Category Archives: constitutional rights
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
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!
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!
STATE OF NEW JERSEY COURTS – IGNORE SUPREME COURT RULINGS – UNLAWFULLY INTERFERE IN PARENTING TIME
Standard
BELOW IS SOME INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO THE WEBSITE BY A PERSON IN NEW JERSEY THAT COMPILED RESEARCH FOR THEIR OWN MOTION TO THE COURT.
ITS A FASCINATING SUMMARY OF SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THAT PROHIBIT NEW JERSEY COURTS FROM INTERFERING IN PARENTING TIME DECISIONS OF “FIT PARENTS”.
IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED TO THIS WEBSITE THAT:
1) Any Court that issues orders inviolate of these Supreme Court Decisions is violating parents Constitutionally Protected “Due Process Rights” and orders issued contrary to these decisions are legally null and void.
2) In practice I suspect the New Jersey Courts and the Bar Association will Continue to Ignore these U.S. Supreme Court Decisions because these decisions get in the way of bilking innocent families out of hundreds of thousands of dollars individually and billions of dollars collectively
U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PROHIBITING “THE STATE” FROM
INTERFERING IN PARENTAL DECISIONS
THE FOLLOWING TEXT IS CIRCULATING AMONG FAMILY RIGHTS ADVOCATES TODAY
WE HAVE REPUBLISHED IT HERE TO INCREASE THE DISTRIBUTION OF THIS FREE INFORMATION:
THE FOLLOWING CITATIONS COME ALSO FROM: HERE
-
In Parham v. J.R. et al 442 U.S. 584 (1979) in toto, inclusive of cited cases, and specifically with regard to its findings that:
- The Supreme Court declared the ‘best interest of the child’ resides in the fit parent – not in the state: “Our constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that a child is a “the mere creature of the State” and, on the contrary, asserted that parents generally “have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare [their children] for additional obligations.”
-
Santosky v. Kramer 455 U.S. 745 (1982) in toto and specifically with regard to its legal findings that:
- To deny a parental right requires constitutional due process that proves he’s either unfit or a clear danger to his children – proven with ‘clear and convincing’ evidence. As such, Santosky v. Kramer 455 U.S. 745 (1982) emphasized to restrict a fundamental right of a parent to any extent, requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence that serious harm will come to the child.
-
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401 (1923) in toto and with regard to the legal fact that the Supreme Court established the following:
- ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to “establish a home and bring up children” and “to control the education of their own.”
-
Washington v.Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719 (1997) in toto, including citations, and with regard to:
- The right to Due Process includes a substantive component to the process that “provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests.” Id., at 720; see also Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301302 (1993).
… IF THE CITIZENS CAN NOT GET THE COURT TO ABIDE THE ABOVE LAWS, THEN:
WE SHOULD PREPARE TO DO THE FOLLOWING:
Note: We think it is worth filing / citing these cases with our motions now that we have reviewed them. Why Not? Can’t make things any worse with regard to our cases. What readers of this cite do with this information is an individual decisions, which we withhold any advisement concerning. This website is does not provide this information as legal advise nor do we have any certified legal expertise express/implied or otherwise.
ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY – NOT ABSOLUTE IN NEW JERSEY ANYMORE!
Standard
THE BIG NEWS
3 FEDERAL COURT JUDGES PLAY ROLE OF THE HEROES!!!
Today the New Jersey Law Journal has published a short article describing the amazing decision of the Third Circuit Judges Today.
BE ADVISED THIS IS HUGE NEWS, BECAUSE LAWSUITS AGAINST JUDGES IN FEDERAL COURTS HAVE BEEN DEAD ENDS FOR DECADES
THEY ARE ROUTINELY DISMISSED
YET TODAY WE NOW HAVE A “NEW DEAL” IN NEW JERSEY DUE TO THIS CASE
HERO JUDGES OF THE YEAR:
The Third Circuit panel of:
- The Very Honorable Judge Michael Chagares,
- The Very Honorable Judge Joseph Greenaway Jr.,
- The Very Honorable JudgeThomas Vanaskie
THESE FINE DISTINGUISHED JUDGES STATED THE FOLLOWING
IN THEIR 16 PAGE UNANIMOUS OPINION:
(edits included for style and emphasis (bold, line breaks, etc)
“we must decide whether the Complaint set forth allegations that, taken as true, establish that the application of an exception to the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity is “above thespeculative level [].
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see also McTernan v. City of York, 577 F.3d 521, 526 (3d Cir. 2009) (We have stated that, indeciding a motion to dismiss, all well pleaded allegations of the complaint must be taken as true and interpreted in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, and all inferences must be drawn in favor of them.”) (internal quotation marks and alter ations omitted).For the reasons set forth below,[:]
we agree with the District Court’s determination that[:]
Judge DiLeo is NOT entitled to absolute judicial immunity.
The well – established doctrine of absolute judicial immunity shields a judicial officer, who is performing his duties, from lawsuit and judgments for monetary damages. Mireles v. Waco , 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); Gallas , 211 F.3d at 7 68. This doctrine derives from the belief that a judge should be able to act freely upon his or her convictions without threat of suit for damages. See Stump v. Sparkman , 435 U.S. 349 , 355 (1978) ( stating that a “judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, [should] be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of p ersonal consequences to himself ”) . That said, it is an equally familiar principle that judicial immunity is not absolute. See Mireles , 502 U.S. at 11; Gallas , 211 F.3d at 768. Indeed, there are two exceptions: “First, a judge is not immune from liability for nonjudicial actions, i.e. , actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity. Second, a judge is not immune for 8 actions, though judicial in nat ure, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Mireles , 502 U.S. at 11 – 12 (internal citations omitted). If the Complaint contains allegations sufficient to establish that either exception applies, Judge DiLeo ’s motion to dismiss on grounds of a bsolute judicial immunity must be denied. See i d . ; s ee also Stump , 435 U.S. at 355 – 69 ; Gallas , 211 F.3d at 768 – 73 .”
THE NEW JERSEY LAW JOURNAL WROTE IN PART:
Remarkably these judges: “rejected DiLeo’s defenses based on absolute judicial immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity, and also upheld counts against Linden based on direct liability and conspiracy.”
I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU GET THE 16 PAGE DECISIONS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT BECAUSE THEY ARE DAMNING TO JUDGES WHO BREAK THE LAW.
SEE THIRD CIRCUIT OPINION HERE:
KIRKLAND v. DILEO THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS 2014
Today the Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals PIERCED JUDICIAL IMMUNITY.
THIS DECISION MAY HELP SET A LEGAL PRECEDENT IN NEW JERSEY & PA
(OFFICIALLY HOWEVER THE DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL…)
FOR OVER 100 YEARS AMERICAN JUDGES HAVE PLACED THEMSELVES
ABOVE THE LAW.
ACCORDING TO THE JUDGES THEMSELVES: Judges have decided that they can not be sued for their actions as judges, in fact they have decided they can not be criminally prosecuted for committing crimes while acting as judges.
- While Congress nor any state legislature has ever passed a law providing immunity for Judges, the judges within the United States have granted immunity to themselves. Often despite local and state statutes which EXPRESSLY recognize OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT as a crime that any public office holder can be convicted of.
Judges have often reinterpreted the law to exclude themselves and their peer group from any criminal or civil liability, as such Supreme Court precedents and follow-on lower court rulings have built up a massive library of precedential rulings that support JUDICIAL IMMUNITY. Cases such as:
- Bradly v. Fischer (1873)- Is Recognized by Scholars as the first case granting judicial immunity in
- Stump v. Sparkman (1978)- Judge was immune after unlawfully ordering a womans reproductive organs removed
- Pierson v. Ray (1967) – Immunity is available only when a judge has jurisdiction over the subject-matter
NOTABLE HISTORY AND CONTROVERSY OF
“JUDICIAL IMMUNITY”
Stump v. Sparkman was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court and became the law of the land. It is often cited as grounds for absolving a Judge of any criminal or civil liability under the “doctrine” of “Judicial Immunity”.
Notably:
Stump v. Sparkman was a contraversal decision – even for the Supreme Court. Two Justices entered dissenting opinions and called the decision of the Supreme Court’s Majority “Beyond the Pale”:
Justice Stewart’s dissent
(In Stump v. Sparkman)
Associate Justice Potter Stewart entered a vigorous dissent. Agreeing that judges of general jurisdiction enjoy absolute immunity for their judicial acts, he wrote, “…what Judge Stump did…was beyond the pale of anything that could sensibly be called a judicial act.”[11] Stating that it was “factually untrue”[11] that what Judge Stump did was an act “normally performed by a judge,” he wrote. “…there is no reason to believe that such an act has ever been performed by any other Indiana judge, either before or since.”[12]
Justice Stewart also denounced it as “legally unsound” to rule that Judge Stump had acted in a “judicial capacity”.[12] “A judge is not free, like a loose cannon,” he wrote, “to inflict indiscriminate damage whenever he announces that he is acting in his judicial capacity.”[12]
Concluding, Justice Stewart argued that the majority misapplied the law of the Pierson case:
Not one of the considerations…summarized in the Pierson opinion was present here. There was no “case,” controversial or otherwise. There were no litigants. There was and could be no appeal. And there was not even the pretext of principled decisionmaking. The total absence of any of these normal attributes of a judicial proceeding convinces me that the conduct complained of in this case was not a judicial act.[13]
Justice Powell’s dissent
(In Stump v. Sparkman)
Joining in Justice Stewart’s opinion, Justice Lewis Powell filed a separate dissent that emphasized what he called “…the central feature of this case – Judge Stump’s preclusion of any possibility for the vindication of respondents’ rights elsewhere in the judicial system.”[14] Continuing, he wrote:
Underlying the Bradley immunity…is the notion that private rights can be sacrificied in some degree to the achievement of the greater public good deriving from a completely independent judiciary, because there exist alternative forums and methods for vindicating those rights.
But where a judicial officer acts in a manner that precludes all resort to appellate or other judicial remedies that otherwise would be available, the underlying assumption of the Bradley doctrine is inoperative.[15]
WORSE STILL:
PEIRSON V. RAY: GRANTED IMMUNITY TO ANY JUDGE WITH SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.
TRANSLATION INTO ENGLISH:
- ALMOST ALL STATE JUDGES IN SUPERIOR COURTS HAVE GENERAL JURISDICTION
- THIS HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE COURTS TO MEAN THEY ALWAYS HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND ARE ALWAYS IMMUNE
….. BUT TODAY WE GOT SOME GOOD NEWS
IN THIS ABUSIVE AREA OF “THE LAW”…..
THE BACK STORY ON
TODAY’S FEDERAL COURT RULING (3rd Circuit):
Judge Dileo, a former Judge of Linden, NJ Municipal Court convicted two defendants of crimes at a trial in which the Prosecutor was not present. READ AN ARTICLE HERE FOR DETAILS:
The Judge acted as prosecutor and let a police officer cross-examine the defendants at the “trial”. This violated the constitutional rights of the accused according to the complaint filed by the Defendants in Federal Court.
Judge Dileo later resigned from office after this issue came to light.
The New Jersey A.C.J.C. (Judicial Conduct Watchdog) publicly sanctioned Judge Dileo AFTER HE RESIGNED. The Supreme Court of New Jersey barred him from acting as a Judge in New Jersey as a result
See the ACJC documents and the N.J. Supreme Court Order Describing the JUDGE DILEO’S OUTRAGEOUS ACTS HERE
READ IT AND THEN THINK
…WOW!!!
BIG COURT DATE TUESDAY (Tomorrow): Request for Court Observers – Please RSVP
Standard
I have a big court date tomorrow for a rule 4:50 hearing (rule for re-opening a closed case due to fraud, injustice, or any good cause).
The court date is:
9/2/2014
Court Address:
Superior Court of New Jersey
49 Rancocas Rd., Mt Holly, NJ 08060
Judge assigned to hearing:
Judge Tomasello (Retired) no court room number included on the summons.
BACKGROUND:
In my case I have gotten railroaded multiple times by the Superior Court Judges Involved so I would like as many court observers as I can get for the hearing tomorrow.
I am literally fearful for my well-being because the court continues to try to cover up their failure to follow the court rules, the NJ Constitution or even statutory rights and laws that I’ve cited to them directly.
Instead the court continues to attempt to silence my voice by prohibiting me from appearing in court, or emailing or faxing about my case, when they let my legal adversaries do all of the above in violation of the court rules.
Things in Burlington County have gotten to be absolutely insane:
1. Files & motions are missing from my case file and were never considered by the court
2. Judges refused to correct their “mistakes” regarding my immediate appeal and their failure to rule on legal questions properly put before the court.
3. They have even issued a default decision in the case I’ve reopened, despite the fact court rule 4:43-1 thru 4:43-4 and Court rule V all say that a default can only be entered if the Defendant fails to answer the complaint or put pleadings before the court. In my case I did, and yet they entered a default without considering my pleadings and evidence that the Plaintiff was flat out lying.
4. Judge Ronald Bookbinder has lied to my face and lied to me over on telephonic status hearings and via letters… repeatedly. He has even tried to act as a witness of fact during hearings in violation of court rule 601. When I demanded he cease acting as a witness he stated he could use an exception to court rule 601 for discussing legal fees… I reminded him I was self-represented, so there were no legal fees in this case, and his excuse made no sense at all… He said he construed the rule in a manner that allowed him to act as witness anyway!!!
5. During my divorce trial the trial Judge – John Tomasello permitted ex-parte testimony during the trial and refused to let me cross-examine the witnesses afterwords… THAT IS INSANELY UNLAWFUL!
ANYWAY GIVEN THAT I AM DEALING WITH A HILL BILLY COURT, I NEED THE PUBLIC THERE TO WATCH THESE EVIL PEOPLE BEFORE THEY ATTEMPT TO DO ME MORE HARM.
HERO JUDGE: JUSTICE ALBIN SUPPORTS: DV Defendant’s Right to Counsel
StandardIF I WAS A POOR PRO-SE I WOULD FILE THIS LEGAL ARGUMENT PRE-TRIAL TO GET A LAWYER FOR FREE
HERE IS HOW I WOULD DO IT:
(Dislaimer This is not Legal Advice. I am not A lawyer.
This is simply what I would do in if I was poor and was facing a false DV Charge)
1) I would copy and paste Justie Albin’s Legal Argument and submit it to the trial court pre-trial to get a free lawyer if I was poor
2) I would do this as an immediate appeal and caption it with the “pleading” ” 1)REQUEST FOR COUNSEL FOR INDIGENT DEFENDANT”, “2) REQUEST TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL DETAILS TO SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE TO CONFIRM MY INDENGENCY
3) i WOULD THEN INCLUDE A SHORT SUMMARY OF MY INCOME AND BANK ACCOUNT BALANCES UNDER THE TITLE “STATEMENT OF FACTS”, I WOULD STATE THAT I AM THE DEFENDANT IN A DV CASE.
4) I WOULD THEN INSERT A TITLE “LEGAL ARGUMENT” AND COPY AND PASTE JUSTICE ALBINS DISSENT BELOW AND USE IT AS MY LEGAL ARGUMENT.
I BELIEVE NEW JERSEY COURTS ARE READY TO EVOLVE
SEE LEGAL ARGUMENT BELOW
========================================================
JUSTICE ALBINS 9 PAGE AUTHORITATIVE DISSENT
SUPPORTING INDIGENT / POOR PEOPLES RIGHT TO A LAWYER IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES
========================================================
D.N. v. K.M. (
429 N.J. Super. 592, 2014)
From: C-808 September Term 2012
- Bresocnik v. Gallegos, 842 A.2d 276 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2004)
- Crespo v. Crespo, 989 A.2d 827 (N.J. 2010)
- Crespo v. Crespo, 972 A.2d 1169 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2009)
- Div. of Youth & Family Serv. v. Br, 929 A.2d …
- Doe v. Poritz, 662 A.2d 367 (N.J. 1995)
==============================
JUSTICE ALBIN
A REAL AMERICAN HERO (JUDGE)
(See Albins Dissent & Invitation for a Brave Pro Se to Set a Date at the N.J. Supreme Court)
==============================
MAJORITY OPINION OF JUSTICES DID NOT GRANT RIGHT TO COUNSEL
THE DISSENT WOULD HAVE…
READ THE DISSENT BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT MEN NEED TO FILE
IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE LAW IN NJ:
SUMMARY OF MAJORITY OPINION
NJ SUPREME COURT:
(App. Div. 2013). Consistent with current law, the Appellate Division concluded that “the protections of due process do not require the appointment of counsel for indigents presenting or defending a private party’s civil domestic violence action.” Id. at 606.
The dissent recommends that the Court grant certification in this case and examine whether counsel should be appointed for indigent 1 citizens in civil proceedings under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. The Act itself does not authorize appointment of counsel for the parties in a domestic violence action. In that regard, New Jersey is not alone.
Only one state provides for appointment of counsel for both parties under comparable civil domestic violence laws. See N.Y. CLS Fam. Ct. Act 262(a)(ii). Thus, without any statutory authority, a directive from this Court requiring appointment of counsel would rest on constitutional grounds. To be sure, such a ruling would affect thousands of cases annually.
For the last court year alone, from July 2012 through June 2013, there were approximately 15,800 hearings for final restraining orders, according to the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC).
The AOC estimates that the vast majority of plaintiffs and defendants in those hearings were not represented by counsel. By way of comparison, there were a total of about 1200 Madden1 appointments for the year, and roughly two-thirds of them were for contempt proceedings in domestic violence cases. In any event, this case is not a good vehicle to embark on a constitutional analysis of the issue presented because, based on the record before us, petitioner did not assert that she was 1 Madden v. Delran, 126 N.J. 591′
SUPREME COURT “PUNTS” BECAUSE:
DEFENDANT NEVER ASKED FOR FREE LAWYER
(2010). The panel observed that “[t]he record does not reflect that defendant ever sought the appointment of counsel prior to or during the adjudication of this domestic violence matter. Accordingly, in the present setting, the issue is purely academic.” Ibid. The same is true here.
The petition for certification is denied. See R. 2:12-4. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, PATTERSON, and FERNANDEZ-VINA, and JUDGES RODRÍGUEZ and CUFF (both temporarily assigned) join in this per curiam opinion. JUSTICE ALBIN filed a separate, dissenting opinion. 3 SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY C-808 September Term 2012 072186 D.N., Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. K.M., Defendant-Respondent.
JUSTICE ALBIN WRITES A GREAT
DISSENTING OPINION FOR:
POOR DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN DV CASES
Today, my colleagues refuse to hear a case that raises significant questions about the fairness of our civil justice system — a case that meets every criterion for the grant of certification under our Court Rules. See R. 2:12-4. D.N. has filed a petition for review of D.N. v. K.M.,429 N.J. Super. 592
(App. Div. 2013), in which the Appellate Division held that an indigent defendant is not entitled to appointed counsel when prosecuted for violations of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (“Domestic Violence Act”), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35.
That decision cuts against the grain of a long line of jurisprudence in New Jersey guaranteeing the right to counsel to impoverished defendants facing consequences of magnitude, even in civil cases.
The Appellate Division ruled that a poor defendant has no right to appointed counsel in a domestic violence case despite the enormity of consequences that flow from a violation of the Domestic Violence Act.
Thus, a defendant mother, who is found to have violated the Act, could lose custody of her children and possession of her house; could face crushing financial penalties and placement of her name on an offender registry, jeopardizing her ability to secure employment, credit and housing; and could forfeit her right to possess a firearm.
The loss of these rights and imposition of these penalties may occur on an unlevel playing field where an inarticulate defendant, ignorant of the law and courtroom procedures, is 2 prosecuted by a well-trained, skilled, and experienced attorney representing the opposing party. The issue before the Court is not “purely academic” as my colleagues contend. D.N. v. K.M., __ N.J. __, __ (slip op. at 3) (quoting Crespo v. Crespo,
, 45 (App. Div. 2009), aff’d o.b.,
(2010)). My colleagues rely on Crespo, supra, 408 N.J. Super. at 45, a case in which the Appellate Division declined to address the issue of the right to appointed counsel in a domestic violence case. Unlike Crespo, here the Appellate Division decided the issue, and its ruling stands as the law of the State until this Court says otherwise. My colleagues cannot expect that an uncounseled defendant, such as D.N., would know to assert her right to appointed counsel in a domestic violence case. It was the obligation of the Family Court to advise her of that right, which did not happen here. Importantly, D.N. argued on appeal (when represented by counsel) that she was indigent and had the right to appointed counsel, and the Appellate Division addressed the issue in a published decision. I do not understand how my colleagues can say that “this case is not a good vehicle to embark on a constitutional analysis of the issue presented,” D.N., supra, __ N.J. at __ (slip op. at 2), when the issue was presented to and decided by the Appellate Division. 3 Last year marked the fiftieth anniversary of the landmark ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright,372 U.S.335,83 S. Ct. 7929 L. Ed. 2d 799
(1963), a case trumpeting the right to counsel for the indigent in criminal cases. After Gideon, this Court took a giant step forward — far ahead of other courts in the nation — to secure for the poor the opportunity for equal justice in courtrooms throughout this State. See Rodriguez v. Rosenblatt,
58 N.J. 281(1971).
‘
The right to counsel is an essential attribute of a fair trial. The denial of this petition will surely disappoint those who expect this Court to remain at the forefront of ensuring a fair adversarial process for the poor who face serious consequences of magnitude in civil cases.
=============================================================
For the reasons I have given and for those that follow, I respectfully dissent.
=============================================================
=============================================================
I. In Rodriguez, supra, this Court held that “as a matter of simple justice, no indigent defendant should be subjected to a conviction entailing imprisonment in fact or other consequence of magnitude without first having had due and fair opportunity to have counsel assigned without cost.” 58 N.J. at 295 (emphasis added). In Rodriguez, we recognized that, in our adversarial system, defendants untrained in the complexities of the law are disadvantaged and in no position to represent themselves. Ibid. Because the practicalities of life did not permit for “a universal rule for the assignment of 4 counsel to all indigent defendants,” we accepted that the denial of counsel “may be tolerable” in cases where litigants face no “serious consequence.” Ibid.
But we were unwilling to abide the denial of counsel to an indigent defendant who faced a “consequence of magnitude.” Ibid. In the wake of Rodriguez, the landscape of the law changed in New Jersey, and our Court Rules reflect this new reality.
Now, under Rule 7:3-2(b), if an indigent defendant is facing a “consequence of magnitude” in a municipal court case, he or she must be assigned a municipal public defender. In the municipal court setting, the potential imposition of a sentence of imprisonment, a period of license suspension, or even a monetary sanction of $750 or greater, each individually, constitutes a “consequence of magnitude” entitling a defendant to the appointment of counsel. Guidelines for Determination of Consequence of Magnitude, Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, Appendix to Part VII at 2503 (2014). In deciding Rodriguez, we did not hinge our decision on the number of defendants who might be entitled to appointed counsel. We did not suggest that for defendants facing consequences of magnitude, the right to appointed counsel — and therefore the right to a fair trial — depended on a cost analysis. Had the United States Supreme Court taken the cost-analysis approach, Gideon would not be on the books today, nor would Rodriguez. My colleagues note in their per curiam opinion that “last court year alone, from July 2012 through June 2013, there were approximately 15,800 hearings for final 5 restraining orders, according to the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC).” D.N., supra, __ N.J. at __ (slip op. at 2).
However, during that same period, according to the AOC, our court system disposed of 35,641 driving-while-intoxicated cases, and in every one of those cases involving an indigent defendant, the right to appointed counsel was guaranteed. Our approach has not been that if too many indigent defendants require counsel, we will provide counsel to none. Appointed counsel, moreover, is provided to many thousands of criminal defendants, and to a multitude of defendants in civil cases, as is evident below.
II. An indigent defendant must be assigned counsel in civil cases if he is facing imprisonment for failure to pay child support, Pasqua v. Council,186 N.J. 127, 149 (2006); termination of parental rights, N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. B.R.,192 N.J. 301, 306-07 (2007); tier classification for community-notification purposes in a Megan’s Law case, Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 31 (1995); involuntary civil commitment, In re S.L.,94 N.J. 128, 142 (1983); and contempt proceedings for violating a restraining order, State v. Ashford,374 N.J. Super. 332,337 (App. Div. 2004).
Yet, a defendant who is prosecuted for an act of domestic violence is not entitled to counsel even though he faces a host of consequences of magnitude,including:
-
an order expelling him from his home, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)(2);
- barring him from having contact with his children, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)(3)(b),
-
or suspending his custodial rights to his children, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)(11);
- compelling him to pay compensatory and punitive damages, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)(4),
- or emergency monetary relief, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)(10); seizing his firearms, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)(16),
-
and suspending his right to own a firearm or retain a firearms permit, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b);
- restraining him from entering places frequented by the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s family or household members, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)(6);
-
requiring him to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, N.J.S.A. 2C:25- 29(b)(18), or professional counseling, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)(5);
- dispossessing him of an automobile, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)(9), or a family animal, such as a dog, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)(19);
-
mandating that he submit to fingerprinting, N.J.S.A. 53:1-15; placing his name on a central registry for domestic violence offenders, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-34;
- requiring him to report to the intake unit of the Family Court for monitoring, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)(15), and imposing other restrictions on his liberty and property interests.
This catalogue underscores that “[t]he issuance of a final domestic violence restraining order ‘has serious consequences to the personal and professional lives of those who are found guilty of what the Legislature has characterized as a serious crime against society.’” Peterson v. Peterson,374 N.J. Super. 116, 124 (App. Div. 2005) (quoting Bresocnik v. Gallegos,367 N.J. Super. 178, 181 (App. Div. 2004)).
The inescapable reality is that a finding that one has committed an act of domestic violence, in addition to everything else, 7 brands that person as a “batterer.”
The stigma of that branding is recorded in the Domestic Violence Registry, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-34, and has far-reaching effects.
How can our jurisprudence reconcile the right of appointed counsel to a defendant facing a $750 fine or a one-day license suspension in municipal court with the denial of that right to a defendant who is facing much more serious consequences in Superior Court in a domestic violence case?
Yet, the appellate panel in this case held that “[t]he entry of a domestic violence [final restraining order], along with an order granting the additional relief available under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29b, does not result in a ‘consequence of sufficient magnitude’ to warrant the mandatory appointment of counsel.” D.N., supra, 429 N.J. Super. at 604.
The appellate panel’s decision does not appear to reflect the holdings or the spirit of our jurisprudence.
In Pasqua, [THE CASE THAT GIVES “DEADBEAT DADS THE RIGHT TO COUNCIL IN CIVIL COURT] supra, we made clear that “[u]nder the due process guarantee of the New Jersey Constitution, the right to counsel attaches even to proceedings in which a litigant is not facing incarceration.” 186 N.J. at 147. We acknowledged that “the adverse consequences of a particular civil proceeding can be as devastating as those resulting from the conviction of a crime.” Id. at 142.
The assistance of counsel is an indispensable component of the right to a fair trial in an adversarial proceeding. “A person of impoverished means caught within the tangle of our criminal or civil justice 8 system” who is facing a consequence of magnitude should have “the assistance of a trained and experienced lawyer.” See id. at 146.
In Pasqua, we could “find no principled reason why an indigent facing loss of motor vehicle privileges or a substantial fine in municipal court . . . would be entitled to counsel under state law but an indigent facing jail for allegedly willfully refusing to pay a child support judgment would not.” Id. at 149. What principled reason can be found to deny an indigent defendant, facing so many consequences of magnitude in a domestic violence case, the right to appointed counsel, when counsel is provided to a municipal court defendant who may be fined $750? Certainly, this is an issue worthy of review.
III. The petition before us meets every ground for certification under Rule 2:12-4.
The petition “presents a question of general public importance” that has not been settled by this Court, the appellate panel’s holding and reasoning “is in conflict with” decisions of this Court, and, last, it is in the “interest of justice” that this Court determine whether indigent citizens can be deprived of significant rights in a domestic violence hearing without the assistance of counsel. See R. 2:12-4.
With Gideon and Rodriguez as our guides, it is difficult to imagine a case presenting a more compelling issue for review: the 9 right of indigent defendants, who are facing calamity, to a fair shake in our civil justice system. I am not willing to turn away from this important issue.
Because I would grant certification, I respectfully dissent.
AMEN JUSTICE ALBIN!
THE SUPREME COURT MUST SOMEDAY
ADDRESS THIS ISSUE
IF I WERE POOR, AND I WERE CHARGED WITH A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE. I WOULD:
- FILE AN “IMMEDIATE APPEAL” AND
- SUBMIT JUSTICE ALBINS ARGUMENT
- AND REQUEST A FREE LAWYER TO REPRESENT ME
SURVIVING FALSE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGES (as a Pro Se) | New Jersey Pro Se Research
StandardSEE UPDATED ARTICLE / RESEARCH ON HOW A PRO SE CAN:
1. FILE CONTRARY TO THE COURT RULES
2. DEFEND AGAINST DV CHARGES
3. RE-OPEN A CASE POST-TRIAL VIA RULE 4:49 & RULE 4:50
SURVIVING FALSE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGES (as a Pro Se) | New Jersey Pro Se Research.
COURT REFUSES TO ALLOW ME TO SPEAK WITH OMBUDSMAN
Standard
Article Published after Receipt from Derek Syphrett:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
AFTER MOTIONS I FILED WENT MISSING IN A DV CASE I WAS FOUND GUILTY, THE COURT HAS CONTINUED TO RETALIATE AGAINST MY EFFORTS TO SEEK JUSTICE.
PRIOR TO THE DV TRIAL I HAD REQUESTED TO SEE MY FULL FILE AS I SUSPECTED THE PRIOR RECUSED JUDGES WOULD ATTEMPT TO REMOVE MOTIONS FROM THE FILE TO RETALIATE…. IT APPEARS THIS HAPPENED.
- 6/7/2013 Motion Stamped Received and discussed on the Record 6/13/2013 was removed from the file before the continued 2/19/2014 trial of the DV (after recusal of prior Trial Judge – MISSING FROM CASE FILE FV-11-887-13 (Kathryn Bischoff v. Derek Syphrett)
- 12/11/2013 Motion filed for dismissal of DV claim due to recusal of trial judge who issued the TRO. (Kathryn Bischoff v. Derek Syphrett). THIS MOTION WAS DELIVERED TO THE COURT IN TRIPLICATE ON 2 SEPARATE DATES – ITS MISSING
- 1/12/2013 to 2/4/2013 I sent letters to the court requesting to review my case file prior to the scheduled TRIAL in FV-11887-13, RE-DOCKETED IN BURLINGTON COUNTY AS FV-03-1154-14.
- 2/6/2014 I WAS PUNISHED FOR REQUESTING TO VIEW MY FILE PRE-TRIAL:
Judge Bookbinder issued an unlawful court order: prohibiting me from appearing in court pre-trial or at trial for any reason without EXPRESS PERMISSION FROM A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE. This was unlawful because it violates my constitutionally protected rights to due process under the 1st Amendment & 14th Amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America (1787 Original Jurisdiction)and the New Jersey Constitution which establish the inalienable right to access the court and to be tried consistent with due-process under the law.
- ADDITIONALLY I FILED A “IMMEDIATE APPEAL” with regard to the DV charge. This is a rarely used statutory right if you are accused of Domestic Violence in New Jersey – see Statute N.J.S.A.: 2C:25-28i.
An immediate appeal is meant to allow the Defendant to challenge a TRO issuance since the TRO was issued without the Defendant present in court to defend himself/herself.
THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO SEND LEGAL NOTICE AFTER SCHEDULING AN IMMEDIATE APPEAL ACCORDING TO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROCEDURE MANUAL (link to PDF). IN MY CASE THE COURT NEVER SCHEDULED THE IMMEDIATE APPEAL AND JUDGE PETER WARSHAW ERRONEOUSLY DENIED MY IMMEDIATE APPEAL BECAUSE HE SAID I SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED THE PLAINTIFF AFTER I SERVED THE PLAINTIFF THE IMMEDIATE APPEAL.
I WAS DENIED STATUTORY DUE PROCESS BECAUSE THE COURT NEVER SCHEDULED THE IMMEDIATE APPEAL.
- RETALIATION CONTINUED WHEN JUDGE JOHN TOMASELLO THREW ME OUT OF COURT AT TRIAL IN BURLINGTON FOR MAKING MY 1ST AND ONLY OBJECTION IN A DIFFERENT CASE… YET HE IS SET TO BE THE TRIAL JUDGE IN THE POST-TRIAL HEARING DESPITE THE FACT HIS BIAS AGAINST ME IS CLEAR AND CONVINCING!
NEW POST TRIAL FILINGS FOR RELIEF
LOOK AT HOW RIDICULOUS THIS HAS BECOME:
THIS WEEK: I have filed post trial motions to confront the corrupted court process.
Here are the recent letters to AND from the court:’
Letters and Letter Briefs set to the court to protest the court’s failure to schedule my immediate appeal:
2014-08-07 TO 14 – LTRS – Biased Court
LETTER FROM JUDGE BOOKBINDER
2014-08-14 LTR From Judge Bookbinder
LOOK AT ALL THE PEOPLE COPIED TO THIS LETTER !!!
– New Jersey Clerk of the Courts;
– Acting Director of the Courts;
– Chief of Staff for the Courts, etc
IMAGE OF JUDGE BOOKBINDER’S LETTER
Judges Retaliate Against Parents Who Seek Justice
Standard
IF YOU EXPOSE THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE FRAUD THAT IT IS THE JUDGES WILL THREATEN YOU WITH CONTEMPT OR JAIL TIME
SEE CASE STUDY #8 (FROM GOOD OLE NEW JERSEY!)
SEE RE-PUBLISHED ARTICLE ON OUR PARTNER WEBSITE HERE
NJ FAMILY COURT & INSTITUTIONALIZED HARASSMENT – DOCUMENTED BELOW
Standard
(image source: from PPJ Gazette website)
BELOW IS AN UNBELIEVABLE STORY OF HOW MY LOCAL FAMILY COURT CONTINUES TO HARASS AND IMPEDE MY ACCESS TO THE COURT IN RETALIATION FOR: MY COMPLAINTS TO THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE
I WENT TO COURT TO VIEW MY FILE AND SHERIFFS’ OFFICERS ESCORTED ME THROUGHOUT THE COURT HOUSE AND EVEN DOWN THE STREET.
THIS WAS NOTHING MORE THAN HARASSMENT.
TO DISCOURAGE FURTHER HARASSMENT:
I AM PREPARING A LAWSUIT WITH ANOTHER LAWYER AND MAKING OPRA REQUESTS (COSTLY FOR THE STATE TO COMPLY WITH) TO DISCOURAGE FURTHER MISCONDUCT AND DOCUMENT THE ISSUES.
==========================================
O.P.R.A. REQUEST SENT 8/8/2014
TO DOCUMENT THE CONTINUED HARASSMENT
==========================================
SENT TO: SHERIFF KEMLER, UNDER-SHERIFF MEDINA, FREEHOLDER BRIAN HUGHES, MERCER COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNSEL (A. Sypek), Court Staff (Sandra Terry)
O.P.R.A. Request #6 TO MERCER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE & Request to Judiciary for Common-law right of access
RE: Harassment Allegations of Derek Syphrett
INTRODUCTION TO O.P.R.A. REQUEST:
I am writing today to get information about a bizarre personal experience I endured while reviewing my court files at 400 Warren St. and paying for my copied files at 175 S. Broad Street.
I am writing to place an O.P.R.A. Request which is listed below my statement of facts below the sections of this email denoted as “Introduction…” and “introductory comments regarding 8/6/2014 Statement of Facts.
PLEASE TAKE NOTE:
1) That part of the reason I am making this O.P.R.A. request is to prepare for a lawsuit and to discourage the Sheriff’s Office and the Superior Court from attempting to harass or intimidate me further. I am probably the last person on earth that the court or the Sheriff’s Office should attempt to harass, intimidate, or stalk.
2) Please be advised if I continue to be confronted with bizarre behavior and actions by the Mercer County Sheriff’s Office I will continue to update the FBI and document the issues via O.P.R.A. requests and or lawsuits to discourage:
a) any further misconduct with regard to my enforcement of my civil rights;
b) obstruction, impediments, or harassment related to my right to access the court.
3) I believe all parties will be well served by a strict adherence to my personal boundaries and my constitutionally protected rights. Further questionable conduct will lead to more O.P.R.A. requests and increased claims of damages in the future.
INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS REGARDING
/6/2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS:
/6/2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS:
When I arrived at the 400 Warren Street court house for my scheduled appointment with the court to view my court files (which were deficient of missing documents AND inclusive of misfiled protected documents). I felt unnecessarily harassed by the Mercer County Sheriff’s Office.
(Note: Both my lawyer and I felt it was inappropriate that my family court files were ONLY available for viewing in the “criminal” court house at 400 Warren Street rather than within the Family Court. I believe that this is a sign that the Family Court is unwilling to accommodate my access to the Family Court, unless I protest as I did on 8/6/2014 when I insisted on going to the family court to pay for my copies rather than having my lawyer write a check and reimbursing him as was requested by court staff).
This O.P.R.A. request has been sent to get information about the Sheriff’s Office’s activities related to my visit to the court houses at the aforementioned addresses on 8/6/2014.
Specifically be advised that:
I was “stalked” by 2 Sheriff’s Officers. One officer was badge #239 (his approximate name was “Ristuccia”) once I entered the court house. When I asked the officers if there was any order for them to escort me through the court house, they responded no, but they continued to follow me and my lawyer Laurence Sheller throughout the court house as if we were suspects of a crime.
Once I arrived in court room 2A as I had arranged by appointment with Sandra Terry, The Officers remained in the court room and I asked the court staff in the room if there was any order for me to be escorted throughout the court house. They responded “no”.
Yet when I left the court to pay for the copies of my file the officers again followed me to the 175 S. Broad Street Court house and began following me throughout that court house.
I found this activity to be quite unnerving given:
my past experience with the Sheriff’s office and the still unexplained “kidnapping” of my person on 8/19/2013 that was purported to be an arrest on 8/19/2013, but later revealed to be a simple abduction of my person “under the color of law”. The Sheriff’s Office no longer takes the position that an arrest occurred on 8/19/2013 despite the fact I was told I was under arrest in front of a witness that accompanied me to court AND I was read Miranda, AND a Miranda form was filled out.
Once I left the court house to get into my car the Officers followed me until I passed the 400 Warren Street court house. At that point I asked Officer (Badge #239) If there was any order to escort me throughout the court house and he said “I can’t divulge that information”.
I then asked some follow-up questions to make sure the officer was aware that I am not a suspect to any crime or a convicted felon, and in fact I intend to Sue Catherine Fitzpatrick and the Sheriff’s Dept. For the aforementioned “kidnapping” and the emotional damages I suffered, which contributed to me ending up on Federal Disability (Permanently) with documented PTSD.
Also Note:
1) Prior to the facts cited above I found that Under-Sheriff Medina was cyber stalking my LinkedIn page and I called the FBI to complain about the incident given my past experience with the Sheriff’s Office and the prior FBI investigation of my complaint. I found Mr. Medina’s contact via LinkedIN to be unsettling especially given my well founded concerns for misconduct by the Mercer County Sheriff’s Office and my fear of further retaliation for my “whistleblowing”.
2) There is a court order from Judge Covert and Judge Bookbinder of the Superior Court of New Jersey (oral order with written minute order) that denotes the fact that I am not deemed to legally be a threat to self, others, or property. It is therefore VERY SUSPECT FOR THE MERCER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE TO ESCORT ME THROUGHOUT A COURT HOUSE, WHEN THE COURTS ACCOMODATE VISITS FROM CONVICTED FELONS AND VIOLENT CRIME OFFENDERS WITHOUT ESCORTING MANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS THROUGHOUT THE COURT WHEN THEY APPEAR FOR PROBATION OR WHILE ON BAIL…. IT MAKES NO COMMON SENSE THAT I AM BEING TREATED AS A GREATER SECURITY THREAT AND/OR HARASSED TO A GREATER DEGREE THAN VIOLENT CRIMINALS WHO APPEAR AT YOUR COURT HOUSE WITHOUT ESCORTS!!!
=====================================================================
O.P.R.A. REQUEST #6 Dispatch / Sheriff Officer Assignment Records for 8/6/2014
=====================================================================
O.P.R.A. REQUEST #6 Dispatch / Sheriff Officer Assignment Records for 8/6/2014
=====================================================================
TO MERCER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE – RECORD CUSTODIAN
TO SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY (MERCER COUNTY VINCINAGE): RECORD KEEPER, ASSIGNMENT JUDGE, COURT CLERK, & SANDRA TERRY
O.P.R.A. REQUEST AND COMMON LAW RIGHT OF ACCESS REQUESTS FOR:
1. Mercer County Sheriff’s Office (AKA MCSO): Dispatch Log for 8/6/2014
2. MCSO: Incident Summaries for 8/6/2014
3. MSCO and/or Superior Court: Internal Communications, Emails, Memorandum, or like correspondence from 6/15/2014 to 8/8/2014 containing Derek Syphrett’s name or any of the following variations of Mr. Syphrett’s name such as “Mr. Syphrett, D. Syphrett, Syphrett”.
4. Any communication from the Superior Court Judge(s) or staff to MCSO staff regarding Derek Syphrett between 6/15/2014 to 8/8/2014
5. Any document in the MCSO possession or Superior Court Possession requesting or ordering the MSCO to escort Mr. Syphrett on 8/6/2014.
6. A Blank “Notice of Claim” Form, which applies to filing a legal claim against the MCSO staff.
7. Documents detailing / summarizing the the dispatch or assignment of Sheriff’s Officers to Family Court court rooms on 8/6/2014.
Note: As part of your O.P.R.A. responsibility, please request common law access to any records not in your possession but in the possession of the Superior Court, to the extent to such records exist and are possessed by the Superior Court.
Note: I have submitted this email as a letter to the courts. It should arrive at the court on Monday or Tuesday. I hereby request common law access to any records possessed by the Superior Court, which meet the descriptions above.
=====================================================================
Format of response:
Please provide this information via email or in electronic format.
Frequency of response:
Please deliver the documents: “as discovered ”
Destination for response:
Deliver to dsyphrett@EMAILREDACTED preferred destination is email)
or
Derek Syphrett
MY ADDRESS REDACTED
(only mail the records if you are unable to deliver them via email)
=====================================================================
O.P.R.A. NOTICE REGARDING FELONY CONVICTIONS and CITIZENSHIP OF PETITIONER
=====================================================================
I am not a convicted felon.
I am a dual citizen of the sovereign state of New Jersey AND the United States of America
=====================================================================
Very Respectfully,
Derek C. Syphrett
P.S.
I’ve been extremely patient under the above described circumstances. I believe your agencies & personnel are continuing a pattern of abuse that began with my kidnapping on 8/19/2013.
KANGAROO COURT: A DAD’S MOTION TO VACATE DUE TO VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS
Standard
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY IS OFTEN A KANGAROO COURT:
Here is a motion that I just filed with the court to remind the court that it was unlawful and a violation of my constitutional rights to hold a trial while prohibiting me to appear in Court (By Order of Ronald Bookbinder).
The underlying trial I am addressing in this case was domestic violence case where the Plaintiff Kathryn Bischoff made false statements to the police and to the court stating that she had attempted to cease contacting me on 1/15/2013 when in fact she continued to message me via text, Facebook, and even wished me a happy birthday via text (1/24/2013); A Facebook Friend Request (1/26/2013) and additional texts from this woman were sent to me on 1/27-1/31/2013).
I submitted this evidence to the court via an “immediate appeal” and a motion for dismissal… all to no avail!
SEE DOCUMENTS HERE:
IMMEDIATE MOTION FOR APPEAL – Katy Bischoff Evidence Katy Bischoff – Google and Facebook
Of course I was found guilty of domestic violence based on a fictional account of events. Best of All Judge John Tomasello in Burlington County actually ignored my “immediate appeal” filing which was a statutory right. Judge Tomasello ignored my due process rights and found me guilty by default despite the fact I submitted pleadings to the court (which he didn’t consider).
BELOW IS THE MOTION I JUST FILED WITH THE COURT TO VACATE THE UNLAWFUL COURT ORDER FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
MOTION TO VACATE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FINAL ORDER (COURT RULE 4:50)
(Remember there was no harassment and no violence, no threats of violence, and no consideration of my written pleadings by Judge Tomasello)… that is supposed to be justice!
BEST OF ALL THERE WAS A COURT ORDER
PROHIBITING ME FROM APPEARING IN COURT
SEE THIS RIDICULOUS COURT ORDER HERE:
UNLAWFUL COURT ORDERS OF JUDGE RONALD BOOKBINDER
(Thanks Judge Bookbinder, that seems fair… I can have a trial so long as I don’t appear in person…. I feel very colored… or negro now circa 1845 slavery)
SERIOUSLY TAKE A LOOK AT THE ORDER WITHOUT CLICKING HERE:
LEGAL NOTICE:
THE INFORMATION ABOVE HAS BEEN POSTED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING TRANSPARENCY INTO THE COURT
FURTHER:
THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DOCKET CEASED BEING CONFIDENTIAL WHEN JUDGE BOOKBINDER COMBINED STATUS HEARING ORDERS WITH A PUBLIC CRIMINAL CASE FILE – THUS ELIMINATING THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THIS MATTER BY EXPOSING THE MATTER IN PUBLIC CASE FILES
I THEREFORE INVOKE MY RIGHT TO DISCUSS THIS PUBLIC MATTER.
PROOF OF CORRUPTION: Judge Bookbinder’s Unlawful Court Orders: Prohibiting Father from Appearing in Court at his Own Trial
Standard
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:
ADDITIONALLY:
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.
FURTHER:
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.
CONCLUSION:
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.
Remember: If you have to go to a New Jersey Family Court You’ll need to prepare to have your savings raided and have your 1st Amendment Rights eviscerated (become a Serf)
Whistleblowing Social Worker Faces NJ Retaliation for trying to protect a 12-year old boy… The Boy Committed Suicide (Shame on Judge Mary Margaret McViegh)
Standard
THIS STORY HAS LED TO A FEDERAL LAWSUIT – OF COURSE IT IS UNLIKELY THE FEDERAL COURT WILL DO THE RIGHT THING AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM THE NJ FAMILY COURT. SEE STORY BELOW:
From: Fourwinds.com (click here for full story)
NYACK, N.Y. , June 8 /PRNewswire/ —
Whistle-blower Jill Jones-Soderman, a New York -based social worker and the executive director of The Foundation for the Child Victims of the Family Courts, says she is being persecuted by New Jersey government officials for her role in revealing explosive information.
According to Jones-Soderman, the problems started when she was subpoenaed by a client inNew Jersey to provide information to the family court. She was working pro-bono as a therapist and forensic advocate on the case. While trying to bring certain facts to the attention of the court, Jones-Soderman claims Judge Mary Margaret McVeigh used her position to suppress evidence and testimony, and eventually to retaliate by placing a false complaint with theNew Jersey licensing board. Now, the licensing board is actively contacting other state boards where Jones-Soderman is licensed and posting what are supposed to be closed hearings on the internet.
The suppression of evidence and the collaboration of the various parties involved in the case may have led to the suicide of a 12-year-old boy, Jones-Soderman explained. The boy “refused to be taken from the protective custody of his mother to be placed with the brutal treatment and intimidation of his father,” she said. The young boy left a note that read “I love you mom.”
“Not one licensing board was in any way interested in the underlying issue of the case: the protection of young children in a wildly rogue, fraudulent and biased court,” Jones-Soderman said, adding that the Attorney General’s office has been harassing her and her clients using tax-payer money ever since. “Patients visited by the attorney general’s office have continued as my patients and have testified on my behalf only to be themselves ridiculed and threatened in court.”
Eventually the attorney general’s office and its licensing boards – through what Jones-Soderman calls deception and intimidation – removed her state license. She says assistant state attorney Susan Berger threatened “that if I did not sign what she wanted me to sign; I would not leave the courtroom in time to pick up my child from school.”
One of the heavy hitters who has come to her defense is Dr. Monty Weinstein, an internationally acclaimed forensic expert and the founder of the Family Therapy Center. “The bureaucrats of the state in my opinion have to be held accountable for this complicitous witch hunt against a fine, brilliant and creative therapist,” he wrote in an affidavit filed with the court. “I hope and pray that I will get to opine.”
Jones-Soderman has filed multiple civil rights law-suits including a racketeering influenced and corrupt organizations complaint in federal court against various state actors. The filings allege that these accusations have made Jones-Soderman vulnerable to extortion. She is also pursuing multi-million dollar suits against some of her former attorneys, who she claims made no attempt to protect her rights.
For more information about the work of Jill Jones-Soderman and her organization, please visit www.notinvain.org,
SEE MORE ABOUT THIS STORY HERE:
NJ Judge McViegh Under Fire for Alleged Corruption
SOURCE Jill Jones-Soderman
[COMMENT: I was utterly disgusted when I read about this story and the conduct of a Judge potentially leading to the suicide of a 12 year old boy. Worse the woman who was trying to protect the boy ended up being victimized to the point of having her career destroyed.
As a citizen I demand the Judicial Conduct Committee, Chief Justice Rabner, Judge Glenn Grant, and Joanne Dietrich investigate this matter, in the interest of Justice and for the sake of upholding the integrity of the court.
This story deserves to be fully investigated at a minimal]
Alleged Judicial Misconduct of Judge Bookbinder
Standard
Quick Summary – Punchline:
CLICK LINK BELOW TO SEE COURT ORDER – EVIDENCE OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT:
JUDGE RONALD E. BOOKBINDER’S ILLEGAL COURT ORDERS VIOLATE:
- THE U.S. CONSTITUTION,
- N.J. CONSTITUTION,
- SUPREME COURT RULINGS:
- BINDING PRECEDENTS OF FEDERAL 3RD CIRCUIT
- JUDGE BOOKBINDER IS ALLEGED TO HAVE ABUSED HIS OFFICE FOR THE PURPOSES OF BULLYING A SELF-REPRESENTED FATHER
- JUDGE BOOKBINDER VIOLATED THIS FATHER’S RIGHTS AND EFFECTIVELY SABATAGED THE FATHERS ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN HIS OWN TRIAL FOR CUSTODY OF THE FATHER’S OWN CHILDREN.
- JUDGE JOHN TOMASELL AND JUDGE JOHN CALL WERE COMPLICIT IN THE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AT TRIAL IN FM-03-790-14:
- Judge Tomasello held trial without the Defendant present, took testimony from the Plaintiff, and refused to allow the Defendant to cross-examine the Plaintiff
- Judge Tomasello refused to hear the Defendant’s immediate appeal (a statutory right of the Defendant) in FV-03-1154-14
- Judge John Call was the complicit presiding (Supervising) judge.
================================================
EVIDENCE OF JUDGE BOOKBINDER’S JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
(supported by Judge John Call & Judge John Tomasello):
===================================================
1. A Father ((Self-Represented / Pro Se litigant) prohibited from appearing in court for his own Trial! THIS IS A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ACCESS THE COURTS.
2. Father (Self Represented / Pro Se Litigant) prohibited from meeting with Ombudsman to discuss his concerns.
- This order was issued ex-parte with no notice & no hearing to the Father (no due process)
- Order was only put in writing after the Father confronted Judge Ronald E. Bookbinder
3. Father (Self Represented / Pro Se Litigant) subjected to illegal court order that violated U.S. Supreme Court Decisions in Haines v. Kerner that permit a pro-se litigant to file pleadings contrary to court rules and procedures.
4. Father (Self Represented / Pro Se Litigant) Prohibited from viewing his own divorce files by court order
5. Judge Bookbinder appears to have committed felony witness tampering in in State v. Syphrett System #03-2950-01 by admitting he consulted privately with a witness in State v. Syphrett about the case prior to the trial. He allowed the witness Judge Mary C. Jacobson to recommend bail conditions and civil restraints against Mr. Syphrett (the case was ultimately dismissed without any trial via highly unusual ex-parte motion by Prosecutor Joseph Bocchini of Mercer County).
===============================================
HOW THE LAW WAS VIOLATED BY JUDGE BOOKBINDER
===============================================
===============================================
After having my civil and criminal cases transferred to Burlington because Judges in Mercer County violated my rights, the apparent retaliation by judges continued in Burlington County via all manner of strange happenings.
1. Judge Bookbinder Consulted the Mercer County Judges despite the fact that Judge Mary C. Jacobson, Judge Pedro Jimenez, and Judge Catherine Fitzpatrick had been recused from my cases. THIS WAS BIZARRE!
2. Judge Bookbinder issued civil restraints against my access of the court without presenting any evidence to support these restraints. This was a violation of the law of the land per U.S. Supreme Court: Elrod v. Burns (1976)
See here where Elrod v. Burns clearly states that the government can not restrain a citizen’s 1st Amendment free speech without producing a burden of proof… Judge Bookbinder ignored this and acted as a tyrant rather than a Judge – in doing so he acted without subject matter jurisdiction.
=========================================================
LEGAL DECISIONS SUPPORTING MY ALLEGATIONS:
=========================================================
- Judge Bookbinder’s Violation of Supreme Courts Law (Elrod v. Burns & Haines v. Kerner) – Click Underlined Links to read:
- NOTE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT FINDINGS IN Elrod v. Burns, 427 US 347 – 1976 pursuant Buckley v. Valeo:
“Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving the existence of which rests upon the government”
“Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving the existence of which rests upon the government”
- U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in Haines v. Kerner – 404 U.S. 519, yr: 1972 – (CLICK THIS LINK): Barred Judges from Doing what Judge Bookbinder did in the above referenced / linked Court Orders of 2/6/2014 thru 3/10/2014.
Haines v. Kerner Specifically States the Following:
“We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears ‘beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’ Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,45 46 (1957). See Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774 (CA2 1944)”
JUDGE BOOKBINDER SHOWED CONTEMPT FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND DECIDED HIS COUNTY COURT WAS ABOVE THE SUPREME COURT RULING – THIS VIOLATES THE LAW OF THE LAND!
=========================================================
EVIDENCE OF
THE ALLEGED JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT & ALLEGED FELONIES:
=========================================================
=========================================================
Judge Ronald E. Bookbinder issued a court order on 2/6/2014 and others which prohibited a father from appearing in court for the father’s own divorce, custody litigation!
THIS WAS A VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 14TH AMENDMENT.
SEE COURT ORDERS HERE:
2014-02-06 and 14-2-19 and 14-3-10 COURT ORDERS BOOKBINDER
List of Illegal Aspects of these Court Orders:
1. Pro Se Defendant prohibited from appearing in court without EXPRESS PERMISSION of a Superior Court Judge (Regardless of whether the Defendant had a trial date)!!
2.Pro Se Defendant prohibited from filing contrary to the court rules, even though U.S. Supreme Court and Third Circuit of Federal Court has issued precedent setting decisions that state a Pro Se Defendant need not follow the court rules or follow court procedures in pleadings or filings. See Decisions in:
- Third Circuit Binding Precedents – Clearly Make Judge Bookbinder’s Court orders illegal / Void
- Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151, F2d. 240 (Click this Link) , (151 Third Circuit Court of Appeals (1945)
- 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. (
- Todaro v. Bowman, 872 F.2d 43, 44 n. 1, 3d Cir. 1989 (Click this Link):
- 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).
===================================================
ABOUT JUDGE RONALD E. BOOKBINDER:
===================================================
Judge Ronald E. Bookbinder has a reputation in Burlington County for being a gregarious, even tempered Judge, with a keen mind for Municipal Ordinances and Laws.
I don’t Dispute that.
However: I have seen Judge Ronald Bookbinder apparently commit crimes of Official Misconduct (a felony) and violate his oath of office and the United States Constitution.
===================================================
CONCLUSION:
===================================================
I am a first person witness to a Superior Court Judge of New Jersey deciding that he is ABOVE THE LAW
I have witnessed Judge Ronald E. Bookbinder show complete disrespect for U.S. Supreme Court rulings, the Constitution, court rules, and “THE LAW”.
Everybody who reads this blog and views these court orders is now also a witness to the fact that Judge Bookbinder has diminished the integrity of the court and violated his oath of Office.
Father’s Rights & Constitution Trampled by NJ Courts in 2011
Standard
Tyrannical New Jersey Family Court Judge Terrorizes Good Father
Posted by Bruce Eden President FCLU.org
… the wife, an Austrian national, came to the US, got her college degree and CPA license. Almost immediately his wife filed a domestic violence restraining order claiming he harassed and threatened her. A copy of her personal diary in July of 2009 shows that she was “going to so f–cking divorce him, that she was going to so f–cking make him suffer for the rest of his life”.
Immediately after filing the restraining order, the children would not go home to the mother and went back to the father. The mother followed them to the father, breaking her own restraining order. Thewife confronted the father’s 73-year old mother and told his motherif she goes near the children again she (wife) would kill her. The children’s grandmother filed for a restraining order against the wife. That’s when the wife began “piling on” the charges against the father. That’s also about the same time the wife was given an attorney by the NJ Battered Womens Services, who the wife went to see for aid and assistance. However, this attorney, Christian Van Pelt, of Cedar Knolls, was ineligible to practice law at the time, because he failed to pay his annual fee for the NJ Clients Protection Trust Fund. Every paper filed by her lawyer was done while the lawyer was practicing law without a license. No matter.
The wife stalked the father in June 2011 because the children went back to the father’s place. When the father put the children in the car to take them back to the mother, the mother hiding her car behind some large bushes pulled out in front of the father’s car at the bottom of the driveway. The father jammed on his brakes and slid into her car. She then charged him with violating a restraining order even though she was stalking the father, and then charged him with assault by auto.
When the father attempted to file for a restraining order against the wife, he went before the same New Jersey domestic violence judge, Thomas Critchley, JSC that granted the wife’s restraining orders and subsequent FRO violations. It goes without saying that Morris County, NJ Judge Critchley was biased against the father and dismissed the father’s domestic violence complaint.
The mother grabbed the children and then began moving into the battered women’s shelters and received taxpayer-funded food stamps, stipends, cash, and even housing. Yet, the father cannot get a restraining order against the mother with valid proof. This is taxpayer fraud where battered women’s services abuse the funding to damage and destroy families, and men cannot get one dime of funding for battered men’s services through government funding. This constitutes a major civil rights violation in New Jersey and the rest of the United States.
The mother filed multiple violations of restraining orders against the father, keeping the children away from the father. The children e-mailed, texted and called the father’s sister and paternal grandmother telling them what shelter they were in, that they weren’t being fed properly, and that they were not going to school. The paternal grandmother would bring food and cellphones to the children because the mother kept taking them away from the children.
Finally the mother alleged that the father had appeared at a shelter and filed for contempt of the restraining order.The wife’s lawyer filed orders to show cause to cut the father completely off from the children, and jail him indefinitely while the wife would be granted her divorce by default and gain sole custody of the children with no visitation. The father got wind of this and filed a Federal Notice of Removal and Petition on September 2, 2011.
He filed the Federal Removal action to remove the entire state case into Federal Court in the morning of the 2nd and deprive the state of further jurisdiction of the cases. Judge Critchley and the matrimonial judge, Catherine Enright, JSC ignored the Federal removal petition, even though they acknowledged its existence in transcripts and in orders. Once the Removal occurred the state court judges were without jurisdiction to proceed.
But proceed they did. They deprived the father of his children. Judge Critchley also put out a fraudulent civil Arrest Warrant for Peter Bresko, who was arrested 4 days later–4 days after the state case had been removed to Federal Court, depriving the state court judges of all jurisdiction. However, Judge Critchley has jailed Bresko on a civil contempt and told Bresko that he would be released when the judge felt like it. The judge told Bresko he was going to allow the mother to leave the state with the children and set up residence in a New England state, where they have a corresponding battered womens shelter. Judge Critchley has called Bresko into court from jail several times demanding all kinds of compliance from Bresko that Bresko cannot comply with while in jail. Critchley has ordered, though not in writing, that he wants Bresko psychiatrically evaluated. He told Bresko to tell him who helped him write legal papers since Bresko is representing himself, after Critchley threatened his former attorney. He wants Bresko to turn over the diary implicating the wife. The diary is evidence of mitigating circumstances that would exonerate Bresko of the bogus domestic violence charges. Bresko has been asserting his Fifth Amendment Rights as explained in Miranda v. Arizona where he can assert those rights even in civil proceedings. He has told Judge Critchley he has no authority and must release him because the Federal Removal occurred prior to the Arrest Warrant issuance and Bresko’s arrest 4 days later.
Judge Critchley is a judge out of control and dangerous to society. He was a former domestic violence prosecutor that is now a domestic violence judge. He has become an ideologue for the radical domestic violence coalitions, which constitutes a conflict of interest since he was promoted because of his assistance to the battered womens services of NJ. Judge Critchley has even filed his own Order to Show Cause against Bresko, stepping down off the bench and becoming Bresko’s adversary and prosecutor. Judges cannot be a judge and prosecutor in a case. It is a serious judicial misconduct violation. But Critchley believes he is above the law and continues to hold Bresko in jail for almost 40 days without Due Process or right to be released on bail.
Bresko’s sister hired an attorney to get him out on the criminal issues, and that attorney is too intimidated by the judge. A new, young attorney was just hired and Critchley threatened to throw that attorney in jail for contempt for defending Bresko vigorously. Judge Critchley is a rogue judge that must be removed from the bench, have his state judicial pension revoked, and be subjected to psychiatric treatment. Anyone who can, they need to call the New Jersey Governor’s Office and also Judge Critchley’s chambers in Morris County Courthouse, Morristown, New Jersey to demand that this fascist judge immediately release Bresko and demand Critchley resign afterwards.
Kidnapping of Derek Syphrett & Mercer County Cover-up
Standard==========================
TAKE NOTICE:
ALL NEW ARTICLES APPEAR BELOW
THIS PERMANENT POST
(Visit Archives for Monthly viewing)
==========================
==========================
TAKE NOTICE:
ALL NEW ARTICLES APPEAR BELOW THIS PERMANENT POST
==========================
Introduction to Story:
- I was kidnapped by Mercer County Sheriff’s Office on 8/19/2013.
- The Sheriff’s Office purported my kidnapping to be an “arrest” BUT:
- There was No Warrant, No Probable Cause, No Criminal Charges
- When I requested Records and an explanation of my arrest, the Sheriff’s Office Denied they had arrested me.
- Ultimately I spent 4 Months in Jail or Hospital and never had a trial
- When I was released the Sheriff’s Office Sent a Response to an O.P.R.A. request and THEY SAY HAVE NO RECORD OF MY “ARREST”… OF COURSE NOT, BECAUSE IT WAS A KIDNAPPING.
- Ironically Below are links to the Official response from Mercer County’s lawyers stating that they have NO ARREST RECORD. The next link is MY COPY OF A MERCER COUNTY ARREST RECORD FOR 8/19/2013!
- DOCUMENT & PROOF – DENIAL OF “ARREST: OPRA Response 6/12/2014
- DOCUMENT & PROOF – ARREST RECORD – THE DAY I WAS FAKE ARRESTED
Below I have included the back story including a story of apparent retaliation by a apparently vindictive Family Court Judge (Judge Catherine Fitzpatrick) and all the the facts supporting this claim.
BELOW THE LINKS TO SOURCE DOCUMENTS ARE INCLUDED AND LINKS TO DOCUMENTS THAT SHOW MERCER COUNTY IS COVERING UP AND REFUSING TO RESPOND TO O.P.R.A. REQUESTS.
This post has been published simply to provide proofs of my story to inform the public about the Corruption in Mercer County New Jersey and the ongoing cover-up related to my kidnapping by Mercer County Sheriff’s Officers.
===================================================
Quick Summary – The Punchline:
===================================================
===================================================
I was arrested 8/18/2013 on a lawfully issued warrant.
The charges for the 8/18/2013 arrest were apparently fabricated by my divorce judge Catherine M. Fitzpatrick, THESE ORIGINAL CHARGES WERE DISMISSED 8 MONTHS LATER (SEE DISMISSAL BELOW).
DOCUMENT & PROOF : COURT ORDER DISMISSED CRIMINAL CASE (2014-04-17)
(The case was, oddly, dismissed on Prosecutor’s ex-parte motion, they never notified me – the opposing counsel – of the motion as required by law. If they had I’d have countered insisting a trial be heard due to the underlying fraudulent charges)
I posted bail 8/18/2013 and was released from jail
I went to my family court hearing on 8/19/2013 – somehow I was PURPORTEDLY placed under arrest again… EXCEPT THERE WAS:
- NO WARRANT;
- NO PROBABLE CAUSE;
- NO CHARGES WERE EVER FILED;
- NO LEGAL BASIS JUSTIFY THIS 8/19/2013 “PURPORTED ARREST”.
PROOF OF PURPORTED ARREST:
DOCUMENT: Prisoner Receipts and Bail Recognizance – 8/19/2013
Cover-up Begins: SHERIFF’S OFFICE LATER DENIES ANY PURPORTED ARREST 8/19/2013.
NOW SEE THE LETTER FROM SHERIFF’S OFFICE WHICH SHOCKINGLY STATES THERE IS “NO ARREST RECORD”
SEE THE ACTUAL LETTER (AN O.P.R.A. RESPONSE) VIA THE LINK BELOW:
DOCUMENT: 2014-06-12 – Mercer County OPRA Response
SO THEN ABSENT AN ARREST RECORD:
- THIS WAS NOTHING LESS THAN A KIDNAPPING UNDER FALSE PRETENSES
- WHAT I’VE JUST DESCRIBED IS A CRIME
=============================================
THE SET-UP:
=============================================
=============================================
There is a long back-story about a family court Judge Catherine Fitzpatrick, who tried to violate my constitutional rights and retaliate against me for exposing her for unlawful acts in my divorce…. For now I’ll spare you those details.
What is important to tell you and show you is the fact that Judge Catherine Fitzpatrick apparently fabricated criminal charges against me on 8/14/2013. These Charges were later Dismissed pre-trial for reasons never fully explained by the Mercer County Prosecutor Joseph Bocchini.
SO WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY – HERE IS THE SET-UP:
Judge Catherine Fitzpatrick made allegations / criminal complaint against me on 8/14/2013.
She sat on the bench in my divorce and another matter on 8/16/2013 without me present, but with my court appointed lawyer Stuart Weiner present for my divorce trial. Judge Fitzpatrick never disclosed her conflict of interest (the criminal complaint against me) then she apparently retaliated against me and attempted to issue an order for default in my divorce on 8/16/2013.
- FYI: THIS ORDER FOR DEFAULT WAS NEVER ENFORCED, THE JUDGE WAS RECUSED AND THE ORDER WAS TREATED AS VOID BY JUDGE TOMASELLO.
She ordered I appear in court on 8/19/2013 for a default hearing. This was all very illegal, because there was reason given for the default hearing.
8/18/2013 I was arrested at my home on what appeared to be a lawfully issued warrant for albeit a FRAUDULENT CRIMINAL COMPLAINT BY JUDGE CATHERINE M. FITZPATRICK. The warrant was issued by a friend and colleague of Judge Fitzpatrick, Judge Pedro Jimenez.
The warrant was very odd. My bail was set 150% higher than the state maximum for a third degree terroristic threat.
My bail was set all cash for a third degree charge, even though it is highly unusual and against state practice to have an “ALL CASH BAIL” for a third degree charge.
RegardlesS I POSTED BAIL 8/18/2013
RELEASED FROM JAIL AFTER LAWFULLY POSTING BAIL ON 8/18/2013.
…. LITTLE DID I REALIZE I WOULD BE KIDNAPPED THE NEXT DAY!!!
I ARRIVED AT THE FAMILY COURT ON 8/19/2013 WITH MY FRIEND
IMMEDIATELY WE REALIZED SOMETHING WAS STRANGE WHEN MY RELATIVES AND FRIENDS ON THE 4TH FLOOR TOLD US:
My wife and her lawyer were not even in court! I found out later this was because Judge Fitzpatrick’s chambers told THEM (only) not to appear on 8/19/2013. The judge unethically had ex-parte communications (one-party discussions about the case).
WHEN I ARREIVED AT THE COURT ON 8/19/2013:
I was told I was under arrest by sheriff’s officers.
I ASKED THEM WHY I WAS UNDER ARREST – THEY SAID:
“WE’LL TELL YOU LATER”…. THEY NEVER DID.
… EVER SINCE MERCER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE (SHERIFF JACK KEMLER, UNDER-SHERIFF PEDRO MEDINA, AND THEIR MERCER COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNSEL HAVE ATTEMPTED TO OBSTRUCT MY ATTEMPTS TO GET AN EXPLANTION – SEE DOCUMENTS BELOW.
After I was kidnapped by Sheriff’s Officers 8/19/2013. I was handcuffed processed and then sent across town to the criminal courthouse for a first appearance for the 8/18/2013 criminal charges…. this was unlawful as well… because the 8/18/2013 warrant stated that my first appearance was scheduled for 8/20/2013 NOT 8/19/2013… In otherwords I had no legal notice for this “first appearance” / arraignment hearing and no opportunity to have a lawyer
JUDGE PEDRO JIMENEZ – a friend of Judge Fitzpatrick’s presided over my arraignment and immediately amended my arrest warrant without explaining why he was amending it. He presided over the case as a conflicted Judge… 3 months later he was recused from the case after I wrote a letter to the Administrative director of the courts and the Federal Civil Rights Office (DOJ).
During the first appearance hearing Judge Jimenez acted unlawfully and amended my warrant to require me to be sent back to jail, despite the fact the prosecutors office wasn’t present in court. Judge Jimenez acted as the prosecutor and acted without any new evidence being put before the court.
Note: I had posted bail lawfully on 8/18/2013… so there was no justification for amending my bail on 8/19/2013, since I hadn’t violated my bail conditions or committed any new crime!!! Before I could even speak my warrant was “amended” sua sponte on the courts own motion, without any justification given until after I objected. Even then the justification for amending my bail was simply my behavior in court! THAT MAKES NO SENSE… BECAUSE THE AMENDMENT WAS MADE BEFORE I COULD ADDRESS THE COURT – MY BEHAVIOR COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE REASON FOR AMENDING THE BAIL CONDITIONS.
SEE TRANSCRIPTS HERE:
TRANSCRIPTS OF UNLAWFUL ARRAIGNMENT 2013-08-19 Case #13-2502
JUDGE JIMENEZ VIOLATED HIS OATH AND APPEARS TO HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME BY DENYING ME MY LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE-PROCESS UNDER THE LAW
=============================================
THE FULL STORY & THE EVIDENCE
CLICK THE UNDERLINED DOCUMENTS IN THIS SECTION
TO SEE SOURCE DOCUMENTS
=============================================
=============================================
(I am only disclosing what I’ve shared with Mercer County I have more evidence than this).
.
DOCUMENT: 2014-08-18 ARREST WARRANT (REDACTED) ISSUED BY JUDGE PEDRO JIMENEZ
This warrant stated that my first appearance in CRIMINAL COURT would be 8/20/2013… As you’ll see I never had an 8/20/2013 first appearance, instead I was kidnapped by Sheriff’s Officers and denied access to the phone or my lawyer before I was put in front of a criminal court judge on 8/19/2013, without legal notice, or opportunity to have my lawyer present… THIS WAS ILLEGAL.
I lawfully posted a $50,000 ALL CASH bail on 8/18/2013.
Here is my Bail Recognizance Receipt – Showing I lawfully posted bail on 8/18/2013. See that evidence here:
DOCUMENT: 2013-08-18 Bail Recognizance Receipt
8/19/2013 I was ordered to appear in court before Judge Catherine Fitzpatrick. See that court order below.
DOCUMENT: 2013-08-16 – FM-97-11K – ORDER – Default Orders
- NOTE: To be clear the appearance before Judge Fitzpatrick was for a Ridiculous Domestic Violence charge by my wife, IT WAS IN NO WAY RELATED TO THE CRIMINAL CHARGES OR MY ARREST ON 8/18/2013.
- NOTE: The Domestic Violence case was also a creation of Judge Fitzpatrick and her cronies at court. The case was based on a ridiculous charge by my Wife Margaret Wallace who claimed she was put in fear for her wellbeing because she received that said “Yay I got my Tral Adjourned”. My wife ginned up the charge and it was always ridiculous. Judge Fitzpatrick let the DV charges linger for over 245 days without giving me a hearing. The copies of the text message my wife used for this complaint were covered in white-out – she even whited out the message that said “Happy Birthday Truly” on 12/1/2012… 4 days later my wife claimed i was a domestic violence batterer… I realize now what an idiot I was for even trying to be nice to my wife.
- NOTE: The Domestic Violence Charges against me were later dismissed by a different trial judge who said “THIS RESTRAINING ORDER SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ISSUED”.
Proof I was arrested on 8/19/2013 – See the prisoner receipt that indicates I was arrested around 1:35pm on 8/19/2013. See Prisoner Receipt here:
DOCUMENT: Prisoner Receipts and Bail Recognizance – 8/19/2013
SO CLEARLY I WAS “ARRESTED” RIGHT???
WELL NOT ACCORDING TO THE MERCER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE.
SEE THE COUNTY’S OFFICIAL RESPONSE – NO RECORD OF MY ARREST:
DOCUMENT: 2014-06-12 – Mercer County OPRA Response
At this point Mercer County Sheriff’s Office is stuck in a legal quagmire that they created themselves by unlawfully arresting me without a warrant, probable cause, or any criminal charges.
In N.J. a suspect has to be charged and a probable cause determination must be made within 48 hours of an arrest… Mercer County NEVER CHARGED ME WITH ANYTHING… SO THEY ARE NOW TRYING TO PRETEND THEY NEVER ARRESTED ME ON 8/19/2013
EVIDENCE THE CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST ME WERE FRAUDULENT
CASE DISMISSED (SEE LINK BELOW)
After the second unlawful arrest Judge Pedro Jimenez ignored my requests that he explain why I was being arraigned without the prosecutor, my attorney, or legal notice of the 1st appearance… Instead he sent me to Jail and to a Mental Hospital without making any findings supporting the necessity of either. I stayed in Jail OR Hospital for 4 months.
I WAS FOUND TO BE LEGALLY COMPETENT, BUT I NEVER HAD A TRIAL.
I DID EVERYTHING A CONVICT DOES EXCEPT HAVE A TRIAL OR FACE MY ACCUSER.
DOCUMENT: 2014-04-17 – COURT ORDER DISMISSED CRIMINAL CASE
==================================================
NAMES OF MERCER COUNTY OFFICIALS
WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE ONGOING COVER-UP:
==================================================
==================================================
PEOPLE APPEAR TO BE TRYING TO COVER UP THE FACT THAT THEY ARRESTED ME AND HELD ME CAPTIVE FOR HOURS WITHOUT A PHONE CALL.
Here is a list of Mercer County Officials & Judiciary Officials who have apparently ignored my over 25 emails, internal affaires complaints, and criminal complaints related to my own kidnapping:
(The officials listed below have knowledge of my kidnapping and/or received letters and emails and confirmed receipt of the same):
- Judge Catherine M. Fitzpatrick (Presiding Judge Family Part, who apparently fabricated a criminal complaint against me that was later dismissed. Fitzpatrick also attempted to strip me of my right to represent myself -she did this illegally too and violated court rule 5:3-3 on 6/4/2013 see here:
About (some) Of Judge Fitzpatricks apparent Misconduct:
Reversal of the above referenced order(after I reported Judge Fitzpatrick to appropriate authorities) – SEE BELOW:
———————————————–
- Judge Mary C. Jacobson (Assignment Judge Mercer County).
ABOUT JUDGE JACOBSON’S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT:
- (Marry C. Jacobson actually was involved in the criminal investigation for the charges against me in State v. Syphrett, but she continued to act as a Judge handling the case despite this conflict of interest, she continued to consult on my case despite being conflicted through April of 2014)
- See Investigation Report Listing
About Judge Mary C. Jacobson
ACTED AS BOTH JUDGE & WITNESS IN MY CASE!!
- DOCUMENT: SHERIFF’S INVESTIGATIVE REPORT – Redacted (2013-08-18)
- MARY C. JACOBSON UNETHICALLY CONTINUED TO ACT AS A JUDGE IN LATER COURT ORDERS – SHE EVEN CONSULTED ON THE CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST ME. SEE COURT ORDERS HERE:
- JUDGE JACOBSON SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HERSELF!!!
- MARY JACOBSON NEVER ONCE ADMITTED SHE HAD A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AFTER 8/15/2013, SHE CONTINUED TO HANDLE MY CASES AND CONSULT WHILE OBSCURING THIS INFORMATION FROM ALL PARTIES.
- JUDGE JACOBSON ACTED AS JUDGE AND WITNESS IN MY CASE!!!
———————————————–
- Judge Pedro Jimenez (Superior Court Judge who held a 1st Appearance without legal notice and violated my constitutional rights)
ABOUT JUDGE JIMENEZ’S ALLEGED OUTRAGEOUS MISCONDUCT:
- In Judge Pedro Jimenez fraudulently issues a court order stating I was represented by a public Defender. I wasn’t. See the 8/19/2013 Transcripts & the 8/20/2013 court order below:
- THIS COURT ORDER CONTAINS FALSE INFORMATION – NO PUBLIC DEFENDER HAD BEEN ASSIGNED TO MY CASE IN
- JUDGE PEDRO JIMENEZ APPEARS TO HAVE COMMITTED FRAUD – HIS ORDER STATES I HAD A PUBLIC DEFENDER, BUT RECORDS SHOW THAT I NEVER DID (In 2013).
- THE TRANSCRIPTS SHOW I REFUSED A PUBLIC DEFENDER!
———————————————–
- Det. Paul Toth (Sheriff’s Office)
- Sheriff Officer who witnessed my arrest & a cop who was found to have violated an inmates rights in 2012 in State v. Funchess (N.J. Appellate Court).
===================================================
THE REST OF THE SUPPORTING CAST OF DISHONEST/ INCOMPETENT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES / OFFICIALS:
===================================================
===================================================
- Chief Justice Stuart Rabner (Received Emails & Letters)
- Judge Glenn Grant, Acting Director of Courts (Received Emails & Letters)
- Judge Ronald E. Bookbinder (Assignment Judge Burlington)
- SEE THE OTHER BLOG POSTS ABOUT JUDGE BOOKBINDER’S UNLAWFUL COURT ORDERS AND COMPLICITY IN COVERING UP THE KIDNAPPING – HE EVEN CONSULTED WITNESSES EX-PARTE ABOUT THE CRIMINAL CASE BEFORE IT WAS DISMISSED.
- JUDGE BOOKBINDER ACTUALLY ISSUED A COURT ORDER BANNING ME FROM ATTENDING MY OWN DIVORCE TRIAL!!!SEE THOSE COURT ORDERS HERE: DOCUMENT: BOOKBINDER – UNLAWFUL COURT ORDERS
I CAN’T RESPECT A JUDGE LIKE BOOKBINDER WHO BREAKS THE LAW AND VIOLATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS LIKE HAINES V. KERNER (he claimed he wasn’t familiar with it)!
- David Merritt, Esq. (Law Clerk to Judge Bookbinder)
NOTES:
- David Merritt was initially very courteous when handling my phone calls and he seemed to empathize with the unfair treatment that I was receiving from Judge Bookbinder, which included COURT ORDERS THAT PROHIBITED ME FROM APPEARING IN COURT FOR MY OWN TRIAL DATES (IN MY DIVORCE AN CHILD CUSTODY ACTINS)… but after I posted this blog and reported Judge Bookbinder to the Supreme Court Judicial Conduct Committee, David told me he was instructed to cease taking my phone calls per court order.
- 7/11/2014 I recorded a call with David, I reminded David that the court order he was citing was NULL & VOID because it violated my due-process rights (my right to be present at my own trial!)… David is a lawyer and should be fully aware that Judge Bookbinder issued a unlawful court order, and that David was effectively participating in a criminal act by enforcing a VOID COURT ORDER. Instead of being ethical and reporting the court’s abuses and damages to myself and my children, David instead decided to knowingly enforce a void court order and ignore the illegal activity that he was enabling.
- David seems like a nice guy, but at the end of the day he decided to participate in misconduct rather than stand up for justice. It seems that the Judges likely bullied him into abiding their misconduct
- Sheriff Jack Kemler (Mercer County)
- Brian Hughes (Mercer County Chief Executive)
- Arthur Sypek (Mercer County Office of Counsel)
- Kristina Chubenko (Mercer County Office of Counsel)
- Anita Ricketts (Mercer County Office of Counsel)
- Paul Adezio (Mercer County Office of Counsel)
- Joseph Bocchini (Prosecutor)
- Michael Nardelli (Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office)
- Warden Charles Ellis
- Under-sheriff Pedro Medina
- Det. Paul Toth (Mercer County Sheriff’s)
- Jennifer Weisberg-Millner – (My wife’s Divorce Lawer. She also violated a court order and distributed my money from her escrow account in violation of a court order, I alleged that this was theft by deceiption, because she did not initially provide me with statements for the distributions of my money, which were larger than what was ordered by the court – I reported this to the Lawrenceville Police, who did nothing).
- PROOF JENNIFER MILLNER DISTRIBUTED MORE MONEY THAN SHE WAS ALLOWED TO BY LAW:
- Sharyn Sherman (Burlington County Court)
- Laura Oliver, Esq (Law Clerk to Judge Catherine Fitzpatrick) – Laura helped write void court orders / was complicit with the act on 8/16/2013 when Judge Fitzpatrick should have been recused.
- Judge John Call (Presiding Judge of Burlington Count Family Part) – He has allowed Judge Tomasello to continue a pattern of retaliation against me for speaking out and reporting judicial Misconduct.
- John Munoz, Esq (Law Clerk to Judge Covert) – NICE KID THOUGH SERIOUSLY.
NOTES:
- John was extremely professional during phone calls so I feel bad putting him on the Wall of Shame, because he at least said he understood my frustration and that I was simply fighting to enforce my rights.
- Still John watched as my criminal case was dismissed in a fashion that should have raised red flags to any competent lawyer interested in Justice.
- Again rather than report the Judges or attempt to help me John instead decided that his career aspirations are more important than my rights or my children’s rights, etc.
John is on this list not because he is a bad guy, but because if I were him I would be ashamed…
===============================================
PLEASE SHARE THIS STORY WITH YOUR FRIENDS, THE MEDIA, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT.
===============================================
THE PUBLIC ATTENTION TO MY KIDNAPPING WILL BE THE ONLY WAY THAT I WILL EVER GET TRUE JUSTICE….
WE CAN NOT ALLOW OUR GOVERNMENT TO BELIEVE THEY CAN KIDNAP US WITHOUT ANY CONSEQUENCES!
MY CURRENT POSITION ON THE MATTER:
==========================
TAKE NOTICE:
ALL NEW ARTICLES APPEAR BELOW THIS PERMANENT POST
==========================
JUDGE RONALD E. BOOKBINDER VIOLATES THE LAW
StandardMY REASONS FOR FIGHTING FOR MY RIGHTS
CITATIONS OF “THE LAW” SUPPORTING MY POSITION
MY REASONS:
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.
Notably:
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
New Jersey Family Court Corruption 