JUDGE BOOKBINDER VIOLATED A FATHER’S RIGHT TO PROTECT HIS CHILDREN AND REPRESENT HIMSELF AT TRIAL WITH THIS COURT ORDER.
CLEARLY IT IS UNLAWFUL TO PROHIBIT A DEFENDANT FROM APPEARING IN COURT AT HIS OWN TRIAL, BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT JUDGE BOOKBINDER DID.
JUDGE BOOKBINDER MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE UNLESS HE TAKES REMEDIAL ACTION. EVEN THEN HIS FITNESS TO SERVE AS A JUDGE IS QUESTIONABLE
SEE EVIDENCE BELOW:
This court order violates the Supreme Court ruling in Haines v. Kerner 1972 by requiring a pro se defendant to file all pleadings consistent with the court rules. In fact the Supreme Court has ruled this is not a requirement any court can legally enforce or make upon a Defendent.
Within the Third Circuit Federal Courts (New Jersey’s Jurisdiction) the court has confirmed that a pro se litigant can not be held to be strictly bound by court rules. See Todaro v. Bowman or Picking v. Pennsylvania.
It is quite clear from the evidence above and Judge Bookbinder’s numerous ex-parte communications with me that he is not acting lawfully, but instead trying to continue a pattern of retaliation and abuse that began in my case before it was transferred from Mercer County to Burlington County due to the improper conduct of Judge Catherine Fitzpatrick.
SEE THE OTHER ARTICLES ON THIS CITE ABOUT THE MISCONDUCT OF JUDGE FITZPATRICK AND JUDGE BOOKBINDER, THE INFORMATION IS QUITE ILLUMINATING.