Marrakush Soc. v. New Jersey State Police, No. 09CV2518 et al., 2009 WL 2366132 (D.N.J. July 30, 2009) (considering 19 consolidated cases raising arguments virtually identical to those here, all filed in the District Court for the District of New Jersey within approximately one year, and discussing similar influxes of cases in the Federal District Courts in Delaware and Florida); Richardson, 2008 WL 5225824, at *7 (dismissing claims as “patently frivolous and a waste of judicial resources”); Demmler, 2006 WL 640499, at *3 (characterizing such claims as “patently ludicrous” and noting that “these arguments have been repeatedly rejected by every court to consider the issue”); Carrington v. Federal Nat’l Mortg. Assoc., No. 05CV73429, 2005 WL 3216226, at *2-3 (E.D.Mich. Nov. 29, 2005) (<HOLDING>); Thiel v. First Fed. Savings & Loan Ass’n of
recognizing that decisions of lower federal courts interpreting federal law are not binding on state courts holding federal courts should apply the aedpas deferential standard of review even when the petitioners claims have been summarily denied by the state courts recognizing that decisions of other courts that have examined these questions are relevant recognizing that these theories have been universally rejected by numerous federal courts recognizing that notion exercise of any discretion renders search unreasonable per se has been rejected