Category Archives: Divorce

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

Standard

Boston Tea Party

PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES,

(PURSUANT: NEW JERSEY STATE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I, et seq.

PURSUANT: BINDIN COMMON-LAW inclusive of Haines v. Kerner (1972)

&

WRIT OF MANDAMUS, IN LIEU OF WRIT, LEGAL BRIEF

WRIT OF HAEBEAS CORPUS, FOR BENJAMIN AND VANESSA SYPHRETT

(Submitted in Forma Pauperis, by Indigent Citizen, (See Proofs in Dockets: FV-03-1154-14 & FO-11-131-13)

Magnify Glass FACTS

SEE FULL PETITION TO SUPREME COURT, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURT, COURT CLERK

WITH EXHIBITS DETAILING SOME OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS HERE:

2014-10-12 Petition – Writs – Legal Brief

 Legal Papers

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE

(Pursuant: New Jersey State Constitution Article I, Par. 18;

Pursuant: Haines v. Kerner U.S. Supreme Court 1972; &

Binding Common-Law within this Jurisdiction)

 

 

Derek C. Syphrett, Esq. 10/10/2014

In the following capacities, and as the following legal persons:

Attorney; Citizen of New Jersey; Citizen of the United States of America; The Sovereign Power / Authority, in parte et in lege, et in lege; Permanently Disabled Person; Real Party of Interest; Defendant Pro Se; The Public, in parte; Naturalis Homo In Carne; Amicas Curiae; Witness-of-fact; Parent & Legal Guardian of Benjamin & Vanessa Syphrett (Citizens of Connecticut, and victims of Parental Kidnapping in 2010, in putative court ordered custody of Margaret Wallace, by putative court order of the State of New Jersey);

252 Fountayne Ln,

Lawrence Township, NJ 08648

VIA U.S. MAIL & FACSIMILE BY THIRD PARTY PERSONS

M. Smith, Hon. Chief Justice Rabner, Hon. Justice Albin, and all Employees of the New Jersey Courts with: any connection to my legal affairs: praeterita vel praesentia

Supreme Court of New Jersey

25 Market St, Trenton, NJ 08625

RE:

  1. THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE NEW JERSEY COURTS;
  1. WRITTEN REQUEST FOR ACCOMODATION PURSUANT THE FEDERAL AMERICAN’S WITH DISABILITIES ACT (A.D.A. / ADA)
  2. THE ADDRESSEES OF THIS LETTER WILL BE IN VERY BIG LEGAL TROUBLE IF I DO NOT GET ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS AND DEMANDS IN 7-DAYS. THE GIG IS UP. MY PATIENCE HAS EXPIRED. NO PERSON ON EARTH WOULD PUT UP WITH WHAT I HAVE IN SUCH A CIVIL AND LAWFUL MANNER, AND YET I REMAIN CIVIL & LAWFUL AND I SHALL REMAIN SO AT ALL TIMES. YOU MAY BE SUBJECTED TO DIRECT OR COLLATERAL PROSECUTION IF THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS NOT BOTH “CURED” AND “PURGED” REMEDIALLY

 

Dear Michelle M. Smith, Hon. Chief Justice Rabner, Hon. Justice Albin, Judge Glenn Grant, J.A.D. And all officers of the Unified Courts of New Jersey, Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct:

I have sent this letter to you in all of your “official capacities”, whether they be administrative or judicial in nature, or otherwise.

In my aforementioned legal capacities, and on behalf of the multitude of legal persons I both represent, and, in fact, am: I must at this point propound upon my (in parte) Court the following concerns and requests pursuant the interest of Justice, Court Rule 1:33, New Jersey State Constitution, 1947, Constitution for the United States of America, 1787 (inclusive of subsequent Amendments), the American Common-law / constitutionally operable portions of the ius civilli, within this states jurisidiction, and pursuant the A.D.A.:

 

PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES,

PURSUANT: NEW JERSEY STATE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I, et seq.

&

WRIT OF MANDAMUS, IN LIEU OF WRIT, LEGAL BRIEF

WRIT OF HAEBEAS CORPUS, FOR BENJAMIN AND VANESSA SYPHRETT

 

Lady Justice Soldier

 

  1. I demand by operation of the Common-Law of this Jurisdiction, and pursuant timely and properly filed Writ of Coram Nobis, in Lieu of Writ, and papers submitted by right pursuant Court Rule 4:50, that my legal matters in Vincinage 3 be immediately relocated to an appropriate court.

    1. TO BE CLEAR: I demand (pursuant my prior and present written notices (in toto) which detail violations of “THE LAW” with relation to my legal affairs that the Administrative Office of the Courts consider Intervening in a material and impactful manner, in the interest of Justice; AND in support of my constitutionally protected rights; AND the RULES-OF-LAW (eg. Court Rules in toto)) THE COURT RESPOND IN WRITING TO ADDRESS THE VIOLATIONS OF COURT OFFICERS JUDGE PEDRO JIMENEZ, JUDGE FITZPATRICK, JUDGE JACOBSON, JUDGE BOOKBINDER, JOHN TOMASELLO, ETC.
    2. TO BE CLEAR: BY COURT RULE (1:33 and others) IT IS NOT THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCTS SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURTS. IT IS IN FACT THAT OF CHIEF JUSTICE STUART RABNER, in his administrative capacity, and it is further the delegated responsibility of the Director of The Courts, and all Assignment Judges.
    3. AS SUCH: I DEMAND THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURTS WITH REGARD TO MY LEGAL AFFAIRS AND THE APPARENT NULL & VOID COURT ORDERS CURRENTLY PROPOUNDED UPON MY PERSON(S) AND MY PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE-PROCESS UNDER-THE-LAW, AND WITHOUT FOUNDATION IN THE LAW.

  2. I DEMAND THE COURT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE CASE FILES IN FM-03-790-14, FV-03-1154-14, FV-03-1162-14, AND PROSECUTOR’S CASE # 13-2502, in toto, and inclusive of the Transcripts for the Same.

  3. I DEMAND THE COURT EXPLAIN UPON WHAT LAWFUL AUTHORITY I WAS ARRESTED ON 8/19/2013, AND THEN ARRAIGNED BY JUDGE PEDRO JIMENEZ WITHOUT ANY LEGAL NOTICE TO MY ATTORNEY (MYSELF), OR MYSELF (DEFENDANT), PRIOR TO BEING HANDCUFFED AND BROUGHT BEFORE A JUDGE ON 8/19/2013 1-DAY PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED “FIRST APPEARANCE”, WHICH WAS SERVED UPON ME ON 8/18/2013.

    1. FURTHER I DEMAND TO KNOW: ON WHAT BASIS IN FACT MY WARRANT OF 8/18/2013 WAS AMENDED, AS THE COURT, PROSECUTOR, AND SHERIFF’S OFFICE HAVE TO DATE NOT SUPPLIED ANY ANSWER TO MY WRITTEN REQUEST FOR THIS INFORMATION.
      1. In Fact in June of 2014: The Sheriff’s Office Falsely Claimed that they had no record of my 8/19/2013” arrest in response to the O.P.R.A. Request of John Paff. THIS WAS AN ACT OF MAIL FRAUD AND A LIE.
      2. THE AFOREMENTIONED LIES / FALSE STATEMENTS WERE: ONLY CORRECTED AFTER A COPY OF THE ARREST RECORD WAS SENT TO THE MERCER COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNSEL!!!
    2. FURTHER I DEMAND TO KNOW: ON WHAT LAWFUL AUTHORITY I WAS ARRESTED WITHIN THE SUPERIOR COURT WHILE SERVING AS AN ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, FOR A CASE PENDING BEFORE THE COURT AT THAT TIME AND/OR
    3. I DEMAND TO KNOW ON WHAT AUTHORITY WAS I ARRESTED ON 8/19/2013, AFTER LAWFULLY POSTING BAIL ON 8/18/2013 IN PROSECUTORS CASE #13-2502

  4. I DEMAND THE COURT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS FROM (dsyphrett@gmail.com) TO EMPLOYEES OF THE COURT AND EMPLOYEES OF THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT FROM (1/2013 to 10/12/2014):

    1. The Court Acknowledge written receipt, via “mail”, of my objection to the Probation Departments enforcement of a “Null & Void” child support order, and the courts / probatins failure to schedule an Administrative Hearing on the disputed facts of the matter.
    2. The court acknowledge my pre-adjudication requests in both FM-03-790-14 and FV-03-1154-14 (via an un-scheduled, Immediate Appeal requesting counsel be assigned): that I repeatedly requested counsel as a indigent, and as a result of my documented disabilities. THE COURT FAILED TO HEAR MY PROPERLY PLACED MOTIONS, AND/OR FAILED TO EVEN ISSUE SUMMONS FOR THE 3/1/2014 IMMEDIATE APPEAL (this was a violation of State Statutory-due-process, the will of the People, and contrary to the New Jersey State Legislature’s Authority, to demand the court provide immediate appeals as of right to a D.V. Defendant)!!!
    3. The Court Acknowledge that the proceedings in FM-03-790-14, were in fact and/or law in violation of the rights of the real parties of interest (Derek Syphrett, Benjamin Syphrett, and Vanessa Syphrett), in the manners described in the past correspondence with The Court, A.C.J.C. Sent via various forms of “mail” to the Court, and contained in the motion papers of Mr. Syphrett. This includes:
      1. THESE FACTS, EVIDENCE, AND TRANSCRIPTS CONFIRMING THAT: THE COURT PROHIBITING A WITNESS OF FACT, THE DEFENDANT, AND THE DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY (Derek Syphrett) FROM APPEARING AT TRIAL IN FM-03-790-14, FV-03-1162-14, AND FV-03-1154-14, on 2/18/2014 and 2/19/2014, where the court in some cases adjudicated the matters ex-parte, as a result of prohibiting one litigant from appearing at all, via court orders of 2/6/2014, and 2/19/2014.THE AFOREMENTIONED BASIS IN FACTS AND EVIDENCE (AND THE OTHER EVIDENCE I HAVE SENT TO THE COURT PREVIOUSLY) REPRESENTS: CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THIS COURT HAS PARTICIPATED IN IUNLAWFUL ACTS, THAT ARE REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE, AND AS A RESULT AFFORDS THE COURT NO OFFICE, TO ISSUE FINAL ORDERS IN ANY OF THESE MATTERS BY OPERATION OF THE COMMON-LAW.
      2. LEGAL FOUNDATIONS SUPPORTING THIS DEMAND AND/OR LEGAL ARGUMENT INCLUDE: “LAW OF THE VOIDS” AND/OR “DOCTRINE OF RECIPROCALS”
        1. Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,254 U.S. 348, 41 S.Ct. 116 (1920)

        Excerpts from “The Valley Supreme Court:

        “Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal.”

        1. Boyd v. United 116 U.S. 616 : Justice Bradley said: “It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens…”
        2. Gomillion v. Lightfoot 364 U.S. 155:“Constitutional Rights would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied.”
        3. Norton v. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425:An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
        4. In Marbury v. Madison, U.S. Supreme Court: Chief Justice John Marshall stated:“the very purpose of the written constitution is to ensure that the government officials, including Judges, do not depart from the documents fundamental principles”.
        5. RE: THE DOCTRINE OF RECIPROCALS: This Court has attempted to order Mr. Syphrett to pay child support for children that the State placed in the Physical & Legal Custody of Margaret J. Wallace, THIS VIOLATES “THE DOCTRINE OF RECIPROCALS”, AND EXCLUSIVE OF THE VIOLATIONS OF MR. SYPHRETT’S RIGHTS AT TRIAL, THIS COURT HAS FURTHER COMPOUNDED ITS ERRORS BY ASSERTING THAT MR. SYPHRETT IS OBLIGATED TO PAY CHILD-SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN THAT THE COURT HAS PUTATIVELY ASSERTED ARE NOT HIS CHILDREN UNDER-THE-LAW, OR WITHIN THE PHYSICAL / NATURAL WORLD. FURTHER:FURTHER: THIS UNIFIED COURT HAS ASSERTED THAT MR. SYPHRETT IS OBLIGATED TO SUPPORT THE SAME CHILDREN THAT THE COURT ASSERTS ARE NO LONGER HIS TO RAISE, REAR, OR PARENT IN THE MANNER HE SEES FIT AS A PARENT.

          FURTHER:

          Mr. Syphrett Cited “RE: The Matter of Baby “M”” during the trial proceedins in FM-03-790-14, for judicial notice. He explicitly demanded the court to acknowledge that it would be waiving the right to set an so-called “child-support” obligation if the court prohibited Mr. Syphrett from having legal and physical custody of his children. The court was effectively executing a quasi-adoption, and as such Mr. Syphrett would have no obligation to pay “support” to any party.

AS SUCH: THIS UNIFIED COURT IS WITHOUT ANY LAWFUL RIGHT TO DEMAND OR PURPORT THAT MR. SYPHRETT HAS ANY “SUPPORT” OBLIGATION TO MS. WALLACE, OR THE CHILDREN, AS IT VIOLATES THE DOCTRIN OF RECIPROCALS

I DEMAND THIS COURT ENFORCE MY LEGAL RIGHTS IN ALL OF MY AFOREMENTIONED CAPACITIES, OR ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR ITS FAILURE TO DO SO, AND THAT ALL COURT OFFICERS WHO HAVE FAILED TO ENFORCE MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS EITHER TAKE IMMEDIATE REMEDIAL ACTION, OR ALSO AVAIL THEMSELVES TO PROSECUTION IN THE APPROPRIATE COURTS OF LAW.

 

 

I DEMAND A WRITTEN RESPONSE, INCLUSIVE OF WAIVORS OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY FOR THOSE OFFICERS WHO VOLUNTARILY VIOLATED MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN ANY OF THE AFOREMENTIONED CASES, FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUCH WAIVOR, WILL BE DEEMED AS A THREAT AGAINST MY PERSON, AND PROOF, THAT SUCH OFFICERS INTEND TO FURTHE HARM ME AT A FUTURE DATE

 

 

I DEMAND THIS COURT PROVIDE ME THE NAME AND ALL OTHER APPROPRIATE INFORMATION PURSUANT THE ADA WITH REGARD TO THE PERSON RESPONSIBILE FOR ADMINISTERING THE “AMERICAN’S WITH DISABILITIES ACT” AT THE HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX, THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, WITHIN THE APPELLATE DIVISION, AND WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS. I DEMAND THIS INFORMATION AS A PERMANENTLY DISABLED PERSON, PURSUANT THE RECORDS CONFIRMING THE SAME PREVIOUSLY SENT TO THE UNIFIED COURTS OF NEW JERSEY.

 

I DEMAND PROBATION CEASE / STAY ANY ENFORCEMENT OF MY SO-CALLED “CHILD SUPPORT” COURT ORDERS UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND THE COURT PROVIDE ME A FOUNDATION IN THE LAW FOR THE SAME, THAT IS NOT CLEARLY THE RESULT OF NULL & VOID COURT ORDERS, WHICH WERE NULL & VOID AB INITIO (for the reasons cited herein, and for the reasons previously submitted to the Court and/or probation in writing).

I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO FURTHER PROSECUTE THIS MATTER AND ALL RELATED PERSONS, IN THE EVENT THAT MY GRIEVANCES ARE NOT FULLY ADDRESSED BY THE ADDRESSED PERSONS AND GOVERNMENTAL BODIES.

I DEMAND RESTORATION OF MY PARENTAL RIGHTS, MY CUSTODY RIGHTS, AND MY LEGAL RIGHTS WITH REGARD TO MY CHILDREN BENJAMIN AND VANESSA SYPHRETT. I DEMAND THIS SUA SPONTE, AND IMMEDIATELY

  1. BASIS IN FACT INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO THE FACT THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE ORDERED A CHANGE OF CUSTODY BASED ON FACTS, EVIDENCE, AND TESTIMONY NEVER PUT PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT (1. Therapists in Connecticut, who did not appear in court, submit reports, or affadavits AND 2. witnesses whom the court did not allow the Defendant to Cross-Examine, the Defendant’s wife! AND 3. Witnesses the court refused to allow the Defendant to produce, his children!)
  2. BASIS IN FACTS AND THE LAW:
    1. THE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER PROVEN TO BE AN UNFIT PERSON TO A CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD OF EVIDENCE. THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED DUE-PROCESS AT TRIAL.
    2. THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO APPEAR AT HIS OWN TRIAL, AS WAS HIS ATTORNEY, AND HIS WITNESS-OF-FACT. THIS IS EXTRINSIC FRAUD! (See the current edition of Black’s Law Dictionary for “Extrinsic Fraud”)

 

 

iii. AS A PRESUMED FIT PARENT, WITH ONLY POSITIVE PARENTING TIME SUPERVISOR REPORTS THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF PURSUANT:

 

 

–  In Parham v. J.R. et al 442 U.S. 584 (1979) in toto, inclusive of cited cases, and specifically with regard to its findings that:

The Supreme Court declared the ‘best interest of the child’ resides in the fit parent – not in the state: “Our constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that a child is a “the mere creature of the State” and, on the contrary, asserted that parents generally “have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare [their children] for additional obligations.”

– Santosky v. Kramer 455 U.S. 745 (1982) in toto and specifically with regard to its legal findings that:

To deny a parental right requires constitutional due process that proves he’s either unfit or a clear danger to his children – proven with ‘clear and convincing’ evidence. As such, Santosky v. Kramer 455 U.S. 745 (1982) emphasized to restrict a fundamental right of a parent to any extent, requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence that serious harm will come to the child.

 

I ADVISE THAT: I WILL ONLY CONSENT TO THE PERMENANT SEALING OF MY FILES IN THE EVENT:THAT MY CUSTODY IS RESTORED AND THIS COURT WAIVE ALL FUTURE JURISDICTION OR RIGHTS TO INTERFERE IN THE RIGHTS OF MY PARENTAL RIGHTS SO LONG AS MY CHILDREN REMAIN CITIZENS OF A FOREIGN STATE

King Crown

CONCLUSION:

YOU WILL OBEY THE SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY /PARTY,

MEANING: ME (in parte / in toto)

 

I DEMAND THAT THIS PETITION BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY PURSUANT BINDING OPERATION OF THE COMMON-LAW, AS CITED IN HAINES V. KERNER, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT (1972), AND ITS BINDNG PROGENCY WITHIN THIS JURISDICTION.

FURTHER: I submit that to the extent that this document IN FACT DOES NOT ADDRESS ALL OF MY LONG-DATED CONCERNS PREVIOUSLY PUT BEFORE THIS BODY, I RESERVE AND DEMAND THE RIGHT TO BE FULLY HEARD, PLENARY PROCEEDINGS, AND ORAL ARGUMENTS… BECAUSE THIS COURT WILL NOT PROPOUND A SILENT INJUSTICE UPON ONE OF ITS CITIZENS. AS SUCH I REMIND THIS COURT THAT AS A CITIZEN I AM IN FACT A MEMBER OF THE BODY THAT POCESSES THE SOVEREIGN-AUTHORITYOF THIS COURT,

I AM IN FACT AND LAW: A CONSTITUTIONAL CREATION MYSELF AS A “CITIZEN”.

 

VERY TRULY:

Derek C. Syphrett, Esq.

Attorney-in-Fact

Citizen of New Jersey

Citizen of the United States of America

Permanently Disabled Person, pursuant the ADA

Witnesss-of-Fact

Real-Party-of-Interest

The Sovereign-Power, in parte / in toto, in iure civili, et in carne

Naturalis Homo in Carne

Legally Competent Person, Pursuant:the findings and Precedential Law in Kyle v. Verona Green Acres, and its progency in New Jersey Courts

The Putative Pro Se

 

 

Serfs Dont fight back

SEE THE TRANSCRIPTS OF JUDGE PEDRO JIMENEZ

ACTING AS JUDGE, WITNESS-OF-FACT, PROSECUTOR,

IN JUST ONE EPISODE OF THIS UNMITIGATED DISASTER

HERE

THIS WAS AN UNLAWFUL KIDNAPPING OF AN ATTORNEY,

APPEARING IN COURT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE!

JUDGE PEDRO JIMENEZ ACTED BEYOND ALL AUTHORITY AND MAY NOW BE

ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED CIVILLY AND CRIMINALLY FOR THIS!

 

 

 

cropped-gadsen-flag1.jpg

(Gadsen Flag Circa 1775)

THE ABOVE PROVIDED TO:

 

REMIND NEW JERSEY PUBLIC OFFICIALS THAT:

SOME OF US HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN THE REASONS

THIS STATE IS “SELF-GOVERNED”

STATE OF NEW JERSEY COURTS – IGNORE SUPREME COURT RULINGS – UNLAWFULLY INTERFERE IN PARENTING TIME

Standard

Crony King

 

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

 

Court Order Judge

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

 

    1. 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.”

    2. 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.

    3. 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.”

    1. 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:

Serfs hoe

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.

BIG COURT DATE TUESDAY (Tomorrow): Request for Court Observers – Please RSVP

Standard

Scales Flaiming

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

Standard

 

Judge TRUTH IS NO DEFENSE

IF 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

Lady Justice Soldier

 
 
 
 
========================================================
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
 
 

==============================

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)

==============================

Greatest American Hero
 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

 

Gavel Stopper

 

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,

408 N.J. Super. 25

, 45 (App. Div.

2009), aff’d o.b.,

201 N.J. 207

(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.

=============================================================

Gavel Stopper

=============================================================

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

Gavel Broken

IF I WERE POOR, AND I WERE  CHARGED WITH A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE. I WOULD:

  1. FILE AN “IMMEDIATE APPEAL” AND
  2. SUBMIT JUSTICE ALBINS ARGUMENT
  3. AND REQUEST A FREE LAWYER TO REPRESENT ME

COURT REFUSES TO ALLOW ME TO SPEAK WITH OMBUDSMAN

Standard

Justice GaggedArticle 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!

0001910cba29056841e3b2e8ca7f16074ab

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

2014-08-14 - LTR BOOKBINDER p1

2014-08-14 - LTR BOOKBINDER p2

COURT: REMOVED / LOST MY FILED MOTIONS BEFORE I WAS FOUND GUILTY OF DV

Standard

Evil Devil Lawyer

MYSTERIOUSLY MISSING FILES IN MY CASE

RESULTED IN GUILTY FINDING

The links in this article show my efforts pre-trial to view my DV file before a trial on the Matter.

In response to my 2/4/2014 letter requesting to see my file (because I suspected retaliation from the recused judge), the new assignment Judge – Judge Bookbinder – actually punished me for asking to see my file.

Later it was revealed that 2 motions were missing from the file including pre-trial pleadings that proved the Plaintiff Kathryn Bischoff (resident of Robbinsville / teacher in Hightstown) filed a false complaint against me.

JUDGE WHO ISSUED TRO VIOLATED COURT RULES – SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF

The motion papers also called for the vacation of the DV TRO because the Judge who issued it. Judge R.Douglas Hoffman was actually involved in a legal dispute with me at the time he issued the TRO. In otherwords he had a conflict of interest that wasn’t waivable by himself or myself, and according to court rule 1:12-1(g) he was required to recuse himself prior to hearing the application for the TRO – HE DIDN’T.

MY MOTION FOR JUDGE HOFFMAN’S RECUSAL WENT “MISSING” SEE IT HERE:

2013-06-07 – FV-11-887-13 Reconsideration Motion

 

In July of 2013 I had Judge Hoffman recuse himself from my legal affairs based on the same paperwork I filed in response to Kathryn Bischoff’s TRO application, I submitted that recusal order to the court in a letter and later in a 11/26/2013 motion.

The 11/26/2013 motion was removed from the case file after being timely filed with the court pre-trial.

Additionally a 6/7/2013 motion was removed from the file despite my timely filing of those pleadings which were converted into motions in limine (in trial motions).

 

 

  • SEE THE COURT ORDER PUNISHING ME FOR WRITING THE COURT TO VIEW MY FILE HERE:

Court Order Bookbinder - Unlawful pg1Court Order - Bookbinder Unlawful pg2

 

  • LETTER DEMANDING MY CASE BE TRANSFERRED TO JUDGES WHO WON’T PUNISH ME FOR REQUESTING TO SEE MY FILE AND WHO WILL ENSURE MY MOTIONS WILL BE HEARD FAIRLY IN THE FUTURE:

SHAME ON YOU

Naming Names:

Trial Judge in Mercer County Superior Court:  Judge Janetta Marbrey (responsible for file).

 

 

Trial Judge in Burlington County Superior Court: Judge John Tomasello

Assignment Judge who refused to allow me to see my file pre-trial: Judge Ronald Bookbinder

NJ FAMILY COURT & INSTITUTIONALIZED HARASSMENT – DOCUMENTED BELOW

Standard

Judge TRUTH IS NO DEFENSE

(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

Kangaroo Court Judge

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:

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
=====================================================================

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.

The End No it Isnt

PROOF OF CORRUPTION: Judge Bookbinder’s Unlawful Court Orders: Prohibiting Father from Appearing in Court at his Own Trial

Standard

Serfs Dont fight back

 

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:

Court Order Bookbinder - Unlawful pg1

Court Order - Bookbinder Unlawful pg2ADDITIONALLY:

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.

Serfs hoeRemember: 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

Scales Flaiming

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,

www.lawisnotjustice.com

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]

Former Client of Judge Catherine Fitzpatrick Describes Unethical Practice of Law

Standard

Evil Devil Lawyer

Introduction:

Judge Catherine Fitzpatrick was a Mercer county lawyer. As a lawyer she failed her clients, damaged children and destroyed fathers for profit, according to a former client.

Below is a description of her conduct by a former client (from West Windsor Plainsboro Today):

“My experience with Catherine Fitzpatrick was slightly different. She charged me less than $20,000 for my divorce but the damage she caused my children who were just 4 and 5 at the time of separation was beyond repair.

When I separated a few years ago, I had some issues with my ex-husband but nothing that should have caused me to file for divorce. He used little alcohol but was never drunk, no drugs and was never physically abusive to me. He got angry sometimes, but so did I, mostly due to the pressures of every day life.

Now I know better.

He is a good man who has always been very good to my children. What Fitzpatrick wrote in the divorce papers made him appear to be the No. 1 danger to my kids and to society. She wrote asking that he only receives supervised visitations, undergo psychological testing, anger management, AA, etc. and counseled me against allowing him to see or even talk to his own children for over 3 months “just to have an upper psychological edge” and bring him down to his knees.

Since separation took him by surprise, my ex did not learn how to file a motion to get some visitations until 2 months later. The children had to suffer from not seeing or talking to their father of over 3 months. Later, rather than counsel me to work things out with him on 50/50 custody, she kept insisting that giving him any overnights meant less child support money for many years and made my children to go through 3 grueling child custody assessments.

The children did not seem to be affected few years ago, but later I found out that they were deeply affected and were having self esteem issues from what I foolishly made them believe was abandonment by their father, as well as many problems learning at school and developed psycho-somatic problems like problems with speech and comprehension, emotional outbursts, fear of trusting people and making friends etc. I do not want to get into details but I feel horrible for what I put my ex and my children through for $150/week in child support money. A divorce lawyer should counsel her clients to do what is best for the children not be money hungry and destroy the lives of the children. Fitzpartick is not a good lawyer.”

FORMER CLIENT OF CATHERINE FITZPATRICK

Judge Catherine Fitzpatrick Alleged to Retaliate & File False Criminal Charges

Standard

Baby Judge Stealing Nose

( ACTUALLY JUDGE FITZPATRICK TRIED TO JAIL ME FOR 5 YEARS…  FALSELY…)

================================================

Quick Summary of Facts & Events:

================================================

  • 6/4/2013 Judge Fitzpatrick stripped me of my right to represent myself and appointed both a Guardian Ad Litem & a court appointed Lawyer in violation of:
    • my constitutional right to due process (14th Amendment, U.S. Contitution);
    • New Jersey Rules of Evidence 703; &
    • New Jersey Court Rule 5:3.

She issued a sua sponte order (on the courts own motion) without any evidence or testimony before the court supporting her order. She did not even give me the opportunity to cross-examine or present evidence before issuing the order.

THIS WAS UNLAWFUL AND JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT.

NOTABLY: in 4/2013 I won my last motion before the court and had my wife Margaret J. Wallace (of Gales Ferry CT) found in contempt & my unallocated support enforcement stayed… SO CLEARLY I WAS LEGALLY COMPETENT

NOTABLY: ACCORDING TO SETTLED CASE LAW IN NJ NO COURT COULD DEEM ME LEGALLY INCOMPETENT AFTER SUCCESFFULLY DEMONSTRATING COMPETENCE BEFORE THE COURT IN MY LAST MOTION – SEE KYLE V. VERONA GREEN ACRES   JUDGE FITZPATRICK IGNORED THIS BINDING PRECEDENT… THIS TOO WAS UNLAWFUL.

2. 8/14/2013 Judge Fitzparick apparently fabricated criminal charges against me

3. 8/16/2013 Judge Fitzpatrick apparently retaliated by sitting as a judge in my divorce and a now dismissed Domestic Violence case status hearing and order defaults in both cases on 8/16/2013 (see Mercer County Dockets:  FV-11-725-13K & FM-11-97-13B)

THIS WAS BOTH UNLAWFUL AND A VIOLATION OF COURT RULE 1:12:-1(g).

IMPORTANT: JUDGE FITZPATRICK’S ORDERS FOR DEFAULTS WERE LATER TREATED AS VOID COURT ORDERS AND VACATED – BECAUSE WHAT SHE DID WAS ILLEGAL.

JUDGE FITZPATRICK DID NOT DISCLOSE HER ATTEMPT TO FILE CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST ME, AND SHE THEN SAT TO HEAR CIVIL CASES DESPITE THE FACT SHE FILED A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST ME AND WAS CONFLICTED

IMPORTANT: I was ordered to appear in civil court on 8/19/2013 for a Default hearing in the DV case FV-11-624-13. When I appeared I learned that my wife and her lawyer were told not to appear in court and I was arrested without new charges being filed, without a warrant, and without probable cause I apparently was kidnapped to shut me up

4. 8/18/2013 I WAS ARRESTED AT MY HOME. I POSTED BAIL AND WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL.

5. 8/19/2013 When I appeared I learned that my wife and her lawyer were told not to appear in court and I was arrested without new charges being filed, without a warrant, and without probable cause I apparently was kidnapped to shut me up.

  • There was no warrant for my 8/19/2013 Arrest
  • There was no criminal charges for the 8/19/2013 arrest
  • No Probable Cause was issued for the 8/19/2013 arrest
  • No criminal charges were filed for the 8/19/2103 arrest
  • IT ALL APPEARED TO BE RETALIATION TO SHUT ME UP AND TO KEEP JUDGE FITZPATRICK FROM GETTING IN TROUBLE.

6. In January of 2014 I recorded a phone call with my wife’s lawyer Jennifer Weisberg-Millner of Fox Rothschild. She revealed to me that Judge Fitzpatricks chambers called and told her not to appear in court on the morning  8/19/2013 because I’d been arrested. ODD BECAUSE I HADN’T BEEN ARRESTED IN THE MORNING OF 8/19/2013… ODD BECAUSE THE COURT NEVER CALLED ME TO TELL ME NOT TO COME IN… ODD BECAUSE THESE COMMUNICATIONS WERE EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS BY THE COURT WITH MY WIFE’S LAWYERS!

================================================

OTHER ISSUES FROM EARLY IN MY DIVORCE:

================================================

GAVEL DIVORCE

================================================

7.9/2011 My visitations with my children were converted to Supervised visits without a Plenary hearing. When I filed a motion in 9/2011 for Plenary hearing Judge Fitzpatrick refused to schedule the plenary hearing AS REQUIRED BY LAW. SHE ALSO REFUSED TO GIVE ME BACK MY UNSUPERVISED VISITATION.

8. 2011 The Supervised Visitation order was ridiculous it required my wife and me to agree on a supervisor… so my wife just continued to refuse to agree to use any supervisor I wanted to use and refused to pay for supervision. The result was I rarely saw my children for the next 2 years. This was devastating because my children were 2yrs old and 4yrs old at the time and I couldn’t hug, hold, and love them or the next 2 years on a regular basis. IT WAS ABSOLUTELY DEVASTATING AND I NEVER WAS GIVEN DUE PROCESS BY THE COURTS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE.

9. Domestic Violence Charges by my wife appeared to abused by my wife to separate me from my children. In 2010 my wife filed a DV claim and it was dismissed and she admitted she had falsely stated facts in the complaint. She said I showed up unnannounced despite the fact I had texts from her inviting me to come see the children. Judge Fitzpatrick never held my wife accountable for these apparent lies.

10. In 2012 My wife filed another DV complaint. I was entitled to a hearing in 10 days. Instead Judge Fitzpatrick coordinated with Judge Warshaw and Judge Debello to prohibit a hearing on the DV complaint for over 240 days.

When the case was finally sent to Burlington County the new judge said the Temporary Restraining order Should have never been entered!!

11. Judge Fitzpatrick (or somebody using her user name) created FRAUDULENT COURT DOCUMENTS STATING MY DV CASE WAS 19 DAYS OLD WHEN IT WAS 240 DAYS OLD … THIS OBSCURED THE CASE FROM TRIAL ADMINISTRATORS SO THAT THEY COULD NOT INVESTIGATE WHY MY CASE WAS TAKING SO LONG.

======================================

SEE PROOF HERE:

======================================

12. The DV court order for temporary restraints did not require a psychiatric evalution. but the DV Judges Judge Debello and Judge Fitzpatrick said the would not schedule my hearing unless I went to a psychiatric evaluation (that I consented to go to in the divorce case). I told them I wouldn’t schedule it until the DV matter was handled.

  • JUDGE FITZPATRICK AND JUDGE DEBELLO UNLAWFULLY REFUSED TO SCHEDULE MY DV CASE WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE TRO AS REQUIRED BY N.J. LAW.
  • I researched the DV law and found that a DV case can only require a psych. eval if it is ordered as part of the TRO… In my case it was not!!
  • I told Both Judge Debello and Judge Fitzpatrick regardless of whether I was mentally ill or not it was irrelevant to whether or not I committed a crime, or committed an act of DV… so they needed to schedule the hearing. Additionally I reminded them there was no order for a psych eval in the DV case… THEY IGNORED MY MOTIONS AND LETTERS.
  • MY DV CASE WASN’T HEARD FOR OVER 425 DAYS, WHEN IT WAS HEARD IT WAS DISMISSED BY THE NEW JUDGE!!!
    I WENT OVER A YEAR WITHOUT SEEING MY KIDS BECAUSE THE COURT DENIED ME DUE PROCESS, VIOLATED THE DV LAWS, AND RETALIATED AGAINST ME!

PROOF & EVIDENCE JUDGE FITZPATRICK FRAUDULENTLY MARKED MY CASE AS 19 DAYS OLD WHEN IT WAS 245 DAYS OLD:

CLICK LINK ABOVE TO SEE DETAILS

==========================================================

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST FOX ROTHSCHILD ATTORNEYS INCLUDE:

==========================================================

Note: My wife was represented by Fox Rothschild. They are professional lawyers, but they litigate with a win at all costs strategy that appears to be ignorant of due-process for their client or adversaries.

Jennifer-Weisberg Millner – a lawyer for over 20 years surely should have known that the submissions by my wife of altered evidence were not admissible in court and that submitting such documents was unethical… but she was complicit with it.

Eliana Baer – Testified to false facts on 12/5/2012 by stating I had sent my wife over 12 emails in a single day.. This was a flat out lie and Elaina Baer never submitted any evidence to substantiate this claim. This was unethical and despite my numerous discovery requests Elaina Baer never submitted 12 emails sent in a single day… she lied.

Jennifer Weisber Millner (Jennifer Millner) should have known that both her clients due-process rights and my due process rights were violated for the over 425 days that the DV case wasn’t scheduled, but she allowed it to happen without ever motioning the court for justice or adherence to the court rules.

Jennifer-Weisberg Millner & Eliana Baer have both been lawyers long enough to know that the sua sponte order Judge Fitzpatrick issued to strip me of my right to represent myself was unlawful and a violation of court rules, yet they were complicit with it.

==========================================================

CONCLUSION

==========================================================

1. In the end all of this will cost my wife and I much more time and money to resolve, which only benefits these slimy lawyers from Fox Rothschild.

2. I reported all of my concerns to the A.C.J.C. for Judicial Misconduct, Judge Glenn Grant – Acting Administrator of the Courts, Judge Mary C. Jacobson, etc… all of them just worked to cover this up, even after my cases were transferred to Burlington County where the retaliation continued under Judge John Tomassello who continued to violate my rights and retaliate for Judge Fitzptrick

3. Judge Tomasello is a total scumbag in my opinion. He actually took ex-parte testimony during the divorce trial and refused to allow me to cross-examine the witnesses he did this with. he also along with Judge Bookbinder prohibited me from appearing in court for my own trial dates on 2/18/2014 and 2/19/2014… THIS WAS ALSO UNLAWFUL AND MEANS MY FINAL ORDER FOR DIVORCE IS NOW VOID AND I HAVE TO GO BACK TO COURT FOR MORE TRIAL DATES JUST TO GET JUSTICE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY LAW AND BY COURT RULES.

MOST IMPORTANTLY HERE IS THE BOTTOM LINE:

N.J. FAMILY COURT IS CORRUPT & INCOMPETENT – THE JUDGES FEEL THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW AND THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE BEST INTERESTS OF YOUR CHILDREN.

ALL THEY WANT TO DO IS HELP THEIR FRIENDS IN THE LOCAL BAR ASSOCIATION FLEECE YOU FOR ALL YOUR MONEY AND THEN ISSUE COURT ORDERS THAT WILL KEEP YOU DESTITUTE AND UNABLE TO HIRE A LAWYER TO GET JUSTICE.

==============================================

CLEARLY THESE PEOPLE MUST NOT UNDERSTAND THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE

…. PERHAPS THEY ARE CONFUSED???

==============================================

Robbing Justice

JENNIFER MILLNER / ELAINA BAER / FOX ROTHSCHILD ARE UNTHICAL AND ALLEGED TO STEAL MONEY FROM ESCROW ACCOUNTS

Standard

Lawyer Lying

=================================================================

HERE IS A SHORT SUMMARY OF

UNETHICAL AND/OR APPARENTLY ILLEGAL THINGS JENNIFER MILLNER AND FOX ROTHSCHILD HAVE DONE TO CREATE CONTENTIOUS LITIGATION

 =================================================================

FOX ROTHSCHILD DOES NOT APPEAR TO CARE ABOUT ITS CLIENTS OR THEIR CHILDREN, THEY ARE TYPICAL LAWYERS THEY APPEAR TO CARE ONLY ABOUT BILLABLE HOURS

DANA JANQUITTO, ESQ  (of Reed Smith)- A FORMER LAW CLERK ALSO GET’S DISHONORABLE MENTION FOR:

HER PARTICIPATION IN ORCHESTRATING A VIOLATION OF A COURT ORDER ISSUED BY THE JUDGE SHE WORKED FOR… SHE ACTUALLY HELPED MY WIFE VIOLATE A COURT ORDER – WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE OPPOSING PARTY OF HER EX-PARTE CONTACT!

SEE DETAILS BELOW:

===========================================================================

MY EXPERIENCE WITH FOX ROTHSCHILDS UNETHICAL OR ILLEGAL TACTICS:

===========================================================================

(this is an edited excerpt from an email sent to Fox Rothschild, my expectation is that they will NEVER directly address their conduct unless I sue them)

To: Eric Sotoloff (Fox Rothschild):

1. Jennifer Millner stole my money from her escrow accountand didn’t provide simultaneous statements – that is theft by deception and the statute of limitations hasn’t run out.

SEE NARRATIVE & SOURCE DOCUMENTS HERE ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB:
https://njcourtcorruption.com/2014/06/22/jennifer-weisberg-millner-jennifer-millner-alleged-to-be-a-thief/

OR SEE ATTACHMENTS WHICH DOCUMENT THE THEFT OF MY MONEY

NOTE: THE LINK TO THE NEWS BLOG ABOVE HAS BEEN READ ON 4 CONTINENTS NOW.

2. Fox Rothschild Conspired with InsiderScore and O’Donnell Newsome to make a false claim on a wages settlement of (gross) $50,000 from InsiderScore. I now have evidence of that. Eric I presume you were involved given that you used to work at O’Donnell Newsome and InsiderScore ironically retained them after Elaina Baer tortuously interferred in my settlement and had it frozen by the court ONLY AFTER YOUR FIRM CONVINCED INSIDERSCORE TO VIOLATE THE CONTRACT

3. Fox Rothschild Retained Dr. Scasta in 2011and didn’t disclose that conflict when Dr. Scasta was appointed to Wallace v. Syphrett in 2013… This was unethical. Shockingly Dr. Scasta didn’t reveal this conflict either, which is simply more evidence that the Mercer County Bar Association and the Courts are corrupt.

 4. Jennifer Millner allowed Judge Tomasello to violate the due process rights of my wife, my children, and myself in a manner that will lead us all back to court, and sadly generate more money for Fox Rothschild, unless my wife (copied to this email) finally get’s smart and realizes she can sue you for malpractice and pain and suffering along with me.  And yes I call her my wife because the Divorce Decree is Void.

5. Fox Rothschild admitted ALTERED EVIDENCE – TEXTS WITH WHITEOUT ALL OVER THEM AND DELETED MESSAGES TO OBTAIN A TRO, ELAINA BAER THEN FABRICATED TESTIMONY AS A WITNESS ON 12/4/2012…. THIS WILL BE REPORTED AND PUBLISHED. THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO KNOW HOW CORRUPT YOUR FIRM IS SO THAT MORE CHILDREN DON’T GET HURT BY YOUR LITIGATION TACTICS FOR PROFIT.  WHAT YOU DO IS NOTHING MORE THAN CHILD TRAFFICKING AND ITS ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING.  I HAVE THE SOURCE DOCUMENTS AND THE FAXES YOU SENT TO COURT WITH THE ALTERED EVIDENCE AND THE CONFLICTING NARRATIVE.

6. MY BANKRUPTCY PRE-EMPTS YOUR COLLECTION OF LEGAL FEES: Fox Rothschild Motioned for me to pay my wife’s legal fees even though I had the contingent liability DISCHARED IN BANKRUPTCY IN 2012… THIS WAS UNETHICAL AND RESULTED IN A VOID COURT ORDER FOR ME TO PAY YOU $100,000 OF MY WIFES $400,000 BILL…. YOU IDIOTS… THE FEDERAL COURT HAS ALREADY BARRED YOU FROM COLLECTING – SEE ATTACHED BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE.

7. Judge Catherine Fitzpatrick Admitted on the Record that Jennifer Millner arranged an illegal / violation of a court order for my wife in 2011 when my wife entered my house without consent, and had the sheriff’s department come in as well for illegal search and seizure of marital property!  This is now documented online and in the court record! My wife was found in contempt because Jennifer Millner and Judge Fitzpatrick’s Chambers consulted ex-parte to have Sheriff’s Enter my home… this alone is a $100,000 lawsuit (tolled thanks to my late discovery of the Sheriff’s side of the story).

Note: the Unlawful Violation of a Court order resulting in the unauthorized  entrance into my home in 2011 was arranged via a call from Jennifer Weisberg-Millner (Jennifer Millner) to Dana Janquitto, Esq (Former Law Clerk to Catherine Fitzpatrick). My presumption is that Dana Janquitto is now working at Reed Smith (www.reedsmith.com) and possibly is a dangerous lawyer because she has demonstrated she works without good ethics.

CLOSING THOUGHTS

MAYBE SOMEDAY JENNIFER MILLNER AND HER ASSOCIATES WILL DECIDE TO MAKE A MORE HONEST LIVING.

IF THEY DO MAYBE IT’LL LOOK SOMETHING LIKE THIS:

Ex Lawyer - Million Dollars