpatory evidence due to their dislike of Petitioner?

Should the Bureau of Housing Inspection follow its own regulations in not inspecting a property - such as: while there is an appeal pending?

Should the Bureau of Housing Inspection follow its own regulations by producing as witnesses inspectors who actually inspected the property and found the violations?

Have State administrative agencies been given excessive leeway and deference by the Appellate Courts? Should discretion be shifted from state administrative agencies back to the judiciary?

Should the Judiciary give inspectors the benefit of the doubt despite withholding multiple items of exculpatory evidence.

Can the State have such a sweeping power in inspections knowing that power can be (and was in this case) abused in violation of the 5th Amendment, Search and Seizure, Illegal Takings, and the above sweeping leverage to chill 1st Amendment, over-tax, waste resources, encourage corruption, and more?

Should the State be held to their policies, such as: no trespassing, accurate paper keeping of appeals, presenting all evidence, testifying truthfully under oath, using pictures at all times (rather than cherry pick when to use pictures while prosecuting), and acting without prejudice?