We will be providing a additional details about the protest that was held in Trenton New Jersey, and attended by families from all over New Jersey.
It is quite telling that parents in New Jersey have resorted to purchasing billboards to protest the foul treatment they and their children have apparently endured in New Jersey Family Courts.
Below we have shared the video from PIX 11 NEWS as the news team from PIX 11 was among numerous media outlets that have begun to cover the plight of innocent families and parents in New Jersey’s broken court system.
We applaud PIX 11 for covering this story.
We hope other parents will reach out to donate and participate with the www.FCLU.org
VIDEO FROM PIX 11 NEWS:
The main crux of this video is that several parents have personally discovered that in some cases they have no means to enforce their constitutional rights. Parents spoke to the media about instances where the court has taken their property, or sold it without hearings. Other parents were denied access to their children without the NJ court rule mandated PLENARY HEARING… some without any hearings at all.
The stories are heartbreaking, but the resilience of the Parents who participated in the planning of the FCLU rally against Family Court dysfunction were inspiring.
PARENTS IN NEW JERSEY UNITE
FOR A COMMON CAUSE:
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE
A group of courageous fathers and mothers (unified parents) in New Jersey has begun an organized effort to fight for civil rights in family court.
In September the Group is sponsoring Classified ads on NJ.Com in addition to its PURCHASE OF A BILLBOARD IN TRENTON NEW JERSEY which will be erected in the second week of September and followed by an event open to local journalist.
The group’s name is is Family Civil Rights Union or FCLU (http://www.FCLU.org)
The group is actively seeking more members and donations to the cause.
DONATE TO THE FCLU VIA THIS LINK:
CONTACT THE FCLU AT THIS PHONE NUMBER:
EMAIL THE FCLU AT:
ALL NEW ARTICLES APPEAR BELOW
THIS PERMANENT POST
(Visit Archives for Monthly viewing)
ALL NEW ARTICLES APPEAR BELOW THIS PERMANENT POST
Introduction to Story:
- I was kidnapped by Mercer County Sheriff’s Office on 8/19/2013.
- The Sheriff’s Office purported my kidnapping to be an “arrest” BUT:
- There was No Warrant, No Probable Cause, No Criminal Charges
- When I requested Records and an explanation of my arrest, the Sheriff’s Office Denied they had arrested me.
- Ultimately I spent 4 Months in Jail or Hospital and never had a trial
- When I was released the Sheriff’s Office Sent a Response to an O.P.R.A. request and THEY SAY HAVE NO RECORD OF MY “ARREST”… OF COURSE NOT, BECAUSE IT WAS A KIDNAPPING.
- Ironically Below are links to the Official response from Mercer County’s lawyers stating that they have NO ARREST RECORD. The next link is MY COPY OF A MERCER COUNTY ARREST RECORD FOR 8/19/2013!
- DOCUMENT & PROOF – DENIAL OF “ARREST: OPRA Response 6/12/2014
- DOCUMENT & PROOF – ARREST RECORD – THE DAY I WAS FAKE ARRESTED
Below I have included the back story including a story of apparent retaliation by a apparently vindictive Family Court Judge (Judge Catherine Fitzpatrick) and all the the facts supporting this claim.
BELOW THE LINKS TO SOURCE DOCUMENTS ARE INCLUDED AND LINKS TO DOCUMENTS THAT SHOW MERCER COUNTY IS COVERING UP AND REFUSING TO RESPOND TO O.P.R.A. REQUESTS.
This post has been published simply to provide proofs of my story to inform the public about the Corruption in Mercer County New Jersey and the ongoing cover-up related to my kidnapping by Mercer County Sheriff’s Officers.
Quick Summary – The Punchline:
I was arrested 8/18/2013 on a lawfully issued warrant.
The charges for the 8/18/2013 arrest were apparently fabricated by my divorce judge Catherine M. Fitzpatrick, THESE ORIGINAL CHARGES WERE DISMISSED 8 MONTHS LATER (SEE DISMISSAL BELOW).
(The case was, oddly, dismissed on Prosecutor’s ex-parte motion, they never notified me – the opposing counsel – of the motion as required by law. If they had I’d have countered insisting a trial be heard due to the underlying fraudulent charges)
I posted bail 8/18/2013 and was released from jail
I went to my family court hearing on 8/19/2013 – somehow I was PURPORTEDLY placed under arrest again… EXCEPT THERE WAS:
- NO WARRANT;
- NO PROBABLE CAUSE;
- NO CHARGES WERE EVER FILED;
- NO LEGAL BASIS JUSTIFY THIS 8/19/2013 “PURPORTED ARREST”.
PROOF OF PURPORTED ARREST:
Cover-up Begins: SHERIFF’S OFFICE LATER DENIES ANY PURPORTED ARREST 8/19/2013.
NOW SEE THE LETTER FROM SHERIFF’S OFFICE WHICH SHOCKINGLY STATES THERE IS “NO ARREST RECORD”
SEE THE ACTUAL LETTER (AN O.P.R.A. RESPONSE) VIA THE LINK BELOW:
SO THEN ABSENT AN ARREST RECORD:
- THIS WAS NOTHING LESS THAN A KIDNAPPING UNDER FALSE PRETENSES
- WHAT I’VE JUST DESCRIBED IS A CRIME
There is a long back-story about a family court Judge Catherine Fitzpatrick, who tried to violate my constitutional rights and retaliate against me for exposing her for unlawful acts in my divorce…. For now I’ll spare you those details.
What is important to tell you and show you is the fact that Judge Catherine Fitzpatrick apparently fabricated criminal charges against me on 8/14/2013. These Charges were later Dismissed pre-trial for reasons never fully explained by the Mercer County Prosecutor Joseph Bocchini.
SO WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY – HERE IS THE SET-UP:
Judge Catherine Fitzpatrick made allegations / criminal complaint against me on 8/14/2013.
She sat on the bench in my divorce and another matter on 8/16/2013 without me present, but with my court appointed lawyer Stuart Weiner present for my divorce trial. Judge Fitzpatrick never disclosed her conflict of interest (the criminal complaint against me) then she apparently retaliated against me and attempted to issue an order for default in my divorce on 8/16/2013.
- FYI: THIS ORDER FOR DEFAULT WAS NEVER ENFORCED, THE JUDGE WAS RECUSED AND THE ORDER WAS TREATED AS VOID BY JUDGE TOMASELLO.
She ordered I appear in court on 8/19/2013 for a default hearing. This was all very illegal, because there was reason given for the default hearing.
8/18/2013 I was arrested at my home on what appeared to be a lawfully issued warrant for albeit a FRAUDULENT CRIMINAL COMPLAINT BY JUDGE CATHERINE M. FITZPATRICK. The warrant was issued by a friend and colleague of Judge Fitzpatrick, Judge Pedro Jimenez.
The warrant was very odd. My bail was set 150% higher than the state maximum for a third degree terroristic threat.
My bail was set all cash for a third degree charge, even though it is highly unusual and against state practice to have an “ALL CASH BAIL” for a third degree charge.
RegardlesS I POSTED BAIL 8/18/2013
RELEASED FROM JAIL AFTER LAWFULLY POSTING BAIL ON 8/18/2013.
…. LITTLE DID I REALIZE I WOULD BE KIDNAPPED THE NEXT DAY!!!
I ARRIVED AT THE FAMILY COURT ON 8/19/2013 WITH MY FRIEND
IMMEDIATELY WE REALIZED SOMETHING WAS STRANGE WHEN MY RELATIVES AND FRIENDS ON THE 4TH FLOOR TOLD US:
My wife and her lawyer were not even in court! I found out later this was because Judge Fitzpatrick’s chambers told THEM (only) not to appear on 8/19/2013. The judge unethically had ex-parte communications (one-party discussions about the case).
WHEN I ARREIVED AT THE COURT ON 8/19/2013:
I was told I was under arrest by sheriff’s officers.
I ASKED THEM WHY I WAS UNDER ARREST – THEY SAID:
“WE’LL TELL YOU LATER”…. THEY NEVER DID.
… EVER SINCE MERCER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE (SHERIFF JACK KEMLER, UNDER-SHERIFF PEDRO MEDINA, AND THEIR MERCER COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNSEL HAVE ATTEMPTED TO OBSTRUCT MY ATTEMPTS TO GET AN EXPLANTION – SEE DOCUMENTS BELOW.
After I was kidnapped by Sheriff’s Officers 8/19/2013. I was handcuffed processed and then sent across town to the criminal courthouse for a first appearance for the 8/18/2013 criminal charges…. this was unlawful as well… because the 8/18/2013 warrant stated that my first appearance was scheduled for 8/20/2013 NOT 8/19/2013… In otherwords I had no legal notice for this “first appearance” / arraignment hearing and no opportunity to have a lawyer
JUDGE PEDRO JIMENEZ – a friend of Judge Fitzpatrick’s presided over my arraignment and immediately amended my arrest warrant without explaining why he was amending it. He presided over the case as a conflicted Judge… 3 months later he was recused from the case after I wrote a letter to the Administrative director of the courts and the Federal Civil Rights Office (DOJ).
During the first appearance hearing Judge Jimenez acted unlawfully and amended my warrant to require me to be sent back to jail, despite the fact the prosecutors office wasn’t present in court. Judge Jimenez acted as the prosecutor and acted without any new evidence being put before the court.
Note: I had posted bail lawfully on 8/18/2013… so there was no justification for amending my bail on 8/19/2013, since I hadn’t violated my bail conditions or committed any new crime!!! Before I could even speak my warrant was “amended” sua sponte on the courts own motion, without any justification given until after I objected. Even then the justification for amending my bail was simply my behavior in court! THAT MAKES NO SENSE… BECAUSE THE AMENDMENT WAS MADE BEFORE I COULD ADDRESS THE COURT – MY BEHAVIOR COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE REASON FOR AMENDING THE BAIL CONDITIONS.
SEE TRANSCRIPTS HERE:
JUDGE JIMENEZ VIOLATED HIS OATH AND APPEARS TO HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME BY DENYING ME MY LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE-PROCESS UNDER THE LAW
THE FULL STORY & THE EVIDENCE
CLICK THE UNDERLINED DOCUMENTS IN THIS SECTION
TO SEE SOURCE DOCUMENTS
(I am only disclosing what I’ve shared with Mercer County I have more evidence than this).
This warrant stated that my first appearance in CRIMINAL COURT would be 8/20/2013… As you’ll see I never had an 8/20/2013 first appearance, instead I was kidnapped by Sheriff’s Officers and denied access to the phone or my lawyer before I was put in front of a criminal court judge on 8/19/2013, without legal notice, or opportunity to have my lawyer present… THIS WAS ILLEGAL.
I lawfully posted a $50,000 ALL CASH bail on 8/18/2013.
Here is my Bail Recognizance Receipt – Showing I lawfully posted bail on 8/18/2013. See that evidence here:
8/19/2013 I was ordered to appear in court before Judge Catherine Fitzpatrick. See that court order below.
- NOTE: To be clear the appearance before Judge Fitzpatrick was for a Ridiculous Domestic Violence charge by my wife, IT WAS IN NO WAY RELATED TO THE CRIMINAL CHARGES OR MY ARREST ON 8/18/2013.
- NOTE: The Domestic Violence case was also a creation of Judge Fitzpatrick and her cronies at court. The case was based on a ridiculous charge by my Wife Margaret Wallace who claimed she was put in fear for her wellbeing because she received that said “Yay I got my Tral Adjourned”. My wife ginned up the charge and it was always ridiculous. Judge Fitzpatrick let the DV charges linger for over 245 days without giving me a hearing. The copies of the text message my wife used for this complaint were covered in white-out – she even whited out the message that said “Happy Birthday Truly” on 12/1/2012… 4 days later my wife claimed i was a domestic violence batterer… I realize now what an idiot I was for even trying to be nice to my wife.
- NOTE: The Domestic Violence Charges against me were later dismissed by a different trial judge who said “THIS RESTRAINING ORDER SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ISSUED”.
Proof I was arrested on 8/19/2013 – See the prisoner receipt that indicates I was arrested around 1:35pm on 8/19/2013. See Prisoner Receipt here:
DOCUMENT: Prisoner Receipts and Bail Recognizance – 8/19/2013
SO CLEARLY I WAS “ARRESTED” RIGHT???
WELL NOT ACCORDING TO THE MERCER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE.
SEE THE COUNTY’S OFFICIAL RESPONSE – NO RECORD OF MY ARREST:
At this point Mercer County Sheriff’s Office is stuck in a legal quagmire that they created themselves by unlawfully arresting me without a warrant, probable cause, or any criminal charges.
In N.J. a suspect has to be charged and a probable cause determination must be made within 48 hours of an arrest… Mercer County NEVER CHARGED ME WITH ANYTHING… SO THEY ARE NOW TRYING TO PRETEND THEY NEVER ARRESTED ME ON 8/19/2013
EVIDENCE THE CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST ME WERE FRAUDULENT
CASE DISMISSED (SEE LINK BELOW)
After the second unlawful arrest Judge Pedro Jimenez ignored my requests that he explain why I was being arraigned without the prosecutor, my attorney, or legal notice of the 1st appearance… Instead he sent me to Jail and to a Mental Hospital without making any findings supporting the necessity of either. I stayed in Jail OR Hospital for 4 months.
I WAS FOUND TO BE LEGALLY COMPETENT, BUT I NEVER HAD A TRIAL.
I DID EVERYTHING A CONVICT DOES EXCEPT HAVE A TRIAL OR FACE MY ACCUSER.
NAMES OF MERCER COUNTY OFFICIALS
WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE ONGOING COVER-UP:
PEOPLE APPEAR TO BE TRYING TO COVER UP THE FACT THAT THEY ARRESTED ME AND HELD ME CAPTIVE FOR HOURS WITHOUT A PHONE CALL.
Here is a list of Mercer County Officials & Judiciary Officials who have apparently ignored my over 25 emails, internal affaires complaints, and criminal complaints related to my own kidnapping:
(The officials listed below have knowledge of my kidnapping and/or received letters and emails and confirmed receipt of the same):
- Judge Catherine M. Fitzpatrick (Presiding Judge Family Part, who apparently fabricated a criminal complaint against me that was later dismissed. Fitzpatrick also attempted to strip me of my right to represent myself -she did this illegally too and violated court rule 5:3-3 on 6/4/2013 see here:
About (some) Of Judge Fitzpatricks apparent Misconduct:
Reversal of the above referenced order(after I reported Judge Fitzpatrick to appropriate authorities) – SEE BELOW:
- Judge Mary C. Jacobson (Assignment Judge Mercer County).
ABOUT JUDGE JACOBSON’S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT:
- (Marry C. Jacobson actually was involved in the criminal investigation for the charges against me in State v. Syphrett, but she continued to act as a Judge handling the case despite this conflict of interest, she continued to consult on my case despite being conflicted through April of 2014)
- See Investigation Report Listing
About Judge Mary C. Jacobson
ACTED AS BOTH JUDGE & WITNESS IN MY CASE!!
- DOCUMENT: SHERIFF’S INVESTIGATIVE REPORT – Redacted (2013-08-18)
- MARY C. JACOBSON UNETHICALLY CONTINUED TO ACT AS A JUDGE IN LATER COURT ORDERS – SHE EVEN CONSULTED ON THE CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST ME. SEE COURT ORDERS HERE:
- JUDGE JACOBSON SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HERSELF!!!
- MARY JACOBSON NEVER ONCE ADMITTED SHE HAD A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AFTER 8/15/2013, SHE CONTINUED TO HANDLE MY CASES AND CONSULT WHILE OBSCURING THIS INFORMATION FROM ALL PARTIES.
- JUDGE JACOBSON ACTED AS JUDGE AND WITNESS IN MY CASE!!!
- Judge Pedro Jimenez (Superior Court Judge who held a 1st Appearance without legal notice and violated my constitutional rights)
ABOUT JUDGE JIMENEZ’S ALLEGED OUTRAGEOUS MISCONDUCT:
- In Judge Pedro Jimenez fraudulently issues a court order stating I was represented by a public Defender. I wasn’t. See the 8/19/2013 Transcripts & the 8/20/2013 court order below:
- DOCUMENT: TRANSCRIPT OF STATE V. SYPHRETT – THE ILLEGAL FIRST APPEARANCE (8/19/2013) – MY RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED, NO MIRANDA, NO PROSECUTOR, NO REASONS FOR HIGH BAIL
- THIS COURT ORDER CONTAINS FALSE INFORMATION – NO PUBLIC DEFENDER HAD BEEN ASSIGNED TO MY CASE IN
- JUDGE PEDRO JIMENEZ APPEARS TO HAVE COMMITTED FRAUD – HIS ORDER STATES I HAD A PUBLIC DEFENDER, BUT RECORDS SHOW THAT I NEVER DID (In 2013).
- THE TRANSCRIPTS SHOW I REFUSED A PUBLIC DEFENDER!
- Det. Paul Toth (Sheriff’s Office)
- Sheriff Officer who witnessed my arrest & a cop who was found to have violated an inmates rights in 2012 in State v. Funchess (N.J. Appellate Court).
THE REST OF THE SUPPORTING CAST OF DISHONEST/ INCOMPETENT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES / OFFICIALS:
- Chief Justice Stuart Rabner (Received Emails & Letters)
- Judge Glenn Grant, Acting Director of Courts (Received Emails & Letters)
- Judge Ronald E. Bookbinder (Assignment Judge Burlington)
- SEE THE OTHER BLOG POSTS ABOUT JUDGE BOOKBINDER’S UNLAWFUL COURT ORDERS AND COMPLICITY IN COVERING UP THE KIDNAPPING – HE EVEN CONSULTED WITNESSES EX-PARTE ABOUT THE CRIMINAL CASE BEFORE IT WAS DISMISSED.
- JUDGE BOOKBINDER ACTUALLY ISSUED A COURT ORDER BANNING ME FROM ATTENDING MY OWN DIVORCE TRIAL!!!SEE THOSE COURT ORDERS HERE: DOCUMENT: BOOKBINDER – UNLAWFUL COURT ORDERS
I CAN’T RESPECT A JUDGE LIKE BOOKBINDER WHO BREAKS THE LAW AND VIOLATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS LIKE HAINES V. KERNER (he claimed he wasn’t familiar with it)!
- David Merritt, Esq. (Law Clerk to Judge Bookbinder)
- David Merritt was initially very courteous when handling my phone calls and he seemed to empathize with the unfair treatment that I was receiving from Judge Bookbinder, which included COURT ORDERS THAT PROHIBITED ME FROM APPEARING IN COURT FOR MY OWN TRIAL DATES (IN MY DIVORCE AN CHILD CUSTODY ACTINS)… but after I posted this blog and reported Judge Bookbinder to the Supreme Court Judicial Conduct Committee, David told me he was instructed to cease taking my phone calls per court order.
- 7/11/2014 I recorded a call with David, I reminded David that the court order he was citing was NULL & VOID because it violated my due-process rights (my right to be present at my own trial!)… David is a lawyer and should be fully aware that Judge Bookbinder issued a unlawful court order, and that David was effectively participating in a criminal act by enforcing a VOID COURT ORDER. Instead of being ethical and reporting the court’s abuses and damages to myself and my children, David instead decided to knowingly enforce a void court order and ignore the illegal activity that he was enabling.
- David seems like a nice guy, but at the end of the day he decided to participate in misconduct rather than stand up for justice. It seems that the Judges likely bullied him into abiding their misconduct
- Sheriff Jack Kemler (Mercer County)
- Brian Hughes (Mercer County Chief Executive)
- Arthur Sypek (Mercer County Office of Counsel)
- Kristina Chubenko (Mercer County Office of Counsel)
- Anita Ricketts (Mercer County Office of Counsel)
- Paul Adezio (Mercer County Office of Counsel)
- Joseph Bocchini (Prosecutor)
- Michael Nardelli (Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office)
- Warden Charles Ellis
- Under-sheriff Pedro Medina
- Det. Paul Toth (Mercer County Sheriff’s)
- Jennifer Weisberg-Millner – (My wife’s Divorce Lawer. She also violated a court order and distributed my money from her escrow account in violation of a court order, I alleged that this was theft by deceiption, because she did not initially provide me with statements for the distributions of my money, which were larger than what was ordered by the court – I reported this to the Lawrenceville Police, who did nothing).
- PROOF JENNIFER MILLNER DISTRIBUTED MORE MONEY THAN SHE WAS ALLOWED TO BY LAW:
- Sharyn Sherman (Burlington County Court)
- Laura Oliver, Esq (Law Clerk to Judge Catherine Fitzpatrick) – Laura helped write void court orders / was complicit with the act on 8/16/2013 when Judge Fitzpatrick should have been recused.
- Judge John Call (Presiding Judge of Burlington Count Family Part) – He has allowed Judge Tomasello to continue a pattern of retaliation against me for speaking out and reporting judicial Misconduct.
- John Munoz, Esq (Law Clerk to Judge Covert) – NICE KID THOUGH SERIOUSLY.
- John was extremely professional during phone calls so I feel bad putting him on the Wall of Shame, because he at least said he understood my frustration and that I was simply fighting to enforce my rights.
- Still John watched as my criminal case was dismissed in a fashion that should have raised red flags to any competent lawyer interested in Justice.
- Again rather than report the Judges or attempt to help me John instead decided that his career aspirations are more important than my rights or my children’s rights, etc.
John is on this list not because he is a bad guy, but because if I were him I would be ashamed…
PLEASE SHARE THIS STORY WITH YOUR FRIENDS, THE MEDIA, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THE PUBLIC ATTENTION TO MY KIDNAPPING WILL BE THE ONLY WAY THAT I WILL EVER GET TRUE JUSTICE….
WE CAN NOT ALLOW OUR GOVERNMENT TO BELIEVE THEY CAN KIDNAP US WITHOUT ANY CONSEQUENCES!
MY CURRENT POSITION ON THE MATTER:
ALL NEW ARTICLES APPEAR BELOW THIS PERMANENT POST
Public Domain: http://publicdomainarchive.com
“Deadbeat Parent”, definition: “Deadbeat parent is a pejorative term referring to parents of any gender who do not fulfill their parental responsibilities…” (Wikipedia)
The court ordered custody and parenting time issued by Judge Patrick Robben (Hennepin County, Minn.) has removed a loving, stay-at-home from the lives of the children, and has legally made me a “deadbeat parent”. The court order does not even meet the bare minimum parenting time outlined by state law, nor does it serve the best interest of the children, rather it is an example of how judicial abuses of power can destroy families, and encourage parental alienation.
I have been forcibly separated from my children by court order, and further separated by an abusive parent engaging in alienation (who has been enabled by the court). It is not my choice to be separated from my children.
The inspiration from this article came from a friend, who…
View original post 1,310 more words
A law firm that may be able to help the hopeless
Passaic County Child Support Lawyers Win Retroactive Emancipation Motion
The firm was hired by a client in 2015 to file for retroactive emancipation way back to 2010. We filed an aggressive motion and we were able to resolve the case so that the child was emancipated back to the year we requested. In addition, the client’s arrears were vacated the probation closed the account. We have an office in Clifton that is easy to reach from anywhere in Passiac County, so if you need help dealing with emancipation, arrears or any child support issue, don’t hesitate to contact us at 1-855-9-JEFLAW to discuss.
We have been in touch with over 100 New Jersey Family Court litigants and reviewed filings and transcripts to discover the following examples of parents rights being violated in New Jersey.
- Custody changes are being made without plenary hearings (ability to face ones accuser, examine evidence, and or cross examine witnesses)
- Superior court judges (Judge Fitzpatrick, Judge Thomas Critchley) are making rulings on cases while the cases are under appeal. Notably when a case is appealed the trial judge loses jurisdiction to decide any issues that are subject of appeal, be it custody, property, or divorce issues that are being appealed.
- Judge Fitzpatrick did this in Styrm v. Styrm
- Judge Crichley recently did this in Ippolito v. Ippolito
- Custody is being changed for bizarre reasons see previous articles regarding Wallace v. Syphrett (Judge Fitzpatrick), where custody was changed because the father took his son to a doctor, and the doctor and a nurse agreed that the visit was validated.
- People are being threatened with incarceration for not paying support. See Ippolito v. Ippolito (morris / Sussex County) where Mr Ippolito was ordered to pay $55,000 per month in support and then denied the right to pay the support out of his retirement earnings. Mr. Ippolito was then ordered to come up with about $200,000 ab0ut 30 days even though he didn’t have it and he was retired. He is effectively being ordered back to work even though he was retired at the time his divorce started.
- Judge Marlene Ford has threatened to incarcerate Zia Shaihk for not paying support after he had paid support fees and legal fees of over $200,000 in a calendar year. He is impoverished now, and the judge then ordered his professional and drivers licenses suspended after she had ordered him incarcerated and he was released (without being able to pay the ordered support). Undoubtedly the new order will result in Mr Shaihk’s earnings decreasing and his ability to pay support in the future being decreased. These sort of orders disregard Mr. Shaihk’s actual ability to pay. In fact the entire support order is based on a theoretical income rather than Mr. Shaihk’s actual income. Undoubtedly he will be labeled a deadbeat dad, despite the fact that he does not have the money to pay what the court has ordered.
- Previously in Mr. Shaihk’s case he was removed from his home and restrained from seeing his children without ever being present for the hearing about civil restraints. Notably his wife’s domestic violence claims were unsubstantiated and dismissed… afterwords the Judge took a short cut
We could go on for pages with examples of the stories and files we’ve reviewed, but the above should be sufficient to create public concern that parents are losing property, children, and liberties without the appearance of fair trials in New Jersey.
One would hope the court itself will start to take notice of these issues and figure out a way to ensure that Family Court actually resolves issues in a legally palatable manner. If the court fails to fix these sort of issues then not only will the people of New Jersey suffer, but the court as an institution will diminish its own integrity.
Among the parents we’ve spoken with there is real tangible fear and loathing with regard to the New Jersey Courts. We are nearing a point where parents have very good reason to fear that their rights will be violated with impunity in New Jersey Courts.
MEDIA TAKES NOTICE:
NJ PARENTS PLAN PROTEST AT THEIR BILLBOARD IN TRENTON RESCHEDULED TO OCT. 22 NEAR FEDERAL COURT HOUSE (State & Canal Street)
SEE TRENTONIAN NEWSPAPER ARTICLE BELOW FOR DETAILS:
(FCLU.org Billboard Protesting Family Court Injustice, located on State & Canal Street in Trenton, near Federal Court House)
REPRINTED ARTICLE FROM THE TRENTONIAN NEWSPAPER
Today I walked out of my Joint smoking a joint, and I ran into a billboard on East State Street near City Hall across the street from the Federal Courthouse. (Yeah, I feel in the open air I should have as much right to smoke my joint as the tobacco addict does to smoke his plant.)
I instantly loved this billboard, it was right up my antagonistic alley. Here was a big sign calling the courts corrupt, right at the Fisher Federal Building — that’s ballsy. Somebody wanted some attention, and me being a media whore myself — I’m game. So check out this billboard.
After my initial reaction to it I decided do a little research and reach out to the people behind it.
I was able to find out the sign was paid for by a group called FCLU — Family Civil Liberties Union (FCLU.org). It’s made up mostly of men who’ve been screwed by the system, but there are also women in this group who have been screwed as well. Its founder, Greg Roberts, www.FCLU.org, fought a false accusation through the NJ Family Court system for years to no avail. I was able to make contact with Roberts as well as one of the group’s members named Derek Syphrett.
I personally met Syphrett in the Burlington County Jail two years ago, he was fighting a family court–inspired imprisonment. I’ve been there and done that too.
Syphrett explained that the FCLU is a nonprofit dedicated to reforming what the group sees as a dysfunctional family court system. “Its ridiculous and shameful that here in a New Jersey people are losing their children without even being provided a hearing, a chance to testify, or having any evidence properly examined by the court. The most precious thing in most parents’ life (their children) can be taken from them without even having a proper hearing to decide the matter, or a chance to defend their parenting rights.”
Roberts didn’t mince any words about the group’s position: “The New Jersey Family Courts are perhaps the greatest fraud ever perpetrated upon the people of New Jersey. For example, there are many parents in our group who have been deprived access to their children/had their custody change without a proper fact-finding hearing, sometimes without any hearing at all.”
While it might be easy for people to presume these men are just two “disgruntled litigants,” they both provided specific examples of how the NJ family courts have often disregarded the very laws that the courts are supposed to follow.
Mr. Roberts adds, “We are looking to get this story out and the billboard is part of that. We are tentatively planning a rally in Trenton on Friday, Oct. 2, 2015 (weather permitting). We want the media there, and most importantly: We want to get the public involved in this movement.”
I’ll be at this protest. I lost visitation and custody of one of my daughters simply because I publicly told the truth about marijuana. Judge Bell stripped me of my visitation and custody in 1999; as she ruled she said she didn’t care about my First Amendment rights—it’s all about the child’s well-being—and I never got a fair visitation ever again. (We endured unbelievable restrictions that made visitations horrible for us all, and sadly they were more like a punishment for my daughter rather than a chance to spend quality time with me.)
Mr. Roberts says, “We want your readers to hear our stories, and to join our movement for reform, because New Jersey’s families and children deserve much better treatment and honest services from our courts. The public can contact us to find out more at www.FCLU.org/reform, we set up a dedicated phone line (856-441-FCLU), and we expect that this billboard and the ones we purchase in other NJ cities will help us start THE meaningful public conversation, that our letters, calls, and motions to the courts have to date failed to accomplish.” And Mr. Syphrett adds, “There are constitutional violations involving family courts. So parents effectively don’t have constitutional rights—they can’t be enforced in federal court because of the Family Exception Doctrine (a judge-made law, not a legislated law) and the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine (another convenient law created by federal courts, purportedly to avoid conflicts with state courts, but in reality this law benefits state lawyers and harms families).”
I’m certainly no stranger to having my constitutional rights violated by family court. I totally experienced this at the hands of Judge Simandle who used the Doctrine to keep my family court issue out of federal court. The state’s family court took away my visitation for exercising my free speech. I never won my visitation back.
But on January 24, 2003, Judge Irenas was able to overcome the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine and issue his ruling that freed me from my five-month-long illegal imprisonment in Burlington County — I was a political prisoner for making commercials in which I publicly told the truth about marijuana.
For the content of my free speech, calling for the legalization of marijuana, the state imprisoned me and took my child.
But any way you slice it, you can’t win at family court. Federal Judge Simandle used the Doctrine to keep the federal courts from interceding in my state family court case. (Family courts seem to be exempt from the Constitution.)
For the exact same content I went to jail and lost my child for, saying legalize it, Judge Irenas ruled the state actions unconstitutional, Judge Simandale ignored in regards to my free speech in regards to family court.
I agree with Mr. Roberts – the family court system is corrupt. I’m so joining this group.
NJ COURT CORRUPTION RECEIVED THE BELOW PRESS RELEASE ABOUT A NJ MAN BEING RAILROADED IN NJ FAMILY COURTS
THE RELEASE HAS BEEN PUBLISHED IN ITS ENTIRETY BELOW
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OCEAN COUNTY, NJ –
An Ocean County man has filed a Federal lawsuit against Jackson Twp, the Jackson Twp. police department and others alleging a violation of Constitutional Rights. What began as divorce proceedings in the summer of 2013 has now spiraled into Federal charges against a number of individuals, companies, and government agencies.
[editors note: In addition to the issues detailed below Mr. Shaihk has been compelled by court orders to spend over $250,000 in legal fees for divorce proceedings in a single 12 month period. Worse the judge continues to order additional costs, which will bankrupt Mr. Shaihk. For example shortly after the discovery period ended for the divorce, and discovery was exchanged, the judge ordered updated discovery be produced, the costs of the same will be tremendous as Mr. Shaikh is being compelled to pay for forensic accountants along with mountains of paperwork, simply to re-document the information and from prior discovery of forensic reports etc.]
In the lawsuit dated June 17, 2015, Zia Shaikh of Jackson Twp. asserts that the Family Court system is run amidst collusion and racketeering which resulted in his false arrest and imprisonment, hearings to which he was not notified of (and, as such, has been ruled against in proceedings), the padding of attorney fees, and loss of home and custody of his children. His lawsuit is based on alleged violations of his First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Shaikh’s estranged wife’s attorney is Steven A. Zabarsky of the law firm Citta, Halzapfel & Zabarsky. Zabarsky is the municipal prosecutor in 19 Ocean and Monmouth County towns who is given tremendous access to local judges and police departments. Shaikh said he has been threatened with incarceration by Zabarsky. Zabarsky’s law partner is NJ Senator James W. Holzapfel who approves the appointment of NJ Family Court judges. Sen. Holzapfel is currently being sued in Federal Court on another matter involving the false arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment of Paul Kaminski.
One of the police officers named in the suit, Eric Prosniewski, has previously been jailed earlier this year for obstructing a murder investigation.
While no wrong doing has been found on the part of Shaikh, Family Court Judges Madelin F. Einbinder and Marlene Lynch Ford have continually ordered him to replenish attorney retainers while his estranged wife’s forensic accountants keep looking for money they have not been able to find for over two years – money Mr. Shaikh says does not even exist.
Others named in the suit are Deputy Court Administrator Camille Eluzzi for impersonation of a Municipal Court Judge, law firm Citta, Holzapfel & Zabarsky who are counsel for Shaikh’s estranged wife, Toms River-based forensic accounting firm Cowan, Gunteski & Co., his estranged wife, and friends of hers who have called in false reports to the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (formerly DYFS).
Mr. Shaikh requests that all readers who might be involved in similar matters to contact him at 732/363-7228.
4400 RT 9 Suite 1000
Freehold, NJ 07728
Thursday, September 14, 2015
The Family Civil Liberties Union (FCLU) has taken a novel approach to attacking legal abuse and the ineptitude and corruption of the courts: reporting it as consumer fraud. The FCLU invites complainants of legal violations to join its campaign.
FCLU has opened a formal Federal Trade Commission (FTC) case for investigation into Family Court Fraud, Deception, and Racketeering. Send your complaints to firstname.lastname@example.org or fax 202-326-2012. Please reference Case Number 58748109 in the email subject line. State all judges, lawyers, “experts,” laws broken, duration, and cost of your case. Make sure you include your contact information, docket number, and jurisdictional information. Your document can be as little as one page or numerous pages. We need volumes of complaints to support our formal legal filings. FTC’s charter is “Protecting America’s Consumer,” and Family Court needs to be abolished or strongly regulated federally. Let’s make it do its job.
The FCLU has also reportedly developed a Judicial Investigative Program—whose felicitous acronym, JIP, sounds like gyp (as in ripoff)—and it urges participation in its Violations Research Program (VRP).
Registering complaint is vital, and here may be a way to do it constructively and “legitimately.” (Complainants who chose to email the FTC might, furthermore, choose to send copies of their emails to their local political representatives, along with a prompt that they take independent action.)
Copyright © 2015 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
*The preceding three posts have concerned Legal Abuse Syndrome, a term coined by marriage and family therapist Karin P. Huffer. Dr. Huffer numbers among the FCLU’s board of advisors (as does civil litigation attorney David Heleniak, an ardent proponent of reform).
NJ COURT CORRUPTION NOTE:
BE SURE TO INDICATE WHICH JUDGES AND LAWYERS WERE INVOLVED IN THE VIOLATION OF YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS, ESPECIALLY IF THEY INCLUDE JUDGES IN MERCER COUNTY OR BURLINGTON COUNTY (Judge Call, Judge Ronald E. Bookbinder, Judge Catherine Fitzpatrick, Judge Mary C. Jacobson, Judge Debello, Judge Tomasello.
This is a great read we anticipate many will use cases cited file federal claims in New Jersey
Tara Fircak: is an attorney that according to Mr. Syphrett should not be trusted by members of the public.
Members of the Public May follow-up with Tara Fircak for Comments on this story by connecting with her on LINKEDIN HERE:
Tara Now works at Archer Greiner. If she has an adverse impact on your life due to her unethical or unprofessional work members of the Public can rate her work and warn the public here
Tara Fircak: participated in court actions that appeared to be unlawful to Mr. Syphrett including the creation of court orders that violated the U.S. Constitution, New Jersey Laws, Court rules and ethics guidelines.
This article is published here as a notice to the public that Tara Fircak may be the stereotypical lawyer who will do anything for a dollar. She can not be trusted according to our sources and she has the propensity to lie and damage innocent people when she deems it to be in her best interests (eg serves her career objectives).
Mr. Syphrett found Tara to be incredibly irresponsible, mean spirited, rude, and untrustworthy, he stated he would likely advise anyone looking for a credible lawyer to avoid any contact with this woman.
Served as law clerk to Judge John Call and retired Judge John Tomasello
Tara made false statements to John Tomasello in the matter of FM-03-790-14 that were completely false according to Mr. Derek Syphrett
For example when Mr. Syphrett was running late for a court date Tara Fircak fabricated a story about Mr. Syphrett claiming that he had malaria and would not be in court. The Judge then read this fabricated story into the record. When Mr. Syphrett arrived in Court with his powers of attorney and family members John Tomasello advised Mr. Syphrett that his law clerk had told him that Mr. Syphrett claimed to have malaria.
All of this was a surprise to Mr. Syphrett and his family who witnessed Mr. Syphrett’s call to the court.
On other occasions Tara Fircak was extremely rude on telephone calls and very discourteous to Mr. Syphrett, who was an attorney in fact simply trying to advocate for his rights and those of his beloved children (according to Mr. Syphrett).
On other occasions Tara Fircak refused to give Mr. Syphrett basic information about his own case while he was acting as attorney in fact.
It appeared to Mr. Syphrett that Tara Ficak was aware that her actions were obstructing justice, but the assignment Judge Bookbinder and the retired judge John Tomasello acting as judge in Mr. Syphrett’s Cases had apparently conspired with the law clerks involved to obstruct justice by barring Mr. Syphrett from his own hearing and continuing to take evidence and testimony without Mr. Syphrett Present.
As a lawyer Tara Fircak should have known or did know that by assisting the judge she was acting in an unlawful manner prohibited by attorney ethics, however, she fully participated in this scheme and as such it is obvious that she is the type of lawyer who appears to put her career objectives above the law, according to Mr. Syphrett.
Any comments or follow-up from others who have been victimized by Tara Fircak are welcomed as a lawsuit will be filed on behalf of the disabled Mr. Syphrett to ensure that Tara Fircak is held accountable for her role in violating Mr. Syphrett’s constitutional right to access the court and court records related to his own court cases.
READ FULL ARTICLE FROM NJ.COM HERE:
ALSO READ FEDERAL COMPLAINT REGARDING COURT CORRUPTION IN MORRIS COUNTY HERE:
We have often wondered why New Jersey Court insiders so rarely blow the whistle, on the corruption within the courts.
The experience of Morris County Clerk John Dearie appears to answer that question.
It appears that court officers and judges will immediately abuse their offices and retaliate against lawful persons with just consciences and immediately victimize the party attempting to uphold the rule of law within the court house.
IN THE LINKED ARTICLE: (ABOVE) we learn that there was a clerk in Morris County who witnessed a Judge (Gannon) who repeatedly violated the rights of litigants by ruling on motions without reviewing the papers, signed orders prior to oral arguments (ruling on the matter before it was heard) and as if that wasn’t enough the Judge apparently (based on Mr. Dearie’s recent federal court complaint) admitted to profiteering from his post and enriching his own political allies. Further it appears – based on the complaint filed in Federal Court (as if this isn’t bad enough) Judge Gannon sexually harrassed law clerks and made inappropriate / sexually motivated advances toward parties litigating in his court.
The law clerk’s complaint details in excruciating detail how the ACJC and the supervising Judges failed to address manifest and massive injustice in Morris County’s civil courts.
While we would like to speak and report on this story after getting additional information from the whistle blowing law clerk that currently appears to be impossible…..
shortly after filing his complaint THE LAW CLERK WAS SENT TO A MENTAL HOSPITAL AGAINST HIS WILL, PRESUMABLY AS A RESULT OF A COURT ORDER DESIGNED TO SMEAR THE LAW CLERKS NAME AND IMPEDE HIS ABILITY TO CONTINUE WITH HIS LAWSUIT.
SEE THE OUTRAGEOUS JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGED BY THE LAW CLERK HERE:
THIS IS A COMMON TACTIC IN FAMILY COURT AND CIVIL COURTS… the courts will smear the mental competence of an innocent litigant or party in order to discredit their justifiable outrage.
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND LINKS:
In fact as readers of this news website know this exact circumstance occurred in Mr. Derek Syphrett’s legal affairs, where he was declared incompetent / assigned counsel against his will without a hearing or evidence being admitted into the court case of FM-11-97-000011K… Judge Fitzpatrick actually declared Mr. Syphrett legally incompetent after Mr. Syphrett won his prior motion which was written pro se by Mr. Syphrett, then acting as Attorney in Fact for the matter… a few months later the court appointed counsel filed emergent motions to be released only after Mr. Syphrett advised them that he intended to sue their law firms for taking the case unlawfully as part of a civil conspiracy against Mr. Syphrett’s constitutionally protected rights to control the legal strategy of his case and his right to a hearing before being assigned counsel.
DEARIE INDICATED THAT THE ACJC AND ASSIGNMENT JUDGE IN MORRIS COUNTY WORKED TO COVER UP THE JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS RATHER THAN ADDRESSING WHAT ARE SERIOUS CONCERNS OF CORRUPTION WITHIN THE NEW JERSEY COURTS… PAR FOR THE COURSE AS READERS OF THIS SITE ARE NO DOUBT FULLY AWARE.tle
READ MORE ABOUT THIS STORY HERE:
NJCOURTCORRUPTION HAS REACHED OUT TO JOHN DEARIE AND REQUESTED A RESPONSE FROM JUDGE GANNON AS WELL (AFTERHOURS)… WE WILL UPDATE THIS ARTICLE IF ANY RESPONSES ARE RECEIVED FROM THE PARTIES OR THEIR COUNSEL.
Please be advised in the matter of Bischoff v. Syphrett an FV matter. Retired and Recalled Judge John Tomasello continues to cover up his mishandling of the case and the case file.
The last motion filed requested clarifications and a response from the court for why the two motions I filed in June of 2014 and December of 2014 were missing from the case file and never considered or responded to by the court.
John tomasello claimed the motion filed by Derek Syphrett to get a response was argumentative, but he did not explain what portion or how specifically the motion was argumentative.
John Tomasello refused to explain why the documents were missing from Judge John Calls in camera review and why the motions remain unaddressed by the court.
John Tomasello refused to explain why he conducted a trial without Mr. Syphrett (the Attorney in fact, Defendant, and witness in fact present), while in fact Mr. Syphrett was unlawfully the subject of Judge Ronald E. Bookbinders (Judge Bookbinder) court order that prohibited Mr. Syphrett from appearing in the Burlington Court Facility
In otherwords: The Superior Court of New Jersey conducted a trial while prohibiting the Defendant from appearing in court and after the court removed motion papers from the file.
Clearly what occurred in Burlington County’s Superior Court of New Jersey is criminal and as citizens and as victims there must be a civil and lawful response that attempts to hold these scumbags accountable. A man should not be subjected to a guilty verdict when he is not allowed to be fully heard or to appear in Court, yet this is exactly what has occurred due to the crimes and misconduct of multiple court officials in Mercer County and Burlington County.
Mr. Syphrett has sent letters and made phone calls to get a response from court officials and employees and the court has hung up on Mr. Syphrett and refused to explain why the files he is requesting were removed from the case file prior to trial.
Sharyn Sherman the clerk / administrator for the family court has participated in the cover up and can not be trusted by the citizens of the state, because she clearly will do anything to assist the Judges in covering up their misconduct.
Mercer County Courts have attempted to arrest Mr. Syphrett and intimidate him with Sheriff’s Officers on multiple occasions (see earlier posts) and it has become clear to Mr. Syphrett that the court employees and judges represent a threat to Mr. Syphrett’s life.
Currently the court and probation are taking taking 60% of Mr. Syphrett’s permanent disability checks and leaving him with about $600 a month to live on, this doesn’t even cover Mr. Syphrett’s rent, and as a disabled person he can not simply find another job to make up the difference, yet somehow the state is impoverishing Mr. Syphrett in this manner by claiming its in the best interests of children, even though it could result in Mr. Syphrett’s homelessness or death due to poverty.
Further: the divorce matter of Wallace v. Syphrett was also conducted while Mr. Syphrett was prohibited from appearing in court and he was denied access to his children based on expert opinions from experts who never appeared in court or submitted reports to the court (eg. Fabricated evidence) Mr. Syphrett was denied the right to cross examine witnesses or review evidence and testimony submitted to the court, John Tomasello did this and refused to acknowledge that all of this was unlawful.
Meanwhile Mr. Syphrett’s children now do not know or get to see their father and an entire family has been devastated without due-process.
Surely this is not what family courts were created to do, and in fact this is not how the law or the court rules allow for the courts to be operated. Again: the responsible parties must and will be held accountable, especially when they are denying due process and access to the court to a disabled man who is impoverished only because of the misconduct of court officials in their individual and official capacities.
Our hope of course is the state will take remedial action and address the concerns that have been submitted to the court and avoid the embarassment of a multitude of embarassing federal lawsuits related to the above matters. However, we are not overly optimistic that these scumbags will address their misconduct, unless they are sued individually for their personal assets for violating the ADAAA… their is no sovereign immunity for the employees and officials involved because Mr. Syphrett is disabled and was disabled at the time of the conduct listed above.
It should also be noted that Judge Catherine Fitzpatrick and Judge Mary C. Jacobson violated many laws and court rules during the handling of the cases prior to the cases being transferred to Burlington without the recusal of the original trial judges.
The court has refused to explain to Mr. Syphrett under what authority or law the court transferred his cases from Mercer County without the recusal of the trial judges.
Additionally the court never provided the required response to Mr. Syphrett’s motions in limine regarding jurisdiction for a family matter that involved children and witnesses from Connecticut, the court never established that New Jersey was the proper venue and Connecticut courts have informed Mr. Syphrett that New Jersey was not the proper venue given that Mr. Syphrett’s children and their welfare liability resided in Connecticut at the time of John Tomasello’s purported final order (which is in fact void ab initio).
Stay Tuned… at some point the State of New Jersey will have to address Mr. Syphrett’s concerns, because they have put Mr. Syphrett in a position where he has no choice but to fight for his right to live a decent life with access to his disability income… perhaps if they hadn’t been so ignorant and greedy this story would not be making it into the news and federal court houses, but alas the greed of the New Jersey Courts and the Bar Association appears to be limitless, even when it means mutual destruction for all parties involved, plaintiffs, court officers, and defendants… clearly that is the case.
Mr. Syphrett is committed to the effort and has assured our site that his responses will remain ONLY civil and lawful, however, he intends to be fearless and assertive with regard to protecting his rights and his children from unlawful acts of the New Jersey Courts. He remains emotionally devastated to see that his own government has betrayed the law and the rights of children for the sake of making fraudulent claims to Social Security and fraudulent access to Title IV-D reimbursements (the process of issuing fruadulent child support orders in order to obtain federal funding from the federal government).
Again: Stay tuned in the coming months and years, many lawsuits are being prepared.
A good read
GUARDIAN AD LITEM SYSTEM IN AUGUSTA EXPOSED
DECEMBER 2, 2014 BY DEB BEACHAM
Cases and complaints have been pouring in for months from the Augusta judicial district after we first investigated and reported on cases where evidence was being suppressed and children harmed.
Good parents and grandparents have been undermined and even blocked from seeing children, even when there was no justification for this.
Billing records are now being reviewed and are showing discrepancies that explain why parents are failing financially as they can’t keep up with the financial burden, let alone understand what they are being charged for to see that things don’t add up.
This article by the Augusta Chronicle is based on very compelling research that enlightens citizens and leadership about how certain bad actors on this stage are able to control outcomes of cases while lining their pockets.
One of the bad actors in the Guardian ad…
View original post 152 more words
The staff of nj court corruption is away and working on many projects currently, however we are very excited about the comments emails and phone calls we have received.
Feel free to send us articles, stories, complaints, court documents and we will happily post on your experiences with corruption and injustice in New Jersey courts. We remind you all that there is a federal law and responsibility to report all felonies even when state judges and lawyers are the alleged suspects.
Also stay tuned with regard to pending and planned federal court proceedings regarding New Jersey family court administration and probation misconduct. It has become obvious to supporters of the site and family court victims alike that judges and court will not attempt to fix the courts unless their misconduct is thoroughly exposed.
It is clear to us that unlawful activity in our courts has become the norm… It is unacceptable because children and adult lives are being destroyed by judges and attorneys that frankly don’t have a single moral out ethical fiber… we are clearly facing an evil that must be vanquished. It’s beyond ridiculous.
You can reach us at 609-638-6901 or contact a friend of the site at email@example.com
Derek C. Syphrett 10/22/2014
Pro se litigant (Defendant)
252 Fountayne Ln,
Lawrence Township, NJ 08648
URGENT & SENT IN THE “INTERESTS OF JUSTICE”
VIA CERTIFIED U.S. POSTAL MAIL & FACSIMILE:
Chief Justice Rabner, Full Panel of Justices, and Clerk of the Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey &
25 Market Street
Trenton New Jersey, 08611
Chief Justice Michelle M. Smith; Ronald E. Bookbinder, John Tomasello (in official / individual capacities)
Superior Court of New Jersey
Hughes Justice Complex
Trenton New Jersey, 08608
Administrative Office of the Courts & Judge Glenn Grant, J.A.D.
Superior Court of New Jersey
Hughes Justice Complex
Trenton New Jersey, 08608
RE: ADDENDUM – FALSE CLAIMS ACT GRIEVANCES – TITLE IV-D
- NEW JERSEY USES DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW TO INCREASE STATE REVENUE IN A MANNER CONTRARY TO BINDING SUPREME COURT LAW.
- RECENT AUDITS HAVE REVEALED THAT NEW JERSEY’S METHODOLOGY OF CALCULATING ITS TITLE IV-D RELATED EXPENSES IS WOEFULLY DEFICIENT OF ANY REAL CONTROLS:
- MUCH OF THE COSTS ARE ESTIMATED VIA CONTRIVED & AGGRESSIVE ACCOUNTING.
- THE PURPOSE APPEARS TO BE TO DEFRAUD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND SUBMIT FALSE CLAIMS.
- NEW JERSEY’S DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAWS ARE USED TO CRIMINALIZE CIVIL OFFENSES, AND DEPRIVE DEFENDANT’S OF RIGHTS CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO.
- THE STATISTICS RELATED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN NEW JERSEY AND THE COURTS MANIFEST INVITATION OF FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS IS SELF EVIDENT, AND SELF-SERVING… ITS A RACKET.
MY PERSONAL CLAIM, AS WITNESS OF FACT TO FALSE CLAIMS ACT ISSUES:
My Marital Litigation Creates False Claim Act Issues:
- My divorce included ex-parte trial dates, refusals to allow me to cross examine witnesses in my own divorce case, after direct exams were complete. This was done at the direction of John Tomasello, who in fact is a retired, judge rather than a judge assigned by any manner prescribed in the New Jersey State Constitution.
- John Tomasello (A Retired, and recalled former Judge) presided over the matter without my consent, and over my objections, despite his lack of common-law, and constitutional standing to even sit as a judge.
- See State v. Buckner, and my Writ of Coram Nobis, and my post-trial motions in FV-03-1154-14, whereby I raised novel legal issues of the constitutional standing of a retired judge sitting as judge without nomination by a governor, or appointment by the senate.
- My first amendment rights to speak in court were temporarily taken from me in a manner that is unlawful, via a sua sponte court order by Judge Catherine Fitzpatrick on 6/4/2013, without any evidence put before the court or any opportunity to object, or examine witnesses, prior to this outrageous and unlawful occurrence. Notably, I’d won my last motion before the court and demonstrated legal competence on 4/15/2013.
- By court order of Judge Ronald E. Boobkinder, I was ordered, to be prohibited from appearing in court at my own trials, even though I was the attorney-in-fact. This is clearly unlawful, prejudicial, and results in a loss of jurisdiction by any lawful court, yet the court continued to purport it had jurisdiction, and that such orders were lawful. THEY CAN NOT BE LAWFUL ORDERS, BECAUSE BY OPERATION OF LAW, THEY CAN NOT EXISTS, PURSUANT THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS IN HAINES V. KERNER, AND BINDING STATE LAW VIA HAWKINS V. HARRIS, 1995.
- A child support order was issued based on flawed legal process, with objections made regarding the process, and denied without any basis in the law provided to support the same.
- The Child support order issued in my divorce is now used as part of the basis for New Jersey’s Title IV-D claims to the Federal Government. Since the court order is void, the collection of reimbursement for expenses purported to be a result of the court order, is in fact a FALSE CLAIMS ACT issue.
PREVENTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT – FALSE CLAIMS ISSUES
- I was charged with domestic violence in FV-03-1154-14, after an ex-parte hearing by Judge R.D. Hoffman, who was at the time my legal adversary, in an open legal matter, still then pending in Superior Court. This was unlawful pursuant state law and federal due process decisions.
- I filed an immediate appeal, which is a statutory right in New Jersey. The immediate appeal was never scheduled by the court, nor was summons issued to the Plaintiff regarding my immediate appeal, and the pleadings themselves were never considered by the court on their merits, despite relying in part on Justice Albins position that an indigent defendant has a right to counsel. I requested counsel, as an indigent, and was denied even a hearing on the matter, despite the fact that DV cases carry consequences of magnitude, and they are in fact infamous affairs.
- I filed two motions in limine, which the Plaintiff did not oppose, and the court promptly lost prior to my hearing. Upon alerting the court to the fact that my pleadings and motions had not been heard, the court basically told me to get lost, and John Tomasello fabricated a procedural history in his 9/12/2014 opinion, that is patently false in numerous manners and ways described in my subsequent Writ of Coram Nobis.
- 2/19/2014 I was subject to an order prohibiting me from appearing in court. The trial of FV-03-1154-14 occurred on 2/19/2014 without me present, and without ANY EXPRESS PERMISSION FROM A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE FOR ME TO BE PRESENT AT MY OWN TRIAL AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OR A WITNESS-OF-FACT…. THIS IS CRIMINAL WITNESS-TAMPERING, AND EXTRINSIC FRAUD…. YET THE COURT HAS DONE NOTHING TO REMEDY THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO ME OR MY FAMILY.
- The statistics related to my putative guilt of domestic violence, and the fees demanded from me as a result of this pututative guilt finding are in fact False Claims by the State of New Jersey. Again The state lost jurisdiction when it ceased providing due process.
GLOBAL – STATE-WIDE FALSE CLAIMS ACT ISSUES:
Introduction to my legal / moral position on this matter:
I Helped my mother graduate college with a masters degree, and I am perhaps surprisingly a self-described “flaming” feminist, but in the true sense of the word (independence, equality, and responsibility)
Federal Law and Issues Indicating False Claims Act Issues & Racketeering:
Post Roe v. Wade (U.S. Supreme Court) the entire concept embraced by the New Jersey Courts that female parents have somehow been victimized by their SOLE decision (pursuant their federal rights) to give birth, after consenting to have a sexual relationship with a man of their own choice, somehow creates a legal entitlement to become a (in some cases) a lifelong dependent of their male partner, is legally incongruous with the facts and the law.
Put more simply – as a true femenist I assert:
- An independent woman can not make claim to any entitlement because SHE CHOSE to give birth, to the child of a man SHE CHOSE to conceive a child with.
- A WOMAN CAN NOT be both solely responsible for her decision to give birth, but not also solely responsible for the result!
- Nor can such a woman claim that she was damaged by her male partner, because she chose to become a house wife / home-maker rather than continue her own career.
- A woman should not be allowed to claim legal damages, or legal entitlement to a claim because she has chosen to have a child, suspend her career or education, of her own free will. It is not the state’s right to create a post-hoc contract between that man and that woman.
- The state is imposing a regime of irresponsibility upon the public, writ largesse ! Women should not be encouraged by our laws or courts, to “jump first” into parenthood, and ask responsible questions later. But in fact that is what New Jersey is selling here. Make a baby, and get paid, no matter how stupid or irresponsible you were, or how badly you choose your sexual partner, better yet, if you help the state of New Jersey get Title IV-D Welfare Act Money (as an irresponsible parent) AND IMPORTANTLY:
- WE (THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY) WILL NOT EVEN REQUIRE YOU TO SPEND THE MONEY YOU GET FROM THE OTHER PARENT, ON YOUR CHILDREN
- … JUST HAVE AT IT LADIES AND GENTS… FREE MONEY FROM SOMEONE ELSE, FOR WHATEVER ELSE – YOU NEED NOT REAR A CHILD WITH THIS MONEY!
- IN FACT, IN SOME CASES: IF YOU OWE LEGAL FEES TO AN ATTORNEY, WE (THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY) WILL ACTUALLY HOLD YOU IN CONTEMPT IF YOU DO NOT SEND YOUR CHILD-SUPPORT MONEY TO THE ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED YOU, WHO IS ALSO AN OFFICER OF OUR COURT!
It is asinine (on its face) to suggest that when a woman exercises her sole right to conceive a child, she can post-hoc coerce payments from another person, simply because of the woman’s potentially irresponsible decision to create a child, which she had no ability to support. Such a circumstance is an insult to feminists in a post-Roe v. Wade world.
For the state to intervene in a man’s ability to rear his children as he sees fit, violates the tenants of:
In Parham v. J.R. et al 442 U.S. 584 (1979) in toto AND
Santosky v. Kramer 455 U.S. 745 (1982) in toto
In this regard, the state is intervening, and disintermediating fathers. Rather than encouraging a woman to co-parent, for the sake of financial support, this state has encouraged and profited from the creation of an adversarial divorce / custody process, that in fact, provides perverse incentives to custodial parents (generally mothers) to interfere with a father’s natural right to rear his children, for the sake of such custodial parents, reaping even a larger financial reward from the court, via “legal coercion”, which discourages custodial parents (generally mothers) from co-parenting, in the best interests of their children.
TO BE CLEAR:
Pursuant Parham v. J.R. And Santosky v. Kramer:the state courts do not even have the legal right to manage custody issues for the majority of fit parents. That right has been reserved to the fit parents, who enter court with the presumption they are fit parents.
This perhaps explains why the State of New Jersey, often attempts to use the legal process to coerce custody agreements from the litigants pre-trial.
Frankly it appears that in all instances where a trial judge decides a custody matter where both parents are in fact fit, the court is in fact encroaching on rights reserved to the fit parents themselves.
Here too: I’d have everyone note the Federal Courts’ “domestic relations exception” doctrine, the federal courts clearly don’t believe the government has a real role in family affairs generally, given the cases cited above, its certainly not clear what role the state courts have in the majority of contested divorces between fit parents. It would appear that 50%/50% or 100%/100% parenting time should be the norm in most cases handled in New Jersey, yet the legal outcomes clearly do not reflect such a circumstance.
THE INESCABABLE REALITY REGARDING THE STATE’S DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAWS:
IT’S A “RACKET”
The truth is were the state not the recipient of federal funds supporting the ancillary costs and extra resources that come with domestic relations law, it is likely the state wouldn’t now be a real party of interest (a financial beneficiary) with regard to the adjudication of domestic relations law.
Underneath the states domestic relations law: there is a perverse incentive for the state to preach the perverse, such as: women are victims of their own choice to give birth; or that women are not capable of fleeing domestic violence; or that police are not capable of protecting women with harassment and assault statutes.
Of course none of this is true. While child welfare and domestic violence are real issues which courts should address in very specific, and urgent cases, in New Jersey it is clear that children and women are used as part of a racketeering enterprise. The majority of domestic violence claims are dismissed now-a-days, the fraudulent complaints are not prosecuted, and the flood gates have been opened to allow thousands of frivolous claims to be filed without consequence, other than that the State receives federal grants based on the number of domestic violence complaints filed. THIS IS RACKETEERING. ITS ABUSE OF PROCESS. IT’S DESTROYING LIVES.
AS A FEMANIST MYSELF: I 100% support female independence, equality, responsibility. Yet the state’s position on custody, child-support, and domestic violence are all prejudicial against these lofty and just objectives. Females are encouraged to conceive children without securing the financial where-with-all to support them, females are encouraged to believe they can not file credible criminal complaints via harassment, or assault statutes, so they should instead use legally suspect domestic violence laws, which presume a woman (generally) could not possibly prove her case to a reasonable doubt standard in a criminal court, or that a woman would not possibly have the common-sense to distance herself from a clear and obvious threat to her well-being. SUCH THINKING AND SUCH LAWS ARE AN INSULT TO WOMEN AND FEMANIST MALES SUCH AS MYSELF!
Derek C. Syphrett, Esq.
Petitioner, Pro Se
Indigent Person, pursuant court order
Disabled Person, Pursuant the Federal A.D.A.
Citizen of New Jersey (a constitutional creation)
Citizen of the United States (a constitutional creation, obligated to report felonies by law)
Resident of New Jersey
Naturalis Homo In Carne
A member of the Public (an appendage to Public and Public Trust)
The Sovereign & Other Authorities, in lege, et in carne,pursuant Constitution For The United States, 10th Amendment
Share Your Story THERE
Angry Father Gets Supervised Visitation
Share Your Story: Were You Treated Unfairly by the Family Court System?
From Just One More Dad In The Meatgrinder
Did your attorney make mistakes during your divorce? I had to fire my attorney after she over billed and stole my entire retainer.
Were you the victim of an unethical judge? The judge in my case refused to hear the piles of tapes and evidence proving my ex wife locked our daughter in her car seat in the garage overnight and emotionally abused both of our children as well as physically abused and endangered both children.
He granted full custody to her and instead of protecting our children, gave me supervised visitation and expensive classes to take while my ex continued to exhibit profoundly unstable behavior such as driving recklessly with the doors open and the children unbuckled. The judge was completely biased and needs to be removed from the bench.
What needs to change in the Family Court System? A greater emphasis towards Shared parenting and greater punishment for any attorneys failing to obtain mutual agreements from both parties in a reasonable time frame should be imposed.
Ive been trying for fair time with my children for five years. Also the child support system needs to not be allowed to get involved unless no payments have ever been made. My ex was allowed to file claims against me when I paid her cash for months and was not credited for it. Even now with child support taken directly from my check, they still have the power to freeze my account anytime they want my monthly arrangements or other financial obligations.
The current system has made my children resent me for not seeing them and the court has forbidden me from telling them that their mother is the one refusing to let me see them out of pure revenge and spite. Get with the times Sonoma county family court. Stop hurting fathers and children by sticking to status quo. Start doing whats right. Give fathers equal time. Those are our children too and we love them and care for them often times better than their mothers can.
Never get married without a pre-nup agreement regarding the children.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
BURLINGTON COUNTY (VINCINAGE 3)
IS A JUDICIAL HELL-HOLE AND NOTHING ELSE
THE CERTIFICATION AND EXHIBITS PROVIDED TO US
BY MR. SYPHRETT’S COUNSEL INCLUDE PROOFS OFALLEGED:
- Obstruction of Justice
- Witness Tampering, by Judge Ronald E. Bookbinder
- Criminal Harrassment, by a Judge
- Unlawful obstruction of Justice by the Administrative Office of the Courts (Susana J. Morris)
BUT THAT IS JUST THE BORING STUFF FOR STARTERS,
THE UNIQUE STUFF INCLUDES:
(THIS GUY AND….)
- A MOTION FILED BY Mr. Syphrett into a FV Docket where the Plaintiff is an ex-girlfriend, who is alleged to have committed fraud upon the court and false statements of fact (Kathryn Bischoff, Katy Elizabeth, among other A.K.A.s)
- THE CROSS MOTION WAS FILED BY A THIRD PARTY... Mr. Syphrett’s wife… yet she is not a party to the underlying motion! …. this is INSANELY UNLAWFUL!
- The cross motion was filed with cross motion fees, and asks for marital relief in a matter opened as a FV matter, which included a trial that Mr. Syphrett was probibited by court order from appearing at as a self-represented litigant (SEE THE ORDERS ATTACHED TO THE CERTIFICATION.
- MR. SYPHRETT IS PERMANENTLY DISABLED AND NOW IN FEAR FOR HIS LIFE BECAUSE THE JUDGES CONTINUE TO VIOLATE THE LAW. HE IS NOW MOVING TO ANOTHER STATE AS WE WRITE.
- MR. SYPHRETT’S WIFE WAS AWARDED CHILD SUPPORT BASED ON A FICTITIOUS IMPUTED INCOME THAT WAS 1000% OVER HIS 2013 income and 400% over his 2012 income. His wife has refused to file a change of circumstance, and now collects about $3,300 per month from Social Security benefits assocaited with her husband….she is taking advantage of a disabled man, but she also now wants to have him prevented from filing with the court or getting updates about his own children.
- mr. syphrett’s custody was taken away and his parental rights terminated via ex-parte proceedings by “Judge” John Tomasello , and a sua sponte issuance of civil restraints without notice to the Defendant of the motion…. THIS IS ALL UNLAWFUL OF COURSE… BUT IT IS GOING ON IN BURLINGTON COUNTY.
SEE MR. SYPHRETT’S REPLY CERTIFICATION, DETAILING HIS PALPABLE FEAR FOR HIS LIFE… HE SAID HE RUSHED THE CERTIFICATION, AT THE LAST SECOND, SO IT IS HORRIBLY WRITTEN, BUT I THINK IT SPEAKS TO THE LEVEL AT WHICH THE COURT WILL ATTEMPT TO LITERALLY KILL A GOOD FATHER WHO JUST WANTS JUSTICE FOR HIMSELF AND HIS KIDS.
THE GOLDEN LASSO
VERITAS VOS LIBERABIT
Skip to content
← THE WAR ON MOTHERS, PARTS 1 AND 2 – BY BARRY GOLDSTEINDID GREENSPAN EFFECTUATE HIS OWN THESIS? →
Family Court and the Foreclosure Crisis
by WONDER WOMAN posted on AUGUST 2, 2014
NJ Coalition for Family Court Reform
Our mission is to inspire fellow constituents to take action, demanding transparency and accountability within our family courts.
My father used to say, when something doesn’t make sense, there’s money or sex involved. Judges behaving badly – Diane Hathaway, ex-Michigan Supreme Court Judge, sentenced to prison for fraud and Judge Wade McCree having sex in his chambers with litigant.
And yes, there is a link between the foreclosure crisis and family court corruption. After the damage they do creating ‘conflict for cash,’ siphoning off their victims’ money, assets, college funds, etc. in family court, lawyers and judges are frauding the U.S. government, siding with predatory lenders, and causing insured loan defaults, driving insurance payouts up.
Another method is orchestrated by siding with litigants in the banking industry in family court cases for dubious financial gain and ex-parte dealings behind closed doors. The abusive father of the children listed below, works as an executive for Bank of America Merrill Lynch, who has just been sued for predatory lending, again.
Here are the other lawsuits plaguing Bank of America and a recent Federal ruling in NYC.
And by the way, Alan Greenspan theorized the housing bubble, then set it in motion.
It’s no coincidence that Judge Gerald C. Escala of the Bergen County Court is handling both mortgage cases and family court cases. This judge has been known to boast about his “legacy” on the bench. Litigants have sued him for corruption and filed to have him impeached. He was chided by the NJ Supreme Court for accepting a post-retirement job offer from a law firm representing one of the litigants before him. As a result, NJ revamped the court rules and imposed stiffer strictures on sitting judges.
However, NJ is so corrupt that it actually recalled this judge and put him back on the bench.
As my father also used to say, “A white man in America can get away with anything.” This coming from a white man himself.
Judge chided for seeking job from lawyers in trial:
“Escala’s conduct created an appearance of impropriety and “fell short of the high standards demanded of judges and fellow members of the legal profession and had the capacity to erode the public’s trust,” wrote Rabner.” Read more
Predatory lending victim:
“Judge Gerald Escala New Jersey Superior Court Bergen Chancery sued for six counts including corruption and conspiracy”
“An Asian-American businessman Atoo Heera Sakhrani sues purported ‘Judge’ Gerald Escala, the presiding ‘judge’ in the New Jersey Chancery Court in Bergen County, New Jersey, for 6 Counts including corruption, fraud, conspiracy and being a Bonus Partner in helping the unscrupulous Mortgage Broker, Title Agent, Insurance Companies and Lending Institutions cover up their crimes at the expense of innocent people. A major component of the lawsuit is that purported ‘Judge’ Gerald Escala is aiding and abetting the mortgage lenders and their attorneys in predatory lending practices schemes to steal the property from unsuspecting minorities (e.g., Asian-American senior citizen)…”Read more
Escala Impeachment Petition
Woman cheated out of inheritance:
“Today, I have lost my home, have lost the rental car I was living out of, and, unless a miracle occurs, I will be a 62 year old disabled woman living on the streets…”Read more
Judge Escala hands custody to abusive father who is a NYC executive for Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Judge Escala ignored evidence of child abuse and domestic violence and gave custody to the abusive father despite mother being fit and the primary caregiver, and having previously obtained a fault-based divorce for Extreme Cruelty. The Court allowed the father to hide income and assets and avoid paying tens of thousands in child support. Protective mother falsely accused of the infamous Parental Alienation, a misogynistic, unscientific ‘theory’ fabricated by Richard Gardner and repeatedly rejected by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) for inclusion in the The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Gardner wrote that the punishments meted out to pedophiles are “Draconian.” It’s also no coincidence that 60% of the world’s child pornography comes from the U.S. and that organizations like DCP&P (formerly DYFS) have been sued for subverting abuse. Herein lies the vehicle.
Safe Kids International:
Bergen County New Jersey Judge Gerald Escala disregarded evidence of physical and emotional abuse and neglect of the children and serious violence against the mother and granted sole custody to the abusive father.
PM Karin was, as usual in Court Licensed Abuse cases, falsely accused of Parental Alienation and has been barred from any contact with her children. Little Daniel and Gretchen desperately want to be back with their loving, protective mother.
Judge Mizdol is well aware of this case since at the last hearing the lawyers had a private consultation with Judge Escala in his chambers after which they went and spoke with Judge Bonnie Mizdol. Mom’s lawyer never returned to the courtroom and Judge Escala declared she was off the case, leaving Karin stranded without an attorney. This smacks of collusion and is highly unethical.
*Maternal deprivation in and of itself is a serious form of abuse. Research supports how important the primarily bonded mother is to the healthy development of children, not to mention the pain the children feel upon being ripped from their mothers arms.
THIS ENTRY WAS POSTED IN FAMILY COURT CORRUPTION. BOOKMARK THE PERMALINK.
← THE WAR ON MOTHERS, PARTS 1 AND 2 – BY BARRY GOLDSTEINDID GREENSPAN EFFECTUATE HIS OWN THESIS? →
LEAVE A REPLY
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
YOU MAY USE THESE HTML TAGS AND ATTRIBUTES: <A HREF=”” TITLE=””> <ABBR TITLE=””> <ACRONYM TITLE=””> <B> <BLOCKQUOTE CITE=””> <CITE> <CODE> <DEL DATETIME=””> <EM> <I> <Q CITE=””> <STRIKE> <STRONG>
NOTIFY ME OF FOLLOW-UP COMMENTS BY EMAIL.
NOTIFY ME OF NEW POSTS BY EMAIL.
THE GOLDEN LASSO
THE GOLDEN LASSO
Did Greenspan effectuate his own thesis?
Family Court and the Foreclosure Crisis
The War on Mothers, Parts 1 and 2 – by Barry Goldstein
Dan Walsh on RICO Complaint
Melissa Barnett on Obtuse Judges
Family Court and the Foreclosure Crisis » The Golden Lasso on Did Greenspan effectuate his own thesis?
NJ Coalition for Family Court Reform » The Golden Lasso on Obtuse Judges
Mr.Jeff Gray on Protest in Support of Campaign to Impeach Judge Escandon
Family Court Corruption
THE GOLDEN LASSO Proudly powered by WordPress.
New Jersey Anti-Stalking Legislation and Advocacy
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Judicial malfeasance, attorney corruption & the NJ family court
Governor Christie, We NJ women and mothers currently suffering through a corrupt family court system implore you to ask the USDOJ to investigate the family court. I thought that I had seen it all. I thought that I had endured it all. My divorce was final in the mid 1990’s. Over the course of the next 15 years, I was criminally stalked and stalked through the family court. The FBI got involved in my case in 1999 after I was stalked to Disneyworld and received calls to my hotel room on my birthday from an individual using the voice changer from the movie Scream to sing Happy Birthday to me.
Beginning in 2000, I was dragged to the family court by an attorney in violation of a judgment of divorce that required mediation before going to court on a child related issue. In court in 2001, the criminal stalking was used against me to paint me as unstable in an attempt to take my child away from me. In 2007, another motion seeking custody of my child was filed. Judge Guadagno resolved the matter entirely in my favor and his decision on the illegal subpoena of police reports I filed to document my stalking became a published opinion. In 2008, Judge Guadagno was transferred to another county and the motions began again under a new judge. My decade long criminal stalking case was the impetus to update the NJ criminal stalking statute to incorporate third party stalking and elevate the level of the crime. In 2009, Governor Corzine signed my legislation (A1563) into law. Around an August 2009 family court hearing meant to resolve all issues I began to receive recorded threats deemed credible by the FBI. Joe Pate, the suspect in my federal stalking case admitted to the FBI and police he was stalking and threatening to kill me and then Pate committed suicide to avoid federal prosecution.
Investigation Discovery Channel filmed a documentary on my 10+ year criminal stalking case entitled Stalked: Someone’s Watching “Dangerous Games”. After the documentary aired NJ women with similar cases of criminal stalking and stalking through the family court reached out to me. Through them I learned the family attorney dragging me to court for a decade had a baby fathered by a family court judge. I realized the judge who presided over my case in 2001 was none other than the baby daddy of the attorney who dragged me to court. The ethics case against this attorney has been pending four years after being remanded twice by the NJ State Disciplinary Review Board. The Advisory Council on Judicial Conduct declined to investigate the judge because he is retired. This Judge and this attorney had an open relationship in the court house. In violation of court rules, the court order for the hearing where the Judge’s baby mama attorney appeared before him neglected to include the attorney’s name. On August 21, 2013, I began asking to inspect my file and get a copy of an order from the first hearing where the judge’s baby mama appeared before him in my case and according to Elisabeth Strom the acting clerk for the Superior Court, my file has gone missing.
NJ is run amuck with corruption in the family court. Good mothers are losing custody of their children and filing for bankruptcy because of unethical attorneys and corrupt judges.
Please Governor Christie – we implore you to call for a Federal investigation into the family court corruption.
Karen at 10:13 PM
Anne Caroline DrakeSeptember 12, 2013 at 1:40 PM
My hope is that Gov. Christie responds positively and has the integrity to act. Well done!
CarolJanuary 16, 2014 at 12:32 AM
Well, I would like to suggest that you hire a good family attorney like Ms. Simon who is providing all types of family law support.
Janelle WestJanuary 22, 2014 at 2:00 AM
It seems that there is so much corruption. Your diligence will make a difference. I researched Joe Pate after seeing your story and only found that he reportedly died from Parkinson’s …. Was this also an effort to shield him and his family from the truth? There isn’t a single news article regarding the fire or your story, this seems wrong. I wish you the best.
View web version
Powered by Blogger
AFTER AWAKENING FROM
BENIGN ACCEPTANCE OF CORRUPTION
I REPORTED THE FOLLOWING CRIMES
TO THE FBI
SEE THE LETTER COMPLAINTS HERE:
WHEN A MAN IS STRIPPED OF HIS RIGHTS& CHOICE
…HE WILL MAKE THE ONLY CHOICE AVAILABLE
…HE WILL FIGHT
Many of Mr. Syphrett frends, family, non-prPED ofit contacts, former lawyers, and local law enforcement have asked him , what what he is hoping to accomplish, by advocating for his rights:
He was visibly ashamed and timid in his answer to us:
“I am ashamed to say it, but I am still optimistically (without good cause) hoping for justice and the right to my pursuit of happiness, liberty, and freedom…. with my beloved Children.”
“… HONESTLY, I DON’T THINK I HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICE. MY FATHER TAUGHT ME TO BELIEVE THAT THE EASIEST DECISIONS A MAN CAN MAKE, ARE THE ONES WHEN HE IS GIVEN NO CHOICE, AT ALL”
(Writers Note: We reached out to Dr. Vivian Chern Shnaidman for any opposing commentary, but we were not able to get a reply from her office at the time of this publication. If we receive one we will publish it)
*** BREAKING NEWS ***
We received a Response from Dr. Shnaidman to our inquiries, via her direct response to Derek Syphrett via Facebook.
It appears that she does not deny any of the facts reported to us.
Dr. Shnaidman’s Full Response is included below:
FULL STORY, EXCLUDING BREAKING NEWS PUBLISHED ABOVE:
THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE GONE THROUGH A DIVORCE LIKELY REALIZE THAT COURT APPOINTED EXPERTS, ARE SHAMS.
CASE AND POINT:
1) Experts often participate in ex-parte communications with the “court” and the Judge at local Bench Bar Associations (conflict of interests)
2) Experts often rely upon hearsay information without interviewing the real-parties of interests (police, children, DYFS, etc), yet make clinical decisions without clinical observations of facts (this is not scientific and is forbidden by N.J.R.E. 703 and / or F.R.E. 703 – rules of evidence NJ/ Federal
3) Expert witnesses are granted immunity from civil suits or criminal charges related to any fraud they may commit as an expert witness, so they have no reason to tell the truth other than preference, and moral character.
4) Experts often have no actual expertise in parenting-time evaluations (like Dr. Vivian Shnaidman featured below):
DON’T TAKE OUR WORD FOR IT
SEE THE FACTS HERE:
Please see the IMPORTANT REVELATIONS IN OTHER CASES INVOLVING DR. SHNAIDMAN AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING YOUR EXPOSURE TO THIS “DOCTOR”: SEE THE FOLLOWING STATE RECORDS AND MEDIA STORIES:
Shnaidman v. State of New Jersey : Dr. Shnaidman was referred to as “Bi-Polar”, “Borderline”, and a “Bitch” by her colleagues at Ann Klein before her employment was terminated, yet she is retained by New Jersey Courts as an expert in parenting time matters, when she actually has no expertise in this area. CITATION: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court…/1629298.html
Note: Dr. Vivian Shnaidman’s opinion was also thrown out by the appellate court as being RIDICULOUS – SEE CITATIONS HERE:
DR. SHNAIDMAN RECOMMENDS TERMINATING PARENTAL RIGHTS BECAUSE WOMAN WANTED A C-SECTION BIRTH:
*** OH IT GETS WORSE ****
CHECK THIS OUT:
SO IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND THE PUBLIC TRUST PLEASE SEE THE DISCOVERIES LISTED BELOW REGARDING Derek Syphrett’s EXPERIENCE WITH A COURT APPOINTED EXPERT WHO, SUBMITTED A ALLEGEDLY FRAUDULENT EXPERT REPORT:
ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE COURT …. SHE IS AN EXPERT IN MALPRACTICE IT TURNS OUT: SHE WITH-HELD THIS INFORMATION AT TRIAL:
- Recordings of Vivian Shnaidman during 14 minute interview, where she did no fact finding about parenting time, but later ruled me to be legally incompetent (without any expertise to do so), and ruled me to be unfit to parent (without discussing my parenting time). HER OPINION WAS NOT BASED ON ANY ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC PRACTICE, AND WAS IN PART SUPPORTED BY HEARSAY FROM PEOPLE SHE NEVER INTERVIEWED (MY LYING WIFE).
EXPERT REPORT STATING THAT DEREK SYPHRETT HALUCINATED DURING A SESSION:
HERE IS WHAT IS ODD ABOUT THIS REPORT:
1) Dr. Shnaidman signed / certified that the subject of the Evaluaton was “Robin Bloom” (We can assume the diagnoses was Robin Blooms, and “Derek Syphrett’s name was added to the narrative of an old evaluation post-hoc)
2) Dr. Shnaidman: states that Mr. Syphrett Hallucinated during the session BUT SHE DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE HALLUCINATION, OR HOW LONG IT LASTED, OR WHAT IT WAS ABOUT, LIKE ANY OTHER REAL DOCTOR WOULD HAVE DONE… SHE THEN LET’S MR. SYPHRETT DRIVE HOME, PURPORTEDLY AFTER OBSERVING THE FACT THAT HE WAS HALLUCINATING… IF THIS IS TRUE THEN IT WOULD BE NEGLIGENT AND A VIOLATION OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.
3) Dr. Shnaidman: Determines that Mr. Syphrett is not fit to represent himself in his legal case, despite not being an expert in the law, AND REMARKABLY: she makes this assertion without reviewing the case files and the recent motions that Mr. Syphrett won the last time he was in court for docket: FM-11-97-11k
Wallace v. Syphrett”!
4) Dr. Shnaidman: Admitted at trial in 2014 – almost a year after the evaluation in 2013, (and after the case was transferred from Judge Catherine Fitzpatrick, for good cause shown, to Burlington and redocketed as FM-03-0790-14) THAT:
- SHE NEVER DISCUSSED MR. SYPHRETT’S PARENTING TIME DURING THE EVALUATION AT ALL, BUT:
- SHE DETERMINED HE WAS AN UNFIT PARENT WITHOUT REVIEWING HIS SUPERVISED PARENTING TIME, RECORDS THAT WERE UNIVERSALLY POSITIVE ABOUT HIS PARENTING SKILLS!
5) She appeared in court with a fraudulent expert report, that had not been given to the attorneys in the matter, she edited the certification to say the evaluation was for “Derek Syphrett”, when the report submitted to the court stated the evaluation was for “Robin Bloom”.
6) At trial she stated she had no expertise in making parenting time decisions other than:
- Talking to parents when she was working in a hospital as a doctor
- A DFYS training she did about 10 years earlier, which she had no recollection of the material information or benefits of said training. She in fact said “it wasn’t that helpful”!
READ IT AND WEEP FOR THE CHILDREN BECAUSE
IT IS CERTIFIED TO BE FOR A WOMAN “ROBIN BLOOM”, NOT MR. SYPHRETT!
THE COURT ORDER THAT VIOLATED NEW JERSEY LAW BY:
APPOINTING A COURT APPOINTED LAWYER SUA SPONTE, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE PUT BEFORE THE COURT & WITHOUT ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR A CROSS EXAMINATION:
THIS IS A CLEAR AND CONVINCING VIOLATION OF MR. SYPHRETT’S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
A FEDERAL CASE WHICH WILL BE MADE!
A DEFENSE AGAINST COURT CORRUPTION
WORTHY OF RESEARCH:
WE WOULD STOP CONSENTING TO GO TO THESE EXPERT EVALUATIONS AND PRODUCING DISCOVERY THAT DOESN’T EXIST, BY WAIVING YOUR PRIVACY RIGHTS:
SEE: U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS BINDING ON ALL FIFTY STATES
AT A MINIMAL THESE CASES MAY SUGGEST (IN OUR NON-EXPERT, NON LAWYER CAPACITY, FOR THE PURPOSES OF RESEARCH ONLY): THAT:
1) You Actually Have A Right To Privacy With Regard To Your Family Affairs And Your Thoughts About It, Or Your Relationship With Your Family
2) You Have No Burden Of Proof With Regard To Your Fitness To Parent, The Burden Of Proof Is The Adverse Parties… We Would Tell Them To Present You Evidence That Exists And That We Can Not Produce Adverse Evidence That Does Not Currently Exist (AN Evaluation Of Our Parenting Skills)!
3) If The Court Were To Threaten Our Parental Rights Without Clear And Convincing Evidence, We Would Appeal And Likely Win – See:
- In Parham v. J.R. et al 442 U.S. 584 (1979) in toto, inclusive of cited cases, and specifically with regard to its findings that:
The U.S. Supreme Court declared the ‘best interest of the child’ resides in the fit parent – not in the state:
“To deny a parental right requires constitutional due process that proves he’s either unfit or a clear danger to his children – proven with ‘clear and convincing’ evidence.”
- SANTOSKY V. KRAMER, 455,745 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court and its findings that:
“emphasized: to restrict a fundamental right of a p“Our constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that a child is a “the mere creature of the State” and, on the contrary, asserted that parents generally have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare [their children] for additional obligations.”
LEGAL DISCLAIMER FOR ALL LEGAL REFERENCES CONTAINED HEREIN:
Do not rely on anything contained on this site as legal advise it is:
expressly not legal advise, nor are we lawyers
FURTHER TAKE NOTE:
We’ve consulted with a man that the state of New Jersey has deemed to be legally incompetent after
1) he prevailed in court on several occasions (Derek Syphrett)…
2) And then the state declared him competent….
So clearly we are just a bunch of confused citizens….We’re not lawyers or judges!
WE ARE JUST: confused journalists: writing for a free internet publication, reciting the facts there-of!
IN NEW JERSEY COURTS
THE TRUTH IS STRANGER THAN FICTION!
LETTER TO THE SUPREME COURT HERE
COPY OF VOID COURT ORDERS BY
ASSIGNMENT JUDGE RONALD E. BOOKBINDER HERE
(Denying Attorney, Witness of Fact, and Father right to appear for own trial)
COPY OF JUDGE JIMENEZ FRAUDULENT COURT ORDERS & TRANSCRIPTS HERE
(Fruadulently claim a Public Defender was Assigned, No Fact Finding for Order, Warrantless Arrest, No legal notice of “First Appearance” given to Defendant)
- A TRANSCRIPT – ARRAIGNMENT – 2013-08-19 – Criiminal Case – 13-2502
- 2013-08-20 – ORDER – CASE 13-2502 – Jimenez Psych Bail Conditions
COPY OF PROOFS THAT JUDGE MARY C. JACOBSON ISSUED TRANSFER ORDERS WITHOUT FACT FINDING IN ORDERS, AND DESPITE THE FACT SHE WAS A PARTICIPANT IN THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION RELATED TO ONE OF THE CASES
JOHN TOMASELLO ISSUES FALSE FACTS IN OPINION
JOHN TOMASELLO ISSUES FINAL ORDER FOR CUSTODY BASED ON STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO PEOPLE WHO WERE NEVER WITNESSES NOR APPEARED IN COURT
2014-10-07 – FV-03-1154-14 Derek Writ Coram Nobis (SEE EXHIBITS)
INAPPROPRIATE SEXUAL OVERTURES , REPRIMAND BY SUPREME COURT &
ALLEGED OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT:
(AN HONORABLE JUDGE WOULD RESIGN UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES… NOT DEBELLO)
I HAVE HAD THE DISTINCT DISPLEASURE OF HAVING JUDGE LAWRENCE DEBELLO VIOLATE THE LAW, AND REFUSE TO SCHEDULE A TRO ALLOWING ME TO SEE MY CHILDREN AGAIN.
BY LAW I WAS ENTITLED TO A FRO HEARING IN 10 DAYS… DEBELLO CONTINUED IT FOR REASONS THAT WERE NOT ALLOWED BY LAW AND I WAITED (WITHOUT SEEING MY CHILDREN FOR OVER 400 DAYS FOR AN F.R.O. HEARING THAT WAS DISMISSED, BY A TRIAL JUDGE WHO SAID:
THE RESTRAINING ORDER SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ISSUED!
DEBELLO MANAGED MY CASE UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF JUDGE CATHERINE FITZPATRICK, WHO WAS LATER UNOFFICIALLY RECUSED FROM ALL OF MY LEGAL AFFAIRS AFTER SHE GOT CAUGHT BREAKING THE LAW (ALLEGEDLY)!
DEBELLO IS EVEN MORE OF A SCUMMY PERSON BECAUSE HE WAS CAUGHT HAVING ROMANTIC COMMUNICATIONS WITH A LAW CLERK.
SEE DETAILS BELOW. AN HONORABLE JUDGE WOULD HAVE RESIGNED… THERE IS NO HONOR HERE.
HEY LADIES, DEBELLO SPECIALIZES IN SEXUALLY INAPPROPRIATE ACTIVITY:
YOU SHOULD PROBABLY ASK FOR RECUSAL IF YOU ARE A WOMAN!’
THE BELOW IS REPUBLISHED FROM:
COMMITTEE TO EXPOSE DISHONEST AND INCOMPETENT JUDGES, ATTORNEYS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS
(A WEBSITE IN NEED OF A NEW NAME):
Judge Lawrence DeBello of Trenton, NJ; liar, ethical gimp
- Giving misleading (liar) testimony during Commission hearing
- Impugned the integrity of the judiciary (How’s that even possible?)
- Engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
- Brought the judicial office into disrepute (What’s new?)
- Undermined the public’s confidence in the judiciary (What confidence?)
- Demonstrated disrespect for the judiciary
For over a year Derek Syphrett has endured alleged and factually supported assaults, harassment from the Mercer County Sheriff’s Office.
TO FINALLY PUT AND END TO THE LAWLESSNESS:
MR. SYPHRETT SENT THIS LETTER TO REMIND THE FOOLS IN BLACK THAT THE POWERS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PROSECUTION IN NEW JERSEY ARE NOT RESERVED TO THE STATE:
OTHER ALLEGED FELONY CRIMES OF:
ASSIGNMENT JUDGE RONALD E. BOOKBINDER
(Sent to Federal Bureau of Investigations F.B.I., Hamilton Field Office, Special Agent Addison)
NEW JERSEY IS IN FACT & IN LAW ONE OF THE STATES
CITIZENS HAVE THE POWER OF ARREST AT ALL TIMES
CITIZENS CAN PROSECUTE CRIMES IN STATE COURT PURSUANT THE COURT RULES AND OPERATION OF “THE LAW”
AS SUCH CITIZENS ARE THE ONLY LEGAL PERSONS IN NEW JERSEY WHO CAN SERVE AS WITNESS-OF-FACT, ARRESTING PERSON, AND PROSECUTOR.
JUST A REMINDER TO ALL IN NEW JERSEY:
A SUIT WAS FILED AGAINST THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY &
THE MERCER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE &
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS TODAY
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS &
DEMAND FOR ENFORCEMENT OF COURT RULE 1:33
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF A GRIEVANCE (NJ Const. Article I, par. 18)
SEE THE HORRIFIC TRUTH HERE:
NOTES ABOUT THE SERVICE OF PROCESS:
1-YEAR AGO A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE GAVE ME SPECIAL POWERS OF LEGAL SERVICE BY COURT ORDER IN OPEN COURT… I STILL HAVE THEM. I DOUBT THE SUPERIOR COURT REALIZES THIS. SO I SERVED THE PAPERS DIRECTLY TO THE AGENCIES INVOLVED AND PRESUME THE CLERKS WILL COMPLETE SERVICE.
10/14/2014 – I RECORDED MY PHONE CALL WITH THE CLERKS OFFICE: The Supreme Court Clerk lied to me after telling me I could file my writ of mandamus, Petition for Redress of a Grievance, and Demand for Rule 1:33 Enforcement, with my fee waiver forms directly with the Supreme Court.
10/15/2014: at about 12:10 pm I began service at the Supreme Court (a court of limited jurisdiction) to file a writ against the Superior Court, A.O.C., Judge Jacobson, Judge Bookbinder, Judge Tomasello, Judge Pedro Jimenez, Mercer County Sheriff’s Office, Mercer County Prosecutors Office. MY RECORDING DEVICE IS GOING THE WHOLE TIME. The clerk then tells me I CAN NOT FILE WITH THE SUPREME COURT BECAUSE THEY ONLY HEAR APPEALS FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION…. THIS IS FALSE, SHE OFFERS TO GIVE ME A BROCHURE TO EXPLAIN HER LIE… I TELL HER NO THANKS, I’VE READ THE STATE CONSTITUTION (IN WHOLE), AND A COURT OF LIMITED JURISDICTION CAN IN FACT ACCEPT MOTION PAPERS ADDRESSING A VOID COURT ORDER, AND A WRIT OF MANDAMUS…
THE SUPREME COURT CLERK: TELLS ME TO GO TO THE SUPERIOR COURT TO FILE MY WRIT… I TELL HER I WILL BUT I WILL SEND CERTIFIED COPIES TO THE SUPREME COURT AS IS MY RIGHT.
10/15/2014: AT 12:24 I SIGN IN AT THE SUPERIOR COURT CLERKS WINDOW AT THE HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX IN TRENTON … THEY ARE EXPECTING ME ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT (ODDLY). I DELIVER THE PAPERS AND EXPLAIN THAT I AM DEMANDING THE COURT OBEY THE LAWS AND COURT RULES AND THAT REMEDIAL ACTION BE TAKEN WITH REGARD TO MY UNLAWFUL ARREST, THE SETTING OF TWO BAILS FOR A SINGLE CHARGE, AFTER I ALREADY POSTED BAIL FOR THAT SAME SINGLE CHARGE, AND A LITANY OF SIMILARLY RIDICULOUS EVENTS, INCLUDING:
THE SUPERIOR COURT PROHIBITING ME FROM APPEARING AT MY OWN TRIALS… I GIVE THEM A COPY OF THAT CRAZY COURT ORDER FROM JUDGE BOOKBINDER
10/15/2014 – I served the Administrative Office of the Court (AOC) directly at the Director of the Courts Office. The secretary told me I could not serve the office directly, but that I had to serve the counsel for the office. I refused to take the writ and moving papers back and moved on.
10/15/2014 – I SERVE PAPERS TO THE MERCER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE AND SHERIFF JACK KEMLER: I demand to finally be told WHY I WAS ARRESTED 8/19/2013, WITHOUT WARRANT, PROBABLE CAUSE, OR ANY BAIL VIOLATIONS 1-DAY AFTER I POSTED BAIL, AND PRESENTED MY BAIL RECEIPT TO THE ARRESTING OFFICERS, WHO REFUSE TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES TO THIS DAY (one officer was Officer “Lasnyck” or something like that, he gave me a court order from my divorce judge after the arrest, but the sheriff’s office continues to deny they arrested me on 8/19/2013).
10/15/2014 – I then go to the SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL COURT HOUSE AT 400 WARREN STREET…. AT THIS POINT SHERIFF’S OFFICERS START HARASSING ME, AND TELLING ME THEY ARE GOING TO ESCORT ME THROUGHOUT THE COURT HOUSE. KEEP IN MIND I AM ACTING AS AN ATTORNEY-IN-FACT AND I HAVE FULL LITIGATION PRIVILEGES (I CAN NOT BE CIVILLY SANCTIONED FOR ANY COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO MY LEGAL PAPERS OR PROCESS… EVEN IF I YELL AT CLERKS AND COPS…. WHICH I DIDN’T, BUT I DID SPEAK FIRMLY)
… AT FIRST OFFICER BUNCHK STARTS ESCORTING ME… IT TAKES HIM ABOUT 2 MINUTES BEFORE HE THREATENS TO HAVE ME REMOVED FROM THE COURT. I ADVISE HIM THAT THE FBI INVESTIGATED THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE FOR MY ARREST, AND THEY RECOMMENDED PROSECUTION… I TELL HIM HE SHOULD PROBABLY STOP ESCORTING ME BECAUSE IF FOUND IT TO BE A FORM OF HARASSMENT.
…. HE GETS REPLACED BY OFFICER GOGAN (A WOMAN) SHORTLY AFTER THAT
…. THE CLERK TRIES TO REFUSE MY PAPERS, AND SHERIFF’S OFFICER GOGAN TRIES TO TELL ME THAT I NEED TO BE QUIET AND LET THE CLERK TALK.
I TELL OFFICER GOGAN TO STOP INTERRUPTING MY CONVERSATION, BECAUSE IT IS PRIVILEGED (LITIGATION PRIVILEGE) AND SHE CAN NOT IMPEDE OR OBSTRUCT MY COMMUNICATIONS MADE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE…
THE CLERK STARTS YELLING AT ME THEN AND TELLS ME THAT I NEED TO SHOW SOME RESPECT TO THE SHERIFF OFFICER GOGAN
I TELL THE CLERK THAT I AM A CITIZEN OF NEW JERSEY AND AN ATTORNEY AND THE SHERIFF’S OFFICER CAN NOT SANCTION ME FOR COMMUNICATING ABOUT MY CASE, UNLESS I BREAK A LAW… WHICH I NEVER DO (eg felony, or combative stuff).
EVENTUALLY MY PAPERS ARE SERVED UPON THE SUPERIOR COURT – JUDGE JIMENEZ, AND JUDGE JACOBSON….
SO NO SURPRISES HERE
THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE AND COURT CONTINUE TO
HARASS, LIE, BULLY, AND OBSTRUCT JUSTICE
… SO WE’LL BE IN FEDERAL COURT SOON ENOUGH
A REMINDER TO ALL:
THIS IS HOW SELF GOVERNMENT STARTED
(SEE ABOVE PICTURE: GADSEN FLAG CIRCA 1775)
WE THE PEOPLE OF NEW JERSEY WOULD NOT ACCEPT
A JUDGE ACTING LIKE THIS CHILD
WE CAN NOT ACCEPT THIS
(NO PUBLIC DEFENDER WAS EVER ASSIGNED IN 2013)
UNLESS WE WANT COURTS WHERE THE TRUTH IS:
NO LONGER RELEVANT
THEN WE MUST DEMAND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW
VIA WRITS OF MANDAMUS LIKE THIS
TO BE CLEAR:
JUDGE PEDRO JIMENEZ: EXCEEDED ALL LAWFUL AUTHORITY WHEN HE INCARCERATED DEREK SYPHRETT – HE COMMITTED CRIMES IN DOING THE SAME
MERCER COUNTY SHERIFF JACK KEMLER: HAS BEEN COMPLICIT IN COVERING UP A FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT BY HIS STAFF
MERCER COUNTY PROSECUTOR: JOSEPH BOCCHINI IS AWARE OF THE CRIMES COMMITTED HERE AND DID NOTHING WHEN ASKED TO IN WRITTING
MERCER COUNTY PROSECUOR JOSEPH BOCCHINI FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE AGAINST MR. SYPHRETT VIA FAX IN VIOLATION OF THE COURT RULES
MERCER COUNTY ASSIGNMENT JUDGE MARY C. JACOBSON: TRANSFERRED STATE V. SYPHRETT TO BURLINGTON WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY FACTUAL BASIS FOR DOING THE SAME, SHE HAS REFUSED TO EXPLAIN IT TO THE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT EVER SINCE FOR OVER 10 MONTHS
BURLINGTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE JEANNE COVERT: ACCEPTED A FAXED MOTION AND RULED ON IT IN VIOLATION OF THE COURT RULES AND WITHOUT THE MOTION BEING SERVED TO THE DEFENDANT AT ALL!
BURLINGTON COUNTY ASSIGNMENT JUDGE RONALD E. BOOKBINDER, PROHIBITED THE DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY AND THE DEFENDANT FROM APPEARING AT COURT FOR THE DEFENDANT’S TRIALS SEE THE VOID AND UNLAWFUL COURT ORDERS HERE, THIS IS EXTRINSIC FRAUD, IT IS ALSO A CRIME OF WITNESS TAMPERING
ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS JUDGE GLENN GRANT HAS BEEN MADE AWARE OF ALL OF THE ABOVE, AND HE HAS NOT INTERVENED TO INSURE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURTS
THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT (A.C.J.C.) HAS BEEN SENT DOCUMENTS CONFIRMING CRIMES WERE COMMITTED BY JUDGES AND VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW AND JUDICIAL CANONS OCCURRED, THEY HAVE NOT ACTUALLY INVESTIGATED AND INSTEAD COMMITTED MAIL FRAUD BY TELLING THE COMPLAINANT THAT THE INVESTIGATION AND MATERIALS HAD BEEN PUT BEFORE THE A.C.J.C. WHEN IN FACT A COMMITTEE MEMBER TOLD THE COMPLAINANT THAT HE HAD NEVER SEEN THE COMPLAINT (ASSOCIATE JUSTICE STERN, RETIRED)
MERCER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICERS HAVE ARRESTED DEREK SYPHRETT TWICE WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE OR A WARRANT, AND THEN LATER DENIED THAT THEY DID.
MERCER COUNTY CORRECTIONS CENTER WARDEN CHARLES ELLIS: IS AWARE OF THE UNLAWFUL INCARCERATION BUT HAS DONE NOTHING TO PROTECT MR. SYPHRETT’S RIGHTS
WHILE NO COURT HAS ACTUALLY ENFORCED THE COURT ORDERS PROHIBITING MR. SYPHRETT FROM APPEARING IN COURT, THEY ALSO REFUSE TO ADMIT THE ORDERS ARE IN FACT VOID AB INITIO, BECAUSE THEY VIOLATE THE LAW ITSELF!
TO BE MORE THAN CLEAR:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LEGAL IMMUNITY FROM THE TRUTH
ON THE INTERNET OR VIA PUBLIC OPINION
THE ABOVE NAMED PARTIES ARE GUILTY OF TREASON
AND OTHER FELONIES
Our Sole Recourse will remain civil and lawful at all times, but
WE will not accept these injustices or allow them to be abided!
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES,
(PURSUANT: NEW JERSEY STATE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I, et seq.
PURSUANT: BINDIN COMMON-LAW inclusive of Haines v. Kerner (1972)
WRIT OF MANDAMUS, IN LIEU OF WRIT, LEGAL BRIEF
WRIT OF HAEBEAS CORPUS, FOR BENJAMIN AND VANESSA SYPHRETT
(Submitted in Forma Pauperis, by Indigent Citizen, (See Proofs in Dockets: FV-03-1154-14 & FO-11-131-13)
SEE FULL PETITION TO SUPREME COURT, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURT, COURT CLERK
WITH EXHIBITS DETAILING SOME OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS HERE:
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE
(Pursuant: New Jersey State Constitution Article I, Par. 18;
Pursuant: Haines v. Kerner U.S. Supreme Court 1972; &
Binding Common-Law within this Jurisdiction)
Derek C. Syphrett, Esq. 10/10/2014
In the following capacities, and as the following legal persons:
Attorney; Citizen of New Jersey; Citizen of the United States of America; The Sovereign Power / Authority, in parte et in lege, et in lege; Permanently Disabled Person; Real Party of Interest; Defendant Pro Se; The Public, in parte; Naturalis Homo In Carne; Amicas Curiae; Witness-of-fact; Parent & Legal Guardian of Benjamin & Vanessa Syphrett (Citizens of Connecticut, and victims of Parental Kidnapping in 2010, in putative court ordered custody of Margaret Wallace, by putative court order of the State of New Jersey);
252 Fountayne Ln,
Lawrence Township, NJ 08648
VIA U.S. MAIL & FACSIMILE BY THIRD PARTY PERSONS
M. Smith, Hon. Chief Justice Rabner, Hon. Justice Albin, and all Employees of the New Jersey Courts with: any connection to my legal affairs: praeterita vel praesentia
Supreme Court of New Jersey
25 Market St, Trenton, NJ 08625
- THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE NEW JERSEY COURTS;
- WRITTEN REQUEST FOR ACCOMODATION PURSUANT THE FEDERAL AMERICAN’S WITH DISABILITIES ACT (A.D.A. / ADA)
- THE ADDRESSEES OF THIS LETTER WILL BE IN VERY BIG LEGAL TROUBLE IF I DO NOT GET ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS AND DEMANDS IN 7-DAYS. THE GIG IS UP. MY PATIENCE HAS EXPIRED. NO PERSON ON EARTH WOULD PUT UP WITH WHAT I HAVE IN SUCH A CIVIL AND LAWFUL MANNER, AND YET I REMAIN CIVIL & LAWFUL AND I SHALL REMAIN SO AT ALL TIMES. YOU MAY BE SUBJECTED TO DIRECT OR COLLATERAL PROSECUTION IF THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS NOT BOTH “CURED” AND “PURGED” REMEDIALLY
Dear Michelle M. Smith, Hon. Chief Justice Rabner, Hon. Justice Albin, Judge Glenn Grant, J.A.D. And all officers of the Unified Courts of New Jersey, Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct:
I have sent this letter to you in all of your “official capacities”, whether they be administrative or judicial in nature, or otherwise.
In my aforementioned legal capacities, and on behalf of the multitude of legal persons I both represent, and, in fact, am: I must at this point propound upon my (in parte) Court the following concerns and requests pursuant the interest of Justice, Court Rule 1:33, New Jersey State Constitution, 1947, Constitution for the United States of America, 1787 (inclusive of subsequent Amendments), the American Common-law / constitutionally operable portions of the ius civilli, within this states jurisidiction, and pursuant the A.D.A.:
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES,
PURSUANT: NEW JERSEY STATE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I, et seq.
WRIT OF MANDAMUS, IN LIEU OF WRIT, LEGAL BRIEF
WRIT OF HAEBEAS CORPUS, FOR BENJAMIN AND VANESSA SYPHRETT
I demand by operation of the Common-Law of this Jurisdiction, and pursuant timely and properly filed Writ of Coram Nobis, in Lieu of Writ, and papers submitted by right pursuant Court Rule 4:50, that my legal matters in Vincinage 3 be immediately relocated to an appropriate court.
- TO BE CLEAR: I demand (pursuant my prior and present written notices (in toto) which detail violations of “THE LAW” with relation to my legal affairs that the Administrative Office of the Courts consider Intervening in a material and impactful manner, in the interest of Justice; AND in support of my constitutionally protected rights; AND the RULES-OF-LAW (eg. Court Rules in toto)) THE COURT RESPOND IN WRITING TO ADDRESS THE VIOLATIONS OF COURT OFFICERS JUDGE PEDRO JIMENEZ, JUDGE FITZPATRICK, JUDGE JACOBSON, JUDGE BOOKBINDER, JOHN TOMASELLO, ETC.
- TO BE CLEAR: BY COURT RULE (1:33 and others) IT IS NOT THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCTS SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURTS. IT IS IN FACT THAT OF CHIEF JUSTICE STUART RABNER, in his administrative capacity, and it is further the delegated responsibility of the Director of The Courts, and all Assignment Judges.
- AS SUCH: I DEMAND THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURTS WITH REGARD TO MY LEGAL AFFAIRS AND THE APPARENT NULL & VOID COURT ORDERS CURRENTLY PROPOUNDED UPON MY PERSON(S) AND MY PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE-PROCESS UNDER-THE-LAW, AND WITHOUT FOUNDATION IN THE LAW.
I DEMAND THE COURT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE CASE FILES IN FM-03-790-14, FV-03-1154-14, FV-03-1162-14, AND PROSECUTOR’S CASE # 13-2502, in toto, and inclusive of the Transcripts for the Same.
I DEMAND THE COURT EXPLAIN UPON WHAT LAWFUL AUTHORITY I WAS ARRESTED ON 8/19/2013, AND THEN ARRAIGNED BY JUDGE PEDRO JIMENEZ WITHOUT ANY LEGAL NOTICE TO MY ATTORNEY (MYSELF), OR MYSELF (DEFENDANT), PRIOR TO BEING HANDCUFFED AND BROUGHT BEFORE A JUDGE ON 8/19/2013 1-DAY PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED “FIRST APPEARANCE”, WHICH WAS SERVED UPON ME ON 8/18/2013.
- FURTHER I DEMAND TO KNOW: ON WHAT BASIS IN FACT MY WARRANT OF 8/18/2013 WAS AMENDED, AS THE COURT, PROSECUTOR, AND SHERIFF’S OFFICE HAVE TO DATE NOT SUPPLIED ANY ANSWER TO MY WRITTEN REQUEST FOR THIS INFORMATION.
- In Fact in June of 2014: The Sheriff’s Office Falsely Claimed that they had no record of my 8/19/2013” arrest in response to the O.P.R.A. Request of John Paff. THIS WAS AN ACT OF MAIL FRAUD AND A LIE.
- THE AFOREMENTIONED LIES / FALSE STATEMENTS WERE: ONLY CORRECTED AFTER A COPY OF THE ARREST RECORD WAS SENT TO THE MERCER COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNSEL!!!
- FURTHER I DEMAND TO KNOW: ON WHAT LAWFUL AUTHORITY I WAS ARRESTED WITHIN THE SUPERIOR COURT WHILE SERVING AS AN ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, FOR A CASE PENDING BEFORE THE COURT AT THAT TIME AND/OR
- I DEMAND TO KNOW ON WHAT AUTHORITY WAS I ARRESTED ON 8/19/2013, AFTER LAWFULLY POSTING BAIL ON 8/18/2013 IN PROSECUTORS CASE #13-2502
- FURTHER I DEMAND TO KNOW: ON WHAT BASIS IN FACT MY WARRANT OF 8/18/2013 WAS AMENDED, AS THE COURT, PROSECUTOR, AND SHERIFF’S OFFICE HAVE TO DATE NOT SUPPLIED ANY ANSWER TO MY WRITTEN REQUEST FOR THIS INFORMATION.
I DEMAND THE COURT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS FROM (firstname.lastname@example.org) TO EMPLOYEES OF THE COURT AND EMPLOYEES OF THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT FROM (1/2013 to 10/12/2014):
- The Court Acknowledge written receipt, via “mail”, of my objection to the Probation Departments enforcement of a “Null & Void” child support order, and the courts / probatins failure to schedule an Administrative Hearing on the disputed facts of the matter.
- The court acknowledge my pre-adjudication requests in both FM-03-790-14 and FV-03-1154-14 (via an un-scheduled, Immediate Appeal requesting counsel be assigned): that I repeatedly requested counsel as a indigent, and as a result of my documented disabilities. THE COURT FAILED TO HEAR MY PROPERLY PLACED MOTIONS, AND/OR FAILED TO EVEN ISSUE SUMMONS FOR THE 3/1/2014 IMMEDIATE APPEAL (this was a violation of State Statutory-due-process, the will of the People, and contrary to the New Jersey State Legislature’s Authority, to demand the court provide immediate appeals as of right to a D.V. Defendant)!!!
- The Court Acknowledge that the proceedings in FM-03-790-14, were in fact and/or law in violation of the rights of the real parties of interest (Derek Syphrett, Benjamin Syphrett, and Vanessa Syphrett), in the manners described in the past correspondence with The Court, A.C.J.C. Sent via various forms of “mail” to the Court, and contained in the motion papers of Mr. Syphrett. This includes:
- THESE FACTS, EVIDENCE, AND TRANSCRIPTS CONFIRMING THAT: THE COURT PROHIBITING A WITNESS OF FACT, THE DEFENDANT, AND THE DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY (Derek Syphrett) FROM APPEARING AT TRIAL IN FM-03-790-14, FV-03-1162-14, AND FV-03-1154-14, on 2/18/2014 and 2/19/2014, where the court in some cases adjudicated the matters ex-parte, as a result of prohibiting one litigant from appearing at all, via court orders of 2/6/2014, and 2/19/2014.THE AFOREMENTIONED BASIS IN FACTS AND EVIDENCE (AND THE OTHER EVIDENCE I HAVE SENT TO THE COURT PREVIOUSLY) REPRESENTS: CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THIS COURT HAS PARTICIPATED IN IUNLAWFUL ACTS, THAT ARE REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE, AND AS A RESULT AFFORDS THE COURT NO OFFICE, TO ISSUE FINAL ORDERS IN ANY OF THESE MATTERS BY OPERATION OF THE COMMON-LAW.
- LEGAL FOUNDATIONS SUPPORTING THIS DEMAND AND/OR LEGAL ARGUMENT INCLUDE: “LAW OF THE VOIDS” AND/OR “DOCTRINE OF RECIPROCALS”
- Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,254 U.S. 348, 41 S.Ct. 116 (1920)
Excerpts from “The Valley Supreme Court:
“Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal.”
- Boyd v. United 116 U.S. 616 : Justice Bradley said: “It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens…”
- Gomillion v. Lightfoot 364 U.S. 155:“Constitutional Rights would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied.”
- Norton v. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425:An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
- In Marbury v. Madison, U.S. Supreme Court: Chief Justice John Marshall stated:“the very purpose of the written constitution is to ensure that the government officials, including Judges, do not depart from the documents fundamental principles”.
- RE: THE DOCTRINE OF RECIPROCALS: This Court has attempted to order Mr. Syphrett to pay child support for children that the State placed in the Physical & Legal Custody of Margaret J. Wallace, THIS VIOLATES “THE DOCTRINE OF RECIPROCALS”, AND EXCLUSIVE OF THE VIOLATIONS OF MR. SYPHRETT’S RIGHTS AT TRIAL, THIS COURT HAS FURTHER COMPOUNDED ITS ERRORS BY ASSERTING THAT MR. SYPHRETT IS OBLIGATED TO PAY CHILD-SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN THAT THE COURT HAS PUTATIVELY ASSERTED ARE NOT HIS CHILDREN UNDER-THE-LAW, OR WITHIN THE PHYSICAL / NATURAL WORLD. FURTHER:FURTHER: THIS UNIFIED COURT HAS ASSERTED THAT MR. SYPHRETT IS OBLIGATED TO SUPPORT THE SAME CHILDREN THAT THE COURT ASSERTS ARE NO LONGER HIS TO RAISE, REAR, OR PARENT IN THE MANNER HE SEES FIT AS A PARENT.
Mr. Syphrett Cited “RE: The Matter of Baby “M”” during the trial proceedins in FM-03-790-14, for judicial notice. He explicitly demanded the court to acknowledge that it would be waiving the right to set an so-called “child-support” obligation if the court prohibited Mr. Syphrett from having legal and physical custody of his children. The court was effectively executing a quasi-adoption, and as such Mr. Syphrett would have no obligation to pay “support” to any party.
AS SUCH: THIS UNIFIED COURT IS WITHOUT ANY LAWFUL RIGHT TO DEMAND OR PURPORT THAT MR. SYPHRETT HAS ANY “SUPPORT” OBLIGATION TO MS. WALLACE, OR THE CHILDREN, AS IT VIOLATES THE DOCTRIN OF RECIPROCALS
I DEMAND THIS COURT ENFORCE MY LEGAL RIGHTS IN ALL OF MY AFOREMENTIONED CAPACITIES, OR ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ITS FAILURE TO DO SO, AND THAT ALL COURT OFFICERS WHO HAVE FAILED TO ENFORCE MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS EITHER TAKE IMMEDIATE REMEDIAL ACTION, OR ALSO AVAIL THEMSELVES TO PROSECUTION IN THE APPROPRIATE COURTS OF LAW.
I DEMAND A WRITTEN RESPONSE, INCLUSIVE OF WAIVORS OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY FOR THOSE OFFICERS WHO VOLUNTARILY VIOLATED MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN ANY OF THE AFOREMENTIONED CASES, FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUCH WAIVOR, WILL BE DEEMED AS A THREAT AGAINST MY PERSON, AND PROOF, THAT SUCH OFFICERS INTEND TO FURTHE HARM ME AT A FUTURE DATE
I DEMAND THIS COURT PROVIDE ME THE NAME AND ALL OTHER APPROPRIATE INFORMATION PURSUANT THE ADA WITH REGARD TO THE PERSON RESPONSIBILE FOR ADMINISTERING THE “AMERICAN’S WITH DISABILITIES ACT” AT THE HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX, THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, WITHIN THE APPELLATE DIVISION, AND WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS. I DEMAND THIS INFORMATION AS A PERMANENTLY DISABLED PERSON, PURSUANT THE RECORDS CONFIRMING THE SAME PREVIOUSLY SENT TO THE UNIFIED COURTS OF NEW JERSEY.
I DEMAND PROBATION CEASE / STAY ANY ENFORCEMENT OF MY SO-CALLED “CHILD SUPPORT” COURT ORDERS UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND THE COURT PROVIDE ME A FOUNDATION IN THE LAW FOR THE SAME, THAT IS NOT CLEARLY THE RESULT OF NULL & VOID COURT ORDERS, WHICH WERE NULL & VOID AB INITIO (for the reasons cited herein, and for the reasons previously submitted to the Court and/or probation in writing).
I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO FURTHER PROSECUTE THIS MATTER AND ALL RELATED PERSONS, IN THE EVENT THAT MY GRIEVANCES ARE NOT FULLY ADDRESSED BY THE ADDRESSED PERSONS AND GOVERNMENTAL BODIES.
I DEMAND RESTORATION OF MY PARENTAL RIGHTS, MY CUSTODY RIGHTS, AND MY LEGAL RIGHTS WITH REGARD TO MY CHILDREN BENJAMIN AND VANESSA SYPHRETT. I DEMAND THIS SUA SPONTE, AND IMMEDIATELY
- BASIS IN FACT INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO THE FACT THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE ORDERED A CHANGE OF CUSTODY BASED ON FACTS, EVIDENCE, AND TESTIMONY NEVER PUT PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT (1. Therapists in Connecticut, who did not appear in court, submit reports, or affadavits AND 2. witnesses whom the court did not allow the Defendant to Cross-Examine, the Defendant’s wife! AND 3. Witnesses the court refused to allow the Defendant to produce, his children!)
- BASIS IN FACTS AND THE LAW:
- THE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER PROVEN TO BE AN UNFIT PERSON TO A CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD OF EVIDENCE. THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED DUE-PROCESS AT TRIAL.
- THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO APPEAR AT HIS OWN TRIAL, AS WAS HIS ATTORNEY, AND HIS WITNESS-OF-FACT. THIS IS EXTRINSIC FRAUD! (See the current edition of Black’s Law Dictionary for “Extrinsic Fraud”)
iii. AS A PRESUMED FIT PARENT, WITH ONLY POSITIVE PARENTING TIME SUPERVISOR REPORTS THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF PURSUANT:
– In Parham v. J.R. et al 442 U.S. 584 (1979) in toto, inclusive of cited cases, and specifically with regard to its findings that:
The Supreme Court declared the ‘best interest of the child’ resides in the fit parent – not in the state: “Our constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that a child is a “the mere creature of the State” and, on the contrary, asserted that parents generally “have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare [their children] for additional obligations.”
– Santosky v. Kramer 455 U.S. 745 (1982) in toto and specifically with regard to its legal findings that:
To deny a parental right requires constitutional due process that proves he’s either unfit or a clear danger to his children – proven with ‘clear and convincing’ evidence. As such, Santosky v. Kramer 455 U.S. 745 (1982) emphasized to restrict a fundamental right of a parent to any extent, requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence that serious harm will come to the child.
I ADVISE THAT: I WILL ONLY CONSENT TO THE PERMENANT SEALING OF MY FILES IN THE EVENT:THAT MY CUSTODY IS RESTORED AND THIS COURT WAIVE ALL FUTURE JURISDICTION OR RIGHTS TO INTERFERE IN THE RIGHTS OF MY PARENTAL RIGHTS SO LONG AS MY CHILDREN REMAIN CITIZENS OF A FOREIGN STATE
YOU WILL OBEY THE SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY /PARTY,
MEANING: ME (in parte / in toto)
I DEMAND THAT THIS PETITION BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY PURSUANT BINDING OPERATION OF THE COMMON-LAW, AS CITED IN HAINES V. KERNER, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT (1972), AND ITS BINDNG PROGENCY WITHIN THIS JURISDICTION.
FURTHER: I submit that to the extent that this document IN FACT DOES NOT ADDRESS ALL OF MY LONG-DATED CONCERNS PREVIOUSLY PUT BEFORE THIS BODY, I RESERVE AND DEMAND THE RIGHT TO BE FULLY HEARD, PLENARY PROCEEDINGS, AND ORAL ARGUMENTS… BECAUSE THIS COURT WILL NOT PROPOUND A SILENT INJUSTICE UPON ONE OF ITS CITIZENS. AS SUCH I REMIND THIS COURT THAT AS A CITIZEN I AM IN FACT A MEMBER OF THE BODY THAT POCESSES THE SOVEREIGN-AUTHORITYOF THIS COURT,
I AM IN FACT AND LAW: A CONSTITUTIONAL CREATION MYSELF AS A “CITIZEN”.
Derek C. Syphrett, Esq.
Citizen of New Jersey
Citizen of the United States of America
Permanently Disabled Person, pursuant the ADA
The Sovereign-Power, in parte / in toto, in iure civili, et in carne
Naturalis Homo in Carne
Legally Competent Person, Pursuant:the findings and Precedential Law in Kyle v. Verona Green Acres, and its progency in New Jersey Courts
The Putative Pro Se
SEE THE TRANSCRIPTS OF JUDGE PEDRO JIMENEZ
ACTING AS JUDGE, WITNESS-OF-FACT, PROSECUTOR,
IN JUST ONE EPISODE OF THIS UNMITIGATED DISASTER
THIS WAS AN UNLAWFUL KIDNAPPING OF AN ATTORNEY,
APPEARING IN COURT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE!
JUDGE PEDRO JIMENEZ ACTED BEYOND ALL AUTHORITY AND MAY NOW BE
ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED CIVILLY AND CRIMINALLY FOR THIS!
(Gadsen Flag Circa 1775)
THE ABOVE PROVIDED TO:
REMIND NEW JERSEY PUBLIC OFFICIALS THAT:
SOME OF US HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN THE REASONS
THIS STATE IS “SELF-GOVERNED”
LETTER TO ASSIGNMENT JUDGE RONALD E. BOOKBINDER
SENT AFTER HE ATTEMPTED TO PROHIBIT A DEFENDANT FROM:
APPEARING IN COURT FOR HIS OWN TRIAL, VIA
UNLAWFUL COURT ORDERS
SEE THE FAXED LETTER AND FAX RECEIPTS TO ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT (A.C.J.C.)
ADMINISRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS (A.O.C.) AND THE SUPERIOR COURT HERE:
Derek C. Syphrett, Esq.
Pro se litigant (Defendant)
252 Fountayne Ln,
Lawrence Township, NJ 08648
VIA U.S. MAIL & FACSIMILE BY THIRD PARTY PERSONS
Family Division Clerk, Suasan Fortino, Judge Bookbinder, John Tomasello, John Call, Judge Covert, Sharyn Sherman, Law Clerks for the Judges named herein.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part (Burlington County)
49 Rancocas Rd
Mount Holly, NJ 08060
RE: Bischoff v. Syphrett
Docket No.: FV-03-1154-14 – DIQUALIFICATION OF TRIAL JUDGES
Dear Judge Bookbinder:
I am writing the court (not you) to further propound upon the court my demands for justice, pursuant my right to petition my government for redress of grievances, as secured by the People of New Jersey, pursuant the New Jersey State Constitution of 1947, and pursuant my right to communicate in the interests of Justice as an attorney-in-fact (citation: Hawkins v. Harris, 141 N.J. 207 (1995): see courts findings which provide legal foundation supporting my judicial litigation privileges)
I wanted to follow-up on the Status Conference of 10/7/2014, to address your offer to allow me to “Judge Shop” and choose to have the Judge of my choice hear my petitions for redress of grievances (my motions papers generally) with regard to FV-03-1154-14 (only).
Please be advised that I decline your request to participate in any form of “Judge Shopping”, because the offer and the concept itself is offensive and disrespectful to the courts, the litigants, the public trust, and the institution of the Superior Court itself.
SEE SOME OF THE UNLAWFUL, NULL & VOID COURT ORDERS HERE:
TO BE CLEAR:
My concern about either yourself or John Tomasello attempting to adjudicate my legal matters is borne from my desire to enforce litigant’s rights for the legal person(s) I represent (myself and all other legal persons that I, in fact, am). My concern is that both John Tomasello and yourself have ceased to be Neutral third parties in due to a multitude of actions each of you have voluntarily chosen to engage in, which are clearly contrary to the law, rules-of-law, the state constitution, the federal constitution, my civil rights, and the interests of justice generally. BOTH YOURSELF AND JOHN TOMASELLO ARE ALREADY DISQUALIFIED BY RULE FROM HEARING MY MATTERS PURSUANT THE JUDICIAL CANONS AND MANDATORILY BINDING COMMON-LAW OF THIS JURISDICTION (WHETHER IT BE JUDICIALLY NOTICED OR NOT).
I say the above because the facts, testimony, process, etc that is already before the court 100%, clearly and convincingly support my position that your offending court orders of: 2/6/2014, 2/19/2014, 4/1/2014, 9/12/2014, and others are in fact null and void.
AGAIN: I REQUEST YOU TAKE NOTICE OF THE COMMON-LAW IN TOTO, AND SPECIFICALLY INCLUSIVE OF THE DOCTRINE OF “THE LAW OF THE VOIDS”
- The common-law right to attack a court order that is null & void ab initio remains inviolate. As such I assert that the final order in FV-03-1154-14 is NULL & VOID ab inito. Further I assert the orders of Judge Bookbinder dated 2/6/2014, and 2/19/2014 are both Null & Void, and that they represent acts of extrinsic fraud, in that they purport to interfere with the appearance of a witness-of-fact (The Defendant). Such orders may be attacked at any time and are not time barred. They may be legally attacked directly at the trial court and/or collaterally in any court with jurisdiction over the matter.
- SEE THE FOLLOWING LEGAL ARGUMENTS AND LEGAL FOUNDATIONS SUPPORTING MY CHALLENGE TO THE FINAL COURT ORDER AS A CHALLENGE DIRECTED AT ANY AND ALL NULL & VOID COURT ORDERS AFFECTING MY LEGAL INTERESTS:
- The law is well-settled that a void order or judgment is void even before reversal. Take Judicial Notice of:
Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,254 U.S. 348, 41 S.Ct. 116 (1920)
- Excerpts from “The Valley Supreme Court:
Boyd v. United 116 U.S. 616 : Justice Bradley said:
“It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens…”
Gomillion v. Lightfoot 364 U.S. 155:
“Constitutional Rights would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied.”
Norton v. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425:
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall stated:
“the very purpose of the written constitution is to ensure that the government officials, including Judges, do not depart from the documents fundamental principles”.
For some not fully transparent, but yet apparent reason: it appears that you and your colleagues have attempted to obstruct justice in an unlawful manner with regard to my legal affairs and my communications with the court and third parties.
THIS WAS A BAD IDEA (MEANING STUPID). I am not the sort of man who should be trifled with by people or persons who have financial assets or lifestyles they wish to maintain at the status quo. I say this not to threaten or scare you, but to emphasize my firm and appropriate position that I will endeavor in any and all civil and lawful manners to hold those who transgress my children, my property, or my rights fully accountable to the law, or at a minimal: I will always endeavor to ensure that those who violate my personal rights or those of my children will be forever discouraged from doing so EVER again, by standing up for my rights in a civil, lawful manner, pursuant the interests of Justice.
TO BE CLEAR: I am not an intolerable jerk, BUT I CAN BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE… I CAN BE AS BIG OF A JERK AS THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE REQUIRE, AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM TAKING THAT POSITION IF/WHEN IT SERVES THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.
The history of people who’ve doubted my legal skill, and/or my professional skill is a very sad story. They do not fair well generally, because ultimately my success leads to their downfall and scrutiny of their peers. I am a very thoughtful person, and so when I speak or interact with the court it is ALWAYS PURPOSEFUL AND DESIGNED TO CREATE JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY AND AN END RESULT THAT IS IN FACT AND LAW: JUST.
Please also take some solace in the fact that while you have offended me and my family in a very personal manner, my dispute with you is not “personal”. I don’t care about you, or your family, your thoughts, your dreams, your aspirations, your retirement, your occupation etc. It’s just not something I want to concern myself with.
In fact if it were not for your awful conduct as a Judge I believe I could enjoy pleasant conversation with you and a few cocktails at a local eatery. At times you can seem to be a fairly enjoyable personality. However, as a Judge in my matters, you are a distraction, intolerable, and you’ve violated the law. For these reasons alone – I can not abide you handling of my legal affairs a second longer (Please see my writ of coram Nobis for details of my concerns and my legal rights to banish you from this case).
FURTHER: IT HAS NEVER MADE SENSE FOR BOTH JOHN TOMASELLO AND FOR YOU TO CO-DEPENDENTLY SERVE AS TRIERS OF FACT IN FV-03-1154-14… IT OFFENDS ALL MANNER JUDICIAL INDPENDENCE TO HAVE TWO JUDGES ACTIVELY HEARING THE MATTER, WITHOUT BOTH BEING PRESENT TO HEAR PRESENTMENT OF FACTS, TESTIMONY, OR MOTION PAPERS!!!
LASTLY: MY OFFICIAL POSITION IS YOUR COURT ORDERS DO NOT EXIST:
Please be advised that Your Court Orders and those of John Tomasello in FV-03-1154-14, FM-03-790-14, FV-03-1162-14, LITERALLY DO NOT EXIST IN THE CORPUS JURIS (THE BODY OF LAW)
I officially provide you this letter as legal notice that the orders are null and void, the aforementioned court orders: confer no rights; it impose no duties; affords no protection; creates no office; they are in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed … THEY DO NOT EXIST TO ME. FURTHER I WILL NOT CONSENT TO FURTHER HEARINGS BEFORE YOU AS YOU ARE LAWFULLY DISQUALIFIED AS OF 2/6/2014, WHEN YOU ACTED SUA SPONTE AS AN ADVERSE PARTY TO THE DEFENDANT AND THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE BY IMPEDEING THE LEGAL PROCESS UNNECESSARILY AND CONTRARY TO THE LAW AS CITED IN MY WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS.
SO WITH THAT I SAY, HAVE A NICE LIFE AND BEGONE. IF I SEE YOU AGAIN I WILL MOST ASSUREDLY ARREST YOU AND PROSECUTE AS IS MY RIGHT IN NEW JERSEY UNDER THE LAW AND COURT RULE 1:21 et seq.
Pro se Defendant
P.S. PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS VIA INTEROFFICE MAIL UPON THE UNIFIED COURTS RECEIPT OF THE THIS LETTER.
cc: Judge Glenn Grant
cc: Administraive Office of the Courts (Appropriate Person Overseeing the Compliance with the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act)
cc: Michelle Smith Clerk of the Court
cc: Chief Justice Rabner
cc: Justice Albin
cc: Plaintiff – Kathryn Bischoff (the woman who never refuted or replied to my pleadings that she lied to obtain a FRO, delivered via Court Clerk, pursuant DV Procedural Manual)
For more background on the UNLAWFUL ISSUES ENDURED BY THIS MAN IN NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT (FAMILY COURT) READ MR. SYPHRETT WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS HERE.
Note a Writ of Coram Nobis is a ancient common-law writ that has origins in Chancery Courts. The New Jersey Family Court is still a Chancery Court, sitting within a Chancery Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, as such it is totally appropriate to file a Writ of Coram Nobis as of a Common Law right to Demand the correction of court errors of fact. Further Pursuant Court Rule 4:50 it is our well-researched (non-legal opinion) that within 1-year of a FINAL JUDGEMENT, a motion for NEW TRIAL may be appropriate if a litigants rights were violated through no fault of that litigant, and/or over that litigants objections to the same at trial.
SEE THE WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS HERE:
IT IS SCATHING AND HILARIOUSLY RUDE TO THE JUDGES WHO LIED!
(IT CONTAINS MANY GRAMMAR ERROS, AND WILL BE AMENDED)
… AND …
AFTER APPEARING BEFORE JOHN TOMASELLO
& REVIEWING CASES THAT HE GOT WRONG
I CAN CONFIRM THAT HE IS A PUBLIC MENACE
Short List of Cases Tomasello has Botched:
1. Houseman v. Dare – Judge Tomasello was overturned after presiding over a dog custody case…
An unmarried man owned a dog and after he dumped his girlfriend she sued for custody
Rather than Dismissing this Case Tomasello presided over a case that ultimately cost the estranged couple over $40,000 in attorney fees… for a dog.
Judge Tomasello allowed Family Court Resources to be deployed for dog welfare rather than addressing the people and children that require the Family Court to resolve conflicts
2. Judge John Tomasello released a Man who solicted sex from a purported Minor Child – because it was a “victimless crime. The man was later convicted. TOMASELLO WAS WRONG AGAIN… ATTEMPTING CHILD RAPE IS A CRIME IN NJ (SEE ARTICLE HERE)
– The County Prosecutor Took the Unusual Approach of Berating Judge Tomasello in the Local Paper
– You Know a Judge is horrible when the local members of the Bar actually say so publicly … its very unusual!
3. Judge John Tomasello Lied about court orders he issued, and presided over a case where the Defendant was ordered not to appear in court… Judge Tomasello failed to recognize that this was a denial of due-process read about that here.
TODAY I PRESENT A FOURTH CASE THAT
JUDGE JOHN TOMASELLO BOTCHED SO BADLY
IT WAS OVERTURNED BY THE APPELLATE AND REMANDED TO A
NOTABLY THE APPELLATE COURT ORDER
INCLUDES JUDGE TOMASELLO’S NAME
DESPITE THE COMMON-PRACTICE OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
WHEREBY A JUDGE THAT IS OVERTURNED IS NEVER MENTIONED BY NAME
BASICALLY THE APPELLATE COURT WAS
CALLING OUT JUDGE TOMASELLO – BECAUSE THEY WERE OUTRAGED!
READ THE TEXT OF
TOMASELLO DEMONSTRATED A FAILURE
TO UNDERSTAND THE LAW
N.J. Superior Court, Appellate Division
A-6101-02T4; Appellate Division; opinion by Fisher, J.A.D.; decided and approved for publication May 23, 2005. Before Judges Fall, Payne and C.S. Fisher. On appeal from the Law Division, Gloucester County, Indictment No. 02-12-0206. [Sat below: Judge Tomasello.] DDS No. 14-2-0297
I. Defendant was charged with first-degree maintaining or operating a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) production facility (marijuana in an amount greater than 10 plants), in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-4; first-degree possession with intent to distribute CDS (marijuana in an amount greater than 50 plants), in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(10)(a); fourth-degree possession of CDS (marijuana in an amount greater than 50 grams), in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(3); and third-degree possession of CDS (methamphetamine), in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1).
After the trial judge denied his motion to suppress, defendant entered a plea of guilty to first-degree maintaining or operating a CDS production facility. The trial judge imposed a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, one-third of which defendant must serve before becoming eligible for parole. Monetary assessments were also imposed. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the other counts of the indictment were dismissed.
Held: A warrantless thermal-imaging scan of defendant’s home and the warrantless seizure of utility records regarding the amount of electricity consumed in defendant’s home were illegal. As a result, the judgment of conviction is reversed, the denial of the motion to suppress vacated, and the matter is remanded for consideration, after a hearing, of whether defendant consented to the search of his home and, if so, whether the consent search was so impacted by the prior unlawful police conduct as to require the exclusion of the evidence then seized. Also, the trial judge erred by failing to allow testimony about a polygraph test administered to defendant. Lastly, a different judge is to be assigned to conduct all future proceedings in the trial court.
II. In January 2000, Detective William Peacock, lead investigator for the New Jersey State Police’s Marijuana Eradication Unit, obtained information by way of subpoena that defendant had received four packages of indeterminate size and content from a nearby business that sells plant-growth equipment. Why a subpoena was sought to obtain these records was not revealed at the suppression hearing.
Defendant’s mere receipt of this equipment ¿ the precise nature of which has not been revealed ¿ led Detective Peacock to somehow suspect that defendant might be growing marijuana in his home. As a result, Detective Peacock obtained a subpoena to compel a power company to turn over records concerning defendant’s residential use of electricity. The record, however, does not disclose what this information revealed.
On cross-examination, defense counsel sought to explore the content of these electrical records, as well as the manner in which they were obtained. He was permitted only a few questions before the trial judge ruled that this information had no bearing on whether defendant voluntarily consented to a search of his home. Defense counsel, in compliance with the trial judge’s directive, asked no further questions regarding the electrical-usage records.
As a result, the record reflects that when deciding to seek defendant’s consent to a search of his home, Detective Peacock knew only that defendant obtained equipment, only identified as plant-growth equipment, in January 2000; that no unusual amount of heat emanated from defendant’s home when a warrantless thermal scan was conducted in May 2000; and that subpoenaed utility records indicated that defendant’s home used electricity to some unknown extent at some unknown time. Detective Peacock conceded that this information would not support the issuance of a search warrant for defendant’s home, but he felt it appropriate to speak to defendant. Consequently, Detective Peacock determined to engage defendant in a “knock and talk.”
On July 27, 2000, Detective Peacock approached defendant’s residence, in the early morning, with four other law enforcement agents, all in plain clothes and all armed. They entered the curtilage of defendant’s home, without consent. In fact, two officers passed through a gate that had been closed to approach the back door, while the other three officers approached the front door.
Detective Peacock acknowledged that the manner in which the officers approached to engage in this “knock and talk” was compatible with how a search warrant would have been executed, the only difference being that the officers did not have a search warrant and would not have obtained a search warrant, from an impartial judge, if sought.
In addition, contrary to Detective Peacock’s testimony that he simply wanted to talk to defendant, the officer at the front door did not merely request that defendant speak with them but instead demanded that defendant speak to them, saying, “We need to speak to you?”
Detective Peacock testified that all five officers then entered defendant’s home through the front door and that he obtained defendant’s consent, as memorialized on a consent form that defendant executed. Once in the home, according to Detective Peacock, defendant readily divulged that there were 40 marijuana plants growing in the basement. The officers’ subsequent search led to the discovery of more than 100 growing marijuana plants in various parts of defendant’s home, as well as numerous plastic bags containing processed marijuana, and a plastic bag containing methamphetamine.
Defendant disputed Detective Peacock’s version, testifying at the suppression hearing that Detective DeBiase knocked on his front door, said he had a search warrant, and promptly entered the home through the front door with two other officers. The officers inside then let Detective Peacock and the fifth officer in through the back door. According to defendant, no one asked his permission to enter or search the home, but, instead, immediately on entering, an officer handcuffed defendant and told him to sit on a couch in the living room, along with his girlfriend, while the officers searched the home. Only approximately one hour later was defendant asked to sign a form (the aforementioned consent form) that he was not permitted to read. Defendant testified that, when presented to him, the consent form was folded in such a way as to preclude his ability to read its contents, an issue that was explored at the hearing, when it was revealed through the testimony of a retired state police officer that the consent form in question was outdated.
In addition, defendant called a polygrapher to testify. Prior to his being sworn, the trial judge sustained the state’s objection, thus precluding the polygrapher’s testimony regarding the results of his examination of defendant relating to the July 27, 2000, events. Defendant also offered the polygrapher’s testimony of prior consistent statements allegedly made by defendant, which the trial judge initially permitted; however, the trial judge soon thereafter sustained the state’s objection that such testimony was barred by N.J.R.E. 607, a ruling defendant has not challenged on appeal.
The trial judge found Detective Peacock’s version credible. He rejected defendant’s argument that the consent form was folded in a way that, when presented for his signature, barred his examination of its content; found insignificant that the consent form was outdated; found Detective Peacock credibly explained why so many officers were present when the ostensible intent of the visit was to simply “knock and talk”; found reasonable the fact that Detective Peacock passed through a gate, entered defendant’s backyard and approached the back door, because the detective believed that was the door more commonly used by the residents; found that defendant invited the officers into his home because it was raining; found that, on entering the home, Detective Peacock was able to detect the smell of unburnt marijuana; and found that defendant volunteered there were marijuana plants in the basement. From these facts, the trial judge concluded that defendant freely and voluntarily consented to the search of the home, and consequently denied defendant’s motion to suppress.
As observed, the trial judge precluded defense counsel’s inquiries into the legality of the warrantless search of electrical-usage records and did not determine whether such a search required a warrant. Although defendant attempted to assert that the prior searches were unlawful and tainted the consent allegedly given by defendant to a physical search of his home, the trial judge mistakenly failed to consider or decide those issues.
III. Contrary to the trial judge’s ruling, the sufficiency of defendant’s alleged consent to the search of his home may very well have been impacted by any prior illegal searches. Because, contrary to the trial judge’s approach, evidence obtained from a consent search of a home will be excluded if it results either directly or indirectly from illegal police conduct, it must be initially considered whether the officers conducted any prior unlawful searches.
A. Detective Peacock subpoenaed information that defendant purchased plant-growth equipment from a business located in Williamstown. The record does not reveal what this equipment consisted of or why its purchase piqued the detective’s interest, but there is no dispute that this equipment could be used to grow marijuana plants indoors. It is also conceded that it is lawful to purchase or possess such equipment and that it may be used to grow plants that may be lawfully grown. What prompted the police to compel the turnover of this information regarding defendant’s purchase of plant-growth equipment is unknown.
Defendant has not questioned on appeal the lawfulness of the seizure of that evidence.
B. Armed with information that defendant obtained plant-growth equipment, Detective Peacock then conducted, without a warrant, a thermal scan of defendant’s residence in May 2000.
On June 11, 2001, slightly more than one year later, the Supreme Court of the United States held that thermal scanning constitutes a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and that such a search of a home may not be conducted in the absence of a warrant. Kyllo v. United States, 121 S.Ct. 2038 (2001). The unlawfulness of such a search, even if not previously announced, should have been understood by law enforcement officials in New Jersey. As Kyllo held, thermal scannings of residences represent “the search of the interior of homes ¿ the prototypical and hence most commonly litigated area of protected privacy.” Id. at 2043.
Kyllo‘s holding, even when defendant’s home was thermally scanned a year earlier, was predictable, because a warrantless thermal scan unreasonably intrudes into and tends to reveal, albeit in a very general way, what occurs within the interior of the home ¿ the “chief evil” the federal and state constitutions were designed to combat. State v. Cassidy, 179 N.J. 150, 159-60 (2004). While such a scan, in and of itself, may reveal nothing more than the greater emanations of heat from particular areas of a structure, the Fourth Amendment’s shield from unreasonable governmental intrusions into the home is not restricted to only those things some would describe as “intimate.”
The Court’s holding in Kyllo, despite the division within the Court itself, was predictable and should not only be applied prospectively.
Although prior to Kyllo a majority of courts had determined that a thermal scan of a structure from a public thoroughfare did not constitute a search, a substantial minority had held to the contrary. Regardless of this imbalance, courts have interpreted the scope of rights granted by Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution more broadly than courts have interpreted the Fourth Amendment, as more fully discussed later in this opinion.
C. The thermal scan in May 2000 suggested that no unusual or uncommon amount of “waste heat” was escaping from defendant’s home, and, according to the record, Detective Peacock only knew that defendant had purchased lawful plant-growth equipment in January 2000. With this limited and innocuous information, Detective Peacock obtained a subpoena to compel the power company’s records relating to the usage of electricity in defendant’s home as well as other similarly sized homes for comparison purposes. The state acknowledges that the police did not have probable cause to obtain a warrant for the production of these records, but nevertheless argues that such records are fair game and may be searched and seized regardless of the absence of a warrant based on probable cause because citizens have no legitimate expectation of privacy in such records.
Article I, paragraph 7 protects individuals from warrantless searches of a utility’s records regarding the usage of electricity in an individual’s home. The wording of Article I, paragraph 7 is “taken almost verbatim from the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Johnson, 68 N.J. 349, 353 n.2 (1975). Notwithstanding, our courts have recognized that in many instances Article I, paragraph 7 provides greater rights to an accused than the Supreme Court of the United States has found in the Fourth Amendment.
State v. Johnson marks the first step in New Jersey search-and-seizure jurisprudence beyond the basic rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Ibid. (“[U]ntil now [Article I, paragraph 7] has not been held to impose higher or different standards than those called for by the Fourth Amendment.”) Two years earlier, Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 93 S.Ct. 2041 (1973), held that knowledge of the right to refuse consent to a search is only one factor in determining the voluntariness of consent. State v. Johnson specifically rejected that approach in interpreting Article I, paragraph 7 and held that, in such circumstances, the state has the burden of proving by clear and positive evidence that consent was voluntarily given, including proof that the accused had knowledge of the right to refuse consent. 68 N.J. at 353-54. Since the Supreme Court’s 1975 departure from Schneckloth, the scope of Article I, paragraph 7 has been found to expand beyond the parameters of the Fourth Amendment in many instances.
Guided by these frequent departures from what State v. Hempele, 120 N.J. 182, 197 (1990), referred to as the Fourth Amendment’s “floor of constitutional protection” ¿ in guaranteeing, through the application of the state constitution, the full realization of our liberties ¿ as a matter of first impression, there is a legitimate expectation of privacy in electrical-usage records maintained by a power company.
Four other courts have specifically decided the issue, three of which have held there is no legitimate expectation of privacy in such records. See Samson v. State, 919 P.2d 171 (Alaska Ct. App. 1996); People v. Dunkin, 888 P.2d 305 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994), cert. denied, sub nom., Smith v. Colorado, 115 S.Ct. 2251 (1995); State v. Kluss, 867 P.2d 247 (Idaho Ct. App. 1993). The decisions of these three courts were based on either the Fourth Amendment or their own state constitutions, and were generated by an approach inconsistent with the scope of Article I, paragraph 7.
Instead, the court aligns its decision with In re Maxfield, 945 P.2d 196 (Wash. 1997), the only case that has found a reasonable expectation of privacy in such records, because Washington’s search and seizure jurisprudence is far more akin to our own.
1. The fact that the records in question were created or are in the possession of some third person, and not the accused, is not the sine qua non for determining the scope of Article I, paragraph 7, as suggested by the state. The state’s position is grounded on United States v. Miller, 96 S.Ct. 1619, 1624 (1976), which held that the Fourth Amendment “does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to government authorities, even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed.”
Miller‘s linking of the legitimate expectation of privacy with third person access to information has not been followed in staking out the boundaries of Article I, paragraph 7. For example, State v. Hunt, 91 N.J. 338, 347 (1982), found no great significance in the fact that the telephone company and some of its employees were aware of the telephone numbers dialed by an individual. Instead, the Court held that the availability of access by others is not alone determinative of a legitimate expectation of privacy. Similarly, State v. Hempele held that garbage “does not lose constitutional protection merely because it is handed over to a collector.” 120 N.J. at 209. State v. McAllister, 366 N.J. Super. 251, 264 (App. Div.), certif. granted, 180 N.J. 151 (2004), found a legitimate expectation of privacy in a bank’s records concerning an accused’s account even though the bank’s employees had access to those records. In each of these examples courts departed from the lesser scope of privacy interests recognized in the Fourth Amendment analysis contained in Miller.
2. The usage of electricity tends to reveal what occurs within the home. Indeed, much of what has been said about the illegitimacy of a warrantless thermal scan (designed to determine whether certain areas of a structure were relatively hot when compared to the rest of the home or neighboring homes) is applicable to the finding of a legitimate expectation of privacy in information maintained by a power company as to the usage of electricity.
Instead of finding that any information about what occurs within the home is subject to protection, the Idaho court in Kluss, quoted with approval by the Colorado court in Dunkin, held that there is no legitimate expectation of privacy in electrical-usage records because those courts believed that such records do not identify any intimate activities of the accused.
This assertion that “waste heat” does not provide intimate details of what occurs within an accused’s home does not comport with Kyllo‘s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment or New Jersey’s own search-and-seizure jurisprudence.
3. This conclusion as to the reasonable expectation of privacy in electrical-usage records is not contrary to what has been held, at least inferentially, in State v. Jones, 179 N.J. 377 (2004), and State v. Sullivan, 169 N.J. 204 (2001). Those decisions dealt with the level of reliability in an informant’s tip of criminal activity. State v. Sullivan determined that a particular tip was reliable as to the name and location of an alleged drug dealer because, among other things, the informant’s tip was corroborated by utility records that identified the owner of the premises in question.
In State v. Jones, 358 N.J. Super. 420, 428 (App. Div. 2003), the Appellate Division alluded to this fact in distinguishing Sullivan, and when the Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment in Jones, it also referred extensively to the circumstances in Sullivan and the fact that the officer in Sullivan had corroborated the informant’s tip by “review[ing] utility records to confirm that the telephone number provided by the informant matched the telephone number of the apartment in the multi-unit building where the controlled buys were purportedly made.” 179 N.J. at 391. Nowhere in any of those opinions may it be ascertained by what authority the police officer was permitted to examine the utility records. Moreover, there is a distinct difference between a warrantless review of utility records to ascertain the name of an occupant of property, on the one hand, and a review of records relating to the usage of power, on the other.
4. There is a legitimate expectation of privacy in electrical-usage records maintained by a power company that precludes the intrusion of law enforcement in the absence of a warrant. Ultimately, there is no philosophical distinction to be drawn between the purpose behind excluding evidence obtained from a warrantless thermal scan of a residence and excluding evidence derived from a warrantless search of a utility’s records as to electrical usage in an accused’s home.
Such a determination may, at times, be affected by policy reasons. For example, in Hunt, the Court noted that “New Jersey has had an established policy of providing the utmost protection for telephonic communications,” and referred to the Legislature’s criminalization of wiretapping as early as 1930 in a statute since superseded by the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 to -34. See 91 N.J. at 345. Neither party has provided any guidance as to the legislatively recognized existence, or lack of existence, of an expectation of privacy in electrical-usage records. Indeed, the Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13, merely begs the question by stating that “a public agency [such as a public utility] has a responsibility and an obligation to safeguard from public access a citizen’s personal information with which it has been entrusted when disclosure thereof would violate the citizen’s reasonable expectation of privacy.” N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.
For the reasons indicated, a search warrant is required for utility records that reveal the amount of electricity used in an individual’s home. Because Detective Peacock obtained such records by way of a subpoena, and not by way of a warrant issued by an impartial judge, this search was unlawful.
IV. Having determined that the police had previously engaged in unlawful searches during their investigation of defendant, the Court remands for further proceedings regarding defendant’s motion to suppress in order that there may be consideration of the impact of these prior constitutional violations on the state’s contentions that defendant consented to the search of his home on July 27, 2000, and that the results of that search are admissible.
As is apparent, the proceedings on remand must not be limited solely to a determination as to the taint of the prior unlawful searches on the consent that the trial judge found was given. Instead, it must again be considered whether consent was given ¿ and given voluntarily ¿ because at the prior hearing the trial judge did not permit the full (or any) use of the prior unlawful searches nor did he consider how that unlawful conduct called into question the credibility of the state’s version of the July 27, 2000, events.
On remand, the judge should consider but not necessarily be limited to weighing the impact of the prior unlawful police conduct (1) on the credibility of the police version of the alleged consent search, (2) on the legitimacy of the manner in which the police sought consent, and (3) on whether the police had a reasonable suspicion that would justify seeking defendant’s consent to a search of his home. In addition, even if it is found after such an examination that defendant freely and voluntarily consented to the search of his home, the judge must also consider whether that consent was tainted by the prior unlawful conduct.
In weighing the circumstances eventually revealed at the future suppression hearing, the judge must first determine how the prior unlawful conduct impacts on the credibility of the police version of what occurred on July 27, 2000. In determining whether consent was requested or given, the judge should weigh whether the prior unlawful conduct might suggest that consent was not lawfully obtained. The judge is entitled to doubt the likelihood that the officers acted in a constitutionally permissible manner on July 27, 2000, when they did not so act on prior occasions. And while a strict application of N.J.R.E. 404(b) (stating that evidence of prior wrongs, although admissible for other purposes, “is not admissible to prove the disposition of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith”) might suggest the preclusion of the officers’ prior wrongful acts, it is well-established that the rules of evidence do not apply at suppression hearings. N.J.R.E. 104(a).
Therefore, evidence of prior unlawful searches is relevant not only to a consideration of whether the search of defendant’s home constitutes the “fruit of the poisonous tree,” as more fully discussed later in this opinion, but also in analyzing whether the unlawfulness of the search in question is suggested by the unlawfulness of prior searches.
Second, the trial judge mistakenly rejected the significance of the fact that the officers, by passing through a gate and entering defendant’s backyard, had entered the curtilage of defendant’s home without consent, without a warrant and without probable cause. Although the federal and state constitutional prohibitions on unreasonable searches and seizures do not “bar all police observation” and have “never been extended to require law enforcement officers to shield their eyes when passing by a home,” and, for example, have not been found to bar a warrantless aerial observation of a fenced-in backyard, California v. Ciraolo, 106 S.Ct. 1809, 1812 (1986), there are limits to the extent to which the police may make a warrantless entry into the curtilage of an individual’s home. On remand, the judge may consider whether the warrantless intrusion by Detective Peacock and another officer into the gated backyard of defendant’s property transgressed defendant’s expectation of privacy and how, if unlawful, it may impact on the credibility of the state’s contention that the police acted lawfully when seeking defendant’s consent to a search of his home. By the same token, the judge should permit and consider any other evidence the state may seek to offer to justify the manner in which they approached defendant’s home.
Third, the judge should consider whether the police had sufficient information from which to seek defendant’s consent to the search of his home. To seek consent for such a search, the officers’ existing, lawfully obtained information must have been sufficient to generate a reasonable and articulable suspicion that criminal activity was occurring within.
Lastly, even if the judge determines on remand that defendant freely and voluntarily gave his consent to a search of his home, and even if the judge determines on remand that the police had a reasonable and articulable suspicion to seek defendant’s consent to that search notwithstanding the exclusion of the unlawfully obtained evidence, the judge must determine whether that consent search was tainted by the prior unlawful police conduct. The trial judge viewed the law enforcement activities that preceded the alleged consent search to be irrelevant. This was a mistake.
Whether a consent search cleanses the taint of prior illegal searches and seizures is not always clear. However, there is no doubt that a mere finding that the subsequent consent was free and voluntary is not alone sufficient to avoid the impact of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. If we were to accept the trial judge’s view that defendant’s purported consent rendered irrelevant the prior unlawful police conduct, we would undermine the purposes of that doctrine. Such a holding would have a tendency to allow the police to conduct illegal searches and seizures with impunity, knowing that consent might later be readily forthcoming when the accused is confronted by police, armed with knowledge illegally obtained, and thereby absolve the police of the impact of their prior unlawful conduct. Such an approach, if adopted, would eviscerate the exclusionary rule’s deterrent effect.
V. In his supplemental brief, defendant argues that the trial judge erred by barring testimony about the results of a polygraph examination performed on defendant, including, supposedly, the expert’s opinion that defendant’s contention that he did not consent to the search was truthful.
The trial judge summarily refused to permit this testimony because he considered it irrelevant, and ultimately inadmissible. The judge also ruled that this testimony encroached on the ultimate issue to be decided, and that it constituted a waste of time. These four reasons given by the trial judge were insufficient to justify the exclusion of this testimony.
A. The judge was required, in part, to determine whether defendant consented to the search of his home, which turned on the “swearing contest” between Detective Peacock and defendant about what actually occurred on July 27, 2000. Since the polygraph testimony related, no matter how imperfectly, to the truthfulness of defendant’s version, it comported with N.J.R.E. 401’s broad standard of what is relevant.
B. The trial judge also summarily excluded the polygraph testimony because he believed it was inadmissible. This was also erroneous. State v. McDavitt, 62 N.J. 36, 46 (1972), held that polygraph testing had developed to such a point of reliability that the results could be admitted into evidence in a criminal matter if both the state and defendant so stipulated.
Polygraph testing is designed to demonstrate that the person tested was or was not truthful in answering certain questions based on measured changes in blood pressure, pulse, thoracic and abdominal respiration, and galvanic skin response. The polygraph as a device for detecting truthfulness is based on the assumption that changes in these physical conditions indicate an increase in stress consistent with deception. In a nonjury setting the admission of this type of evidence, when a proper foundation has been laid, is not limited by McDavitt‘s stipulation requirement.
In weighing the admissibility of such evidence in the present circumstances, the judicial system recognizes that cases are already adjudicated through the use of “lie detectors.” If the court was to allow a fact finder to detect whether a witness is lying or telling the truth based on observations of demeanor ¿ thus permitting the fact finder to consider among many other things whether, while testifying, the witness breathed heavily, perspired, spoke haltingly, avoided eye contact, gestured excessively, or gave off the unpleasant “odor of mendacity” (Williams, “Cat On A Hot Tin Roof,” Act III (1955)), then it should follow that measurable physiological occurrences during the answering of questions, such as changes in pulse rate, blood pressure, respiration or perspiration, may be probative of a witness’s credibility.
Here, while the parties did not enter into such a stipulation, the circumstances are distinguishable from McDavitt, chiefly because McDavitt considered the use of polygraph evidence at a trial, before a jury, to determine defendant’s guilt. Thus, in weighing the applicability of this stipulation
THE FIRST 1-2 ARTICLES ON THIS SITE ARE
PERMANENT STICKY POSTS SCROLL DOWN OR VISIT ARCHIVES
TO VIEW NEW ARTICLES
A DIFFERENT THEORY ON:
HOW TO DECLARE CITIZEN’S SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY
AS A CONSTITUTIONAL CREATION: A CITIZEN
Some of our readers have asked us about “Sovereign Citizen Movements” and they have asked what our opinon is (as if it matters in court).
THE BAD NEWS FOR SO CALLED SOVEREIGN CITIZENS:
Without taking a stand one way or the other on the legal theories offered by sovereign citizen movements such as Posse Comitatus etc. Our position is simple. “Sovereign Citizens” rarely win in court and the complex legal arguments are rarely helpful to anyones cause (whether they are right or wrong).
THE GOOD NEWS:
We don’t believe that anyone needs to give up their drivers license or pitch a conspiracy theory to a Judge to claim Sovereignty. We believe that CITIZENS ARE INHERENTLY “THE SOVEREIGN” with or without their Drivers License or Social Security Card.
The Sovereignty of citizen / the people is recognized by the Constitution of the United States of America, visa vi the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which states (in toto):
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”
(Clearly the Constitution recognized both the sovereignty of the state and the people by expressly establishing that both have inherent power / authority independent of the Federal Sovereign, and independently from each other!)
THE MOST POWERFUL LEGAL PERSON IN COURT:
A pro se / Self Represented Litigant Appears as at least 5 “legal persons”:
1. A citizen (A Constitutional Creation) who claims ownership of the authority of; The Court, The Executive Branch, The Legislatrure (as the primary sovereign Authority in America)
2. As Attorney-in-Fact (A Legal Person) with Litigation Privileges Equal to an Attorney at Law)
3. A Witness-of-Fact (A Legal Person) with the authority to speak to the facts of the matter thereof, and put them before the court (Neither Lawyer or Judge may do this)
4. A Real-Party-of-Interest (A Legal Person) with rights to advocate for their individual legal interests in the matter before the court, without being either representing the Defendant or Plaintiff in the matter before the court.
5. A Natural Man in the Flesh (A Sovereign Creation) empowered with INALIENABLE RIGHTS that pre-date the Magna Carta (With the Power to reform Government and arrest any criminal)
JUDGES & ATTORNEYS LACK SIMILAR AUTHORITY & RIGHTS:
A Judge appears: ONLY AS as the highest ranking an officer of the Court at trial & Neutral Fact Finder.
- A Judge enters the court in this single capacity (not as citizen, or sovereign, but only as agent to the sovereign)
- A Judge: CAN NOT ACT AS WITNESS TO THE FACTS OF THE MATTER BEFORE THE COURT, (except with regard to facts of the matter that occurred during the court proceedings) (Citation: N.J.R.E. 605, F.R.E. 605)
- A Judge Can Not Over-rule a Citizen Jury at trial.
- A Judge Can Demand a Verdict From a Jury BUT A JURY CAN NULLIFY A CASE AND REFUSE TO PROVIDE A VERDICT!, because they are sovereign citizens… IN FACT THE JURY IS THE “4TH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT”, per U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia
- A Judge enters the court in this single capacity (not as citizen, or sovereign, but only as agent to the sovereign)
(Citation Williams v. United States, 1996)
An Attorney-at-law appears: ONLY as an officer of the Court at trial on behalf of a client.
- An Attorney HAS NO RIGHTS, JUST PRIVILEGES, which can be taken at away at the whim of the court or B.A.R. Association
- An Attorney can only advocate for their privileged title / position (if taken away) by invoking their rights as a citizen – but not while acting as a retained lawyer.
NO PARTY IN COURT HAS MORE AUTHORITY & RIGHTS THAN
A PRO SE CITIZEN
HERE IS OUR THEORY ON CITIZEN SOVEREIGNTY
THE FACT THAT CITIZENS ARE MORE POWERFUL THAN JUDGES
YOUR HONOR – TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THIS THESE FACTS:
The American Form of Government (and our legal system’s) primary difference with the British Common law is that we rejected the concept of divine sovereignty of royals, and instead recognized the sovereignty of natural men and their rights to self-govern with sovereign power.
WE hereby assert that WE (THE CITIZENS) have the sovereign authority to now hold you (JUDGES) accountable for these transgressions in open court today.
WE make this assertion with out making any claim to the disputed or conspiratorial theories espoused by so-called “Sovereign Citizens”.
Importantly WE take no stance on any of the purported theories of such Sovereign Citizens, nor do WE attempt to claim any allegiance to any groups that advocate for such theories (e.g. Posse Comitatus, or their ilk)
Unlike the Posse Comitatus and their ilk:
I / WE make claim to my citizenship & sovereignty BY ASSERTING MY CITIZENSHIP RATHER THAN DISAVOWING IT AS SO-CALLED “SOVEREIGN CITIZENS” PURPORT TO DO.
I / WE do not believe that consenting to hold a drivers license or Social Security Card interferes with OUR sovereign authority as a citizen.
… INSTEAD WE MAKE THE FOLLOWING CLAIM:
I / WE MAKE OUR CLAIM TO SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY BECAUSE I / WE ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL CREATION.
I / WE ARE CITIZEN(S) OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND I / WE ARE A CITIZEN OF NEW JERSEY.
I / WE ARE MEMBERS OF THE MOST POWERFUL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, AS CITIZENS.
I / WE HAVE AN OWNERSHIP STAKE IN ALL FOUR BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT
(Executive, Legislative, Judicial, and Jury (Grand Jury & Petite Jury) )
To this point I /WE demand you take judicial notice of the following widely known facts:
1) The system of Self-Government embodied by the Federal and State Constitutions recognize the power of citizens to form or reform the government however we so choose, because the power of the sovereign is recognized to originate from the citizen class.
2) Citizens are the alpha-omega of sovereignty in the American Legal System:
The Government is simply a result of our sovereignty, as such it is indisputably the “BETA” to the citizens “ALPHA” position within the legal construct of Government.
Citations: Declaration of Indpendence 1976 (in toto / in whole), Constitution of the United States of America, original Jurisdiction 1787 (in toto), State Constitution of New Jersey 1947 (in toto)
3) Citizens own and control the FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT (THE GRAND JURY). This was confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in the majority Opinion written by Justice Scalia in United States v. Williams (90-1972), 504 U.S. 36 (1992).
4) The American Form of Government (and our legal system’s) primary difference with the British Common law is that we rejected the concept of divine sovereignty of royals, and instead recognized the sovereignty of natural men and their rights to self-govern with sovereign power.
5) Citizens are among the only Constitutional persons who can completely disregard the doctrine of separation of powers between each of the branches of government, because we own all four branches.
Citizens own the authority’s granted to the Governor
Citizens own the authority granted to the legislature
Citizens own the authority granted to the court
Citizens are the authority of the Jury (Both Grand and Petite)
Citizens of New Jersey are the only persons constitutionally empowered to both arrest and prosecute the a criminal matter, which the same (person/)citizen witnessed
Citizens are the only constitutional creation who can conspire to reform all four branches of government by the sheer power of their will.
While the individual branches of Government lack the sole authority to control AND fund a well armed Militia… We the citizens can fund and control a Well Armed Militia, in fact in some rare cases – WE ARE the Well Armed Militia.
WHAT WE DO WHEN A JUDGE ACTS UNLAWFULLY TOWARD
WE DECLARE A MISTRIAL
WE DECLARE OUR SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY TO DO SO
YOUR HONOR, GIVEN THE ABOVE:
IN CASE YOU MISSED THE NEWS A FEW YEARS AGO:
…. A FEW OF US CITIZENS THREW SOME TEA IN THE OCEAN AND….
YOUR HONOR, YOU HAVE INSULTED, DEMEANED, AND DIMINISHED THE INTEGRITY OF THIS COURT.
AS YOUR SOVEREIGN I WILL NOT TOLERATE IT A SECOND LONGER.
LIKE A CHILD WHO DISOBEYS THEIR PARENT YOU HAVE DISAPPOINTED ME AND WILL NOW BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO YOUR PARENT.
YOUR HONOR, YOUR BIGGEST MISTAKE WITH REGARD TO MY LEGAL AFFAIRS AND YOUR BIGGEST SIN HAS BEEN YOUR ARROGANCE.
TODAY I WILL ASSURE YOU I WILL REMOVE THAT CONCERN FROM THIS COURT FOREVER.
AS YOUR SOVEREIGN I DEMAND YOU STEP DOWN FROM THE BENCH WITH REGARD TO THIS MATTER.
YOU ARE NOT CLOAKED IN ANY JUDICIAL IMMUNITY GIVEN THE TRANSGRESSIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE (YOUR COURT ORDERS), YOU ARE NO LONGER NEUTRAL, AND YOU ARE NO LONGER THE JUDGE OF THE FACTS THEREOF IN THIS MATTER…
BEGONE I SAY…
BEGONE NOW OR:
I WILL PLACE YOU UNDER ARREST.
I WILL DEMAND YOUR TREASON BE FULLY PROSECUTED BY THE STATE, AND
BE ASSURED THAT ANY MISDEMEANOR CRIMES MAY BE PROSECUTED BY MYSELF AS A PRIVATE PROSECUTOR PURSUANT THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION AND:
MY COMMON LAW RIGHT TO HAVE YOU CRIMINALLY SANCTIONED AT TRIAL!
I remind the court that I hold more powers and privileges than
any other legal person in the court today.
Citizens appear in court as:
5 DISTINCT LEGAL “PERSONS” SIMULTANEOUSLY!
1) I am a “Citizen” of New Jersey (“a legal person”) empowered with the right to:
a) Arrest criminals who commit crimes in my presence (even a Judge can not do this while on the bench)
b) Prosecute crimes privately per the New Jersey Constitution of 1947 (even a Judge while on the bench)
c) I have the right to conspire to reform any of the three representative branches of Government without regard to the Separation of Powers Doctrine
2) I am an pro se “Attorney-in-Fact” (a “Legal Person”) for the cause before the court with the right to
a) File my pleadings without adhering to the court rules (neither a judge or a member of the bar can do this)
b) Access the court in whatever legal manner I desire to with regard to resolving my legal matters
3) I am a “Witness-of-Fact” (a “Legal Person”)
a) I have the power to testify to facts-of-the-matter-thereof, unlike an attorney or Judge
b) A judge can not do this according to N.J.R.E. 605 / F.R.E. 605 because: “a judge may not serve as witness and judge in the same matter”.
c) A lawyer can not testify to facts of the matter if those facts are also within the Knowledge of their client… only a pro se, citizen can testify in this manner.
4)I am a “Real Party” (a “Legal Person”) with rights greater than a witness-of-fact or citizen
1) A Real Party of Interest is a party with a stake or claim to the underlying legal proceedings
2) A Real Party of Interest has the right to be notified of court proceedings affecting their interests and they have the right due-process.
3) All court orders which result without providing opportunity for a real party of interest to be heard are voidable, even if they were issued years ago.
5) I am a “Natural Man” (a “Sovereign Creation”)
a) I have INALIENABLE RIGHTS which pre-date the Declaration of Indpendence, the Magna Carta, and the corpus of common-law.
b) American Jurisprudence and law is founded on the idea that every man has inalienable rights such as freedom and pursuit of liberty
WE BELIEVE THAT WHEN WE FILE WITH THE COURT WE SIMPLY NEED TO INVOKE THE RIGHTS OF ALL 5 LEGAL PERSONS WITHIN THE MOTION PAPERS TO ASSERT THE RIGHTS DESCRIBED ABOVE.
Expressly include in our motions:
appearing as the following legal persons:
pro se, attorney-in-fact;
Citizen of New Jersey & United States of America;
real party of interest; and
(herewith invoking legal all rights and privileges applicable to the aforementioned legal persons)
ITS A CUMBERSOME SOLUTION BUT, ITS A RESULT OF HAVING MORE LEGAL TITLES THAN ANY OTHER PARTY IN COURT.
OUR MOTIONS WOULD THEN INCLUDE:
A SHORT LEGAL ARGUMENT
SUPPORTING OUR AUTHORITY AS THE AFOREMENTIONED LEGAL
PERSONS AND OUR SOVEREIGNTY PURSUANT THE 10TH AMENDMENT.
BELOW IS SOME INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO THE WEBSITE BY A PERSON IN NEW JERSEY THAT COMPILED RESEARCH FOR THEIR OWN MOTION TO THE COURT.
ITS A FASCINATING SUMMARY OF SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THAT PROHIBIT NEW JERSEY COURTS FROM INTERFERING IN PARENTING TIME DECISIONS OF “FIT PARENTS”.
IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED TO THIS WEBSITE THAT:
1) Any Court that issues orders inviolate of these Supreme Court Decisions is violating parents Constitutionally Protected “Due Process Rights” and orders issued contrary to these decisions are legally null and void.
2) In practice I suspect the New Jersey Courts and the Bar Association will Continue to Ignore these U.S. Supreme Court Decisions because these decisions get in the way of bilking innocent families out of hundreds of thousands of dollars individually and billions of dollars collectively
U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PROHIBITING “THE STATE” FROM
INTERFERING IN PARENTAL DECISIONS
THE FOLLOWING TEXT IS CIRCULATING AMONG FAMILY RIGHTS ADVOCATES TODAY
WE HAVE REPUBLISHED IT HERE TO INCREASE THE DISTRIBUTION OF THIS FREE INFORMATION:
THE FOLLOWING CITATIONS COME ALSO FROM: HERE
In Parham v. J.R. et al 442 U.S. 584 (1979) in toto, inclusive of cited cases, and specifically with regard to its findings that:
- The Supreme Court declared the ‘best interest of the child’ resides in the fit parent – not in the state: “Our constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that a child is a “the mere creature of the State” and, on the contrary, asserted that parents generally “have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare [their children] for additional obligations.”
Santosky v. Kramer 455 U.S. 745 (1982) in toto and specifically with regard to its legal findings that:
- To deny a parental right requires constitutional due process that proves he’s either unfit or a clear danger to his children – proven with ‘clear and convincing’ evidence. As such, Santosky v. Kramer 455 U.S. 745 (1982) emphasized to restrict a fundamental right of a parent to any extent, requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence that serious harm will come to the child.
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401 (1923) in toto and with regard to the legal fact that the Supreme Court established the following:
- ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to “establish a home and bring up children” and “to control the education of their own.”
Washington v.Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719 (1997) in toto, including citations, and with regard to:
- The right to Due Process includes a substantive component to the process that “provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests.” Id., at 720; see also Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301302 (1993).
… IF THE CITIZENS CAN NOT GET THE COURT TO ABIDE THE ABOVE LAWS, THEN:
WE SHOULD PREPARE TO DO THE FOLLOWING:
Note: We think it is worth filing / citing these cases with our motions now that we have reviewed them. Why Not? Can’t make things any worse with regard to our cases. What readers of this cite do with this information is an individual decisions, which we withhold any advisement concerning. This website is does not provide this information as legal advise nor do we have any certified legal expertise express/implied or otherwise.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ONE JUDGE LIES TO ANOTHER JUDGE
BELOW I SUBMIT THE ANSWER
THE UGLY TRUTH
(Spoiler Alert: Judicial Conduct Committee and Self Regulation of the Courts is a Fraud)
NOTES ABOUT JUDGE GANNON’S LETTER & HIS DISGUST:
- His Letter Recounts a Scandalous Experience “Expletives Deleted” he says!
- The Original Letter was likely drenched in tears and includes quotes from Shakespeare and Macbeth (Morbid)
- The Letter would be hilarious if only it was fiction!
- At the bottom of this Article (Click Here) is Included a “Sloppy” Legal Brief from a litigant who had a similar experience in another County
LETTER FROM JUDGE GANON EXPRESSING:
His disgust with the New Jersey Judiciary
Its Lying Ways:
… WHY SHOULD WE TRUST THESE JUDGES AGAIN ???
OH YEAH BECASE THEY SWORE AN OATH….
… AND THEYTOLD US TO TRUST THEM
WAIT …. THERE IS MORE:
BURLINGTON COUNTY & MERCER COUNTY JUDGES
PLAY SAME DIRTY GAME
TRANSFER ORDERS WITHOUT ANY LEGAL JUSTIFICATION PROVIDED:
ASSIGNMENT JUDGE C. JACOBSON (MERCER COUNTY) TRANSFERRED THE CASES WITH THESE VAGUE COURT ORDERS (NO FACT FINDING NO RECUSALS)
THE DEFENDANT FILED A BRIEF TO OBJECT TO THE TRANSFER ORDERS SEE THAT “SLOPPY” LEGAL BRIEF BELOW
READ THE BRIEF – SCATHING / OTHER ISSUES RAISED
- Assignment Judge Mary Jacobson, Presiding Judge Catherine Fitzpatrick, Judge Marbrey decided to Transfer Cases without recusing any of the Judges AFTER TRIALS HAD BEGUN… THE COURT ORDER DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY. THESE CASES WERE TRANSFERRED
- FV-11-00887-13 (Bischoff v. Syphrett);
- FV-11-00625-13 (Wallace v. Syphrett);
- FM-11-00097-11 (Wallace v. Syphrett);
- Prosecutor Case #03-2502-13 (State v. Syphrett)
- After this Pro Se litigant went through hell in Mercer County the Judges became afraid of being accountable for misconduct and
…. SO THE JUDGES IN NJ CONTINUE TO BREAK THE LAW ….
AN ANONYMOUS JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMPLAINT WAS FILED
ON BEHALF OF JUDGE GANNON
AND DEREK SYPHRETT ON 9/17/2014
SEE A.C.J.C. COMPLAINT FAX COVERSHEET HERE:
LET’S SEE IF THE A.C.J.C. INVESTIGATES
THIS UNLAWFUL CONDUCT
IF THEY DO NOT INVESTIGATE,
… THEN PREPARE YOURSELF FOR THE CONSEQUENCES
BY DOING THE FOLLOWING:
BECAUSE IT WILL MEAN YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS IN NJ COURTS!
THE BIG NEWS
3 FEDERAL COURT JUDGES PLAY ROLE OF THE HEROES!!!
Today the New Jersey Law Journal has published a short article describing the amazing decision of the Third Circuit Judges Today.
BE ADVISED THIS IS HUGE NEWS, BECAUSE LAWSUITS AGAINST JUDGES IN FEDERAL COURTS HAVE BEEN DEAD ENDS FOR DECADES
THEY ARE ROUTINELY DISMISSED
YET TODAY WE NOW HAVE A “NEW DEAL” IN NEW JERSEY DUE TO THIS CASE
HERO JUDGES OF THE YEAR:
The Third Circuit panel of:
- The Very Honorable Judge Michael Chagares,
- The Very Honorable Judge Joseph Greenaway Jr.,
- The Very Honorable JudgeThomas Vanaskie
THESE FINE DISTINGUISHED JUDGES STATED THE FOLLOWING
IN THEIR 16 PAGE UNANIMOUS OPINION:
(edits included for style and emphasis (bold, line breaks, etc)
“we must decide whether the Complaint set forth allegations that, taken as true, establish that the application of an exception to the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity is “above thespeculative level .Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see also McTernan v. City of York, 577 F.3d 521, 526 (3d Cir. 2009) (We have stated that, indeciding a motion to dismiss, all well pleaded allegations of the complaint must be taken as true and interpreted in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, and all inferences must be drawn in favor of them.”) (internal quotation marks and alter ations omitted).
For the reasons set forth below,[:]
we agree with the District Court’s determination that[:]
Judge DiLeo is NOT entitled to absolute judicial immunity.The well – established doctrine of absolute judicial immunity shields a judicial officer, who is performing his duties, from lawsuit and judgments for monetary damages. Mireles v. Waco , 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); Gallas , 211 F.3d at 7 68. This doctrine derives from the belief that a judge should be able to act freely upon his or her convictions without threat of suit for damages. See Stump v. Sparkman , 435 U.S. 349 , 355 (1978) ( stating that a “judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, [should] be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of p ersonal consequences to himself ”) . That said, it is an equally familiar principle that judicial immunity is not absolute. See Mireles , 502 U.S. at 11; Gallas , 211 F.3d at 768. Indeed, there are two exceptions: “First, a judge is not immune from liability for nonjudicial actions, i.e. , actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity. Second, a judge is not immune for 8 actions, though judicial in nat ure, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Mireles , 502 U.S. at 11 – 12 (internal citations omitted). If the Complaint contains allegations sufficient to establish that either exception applies, Judge DiLeo ’s motion to dismiss on grounds of a bsolute judicial immunity must be denied. See i d . ; s ee also Stump , 435 U.S. at 355 – 69 ; Gallas , 211 F.3d at 768 – 73 .”
THE NEW JERSEY LAW JOURNAL WROTE IN PART:
Remarkably these judges: “rejected DiLeo’s defenses based on absolute judicial immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity, and also upheld counts against Linden based on direct liability and conspiracy.”
I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU GET THE 16 PAGE DECISIONS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT BECAUSE THEY ARE DAMNING TO JUDGES WHO BREAK THE LAW.
SEE THIRD CIRCUIT OPINION HERE:
Today the Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals PIERCED JUDICIAL IMMUNITY.
THIS DECISION MAY HELP SET A LEGAL PRECEDENT IN NEW JERSEY & PA
(OFFICIALLY HOWEVER THE DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL…)
FOR OVER 100 YEARS AMERICAN JUDGES HAVE PLACED THEMSELVES
ABOVE THE LAW.
ACCORDING TO THE JUDGES THEMSELVES: Judges have decided that they can not be sued for their actions as judges, in fact they have decided they can not be criminally prosecuted for committing crimes while acting as judges.
- While Congress nor any state legislature has ever passed a law providing immunity for Judges, the judges within the United States have granted immunity to themselves. Often despite local and state statutes which EXPRESSLY recognize OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT as a crime that any public office holder can be convicted of.
Judges have often reinterpreted the law to exclude themselves and their peer group from any criminal or civil liability, as such Supreme Court precedents and follow-on lower court rulings have built up a massive library of precedential rulings that support JUDICIAL IMMUNITY. Cases such as:
- Bradly v. Fischer (1873)- Is Recognized by Scholars as the first case granting judicial immunity in
- Stump v. Sparkman (1978)- Judge was immune after unlawfully ordering a womans reproductive organs removed
- Pierson v. Ray (1967) – Immunity is available only when a judge has jurisdiction over the subject-matter
NOTABLE HISTORY AND CONTROVERSY OF
Stump v. Sparkman was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court and became the law of the land. It is often cited as grounds for absolving a Judge of any criminal or civil liability under the “doctrine” of “Judicial Immunity”.
Stump v. Sparkman was a contraversal decision – even for the Supreme Court. Two Justices entered dissenting opinions and called the decision of the Supreme Court’s Majority “Beyond the Pale”:
Justice Stewart’s dissent
(In Stump v. Sparkman)
Associate Justice Potter Stewart entered a vigorous dissent. Agreeing that judges of general jurisdiction enjoy absolute immunity for their judicial acts, he wrote, “…what Judge Stump did…was beyond the pale of anything that could sensibly be called a judicial act.” Stating that it was “factually untrue” that what Judge Stump did was an act “normally performed by a judge,” he wrote. “…there is no reason to believe that such an act has ever been performed by any other Indiana judge, either before or since.”
Justice Stewart also denounced it as “legally unsound” to rule that Judge Stump had acted in a “judicial capacity”. “A judge is not free, like a loose cannon,” he wrote, “to inflict indiscriminate damage whenever he announces that he is acting in his judicial capacity.”
Concluding, Justice Stewart argued that the majority misapplied the law of the Pierson case:
Not one of the considerations…summarized in the Pierson opinion was present here. There was no “case,” controversial or otherwise. There were no litigants. There was and could be no appeal. And there was not even the pretext of principled decisionmaking. The total absence of any of these normal attributes of a judicial proceeding convinces me that the conduct complained of in this case was not a judicial act.
Justice Powell’s dissent
(In Stump v. Sparkman)
Joining in Justice Stewart’s opinion, Justice Lewis Powell filed a separate dissent that emphasized what he called “…the central feature of this case – Judge Stump’s preclusion of any possibility for the vindication of respondents’ rights elsewhere in the judicial system.” Continuing, he wrote:
Underlying the Bradley immunity…is the notion that private rights can be sacrificied in some degree to the achievement of the greater public good deriving from a completely independent judiciary, because there exist alternative forums and methods for vindicating those rights.
But where a judicial officer acts in a manner that precludes all resort to appellate or other judicial remedies that otherwise would be available, the underlying assumption of the Bradley doctrine is inoperative.
PEIRSON V. RAY: GRANTED IMMUNITY TO ANY JUDGE WITH SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.
TRANSLATION INTO ENGLISH:
- ALMOST ALL STATE JUDGES IN SUPERIOR COURTS HAVE GENERAL JURISDICTION
- THIS HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE COURTS TO MEAN THEY ALWAYS HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND ARE ALWAYS IMMUNE
….. BUT TODAY WE GOT SOME GOOD NEWS
IN THIS ABUSIVE AREA OF “THE LAW”…..
THE BACK STORY ON
TODAY’S FEDERAL COURT RULING (3rd Circuit):
Judge Dileo, a former Judge of Linden, NJ Municipal Court convicted two defendants of crimes at a trial in which the Prosecutor was not present. READ AN ARTICLE HERE FOR DETAILS:
The Judge acted as prosecutor and let a police officer cross-examine the defendants at the “trial”. This violated the constitutional rights of the accused according to the complaint filed by the Defendants in Federal Court.
Judge Dileo later resigned from office after this issue came to light.
The New Jersey A.C.J.C. (Judicial Conduct Watchdog) publicly sanctioned Judge Dileo AFTER HE RESIGNED. The Supreme Court of New Jersey barred him from acting as a Judge in New Jersey as a result
See the ACJC documents and the N.J. Supreme Court Order Describing the JUDGE DILEO’S OUTRAGEOUS ACTS HERE
READ IT AND THEN THINK
Quick Take / Summary of Facts:
1. On 2/19/2014 Judge John Tomasello (Retired) and the Court Clerk entered a “DEFAULT ORDER” in FV-03-1154-14
2. When the Defendant challenged the entrance of a Default Order by the Court, THE RETIRED JUDGE LIED AND SAID HE DID NOT ISSUE A “DEFAULT” . HE CLAIMED HE ISSUED A ORDER AFTER A “TRIAL”
3. THE FINAL WRITTEN ORDER HAS NO FINDINGS OF FACT, AND;
4. THE ONLY COMMENT INCLUDED IS “DEFAULT ORDER”.
… SO, JOHN TOMASELLO DECIDED TO LIE TO THE DEFENDANT AND TURN FACT IN TO FICTION, RATHER THAN DECIDE THE ISSUE ON THE FACTS.
(Note: The fact that John Tomasello is retired is emphasized above because Derek Syphrett has filed a LETTER BRIEF (click to view the brief) and a Constitution Challenge to the Retired Judges acting as Judges without consent of the real parties as part of a Legal Brief, with a request for Review of the Supreme Court as a matter of first impression… The New Jersey Constitution 1947 does not allow for the recall of retired Judges… and the issue never became law as part of the 1944 Constitution, which failed to be ratified… Retired & Recalled John Tomasello, may not be a judge as a result).
SEE THE FULL COURT ORDER
FINAL ORDER (PDF FILE):
A OVERVIEW OF HOW FACTS
BY JUDICIAL FIAT
It was a fascinating experience at the JUDICIAL HELLHOLE, that is the New Jersey Superior Court of Burlington County (Vincinage 3).
ON 9/2/2014 “DEREK SYPHRETT” was:
Summoned to appear at a hearing in Burlington County at the Superior Court of New Jersey.
Mr. “Derek Syphrett” appeared after filing motion papers for a NEW TRIAL, due to the fact his due process rights were violated at trial contrary to New Jersey Court Rule 4:43, 4:50, the interests of justice generally.
ARE THE HIGHLIGHTS FROM MR. SYPHRETT’S 9/2/2014
WHICH CLEARLY EXPOSES THE COURT TO BE A KANGAROO COURT
Witnesses of Fact to this Event:
Larry Sheller: Pro Bono Legal Counsel for the Defendant (Mr. Syphrett)
Rachel Pucciati: Non-legal Counsel at bar for the Defendant: (Note: she was placed at bar to prevent her being removed from the court. The Constitution allows a right of counsel – not necessarily an attorney, btw)
Susan Fortino FV-Team Leader for Burlington Superior Court
John Tomasello, Retired Judge, attempting to act as Judge
Sheriff’s Officer Scott
Note Present In Court
The Plaintiff: Kathryn Bischoff, who is alleged to have lied and submitted false statements in her DV Complaint.
DETAILS OF THE HORRIFIC EVENT
…. THE LIE …
SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET: FV-03-1154-14, Kathryn Bischoff (Plaintiff) v. Derek Syphrett
When Mr. Syphrett challenged the entrance of a DEFAULT ORDER in the FRO as contrary to court rule 4:43-1 thru par. 4… Bc a default was entered despite the fact I filed an answer and appeared at the original FRO in Mercer (eg a default is prohibited bc I put pleadings before the court)
THE “JUDGE” THEN CHANGED HISTORY & FACTS:
“JUDGE” JOHN TOMASELLO (Retired) said: “I didn’t issue a default” “…”we had a trial”. Clearly implying that there was no default order (a lie).
Derek Syphrett Responded tell him “no, you issued a default order” (or something to that affect)
… “JUDGE” TOMASELLO responded: “no I did not” (paraphrasing).
AFTER THE “HEARING ON 9/2/2014, MR SYPHRETT WENT TO THE CLERKS WINDOW TO GET A COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER.
THE FACTS SHOW:
(In the comments section of the FINAL RESTRAINING ORDER)
THERE ARE NO FINDINGS OF FACT AT ALL
A COMPETENT JUDGE WOULD INCLUDE FINDINGS OF FACT
THE ONLY COMMENT IN THE ORDER IS: “DEFAULT ORDER”
So, in order to defeat Mr. Syphrett’s Legal Argument
changed FACTS into FICTION.
Other shenanigans occurred that day, but by far this was the gem of the day.
THIS IS PURE GOLD FOR COURT WATCHERS…
Yes Perhaps it is: Beyond The Pale, Aye?
THE ABOVE IS A BOLD PIECE OF JURISPRUDENCE FOR SURE !!!
FREAKING HILLARIOUS…. UNDER ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE
I have a big court date tomorrow for a rule 4:50 hearing (rule for re-opening a closed case due to fraud, injustice, or any good cause).
The court date is:
Superior Court of New Jersey
49 Rancocas Rd., Mt Holly, NJ 08060
Judge assigned to hearing:
Judge Tomasello (Retired) no court room number included on the summons.
In my case I have gotten railroaded multiple times by the Superior Court Judges Involved so I would like as many court observers as I can get for the hearing tomorrow.
I am literally fearful for my well-being because the court continues to try to cover up their failure to follow the court rules, the NJ Constitution or even statutory rights and laws that I’ve cited to them directly.
Instead the court continues to attempt to silence my voice by prohibiting me from appearing in court, or emailing or faxing about my case, when they let my legal adversaries do all of the above in violation of the court rules.
Things in Burlington County have gotten to be absolutely insane:
1. Files & motions are missing from my case file and were never considered by the court
2. Judges refused to correct their “mistakes” regarding my immediate appeal and their failure to rule on legal questions properly put before the court.
3. They have even issued a default decision in the case I’ve reopened, despite the fact court rule 4:43-1 thru 4:43-4 and Court rule V all say that a default can only be entered if the Defendant fails to answer the complaint or put pleadings before the court. In my case I did, and yet they entered a default without considering my pleadings and evidence that the Plaintiff was flat out lying.
4. Judge Ronald Bookbinder has lied to my face and lied to me over on telephonic status hearings and via letters… repeatedly. He has even tried to act as a witness of fact during hearings in violation of court rule 601. When I demanded he cease acting as a witness he stated he could use an exception to court rule 601 for discussing legal fees… I reminded him I was self-represented, so there were no legal fees in this case, and his excuse made no sense at all… He said he construed the rule in a manner that allowed him to act as witness anyway!!!
5. During my divorce trial the trial Judge – John Tomasello permitted ex-parte testimony during the trial and refused to let me cross-examine the witnesses afterwords… THAT IS INSANELY UNLAWFUL!
ANYWAY GIVEN THAT I AM DEALING WITH A HILL BILLY COURT, I NEED THE PUBLIC THERE TO WATCH THESE EVIL PEOPLE BEFORE THEY ATTEMPT TO DO ME MORE HARM.
COURT CONTINUES TO REFUSE TO REPLY TO
COMMON LAW RIGHT OF ACCESS REQUESTS
FALSE IMPRISONMENT ON 8/19/2013
COMMON LAW RIGHT OF ACCESS TO COURT RECORDS
REQUESTS FOR COURT ORDER CLARIFICATIONS
Here is the letter I just sent to the Administrative Office of the Court (AOC) and Judge Glenn Grant (Acting Director of the Courts – New Jersey) in response to his letter to me complaining about emails and my OPRA and Common-law-right-of-access request.
THE LETTER FROM NJ AOC
IS FULL OF SHENANIGANS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS OF FACTS
The letter from the AOC completely ignores the fact that in addition to the OPRA (open records / sunshine request) I sent to the Sheriff’s Office my prior letter to the court also contained a common-law right of access request.
Further: I had sent written letters via Postal Service to the Judges who mishandled my cases I asked for clarifications of orders over 10 months ago and nobody has responded.
I covered all of this in my reply letter.
I stood up for my right to petition the court / government via email as a litigation privilege and 1st Amendment Right.
My right to do so is also likely covered by Article I of the New Jersey State Constitution of 1947 in paragraph 18 (right to petition the government for redress of grievances).
As such it is my position that given the separation of powers the court is powerless to control my right to petition the government as granted to me by the New Jersey Legislature. I do not believe the Judiciary can revoke a privilege provided to me by the Legislature without due-process under the law.
This is where I am at… I hope I can coerce a written reply to my long-dated requests to the court.
DOWNLOAD RSS FEED APP &
FOLLOW NJ COURT CORRUPTION
ON ANY MOBILE DEVICE
STEPS FOR FOLLOWING OUR THREE (3) WEBSITES
ON YOUR MOBILE DEVICE:
1. Download an RSS Feed Reader from Google Play or the Apple Store:
APP FOR ANDROID PHONES: RSS DEMON APP (Recommended)
- RSS Demon (Click Link)
Simple to Use App. You can customize, add, delete feeds
- Download App here: (Click Link)
APPS FOR iPHONE: Choose Any of these apps:
DOWNLOAD FROM THESE LINKS:
Byline App (Click Link) – A Simple RSS Feed App Easy to Use
Feedler App (Click Link) Feedler is one of the most popular RSS News Readers
2. Add the NJCourtCorruption.com RSS Feed Link from the App menu
COPY AND PASTE NJCourtCorruption.com Feed Address into the RSS Application you chose.
RSS FEED ADDRESS: njcourtcorruption.com/feed
3. ADD NEWS FEEDS FROM OUR SISTER SITES AS WELL:
NEW JERSEY PRO SE RESEARCH(Click to Visit Website)
- Description: Scholarly research about how people can better represent themselves in New Jersey Courts
- Disclaimer: The site is only for research purposes and does not represent legal advice from a lawyer.
RSS FEED ADDRESS: http://newjerseyprose.com/feed/
- Description: A site dedicated to exposing the horror stories from within NJ Family Courts and Courts around the Country
RSS FEED ADDRESS: http://njfamilycourtstories.wordpress.com/feed/
GET OUR NEWS ON MOBILE PHONES
A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE
I filed a letter brief to challenge two issues related to the judicial misconduct I endured in Burlington County Superior Court at the hands of Judge Ronald Bookbinder and his accomplice John Tomasello (Retired & Recalled Judge).
The issues in dispute are:
- UNLAWFUL RESTRAINTS OF MY LITIGATION PRIVILEGES, INCLUDING:
- ORDERS THAT PROHIBITED ME FROM APPEARING IN COURT AT MY OWN TRIALS.
- RESTRAINTS AGAINST MY CONTACT WITH THE COURT OMBUDSMAN (ACCESS TO THE COURT).
- RESTRAINTS AGAINST MY ACCESS TO THE COURT TELEPHONICALLY OR IN PERSON DURING MY LITIGATION.
- SEE THESE OUTRAGEOUS COURT ORDERS HERE: COURT ORDERS BOOKBINDER
- ASSIGNMENT OF A RETIRED JUDGE TO HEAR MY CASE MAY BE A VIOLATION OF THE N.J. CONSTITUTION.