MY REASONS FOR FIGHTING FOR MY RIGHTS
CITATIONS OF “THE LAW” SUPPORTING MY POSITION
I AM PUSHING THE ISSUE, BECAUSE AT THIS POINT, THE ABUSE HAS GONE WAY TO FAR, AND
IF I DON’T STAND UP FOR MYSELF THEY WILL MOST ASSUREDLY HAVE ME JAILED FOR NOT PAYING (“ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS”) CHILD SUPPORT + ARREARS.
I MAY NEVER SEE MY CHILDREN AGAIN IF I DON’T
MY POINT TO JUDGE BOOKBINDER CONTINUES TO BE:
1. JUDGE BOOKBINDER’S COURT ORDERS ARE _LEGALLY
2. JUDGE TOMASELLO’S FINAL ORDERS ARE NULL AND VOID AS THEY SIT (pursuant “The Law”)
I NEVER HAD A TRIAL THAT “APPEARED FAIR” OR THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH COURT RULES OR PROCEDURE! As many of you are aware in response to how my divorce “trial” and the civil restraints of Judge Bookbinder I have declared all final orders in my matrimonial and domestic violence matters to be LEGALLY NULL AND VOID, due to the failure of the court to abide by my constitutionally protected rights to due process / litigation privileges / first amendment rights, and right to access the court.
1) Ronald E. Bookbinder violated Judicial Canons 2A, 2B, 3A(1), and 3A(6) in his handling of my matters. In fact he continued to violate canon 3A(6) with the sending of the attached letter as he did not copy all the interested parties to the captioned cases the letter purports to address (including Mercer County Prosecutor’s office, and Kathryn Bischoff).
2) *The civil restraints issued on 2/6/2014, 2/11/2014, 2/19/2014, 3/10/2014, and 3/11/2014:*_*restrained me from such activities including (SEE CITATIONS BELOW)
A)*RESTRAINED FROM: Appearing in court, without “express permission of a Superior Court Judge”.
These restraints in the prima facie thereby restrained me from appearing
in court for my own trial dates:
When I didn’t appear ex-parte trial and testimony were permitted, thereby:
creating void court orders in all my legal matters. This portion of the civil restraint order violated:
United States Constitution Bill of Rights, Amendments: 1, 9, and 14
(i) 1st Amendment: congress (sole legislator of the law per constitution), shall pass no law abridging free speech of a citizen
(ii) 9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, SHALL NOT be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”
(iii) 14th Amendment: One of the two due process clauses in the bill of rights. (note due process is the only right mentioned twice in the Bill of Rights).
Partial quotation includes
“No State SHALL abridge any privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States, nor SHALL any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”
B) RESTRAINED FROM: Communicating with the court in any way contrary to the court rules. This restraint violated my constitutional rights, litigation privileges as a citizen, and binding common-law of the U.S. Supreme Court, Federal Courts, 3r circuit & N.J. including:
(a) A SLEW OF BINDING PRECEDENTS PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF PRO SE LITIGANTS DECIDED BY the U.S. Supreme Court, Federal Courts, 3r circuit & N.J. including:
(i) Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972);
(ii) Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway , (151 F2d. 240) Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In Picking , the plaintiffs civil rights was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as “inept.” Nevertheless, it was held: Where a plaintiff pleads pro-se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the court should endeavor to construe plaintiffs pleading without regard to technicalities.
(ii) Todaro v. Bowman, 872 F.2d 43, 44 n. 1 (3d Cir. 1989);
Findings of Todaro Court: As a pro se litigant Todaro is held to less stringent pleading standards and we will afford him a liberal interpretation of our procedural rules. We will, therefore, consider the first amendment claim as properly before us. (iv) McTeague v. Sosnowski, 617 F.2d 1016, 1019 (3d Cir.1980).
(v) Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982);
FURTHER THIS RESTRAINT:violated my constitutional rights (1st Amendment Rights), litigation privileges as a citizen, and binding common-law of the U.S. Supreme Court, Federal Courts, 3r circuit & N.J. including:
(a) Elrod v. Burns, 427 US 347 – 1976 – Supreme Court (a great first amendment case from 1976)
NOTE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT FINDINGS IN Elrod v. Burns: pursuant Buckley v. Valeo:
(i) Supreme Court Finding:Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only byinterests of vital importance, the burden of proving the existence of which rests upon the government
See Also: Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S., 94,1
(ii) Relevance to Judge Bookbinder’s Civil: Judge Bookbinder has shifted the burden of proof from the court to the Defendant, and restrained my first amendment rights without producing any evidence, witnesses, or satisfying a burden of proof prior to restraining my 1^st Amendment rights and litigation privileges during active trials.
(b)Buckley v. Valeo,424 U.S. 94 1 (A Great 1st Amendment Case)
THIS RESTRAINT FURTHER INTERFERED WITH MY LITIGATION PRIVILEGES AS RECONGNIZED IN THESE BINDING PRECEDENTS IN N.J.:
(k) Loigman v. Township Committee of Tp. of Middletown, 185 N.J. 566, 579–80 (2006).
(l) Rickenbach v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 635 F. Supp. 2d 389 (D.N.J. 2009)
Finding: Noting that litigation privilege has broad application to nearly all tort claims except claims for malicious prosecution). comments from:By Karen Painter Randall – December 11, 2012 – ABA Article
(m) Hawkins v. Harris, 141 N.J. 207 (1995):
- With this broad application in hand, New Jersey Courts have firmly established that the privilege applies to “any communication: (1) made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings; (2) by litigants or other participants authorized by law; (3) to achieve the objects of the litigation; and (4) that have some connection or logical relation to the action.” (By Karen Painter Randall – December 11, 2012 – ABA