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

Standard

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

BURLINGTON COUNTY (VINCINAGE 3)

IS A JUDICIAL HELL-HOLE AND NOTHING ELSE

TO WIT:

THE CERTIFICATION AND EXHIBITS PROVIDED TO US

BY MR. SYPHRETT’S COUNSEL INCLUDE PROOFS OFALLEGED:

Obstruction of Justice
Witness Tampering, by Judge Ronald E. Bookbinder
Criminal Harrassment, by a Judge
Unlawful obstruction of Justice by the Administrative Office of the Courts (Susana J. Morris)

BUT THAT IS JUST THE BORING STUFF FOR STARTERS,

THE UNIQUE STUFF INCLUDES:

(THIS GUY AND….)

A MOTION FILED BY Mr. Syphrett into a FV Docket where the Plaintiff is an ex-girlfriend, who is alleged to have committed fraud upon the court and false statements of fact (Kathryn Bischoff, Katy Elizabeth, among other A.K.A.s)

THE CROSS MOTION WAS FILED BY A THIRD PARTY... Mr. Syphrett’s wife… yet she is not a party to the underlying motion! …. this is INSANELY UNLAWFUL!

The cross motion was filed with cross motion fees, and asks for marital relief in a matter opened as a FV matter, which included a trial that Mr. Syphrett was probibited by court order from appearing at as a self-represented litigant (SEE THE ORDERS ATTACHED TO THE CERTIFICATION.

MR. SYPHRETT IS PERMANENTLY DISABLED AND NOW IN FEAR FOR HIS LIFE BECAUSE THE JUDGES CONTINUE TO VIOLATE THE LAW. HE IS NOW MOVING TO ANOTHER STATE AS WE WRITE.

MR. SYPHRETT’S WIFE WAS AWARDED CHILD SUPPORT BASED ON A FICTITIOUS IMPUTED INCOME THAT WAS 1000% OVER HIS 2013 income and 400% over his 2012 income. His wife has refused to file a change of circumstance, and now collects about $3,300 per month from Social Security benefits assocaited with her husband….she is taking advantage of a disabled man, but she also now wants to have him prevented from filing with the court or getting updates about his own children.

mr. syphrett’s custody was taken away and his parental rights terminated via ex-parte proceedings by “Judge” John Tomasello , and a sua sponte issuance of civil restraints without notice to the Defendant of the motion…. THIS IS ALL UNLAWFUL OF COURSE… BUT IT IS GOING ON IN BURLINGTON COUNTY.

SEE MR. SYPHRETT’S REPLY CERTIFICATION, DETAILING HIS PALPABLE FEAR FOR HIS LIFE… HE SAID HE RUSHED THE CERTIFICATION, AT THE LAST SECOND, SO IT IS HORRIBLY WRITTEN, BUT I THINK IT SPEAKS TO THE LEVEL AT WHICH THE COURT WILL ATTEMPT TO LITERALLY KILL A GOOD FATHER WHO JUST WANTS JUSTICE FOR HIMSELF AND HIS KIDS.

SEE THE PROOF AND DETAILS HERE:

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

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:

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

Standard

WE THE PEOPLE OF NEW JERSEY WOULD NOT ACCEPT

A JUDGE ACTING LIKE THIS CHILD

(pictured above)

SO:

WE CAN NOT ACCEPT THIS

OR

THIS FRAUDULENT COURT ORDER

(NO PUBLIC DEFENDER WAS EVER ASSIGNED IN 2013)

UNLESS WE WANT COURTS WHERE THE TRUTH IS:

NO LONGER RELEVANT

THEN WE MUST DEMAND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW

VIA WRITS OF MANDAMUS LIKE THIS

TO BE CLEAR:

JUDGE PEDRO JIMENEZ: EXCEEDED ALL LAWFUL AUTHORITY WHEN HE INCARCERATED DEREK SYPHRETT – HE COMMITTED CRIMES IN DOING THE SAME

MERCER COUNTY SHERIFF JACK KEMLER: HAS BEEN COMPLICIT IN COVERING UP A FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT BY HIS STAFF

MERCER COUNTY PROSECUTOR: JOSEPH BOCCHINI IS AWARE OF THE CRIMES COMMITTED HERE AND DID NOTHING WHEN ASKED TO IN WRITTING

MERCER COUNTY PROSECUOR JOSEPH BOCCHINI FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE AGAINST MR. SYPHRETT VIA FAX IN VIOLATION OF THE COURT RULES

MERCER COUNTY ASSIGNMENT JUDGE MARY C. JACOBSON: TRANSFERRED STATE V. SYPHRETT TO BURLINGTON WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY FACTUAL BASIS FOR DOING THE SAME, SHE HAS REFUSED TO EXPLAIN IT TO THE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT EVER SINCE FOR OVER 10 MONTHS

BURLINGTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE JEANNE COVERT: ACCEPTED A FAXED MOTION AND RULED ON IT IN VIOLATION OF THE COURT RULES AND WITHOUT THE MOTION BEING SERVED TO THE DEFENDANT AT ALL!

BURLINGTON COUNTY ASSIGNMENT JUDGE RONALD E. BOOKBINDER, PROHIBITED THE DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY AND THE DEFENDANT FROM APPEARING AT COURT FOR THE DEFENDANT’S TRIALS SEE THE VOID AND UNLAWFUL COURT ORDERS HERE, THIS IS EXTRINSIC FRAUD, IT IS ALSO A CRIME OF WITNESS TAMPERING

ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS JUDGE GLENN GRANT HAS BEEN MADE AWARE OF ALL OF THE ABOVE, AND HE HAS NOT INTERVENED TO INSURE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURTS

THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT (A.C.J.C.) HAS BEEN SENT DOCUMENTS CONFIRMING CRIMES WERE COMMITTED BY JUDGES AND VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW AND JUDICIAL CANONS OCCURRED, THEY HAVE NOT ACTUALLY INVESTIGATED AND INSTEAD COMMITTED MAIL FRAUD BY TELLING THE COMPLAINANT THAT THE INVESTIGATION AND MATERIALS HAD BEEN PUT BEFORE THE A.C.J.C. WHEN IN FACT A COMMITTEE MEMBER TOLD THE COMPLAINANT THAT HE HAD NEVER SEEN THE COMPLAINT (ASSOCIATE JUSTICE STERN, RETIRED)

MERCER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICERS HAVE ARRESTED DEREK SYPHRETT TWICE WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE OR A WARRANT, AND THEN LATER DENIED THAT THEY DID.

MERCER COUNTY CORRECTIONS CENTER WARDEN CHARLES ELLIS: IS AWARE OF THE UNLAWFUL INCARCERATION BUT HAS DONE NOTHING TO PROTECT MR. SYPHRETT’S RIGHTS

WHILE NO COURT HAS ACTUALLY ENFORCED THE COURT ORDERS PROHIBITING MR. SYPHRETT FROM APPEARING IN COURT, THEY ALSO REFUSE TO ADMIT THE ORDERS ARE IN FACT VOID AB INITIO, BECAUSE THEY VIOLATE THE LAW ITSELF!

TO BE MORE THAN CLEAR:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LEGAL IMMUNITY FROM THE TRUTH

ON THE INTERNET OR VIA PUBLIC OPINION

THE ABOVE NAMED PARTIES ARE GUILTY OF TREASON

AND OTHER FELONIES

Our Sole Recourse will remain civil and lawful at all times, but

WE will not accept these injustices or allow them to be abided!

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

Standard

PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES,

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

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

WRIT OF MANDAMUS, IN LIEU OF WRIT, LEGAL BRIEF

WRIT OF HAEBEAS CORPUS, FOR BENJAMIN AND VANESSA SYPHRETT

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

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

WITH EXHIBITS DETAILING SOME OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS HERE:

2014-10-12 Petition – Writs – Legal Brief

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE

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

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

Binding Common-Law within this Jurisdiction)

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

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

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

252 Fountayne Ln,

Lawrence Township, NJ 08648

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

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

Supreme Court of New Jersey

25 Market St, Trenton, NJ 08625

RE:

THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE NEW JERSEY COURTS;

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

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

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

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

PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES,

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

&

WRIT OF MANDAMUS, IN LIEU OF WRIT, LEGAL BRIEF

WRIT OF HAEBEAS CORPUS, FOR BENJAMIN AND VANESSA SYPHRETT

I demand by operation of the Common-Law of this Jurisdiction, and pursuant timely and properly filed Writ of Coram Nobis, in Lieu of Writ, and papers submitted by right pursuant Court Rule 4:50, that my legal matters in Vincinage 3 be immediately relocated to an appropriate court.
1. TO BE CLEAR: I demand (pursuant my prior and present written notices (in toto) which detail violations of “THE LAW” with relation to my legal affairs that the Administrative Office of the Courts consider Intervening in a material and impactful manner, in the interest of Justice; AND in support of my constitutionally protected rights; AND the RULES-OF-LAW (eg. Court Rules in toto)) THE COURT RESPOND IN WRITING TO ADDRESS THE VIOLATIONS OF COURT OFFICERS JUDGE PEDRO JIMENEZ, JUDGE FITZPATRICK, JUDGE JACOBSON, JUDGE BOOKBINDER, JOHN TOMASELLO, ETC.
2. TO BE CLEAR: BY COURT RULE (1:33 and others) IT IS NOT THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCTS SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURTS. IT IS IN FACT THAT OF CHIEF JUSTICE STUART RABNER, in his administrative capacity, and it is further the delegated responsibility of the Director of The Courts, and all Assignment Judges.
3. AS SUCH: I DEMAND THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURTS WITH REGARD TO MY LEGAL AFFAIRS AND THE APPARENT NULL & VOID COURT ORDERS CURRENTLY PROPOUNDED UPON MY PERSON(S) AND MY PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE-PROCESS UNDER-THE-LAW, AND WITHOUT FOUNDATION IN THE LAW.
I DEMAND THE COURT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE CASE FILES IN FM-03-790-14, FV-03-1154-14, FV-03-1162-14, AND PROSECUTOR’S CASE # 13-2502, in toto, and inclusive of the Transcripts for the Same.
I DEMAND THE COURT EXPLAIN UPON WHAT LAWFUL AUTHORITY I WAS ARRESTED ON 8/19/2013, AND THEN ARRAIGNED BY JUDGE PEDRO JIMENEZ WITHOUT ANY LEGAL NOTICE TO MY ATTORNEY (MYSELF), OR MYSELF (DEFENDANT), PRIOR TO BEING HANDCUFFED AND BROUGHT BEFORE A JUDGE ON 8/19/2013 1-DAY PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED “FIRST APPEARANCE”, WHICH WAS SERVED UPON ME ON 8/18/2013.
1. FURTHER I DEMAND TO KNOW: ON WHAT BASIS IN FACT MY WARRANT OF 8/18/2013 WAS AMENDED, AS THE COURT, PROSECUTOR, AND SHERIFF’S OFFICE HAVE TO DATE NOT SUPPLIED ANY ANSWER TO MY WRITTEN REQUEST FOR THIS INFORMATION.
  1. In Fact in June of 2014: The Sheriff’s Office Falsely Claimed that they had no record of my 8/19/2013” arrest in response to the O.P.R.A. Request of John Paff. THIS WAS AN ACT OF MAIL FRAUD AND A LIE.
  2. THE AFOREMENTIONED LIES / FALSE STATEMENTS WERE: ONLY CORRECTED AFTER A COPY OF THE ARREST RECORD WAS SENT TO THE MERCER COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNSEL!!!
2. FURTHER I DEMAND TO KNOW: ON WHAT LAWFUL AUTHORITY I WAS ARRESTED WITHIN THE SUPERIOR COURT WHILE SERVING AS AN ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, FOR A CASE PENDING BEFORE THE COURT AT THAT TIME AND/OR
3. I DEMAND TO KNOW ON WHAT AUTHORITY WAS I ARRESTED ON 8/19/2013, AFTER LAWFULLY POSTING BAIL ON 8/18/2013 IN PROSECUTORS CASE #13-2502
I DEMAND THE COURT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS FROM (dsyphrett@gmail.com) TO EMPLOYEES OF THE COURT AND EMPLOYEES OF THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT FROM (1/2013 to 10/12/2014):
1. The Court Acknowledge written receipt, via “mail”, of my objection to the Probation Departments enforcement of a “Null & Void” child support order, and the courts / probatins failure to schedule an Administrative Hearing on the disputed facts of the matter.
2. The court acknowledge my pre-adjudication requests in both FM-03-790-14 and FV-03-1154-14 (via an un-scheduled, Immediate Appeal requesting counsel be assigned): that I repeatedly requested counsel as a indigent, and as a result of my documented disabilities. THE COURT FAILED TO HEAR MY PROPERLY PLACED MOTIONS, AND/OR FAILED TO EVEN ISSUE SUMMONS FOR THE 3/1/2014 IMMEDIATE APPEAL (this was a violation of State Statutory-due-process, the will of the People, and contrary to the New Jersey State Legislature’s Authority, to demand the court provide immediate appeals as of right to a D.V. Defendant)!!!
3. The Court Acknowledge that the proceedings in FM-03-790-14, were in fact and/or law in violation of the rights of the real parties of interest (Derek Syphrett, Benjamin Syphrett, and Vanessa Syphrett), in the manners described in the past correspondence with The Court, A.C.J.C. Sent via various forms of “mail” to the Court, and contained in the motion papers of Mr. Syphrett. This includes:
  1. THESE FACTS, EVIDENCE, AND TRANSCRIPTS CONFIRMING THAT: THE COURT PROHIBITING A WITNESS OF FACT, THE DEFENDANT, AND THE DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY (Derek Syphrett) FROM APPEARING AT TRIAL IN FM-03-790-14, FV-03-1162-14, AND FV-03-1154-14, on 2/18/2014 and 2/19/2014, where the court in some cases adjudicated the matters ex-parte, as a result of prohibiting one litigant from appearing at all, via court orders of 2/6/2014, and 2/19/2014.THE AFOREMENTIONED BASIS IN FACTS AND EVIDENCE (AND THE OTHER EVIDENCE I HAVE SENT TO THE COURT PREVIOUSLY) REPRESENTS: CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THIS COURT HAS PARTICIPATED IN IUNLAWFUL ACTS, THAT ARE REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE, AND AS A RESULT AFFORDS THE COURT NO OFFICE, TO ISSUE FINAL ORDERS IN ANY OF THESE MATTERS BY OPERATION OF THE COMMON-LAW.
  2. LEGAL FOUNDATIONS SUPPORTING THIS DEMAND AND/OR LEGAL ARGUMENT INCLUDE: “LAW OF THE VOIDS” AND/OR “DOCTRINE OF RECIPROCALS”
    1. Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,254 U.S. 348, 41 S.Ct. 116 (1920)
    Excerpts from “The Valley Supreme Court:
    
    “Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal.”
    1. Boyd v. United 116 U.S. 616 : Justice Bradley said: “It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens…”
    2. Gomillion v. Lightfoot 364 U.S. 155:“Constitutional Rights would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied.”
    3. Norton v. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425:An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
    4. In Marbury v. Madison, U.S. Supreme Court: Chief Justice John Marshall stated:“the very purpose of the written constitution is to ensure that the government officials, including Judges, do not depart from the documents fundamental principles”.
    5. RE: THE DOCTRINE OF RECIPROCALS: This Court has attempted to order Mr. Syphrett to pay child support for children that the State placed in the Physical & Legal Custody of Margaret J. Wallace, THIS VIOLATES “THE DOCTRINE OF RECIPROCALS”, AND EXCLUSIVE OF THE VIOLATIONS OF MR. SYPHRETT’S RIGHTS AT TRIAL, THIS COURT HAS FURTHER COMPOUNDED ITS ERRORS BY ASSERTING THAT MR. SYPHRETT IS OBLIGATED TO PAY CHILD-SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN THAT THE COURT HAS PUTATIVELY ASSERTED ARE NOT HIS CHILDREN UNDER-THE-LAW, OR WITHIN THE PHYSICAL / NATURAL WORLD. FURTHER:FURTHER: THIS UNIFIED COURT HAS ASSERTED THAT MR. SYPHRETT IS OBLIGATED TO SUPPORT THE SAME CHILDREN THAT THE COURT ASSERTS ARE NO LONGER HIS TO RAISE, REAR, OR PARENT IN THE MANNER HE SEES FIT AS A PARENT.
      FURTHER:
      
      Mr. Syphrett Cited “RE: The Matter of Baby “M”” during the trial proceedins in FM-03-790-14, for judicial notice. He explicitly demanded the court to acknowledge that it would be waiving the right to set an so-called “child-support” obligation if the court prohibited Mr. Syphrett from having legal and physical custody of his children. The court was effectively executing a quasi-adoption, and as such Mr. Syphrett would have no obligation to pay “support” to any party.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION:

YOU WILL OBEY THE SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY /PARTY,

MEANING: ME (in parte / in toto)

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

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

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

VERY TRULY:

Derek C. Syphrett, Esq.

Attorney-in-Fact

Citizen of New Jersey

Citizen of the United States of America

Permanently Disabled Person, pursuant the ADA

Witnesss-of-Fact

Real-Party-of-Interest

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

Naturalis Homo in Carne

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

The Putative Pro Se

SEE THE TRANSCRIPTS OF JUDGE PEDRO JIMENEZ

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

IN JUST ONE EPISODE OF THIS UNMITIGATED DISASTER

HERE

THIS WAS AN UNLAWFUL KIDNAPPING OF AN ATTORNEY,

APPEARING IN COURT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE!

JUDGE PEDRO JIMENEZ ACTED BEYOND ALL AUTHORITY AND MAY NOW BE

ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED CIVILLY AND CRIMINALLY FOR THIS!

(Gadsen Flag Circa 1775)

THE ABOVE PROVIDED TO:

REMIND NEW JERSEY PUBLIC OFFICIALS THAT:

SOME OF US HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN THE REASONS

THIS STATE IS “SELF-GOVERNED”

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

Standard

LETTER TO ASSIGNMENT JUDGE RONALD E. BOOKBINDER

SENT AFTER HE ATTEMPTED TO PROHIBIT A DEFENDANT FROM:

APPEARING IN COURT FOR HIS OWN TRIAL, VIA

UNLAWFUL COURT ORDERS

SEE THE FAXED LETTER AND FAX RECEIPTS TO ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT (A.C.J.C.)

ADMINISRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS (A.O.C.) AND THE SUPERIOR COURT HERE:

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

10/10/2014

Derek C. Syphrett, Esq.

Pro se litigant (Defendant)

252 Fountayne Ln,

Lawrence Township, NJ 08648

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

Family Division Clerk, Suasan Fortino, Judge Bookbinder, John Tomasello, John Call, Judge Covert, Sharyn Sherman, Law Clerks for the Judges named herein.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part (Burlington County)

49 Rancocas Rd

Mount Holly, NJ 08060

RE: Bischoff v. Syphrett

Docket No.: FV-03-1154-14 – DIQUALIFICATION OF TRIAL JUDGES

Dear Judge Bookbinder:

I am writing the court (not you) to further propound upon the court my demands for justice, pursuant my right to petition my government for redress of grievances, as secured by the People of New Jersey, pursuant the New Jersey State Constitution of 1947, and pursuant my right to communicate in the interests of Justice as an attorney-in-fact (citation: Hawkins v. Harris, 141 N.J. 207 (1995): see courts findings which provide legal foundation supporting my judicial litigation privileges)

I wanted to follow-up on the Status Conference of 10/7/2014, to address your offer to allow me to “Judge Shop” and choose to have the Judge of my choice hear my petitions for redress of grievances (my motions papers generally) with regard to FV-03-1154-14 (only).

Please be advised that I decline your request to participate in any form of “Judge Shopping”, because the offer and the concept itself is offensive and disrespectful to the courts, the litigants, the public trust, and the institution of the Superior Court itself.

SEE SOME OF THE UNLAWFUL, NULL & VOID COURT ORDERS HERE:

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

TO BE CLEAR:

My concern about either yourself or John Tomasello attempting to adjudicate my legal matters is borne from my desire to enforce litigant’s rights for the legal person(s) I represent (myself and all other legal persons that I, in fact, am). My concern is that both John Tomasello and yourself have ceased to be Neutral third parties in due to a multitude of actions each of you have voluntarily chosen to engage in, which are clearly contrary to the law, rules-of-law, the state constitution, the federal constitution, my civil rights, and the interests of justice generally. BOTH YOURSELF AND JOHN TOMASELLO ARE ALREADY DISQUALIFIED BY RULE FROM HEARING MY MATTERS PURSUANT THE JUDICIAL CANONS AND MANDATORILY BINDING COMMON-LAW OF THIS JURISDICTION (WHETHER IT BE JUDICIALLY NOTICED OR NOT).

I say the above because the facts, testimony, process, etc that is already before the court 100%, clearly and convincingly support my position that your offending court orders of: 2/6/2014, 2/19/2014, 4/1/2014, 9/12/2014, and others are in fact null and void.

AGAIN: I REQUEST YOU TAKE NOTICE OF THE COMMON-LAW IN TOTO, AND SPECIFICALLY INCLUSIVE OF THE DOCTRINE OF “THE LAW OF THE VOIDS”

The common-law right to attack a court order that is null & void ab initio remains inviolate. As such I assert that the final order in FV-03-1154-14 is NULL & VOID ab inito. Further I assert the orders of Judge Bookbinder dated 2/6/2014, and 2/19/2014 are both Null & Void, and that they represent acts of extrinsic fraud, in that they purport to interfere with the appearance of a witness-of-fact (The Defendant). Such orders may be attacked at any time and are not time barred. They may be legally attacked directly at the trial court and/or collaterally in any court with jurisdiction over the matter.

SEE THE FOLLOWING LEGAL ARGUMENTS AND LEGAL FOUNDATIONS SUPPORTING MY CHALLENGE TO THE FINAL COURT ORDER AS A CHALLENGE DIRECTED AT ANY AND ALL NULL & VOID COURT ORDERS AFFECTING MY LEGAL INTERESTS:

The law is well-settled that a void order or judgment is void even before reversal. Take Judicial Notice of:

Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,254 U.S. 348, 41 S.Ct. 116 (1920)

Excerpts from “The Valley Supreme Court:

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

Boyd v. United 116 U.S. 616 : Justice Bradley said:

“It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens…”

Gomillion v. Lightfoot 364 U.S. 155:

“Constitutional Rights would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied.”

Norton v. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425:

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall stated:

“the very purpose of the written constitution is to ensure that the government officials, including Judges, do not depart from the documents fundamental principles”.

CONCLUSION:

For some not fully transparent, but yet apparent reason: it appears that you and your colleagues have attempted to obstruct justice in an unlawful manner with regard to my legal affairs and my communications with the court and third parties.

THIS WAS A BAD IDEA (MEANING STUPID). I am not the sort of man who should be trifled with by people or persons who have financial assets or lifestyles they wish to maintain at the status quo. I say this not to threaten or scare you, but to emphasize my firm and appropriate position that I will endeavor in any and all civil and lawful manners to hold those who transgress my children, my property, or my rights fully accountable to the law, or at a minimal: I will always endeavor to ensure that those who violate my personal rights or those of my children will be forever discouraged from doing so EVER again, by standing up for my rights in a civil, lawful manner, pursuant the interests of Justice.

TO BE CLEAR: I am not an intolerable jerk, BUT I CAN BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE… I CAN BE AS BIG OF A JERK AS THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE REQUIRE, AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM TAKING THAT POSITION IF/WHEN IT SERVES THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.

FURTHER:

The history of people who’ve doubted my legal skill, and/or my professional skill is a very sad story. They do not fair well generally, because ultimately my success leads to their downfall and scrutiny of their peers. I am a very thoughtful person, and so when I speak or interact with the court it is ALWAYS PURPOSEFUL AND DESIGNED TO CREATE JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY AND AN END RESULT THAT IS IN FACT AND LAW: JUST.

Please also take some solace in the fact that while you have offended me and my family in a very personal manner, my dispute with you is not “personal”. I don’t care about you, or your family, your thoughts, your dreams, your aspirations, your retirement, your occupation etc. It’s just not something I want to concern myself with.

In fact if it were not for your awful conduct as a Judge I believe I could enjoy pleasant conversation with you and a few cocktails at a local eatery. At times you can seem to be a fairly enjoyable personality. However, as a Judge in my matters, you are a distraction, intolerable, and you’ve violated the law. For these reasons alone – I can not abide you handling of my legal affairs a second longer (Please see my writ of coram Nobis for details of my concerns and my legal rights to banish you from this case).

FURTHER: IT HAS NEVER MADE SENSE FOR BOTH JOHN TOMASELLO AND FOR YOU TO CO-DEPENDENTLY SERVE AS TRIERS OF FACT IN FV-03-1154-14… IT OFFENDS ALL MANNER JUDICIAL INDPENDENCE TO HAVE TWO JUDGES ACTIVELY HEARING THE MATTER, WITHOUT BOTH BEING PRESENT TO HEAR PRESENTMENT OF FACTS, TESTIMONY, OR MOTION PAPERS!!!

LASTLY: MY OFFICIAL POSITION IS YOUR COURT ORDERS DO NOT EXIST:

Please be advised that Your Court Orders and those of John Tomasello in FV-03-1154-14, FM-03-790-14, FV-03-1162-14, LITERALLY DO NOT EXIST IN THE CORPUS JURIS (THE BODY OF LAW)

I officially provide you this letter as legal notice that the orders are null and void, the aforementioned court orders: confer no rights; it impose no duties; affords no protection; creates no office; they are in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed … THEY DO NOT EXIST TO ME. FURTHER I WILL NOT CONSENT TO FURTHER HEARINGS BEFORE YOU AS YOU ARE LAWFULLY DISQUALIFIED AS OF 2/6/2014, WHEN YOU ACTED SUA SPONTE AS AN ADVERSE PARTY TO THE DEFENDANT AND THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE BY IMPEDEING THE LEGAL PROCESS UNNECESSARILY AND CONTRARY TO THE LAW AS CITED IN MY WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS.

SO WITH THAT I SAY, HAVE A NICE LIFE AND BEGONE. IF I SEE YOU AGAIN I WILL MOST ASSUREDLY ARREST YOU AND PROSECUTE AS IS MY RIGHT IN NEW JERSEY UNDER THE LAW AND COURT RULE 1:21 et seq.

Kind regards,

Derek Syphrett

Pro se Defendant

P.S. PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS VIA INTEROFFICE MAIL UPON THE UNIFIED COURTS RECEIPT OF THE THIS LETTER.

cc: Judge Glenn Grant

cc: Administraive Office of the Courts (Appropriate Person Overseeing the Compliance with the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act)

cc: Michelle Smith Clerk of the Court

cc: Chief Justice Rabner

cc: Justice Albin

cc: Plaintiff – Kathryn Bischoff (the woman who never refuted or replied to my pleadings that she lied to obtain a FRO, delivered via Court Clerk, pursuant DV Procedural Manual)

For more background on the UNLAWFUL ISSUES ENDURED BY THIS MAN IN NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT (FAMILY COURT) READ MR. SYPHRETT WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS HERE.

Note a Writ of Coram Nobis is a ancient common-law writ that has origins in Chancery Courts. The New Jersey Family Court is still a Chancery Court, sitting within a Chancery Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, as such it is totally appropriate to file a Writ of Coram Nobis as of a Common Law right to Demand the correction of court errors of fact. Further Pursuant Court Rule 4:50 it is our well-researched (non-legal opinion) that within 1-year of a FINAL JUDGEMENT, a motion for NEW TRIAL may be appropriate if a litigants rights were violated through no fault of that litigant, and/or over that litigants objections to the same at trial.

SEE THE WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS HERE:

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

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

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

… AND …

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.

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

Standard

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).

LETTER TO COURT REQUESTING TO INSPECT MY FILE
2014-02-04 LTR COURT FILE INSPECTION

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

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:

LETTER – 2014-08-13 – Burlington County Courts

Naming Names:

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

First off the Motions I filed should have resulted in Judge Marbrey DISMISSING the entire DV complaint because it was obviously a false report. Kathryn Bischoff continued texting me from 1/15/2013 despite claiming in her complaint she was in fear. She instead sent me birthday wishes, texts with hearts and smilies etc all the way until 1/31/2013… so the complaint appears to be false clearly. See Proof Here: ALL MISSING MOTIONS WITH EXHIBITS SHOWING PLAINTIFF COMMITTED – APOLOGIES THE SCAN IS SLIGHTLY OUT OF ORDER

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

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.

LINK TO DOCUMENT:

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:

LINK TO DOCUMENT:

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)

Alleged Judicial Misconduct of Judge Bookbinder

Standard

Quick Summary – Punchline:

CLICK LINK BELOW TO SEE COURT ORDER – EVIDENCE OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT:

RONALD BOOKBINDER’S COURT ORDERS VIOLATE THE LAW 2/6/2014 – 3/10/2014 – HE REFUSED TO PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING HIS DECISION (CLICK TO READ COURT ORDERS)

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):

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

RONALD BOOKBINDER’S COURT ORDERS VIOLATE THE LAW 2/6/2014 – 3/10/2014 – HE REFUSED TO PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING HIS DECISION (CLICK TO READ COURT ORDERS)

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:

Elrod v. Burns, 427 US 347 – 1976 – ‎Supreme Court (Click Link)

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:

U.S. Supreme Court:Haines v. Kerner – 404 U.S. 519 (1972)

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.

ALLEGED CRIMES OF: Judge Ronald E. Bookbinder & Judge Mary C. Jacobson

Quote

Introduction to Alleged Crimes:

Below are emails I sent to Mercer County Prosecutors Office and Burlington County Prosecutor’s Offices along with the evidence included in the links below.

I doubt the Prosecutors will prosecute these cases because they are likely fearful of retaliation from the judges’ and the judges’ political allies.

For that reason I have posted this information in public view so that the public can become aware of the unethical self-dealing within the judiciary.

New Jersey Courts are lawless and the judges do not hold themselves accountable to the United States Constitution or their Judicial Oaths (Judicial Canons).

Below I’ve included a summary and actual emails that I sent to the local prosecutor offices, to supplement my complaint to the FBI and Supreme Court of New Jersey.

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

Quick Take Summary of Alleged Crimes

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

1) Judge Bookbinder issued court orders that violated the United States Constitution in order to obstruct or deny me access to the court. He literally prohibited me from appearing at my own trials to face the accusers in both a criminal case and my divorce… OUTRAGEOUS!

2) Judge Bookbinder consulted / conspired with Judge Jacobson as denoted in hearing transcripts of State v. Syphrett on 12/24/2013 and 1/6/2014.

In other Words:

He consulted with a witness in a criminal case via ex-parte communications and he refused to reveal the nature of these communications. This led to my allegations of Official Misconduct and Witness Tampering.

RESULTING ALLEGED CRIMES:

2C: 30-2 – Official Misconduct in the third degree 12/24/2013, 1/6/2014, 3/24/2014, 2/6/2014, 2/19/2014, 3/10/2014

2C: 30-6 – A pattern of Official Misconduct in the third degree 12/24/2013, 1/6/2014, 3/24/2014, 2/6/2014, 2/19/2014, 3/10/2014, AND UNKOWN DATES WHERE EX-PARTE ORDERS FOR ESCORT AND RESTRAINTS OF MY ACCESS TO OMBUDSMAN WERE ISSUED VERBALLY OR VIA EMAIL.

2C: 28-5 – Witness Tampering in the third degree on 12/24/2013, 1/6/2014, and about 3/24/2014

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

ACTUAL EMAILS DETAILING CONCERNS & ALLEGED CRIMES 6/27/2014

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

Subject: Formal REQUEST FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION: Specific Charges

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 16:48:24 -0400
From: Derek Syphrett <dsyphrett@gmail.com>
To: prosecutor@co.burlington.nj.us, rbernardi@co.burlington.nj.us, “glenn.grant@judiciary.state.nj.us” <glenn.grant@judiciary.state.nj.us>, ronald.bookbinder@judiciary.state.nj.us, sharyn.sherman@judiciary.state.nj.us, jeanne.covert@judiciary.state.nj.us, jbocchini@mercercounty.org, mnardelli@mercercounty.org, John Call <John.Call@judiciary.state.nj.us>, Divorce – John Rooney <john@rooneyphillylawyer.com>

The record of State v. Syphrett will show that on 12/24/2013 and 1/6/2014 both Judge Covert and Judge Bookbinder referenced Judge Bookbinder’s ex-parte consultation with Mary C. Jacobson a presumed witness in State v. Syphrett.

I have audio transcripts of both of these hearings.

ALLEGED WITNESS TAMPERING:

Further on about 3/24/2014 Judge Bookbinder insisted he might continue to consult Mary C. Jacobson despite my lawyer and my objection to the same during a status conference call held on about that date.

SEE PROOF THAT JUDGE JACOBSON WAS A WITNESS IN STATE V. SYPHRETT HERE:

2014-08-18 – SHERIFFS INVESTIGATIVE REPORT – Redacted

ALLEGED OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT:

Further with regard to Judge Bookbinder’s void court orders of 2/6/2014, 2/19/2014, and 3/10/2014 I believe official Misconduct occurred as those court orders actually prohibited me from appearing in court for my own trials as a self-represented litigant and a real party of interest. Further Judge Bookbinder issued other court orders restraining me from meeting with the Ombudsman and with regard to having me harrassed by sheriff’s escorts via sua sponte orders off the record, which were only put on the record when I discovered such orders had been issued via conversations with Chip Thompson and Sgt. Potts.

SEE ATTACHED VOID COURT ORDERS HERE:

VOID COURT ORDERS BOOKBINDER

These Court Orders Violate the U.S. Constitution in numerous ways, including prohibiting a Defendant from appearing in court at his own trials!

These Court orders are also contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Haines v. Kerner which allow for self-represented litigants to operate contrary to court rules.

I believe criminal charges under the following N.J. Statutes can and should be investigated and pursued in the interest of justice, especially considering the gravity of the allegations and the issues being related to public officials and the public interest in a lawful judiciary and the rule of law:

Alleged Criminal Charges:

2C: 30-2 – Official Misconduct in the third degree 12/24/2013, 1/6/2014, 3/24/2014, 2/6/2014, 2/19/2014, 3/10/2014

2C: 30-6 – A pattern of Official Misconduct in the third degree 12/24/2013, 1/6/2014, 3/24/2014, 2/6/2014, 2/19/2014, 3/10/2014, AND UNKOWN DATES WHERE EX-PARTE ORDERS FOR ESCORT AND RESTRAINTS OF MY ACCESS TO OMBUDSMAN WERE ISSUED VERBALLY OR VIA EMAIL.

2C: 28-5 – Witness Tampering in the third degree on 12/24/2013, 1/6/2014, and about 3/24/2014

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

EMAIL TO BURLINGTON COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE:

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

On 6/27/2014 4:19 PM, Derek Syphrett wrote:
Burlington County Prosecutor’s Office / Robert Bernardi:

Please accept this email as a formal request for investigation of Judge Ronald E. Bookbinder with regard to his role in State v. Syphrett. He admitted to consulting a witness in State v. Syphrett (see attached investigative report) with regard to the handling of State v. Syphrett.

Such actions by Judge Bookbinder appear to be contrary to the Supreme Court Precedent set in the Matter of Stephen Perskie (a former superior court judge), they were also definitely violations of the Judicial Canons.

Please note I had requested Judge Bookbinder to avoid embarassing the court and to uphold the integrity of the court by transferring my legal matters from his court, however, he chose of his own free-will to continue engaging in activities that demeaned the integrity of the court and appear to be contrary to the pillars of our justice system. Sometimes people just can’t handle the privilege and power that comes with their jobs, sadly I believe this is such a case.

SEE BOTH THE ATTACHED INVESTIGATIVE REPORT AND THE INLINE ATTACHMENT BELOW DETAILING MY CONCERNS AND EVIDENCE:

REPORT SHOWING JUDGE JACOBSON WAS A WITNESS IN THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION: 2014-08-18 – SHERIFFS INVESTIGATIVE REPORT – Redacted

INLINE ATTACHMENT BELOW:
> Hi Kathleen,
>
> (To: Judge Grant & Joanne Dietrich please forward this email and my statements below as a verified complaint to the ACJC – I expect action with regard to paragraphs 3 & 4).
>
> 1. Your response to my O.P.R.A. request did not include a couple emails (listed below as inline attachments) can you explain this discrepancy.
>
> 2. My recollection is that both my lawyer and Michael Nardelli (who is btw a great guy, despite being a Dolphins fan… Go Patriots!) were thoroughly confused and irritated by Judge Bookbinder’s refusal to handle the case in a coherent manner and the following email exchange occurred:
>
> 3. My recollection is that the email exchange (ATTACHED BELOW) occurred after a fairly lengthy status hearing with Judge Bookbinder where both my lawyer and I asked him to transfer the case given JUDGE BOOKBINDER’S consultation with Mary C. Jacobson (a witness in the underlying criminal investigation for State v. Syphrett) about State v. Syphrett and the associated bail conditions and restraints.
>
> 4. The concerns my lawyer and I had related to the fact that Judge Bookbinder apparently violated of Judicial Canon 2 an 3 (ex-parte communication and bestowing and creating the appearance of special influence). It also may have been witness tampering (a felony). Additionally my lawyer and I felt that Judge Bookbinder’s civil restraints violated the United States Constitution and the Judicial Canons.

Subject:	Re: Order
Date:	Mon, 24 Mar 2014 15:08:27 -0400
From:	John F. Rooney, V <john@rooneyphillylawyer.com>
To:	Nardelli, Michael <mnardelli@mercercounty.org>, Derek Syph <dsyphrett@gmail.com>

Mike:

I can’t consent to the form, or anything, regarding the case remaining in Burlington County. That being said, you can send it to Judge Bookbinder as it is written, and if Judge Bookbinder sees fit, he can sign it, but i cannot consent to it. Thank you for your understanding.

John
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Nardelli, Michael <mnardelli@mercercounty.org> wrote:

I used “primary witness”. Let me know if this looks ok.

From: johnfrooneyesq@gmail.com [mailto:johnfrooneyesq@gmail.com] On Behalf Of John F. Rooney, V
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 4:58 PM
To: Nardelli, Michael
Subject: Re: Order

sorry to be a pain in the ass. Can we change “victim” to complaining witness?

John

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Nardelli, Michael <mnardelli@mercercounty.org> wrote:

I removed “entry”.

From: John F. Rooney [mailto:john@rooneyphillylawyer.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 3:51 PM
To: Nardelli, Michael
Subject: Re: Order

not sure. I would just ask that you take out that I consent to the “entry” of the order. I am ok with the “form” of the Order, not its content, or entry. Thanks.

John

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Nardelli, Michael <mnardelli@mercercounty.org> wrote:

I have no idea if this is even remotely close to what he wants.

Michael A. Nardelli

Assistant Prosecutor

Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office

209 South Broad St.

PO Box 8068

Trenton, NJ 08650

609-989-6360

NOT FOR DISCOVERY NOT FOR DISCOVERY NOT FOR DISCOVERY

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail transmission may contain confidential or legally privileged information that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the e-mail address. Access by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please reply to the sender so that we can arrange for proper delivery. Please delete the message from your inbox.

Thank you, Prosecutor Joseph L. Bocchini, Jr.

This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com
—

Law Offices of John F. Rooney V
2401 Pennsylvania Avenue – Suite 1C-41
Philadelphia Pa, 19130

Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone.
In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.

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.

DOCUMENT: 2013-08-16 – FM-97-11K – Default Orders

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

DOCUMENT: 2013-08-18 Bail Recognizance Receipt

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:

DOCUMENT: Illegal Court Order Appointing a lawyer for me without my consent, and without a hearing

Reversal of the above referenced order(after I reported Judge Fitzpatrick to appropriate authorities) – SEE BELOW:

DOCUMENT: COURT ORDER REMOVES ILLEGALLY APPOINTED LAWYER – BUT INCLUDES ILLEGAL ORDER FOR A DEFAULT IN MY DIVORCE – THIS ORDER WAS LATER TREATED AS VOID / VACATED

———————————————–

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)

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:

2013-11-22 – ORDER – CASE 13-2502 – Jacobson – Jimenez Recusal2014-01-17 ORDER TRANSFER CIVIL DOCKETS

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:

DOCUMENT: TRANSCRIPT OF STATE V. SYPHRETT – THE ILLEGAL FIRST APPEARANCE (8/19/2013) – MY RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED, NO MIRANDA, NO PROSECUTOR, NO REASONS FOR HIGH BAIL

DOCUMENT: ILLEGAL & FRAUDULENT COURT ORDER – 8/20/2013

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:

2011-05-16 – Jennifer Millner Caught Distributing My Money – violates court order

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

Standard

MY 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 1^st 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

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

BUT THAT IS JUST THE BORING STUFF FOR STARTERS,

THE UNIQUE STUFF INCLUDES:

POLICE MISCONDUCT

VS.

“THE LAW”

MR. SYPHRETT SENT THIS LETTER TO REMIND THE FOOLS IN BLACK THAT THE POWERS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PROSECUTION IN NEW JERSEY ARE NOT RESERVED TO THE STATE:

OTHER ALLEGED FELONY CRIMES OF:

ASSIGNMENT JUDGE RONALD E. BOOKBINDER

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

WHERE:

CITIZENS HAVE THE POWER OF ARREST AT ALL TIMES

CITIZENS CAN PROSECUTE CRIMES IN STATE COURT PURSUANT THE COURT RULES AND OPERATION OF “THE LAW”

AS SUCH CITIZENS ARE THE ONLY LEGAL PERSONS IN NEW JERSEY WHO CAN SERVE AS WITNESS-OF-FACT, ARRESTING PERSON, AND PROSECUTOR.

JUST A REMINDER TO ALL IN NEW JERSEY:

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

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

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

WITH EXHIBITS DETAILING SOME OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS HERE:

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)

PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES,

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

&

WRIT OF MANDAMUS, IN LIEU OF WRIT, LEGAL BRIEF

WRIT OF HAEBEAS CORPUS, FOR BENJAMIN AND VANESSA SYPHRETT

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

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

I DEMAND THE COURT 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):

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

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:

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

CONCLUSION:

YOU WILL OBEY THE SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY /PARTY,

MEANING: ME (in parte / in toto)

VERY TRULY:

Derek C. Syphrett, Esq.

Attorney-in-Fact

Citizen of New Jersey

Citizen of the United States of America

Permanently Disabled Person, pursuant the ADA

Witnesss-of-Fact

Real-Party-of-Interest

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

Naturalis Homo in Carne

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

The Putative Pro Se

SEE THE TRANSCRIPTS OF JUDGE PEDRO JIMENEZ