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?