EXPLAIN FAMILY COURT TO YOUR FRIENDS LIKE THIS: IT’S A CRIMINAL RACKETEERING ENTERPRISE (then they’ll understand!)

Standard

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.
1. 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.
2. 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:
1. WE (THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY) WILL NOT EVEN REQUIRE YOU TO SPEND THE MONEY YOU GET FROM THE OTHER PARENT, ON YOUR CHILDREN
2. … JUST HAVE AT IT LADIES AND GENTS… FREE MONEY FROM SOMEONE ELSE, FOR WHATEVER ELSE – YOU NEED NOT REAR A CHILD WITH THIS MONEY!
3. 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!

Further:

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.

Further:

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!

Kind regards,

Derek C. Syphrett, Esq.

Attorney-in-fact

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, 10^th Amendment

An outta state story of Dad Abuse

Standard

From http://divorcesupport.about.com/u/sty/thedivorceprocess/divorccourtshareyourstory/

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.

Lessons Learned

Never get married without a pre-nup agreement regarding the children.

THE COURT: Threatens Dad’s life & has no real rules

Standard

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

BURLINGTON COUNTY (VINCINAGE 3)

IS A JUDICIAL HELL-HOLE AND NOTHING ELSE

TO WIT:

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.

SEE THE PROOF AND DETAILS HERE:

2014-10-24 – FV-03-1154-14 Reply Cert to FM-03-790-14 – WTF

Wow it gets worse

Standard

THE GOLDEN LASSO

VERITAS VOS LIBERABIT

HOME

OBTUSE JUDGES

← 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? →

WOW! JUST WHEN YOU THINK YOU’VE HEARD IT ALL!

Standard

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

3 comments:

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.

simonfamilylaw.com

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.

Janelle

‹

›

Home

View web version

Alleged Racketeering: State of New Jersey Judicary

Standard

AFTER AWAKENING FROM

BENIGN ACCEPTANCE OF CORRUPTION

IN NJ:

I REPORTED THE FOLLOWING CRIMES

TO THE FBI

SEE THE LETTER COMPLAINTS HERE:

2014-10-22 Fax FBI False Claims Act 2014-10-22 – FAX FBI AOC

2014-10-22 Fax FBI False Claims Act

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”

Dr. Vivian Chern Shnaidman: QUESTIONABLE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE – ALLEGEDLY FRAUDULENT EXPERT WITNESS

Standard

(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 *

UPDATE

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:
LINK: http://theunnecesarean.com/…/refusal-of-unnecesarean…

* 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:

DR. VIVIAN CHERN SHNAIDMAN (LINK):

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”!

EXPERT REPORT FROM WALLACE V. SYPHRETT:

READ IT AND WEEP FOR THE CHILDREN BECAUSE

IT IS CERTIFIED TO BE FOR A WOMAN “ROBIN BLOOM”, NOT MR. SYPHRETT!

2013-05-17 – PSYCH EVAL – SHNAIDMAN

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:

2013-06-04 – FM-97-13K – ORDER – Appointed Lawyer GAL

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

GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT

BODDIE V. CONNECTICUT

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 NJ SUPREME COURT: RIGHT TO FILE CHALLENGE TO A VOID COURT ORDER

Standard

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)

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

HERE:

2014-08-18 – SHERIFFS INVESTIGATIVE REPORT – Redacted

2013-11-22 – ORDER – CASE 13-2502 – Jacobson – Jimenez Recusa

l 2014-01-17 ORDER TRANSFER CIVIL DOCKETS

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

HERE:

2014-10-07 – FV-03-1154-14 Derek Writ Coram Nobis (SEE EXHIBITS)

► WALL OF SHAME: Judge Lawrence DeBello of Trenton, NJ; liar, ethical gimp

Standard

JUDGE DEBELLO

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)!

I DIGRESS:

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.

Judge Lawrence DeBello of Trenton, NJ; liar, ethical gimp

The New Jersey Supreme Court presented Lawrence DeBello with a law license in 1982.

During his unremarkable tenure on the bench, Judge DeBello was found guilty of the following misconduct by the New Jersey Judicial Commission.

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

Larry’s conduct related to his improper use of a court computer to repeatedly send romantic emails to a former law clerk. Larry continued this conduct even though the presiding judge warned him that it was improper. The continuing emails dealt were of a personal nature and were intimate in nature. Many of the emails included offensive language.

As a consequence of his misconduct the enablers for Judicial Misfits sitting on the New Jersey Supreme Court punished Larry by gifting him with a complimentary censure.

Because Judicial Misfit s are held to a lower standard of conduct then everyone else in New Jersey, Larry was never criminally charged for giving false testimony (aka, perjury). Surprised?

As we speak Larry continues to sit as a Family Court Judge in the Mercer Vicinage Court

Alleged Mail Fraud, Assault, Harassment of Mercer County Sheriff’s Office: Stop OR I WILL ARREST YOU!

Standard

POLICE MISCONDUCT

VS.

“THE LAW”

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

HERE: ALLEGED FELONY WITNESS TAMPERING

IN INTERSTATE CUSTODY CASE & OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

(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

WHERE:

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:

FILED: Writ of Mandamus Served Upon NJ Superior Court

Standard

A SUIT WAS FILED AGAINST THE

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY &

THE MERCER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE &

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS TODAY

AS:

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:

2014-10-15 – FILED FINAL Writ of Mandamus – Petition for Redress of a Grievance

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)

DEMAND FOR JUSTICE – Mercer County Sheriff’s Incarcerate A Man and Deny They Arrested Him Unlawfully – WRIT OF MANDAMUS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF “THE LAW”

Standard

WE THE PEOPLE OF NEW JERSEY WOULD NOT ACCEPT

A JUDGE ACTING LIKE THIS CHILD

(pictured above)

SO:

WE CAN NOT ACCEPT THIS

OR

THIS FRAUDULENT COURT ORDER

(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!

REVENGE OF THE DAD: WRIT OF MANDAMUS & HABEAS CORPUS FOR RETURN OF MY CHILDREN

Standard

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:

2014-10-12 Petition – Writs – Legal Brief

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

RE:

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.
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
1. 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.
  1. 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.
  2. THE AFOREMENTIONED LIES / FALSE STATEMENTS WERE: ONLY CORRECTED AFTER A COPY OF THE ARREST RECORD WAS SENT TO THE MERCER COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNSEL!!!
2. 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
3. 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
I DEMAND THE COURT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS FROM (dsyphrett@gmail.com) TO EMPLOYEES OF THE COURT AND EMPLOYEES OF THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT FROM (1/2013 to 10/12/2014):
1. 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.
2. 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)!!!
3. 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:
  1. 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.
  2. LEGAL FOUNDATIONS SUPPORTING THIS DEMAND AND/OR LEGAL ARGUMENT INCLUDE: “LAW OF THE VOIDS” AND/OR “DOCTRINE OF RECIPROCALS”
    1. 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.”
    1. 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…”
    2. Gomillion v. Lightfoot 364 U.S. 155:“Constitutional Rights would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied.”
    3. 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.
    4. 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”.
    5. 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.
      FURTHER:
      
      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:
1. 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.
2. 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

CONCLUSION:

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”.

VERY TRULY:

Derek C. Syphrett, Esq.

Attorney-in-Fact

Citizen of New Jersey

Citizen of the United States of America

Permanently Disabled Person, pursuant the ADA

Witnesss-of-Fact

Real-Party-of-Interest

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

HERE

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”

THE END FOR AN UNLAWFUL JUDGE – It Looks Like This!

Standard

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:

2014-10-10 – LTR to Bookbinder ACJC AOC Goodbye

10/10/2014

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:

2014-02-06 and 2014-2-19 and 2014-3-10 COURT ORDERS BOOKBINDER

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:

“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, 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”.

CONCLUSION:

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.

FURTHER:

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.

Kind regards,

Derek Syphrett

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:

2014-10-07 – FV-03-1154-14 Derek Writ Coram Nobis

IT IS SCATHING AND HILARIOUSLY RUDE TO THE JUDGES WHO LIED!

(IT CONTAINS MANY GRAMMAR ERROS, AND WILL BE AMENDED)

	William O’Malley on THE FAMILY COURT REVOLUTION WI…
	courtreformer4change on THE FAMILY COURT REVOLUTION WI…
	courtreformer4change on THE FAMILY COURT REVOLUTION WI…
	courtreformer4change on THE FAMILY COURT REVOLUTION WI…
	Marc Weber on THE FAMILY COURT REVOLUTION WI…

Angry Father Gets Supervised Visitation

BUT THAT IS JUST THE BORING STUFF FOR STARTERS,

THE UNIQUE STUFF INCLUDES:

AFTER AWAKENING FROM

BENIGN ACCEPTANCE OF CORRUPTION

IN NJ:

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

“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.”

*** BREAKING NEWS ***

UPDATE

DON’T TAKE OUR WORD FOR IT

SEE THE FACTS HERE:

*** OH IT GETS WORSE ****

CHECK THIS OUT:

EXPERT REPORT FROM WALLACE V. SYPHRETT:

READ IT AND WEEP FOR THE CHILDREN BECAUSE

IT IS CERTIFIED TO BE FOR A WOMAN “ROBIN BLOOM”, NOT MR. SYPHRETT!

A DEFENSE AGAINST COURT CORRUPTION

WORTHY OF RESEARCH:

LEGAL DISCLAIMER FOR ALL LEGAL REFERENCES CONTAINED HEREIN:

LETTER TO THE SUPREME COURT HERE

COPY OF VOID COURT ORDERS BY

ASSIGNMENT JUDGE RONALD E. BOOKBINDER HERE

COPY OF JUDGE JIMENEZ FRAUDULENT COURT ORDERS & TRANSCRIPTS HERE

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

HERE:

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

HERE:

JUDGE DEBELLO

INAPPROPRIATE SEXUAL OVERTURES , REPRIMAND BY SUPREME COURT &

ALLEGED OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT:

HEY LADIES, DEBELLO SPECIALIZES IN SEXUALLY INAPPROPRIATE ACTIVITY:

YOU SHOULD PROBABLY ASK FOR RECUSAL IF YOU ARE A WOMAN!’

POLICE MISCONDUCT

VS.

“THE LAW”

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

NEW JERSEY IS IN FACT & IN LAW ONE OF THE STATES

WHERE:

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

AS:

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:

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

WE THE PEOPLE OF NEW JERSEY WOULD NOT ACCEPT

A JUDGE ACTING LIKE THIS CHILD

(pictured above)

SO:

WE CAN NOT ACCEPT THIS

OR

THIS FRAUDULENT COURT ORDER

(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:

* BREAKING NEWS *

* OH IT GETS WORSE **