Examples of Civil Rights being ignored in New Jersey Courts

Standard

GAVEL DIVORCE We have been in touch with over 100 New Jersey Family Court litigants and reviewed filings and transcripts to discover the following examples of parents rights being violated in New Jersey.

Custody changes are being made without plenary hearings (ability to face ones accuser, examine evidence, and or cross examine witnesses)
Superior court judges (Judge Fitzpatrick, Judge Thomas Critchley) are making rulings on cases while the cases are under appeal. Notably when a case is appealed the trial judge loses jurisdiction to decide any issues that are subject of appeal, be it custody, property, or divorce issues that are being appealed.
1. Judge Fitzpatrick did this in Styrm v. Styrm
2. Judge Crichley recently did this in Ippolito v. Ippolito
Custody is being changed for bizarre reasons see previous articles regarding Wallace v. Syphrett (Judge Fitzpatrick), where custody was changed because the father took his son to a doctor, and the doctor and a nurse agreed that the visit was validated.
People are being threatened with incarceration for not paying support. See Ippolito v. Ippolito (morris / Sussex County) where Mr Ippolito was ordered to pay $55,000 per month in support and then denied the right to pay the support out of his retirement earnings. Mr. Ippolito was then ordered to come up with about $200,000 ab0ut 30 days even though he didn’t have it and he was retired. He is effectively being ordered back to work even though he was retired at the time his divorce started.
Judge Marlene Ford has threatened to incarcerate Zia Shaihk for not paying support after he had paid support fees and legal fees of over $200,000 in a calendar year. He is impoverished now, and the judge then ordered his professional and drivers licenses suspended after she had ordered him incarcerated and he was released (without being able to pay the ordered support). Undoubtedly the new order will result in Mr Shaihk’s earnings decreasing and his ability to pay support in the future being decreased. These sort of orders disregard Mr. Shaihk’s actual ability to pay. In fact the entire support order is based on a theoretical income rather than Mr. Shaihk’s actual income. Undoubtedly he will be labeled a deadbeat dad, despite the fact that he does not have the money to pay what the court has ordered.
1. Previously in Mr. Shaihk’s case he was removed from his home and restrained from seeing his children without ever being present for the hearing about civil restraints. Notably his wife’s domestic violence claims were unsubstantiated and dismissed… afterwords the Judge took a short cut

We could go on for pages with examples of the stories and files we’ve reviewed, but the above should be sufficient to create public concern that parents are losing property, children, and liberties without the appearance of fair trials in New Jersey.

One would hope the court itself will start to take notice of these issues and figure out a way to ensure that Family Court actually resolves issues in a legally palatable manner. If the court fails to fix these sort of issues then not only will the people of New Jersey suffer, but the court as an institution will diminish its own integrity.

Among the parents we’ve spoken with there is real tangible fear and loathing with regard to the New Jersey Courts. We are nearing a point where parents have very good reason to fear that their rights will be violated with impunity in New Jersey Courts.

THE FAMILY COURT REVOLUTION WILL BE ADVERTISED !!!

Standard

PARENTS IN NEW JERSEY UNITE

FOR A COMMON CAUSE:

FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE

A group of courageous fathers and mothers (unified parents) in New Jersey has begun an organized effort to fight for civil rights in family court.

In September the Group is sponsoring Classified ads on NJ.Com in addition to its PURCHASE OF A BILLBOARD IN TRENTON NEW JERSEY which will be erected in the second week of September and followed by an event open to local journalist.

The group’s name is is Family Civil Rights Union or FCLU (http://www.FCLU.org)

The group is actively seeking more members and donations to the cause.

DONATE TO THE FCLU VIA THIS LINK:

http://www.gofundme.com/vjsu6x4

CONTACT THE FCLU AT THIS PHONE NUMBER:

856-441-FCLU

EMAIL THE FCLU AT:

FCLUFIGHTS@GMAIL.COM

COURT CLERK INSIDER REVEALS CORRUPTION IN NJ CIVIL COURTS

Standard

READ FULL ARTICLE FROM NJ.COM HERE:

Clerk says fix was in on judge’s cases; judge calls allegations ‘baseless’ | NJ.com.

ALSO READ FEDERAL COMPLAINT REGARDING COURT CORRUPTION IN MORRIS COUNTY HERE:

Dearie-v-Gannon FEDERAL COMPLAINT- A 42 PAGE COMPLAINT THAT IS TERRIBLY DISTRESSING AND CONCERNING TO READ IN FULL… ITS A PAGE TURNER!!!

We have often wondered why New Jersey Court insiders so rarely blow the whistle, on the corruption within the courts.

The experience of Morris County Clerk John Dearie appears to answer that question.

It appears that court officers and judges will immediately abuse their offices and retaliate against lawful persons with just consciences and immediately victimize the party attempting to uphold the rule of law within the court house.

IN THE LINKED ARTICLE: (ABOVE) we learn that there was a clerk in Morris County who witnessed a Judge (Gannon) who repeatedly violated the rights of litigants by ruling on motions without reviewing the papers, signed orders prior to oral arguments (ruling on the matter before it was heard) and as if that wasn’t enough the Judge apparently (based on Mr. Dearie’s recent federal court complaint) admitted to profiteering from his post and enriching his own political allies. Further it appears – based on the complaint filed in Federal Court (as if this isn’t bad enough) Judge Gannon sexually harrassed law clerks and made inappropriate / sexually motivated advances toward parties litigating in his court.

The law clerk’s complaint details in excruciating detail how the ACJC and the supervising Judges failed to address manifest and massive injustice in Morris County’s civil courts.

While we would like to speak and report on this story after getting additional information from the whistle blowing law clerk that currently appears to be impossible…..

because

shortly after filing his complaint THE LAW CLERK WAS SENT TO A MENTAL HOSPITAL AGAINST HIS WILL, PRESUMABLY AS A RESULT OF A COURT ORDER DESIGNED TO SMEAR THE LAW CLERKS NAME AND IMPEDE HIS ABILITY TO CONTINUE WITH HIS LAWSUIT.

SEE THE OUTRAGEOUS JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGED BY THE LAW CLERK HERE:

THIS IS A COMMON TACTIC IN FAMILY COURT AND CIVIL COURTS… the courts will smear the mental competence of an innocent litigant or party in order to discredit their justifiable outrage.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND LINKS:

In fact as readers of this news website know this exact circumstance occurred in Mr. Derek Syphrett’s legal affairs, where he was declared incompetent / assigned counsel against his will without a hearing or evidence being admitted into the court case of FM-11-97-000011K… Judge Fitzpatrick actually declared Mr. Syphrett legally incompetent after Mr. Syphrett won his prior motion which was written pro se by Mr. Syphrett, then acting as Attorney in Fact for the matter… a few months later the court appointed counsel filed emergent motions to be released only after Mr. Syphrett advised them that he intended to sue their law firms for taking the case unlawfully as part of a civil conspiracy against Mr. Syphrett’s constitutionally protected rights to control the legal strategy of his case and his right to a hearing before being assigned counsel.

DEARIE INDICATED THAT THE ACJC AND ASSIGNMENT JUDGE IN MORRIS COUNTY WORKED TO COVER UP THE JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS RATHER THAN ADDRESSING WHAT ARE SERIOUS CONCERNS OF CORRUPTION WITHIN THE NEW JERSEY COURTS… PAR FOR THE COURSE AS READERS OF THIS SITE ARE NO DOUBT FULLY AWARE.tle

READ MORE ABOUT THIS STORY HERE:

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/02/law-clerk-files-totally-unhinged-lawsuit-against-his-own-judge/

NJCOURTCORRUPTION HAS REACHED OUT TO JOHN DEARIE AND REQUESTED A RESPONSE FROM JUDGE GANNON AS WELL (AFTERHOURS)… WE WILL UPDATE THIS ARTICLE IF ANY RESPONSES ARE RECEIVED FROM THE PARTIES OR THEIR COUNSEL.

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 Racketeering: State of New Jersey Judicary

Standard

AFTER AWAKENING FROM

BENIGN ACCEPTANCE OF CORRUPTION

IN NJ:

I REPORTED THE FOLLOWING CRIMES

TO THE FBI

SEE THE LETTER COMPLAINTS HERE:

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

2014-10-22 Fax FBI False Claims Act

WHEN A MAN IS STRIPPED OF HIS RIGHTS& CHOICE

…HE WILL MAKE THE ONLY CHOICE AVAILABLE

…HE WILL FIGHT

Many of Mr. Syphrett frends, family, non-prPED ofit contacts, former lawyers, and local law enforcement have asked him , what what he is hoping to accomplish, by advocating for his rights:

He was visibly ashamed and timid in his answer to us:

“I am ashamed to say it, but I am still optimistically (without good cause) hoping for justice and the right to my pursuit of happiness, liberty, and freedom…. with my beloved Children.”

“… HONESTLY, I DON’T THINK I HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICE. MY FATHER TAUGHT ME TO BELIEVE THAT THE EASIEST DECISIONS A MAN CAN MAKE, ARE THE ONES WHEN HE IS GIVEN NO CHOICE, AT ALL”

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

Standard

(Writers Note: We reached out to Dr. Vivian Chern Shnaidman for any opposing commentary, but we were not able to get a reply from her office at the time of this publication. If we receive one we will publish it)

* BREAKING NEWS *

UPDATE

We received a Response from Dr. Shnaidman to our inquiries, via her direct response to Derek Syphrett via Facebook.

It appears that she does not deny any of the facts reported to us.

Dr. Shnaidman’s Full Response is included below:

FULL STORY, EXCLUDING BREAKING NEWS PUBLISHED ABOVE:

THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE GONE THROUGH A DIVORCE LIKELY REALIZE THAT COURT APPOINTED EXPERTS, ARE SHAMS.

CASE AND POINT:

1) Experts often participate in ex-parte communications with the “court” and the Judge at local Bench Bar Associations (conflict of interests)

2) Experts often rely upon hearsay information without interviewing the real-parties of interests (police, children, DYFS, etc), yet make clinical decisions without clinical observations of facts (this is not scientific and is forbidden by N.J.R.E. 703 and / or F.R.E. 703 – rules of evidence NJ/ Federal

3) Expert witnesses are granted immunity from civil suits or criminal charges related to any fraud they may commit as an expert witness, so they have no reason to tell the truth other than preference, and moral character.

4) Experts often have no actual expertise in parenting-time evaluations (like Dr. Vivian Shnaidman featured below):

DON’T TAKE OUR WORD FOR IT

SEE THE FACTS HERE:

Please see the IMPORTANT REVELATIONS IN OTHER CASES INVOLVING DR. SHNAIDMAN AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING YOUR EXPOSURE TO THIS “DOCTOR”: SEE THE FOLLOWING STATE RECORDS AND MEDIA STORIES:

Shnaidman v. State of New Jersey : Dr. Shnaidman was referred to as “Bi-Polar”, “Borderline”, and a “Bitch” by her colleagues at Ann Klein before her employment was terminated, yet she is retained by New Jersey Courts as an expert in parenting time matters, when she actually has no expertise in this area. CITATION: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court…/1629298.html

Note: Dr. Vivian Shnaidman’s opinion was also thrown out by the appellate court as being RIDICULOUS – SEE CITATIONS HERE:

DR. SHNAIDMAN RECOMMENDS TERMINATING PARENTAL RIGHTS BECAUSE WOMAN WANTED A C-SECTION BIRTH:
LINK: http://theunnecesarean.com/…/refusal-of-unnecesarean…

* OH IT GETS WORSE **

CHECK THIS OUT:

SO IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND THE PUBLIC TRUST PLEASE SEE THE DISCOVERIES LISTED BELOW REGARDING Derek Syphrett’s EXPERIENCE WITH A COURT APPOINTED EXPERT WHO, SUBMITTED A ALLEGEDLY FRAUDULENT EXPERT REPORT:

DR. VIVIAN CHERN SHNAIDMAN (LINK):

ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE COURT …. SHE IS AN EXPERT IN MALPRACTICE IT TURNS OUT: SHE WITH-HELD THIS INFORMATION AT TRIAL:

Recordings of Vivian Shnaidman during 14 minute interview, where she did no fact finding about parenting time, but later ruled me to be legally incompetent (without any expertise to do so), and ruled me to be unfit to parent (without discussing my parenting time). HER OPINION WAS NOT BASED ON ANY ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC PRACTICE, AND WAS IN PART SUPPORTED BY HEARSAY FROM PEOPLE SHE NEVER INTERVIEWED (MY LYING WIFE).

EXPERT REPORT STATING THAT DEREK SYPHRETT HALUCINATED DURING A SESSION:

HERE IS WHAT IS ODD ABOUT THIS REPORT:

1) Dr. Shnaidman signed / certified that the subject of the Evaluaton was “Robin Bloom” (We can assume the diagnoses was Robin Blooms, and “Derek Syphrett’s name was added to the narrative of an old evaluation post-hoc)

2) Dr. Shnaidman: states that Mr. Syphrett Hallucinated during the session BUT SHE DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE HALLUCINATION, OR HOW LONG IT LASTED, OR WHAT IT WAS ABOUT, LIKE ANY OTHER REAL DOCTOR WOULD HAVE DONE… SHE THEN LET’S MR. SYPHRETT DRIVE HOME, PURPORTEDLY AFTER OBSERVING THE FACT THAT HE WAS HALLUCINATING… IF THIS IS TRUE THEN IT WOULD BE NEGLIGENT AND A VIOLATION OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.

3) Dr. Shnaidman: Determines that Mr. Syphrett is not fit to represent himself in his legal case, despite not being an expert in the law, AND REMARKABLY: she makes this assertion without reviewing the case files and the recent motions that Mr. Syphrett won the last time he was in court for docket: FM-11-97-11k
Wallace v. Syphrett”!

4) Dr. Shnaidman: Admitted at trial in 2014 – almost a year after the evaluation in 2013, (and after the case was transferred from Judge Catherine Fitzpatrick, for good cause shown, to Burlington and redocketed as FM-03-0790-14) THAT:

SHE NEVER DISCUSSED MR. SYPHRETT’S PARENTING TIME DURING THE EVALUATION AT ALL, BUT:

SHE DETERMINED HE WAS AN UNFIT PARENT WITHOUT REVIEWING HIS SUPERVISED PARENTING TIME, RECORDS THAT WERE UNIVERSALLY POSITIVE ABOUT HIS PARENTING SKILLS!

5) She appeared in court with a fraudulent expert report, that had not been given to the attorneys in the matter, she edited the certification to say the evaluation was for “Derek Syphrett”, when the report submitted to the court stated the evaluation was for “Robin Bloom”.

6) At trial she stated she had no expertise in making parenting time decisions other than:

Talking to parents when she was working in a hospital as a doctor

A DFYS training she did about 10 years earlier, which she had no recollection of the material information or benefits of said training. She in fact said “it wasn’t that helpful”!

EXPERT REPORT FROM WALLACE V. SYPHRETT:

READ IT AND WEEP FOR THE CHILDREN BECAUSE

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

2013-05-17 – PSYCH EVAL – SHNAIDMAN

THE COURT ORDER THAT VIOLATED NEW JERSEY LAW BY:

APPOINTING A COURT APPOINTED LAWYER SUA SPONTE, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE PUT BEFORE THE COURT & WITHOUT ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR A CROSS EXAMINATION:

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

THIS IS A CLEAR AND CONVINCING VIOLATION OF MR. SYPHRETT’S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

A FEDERAL CASE WHICH WILL BE MADE!

A DEFENSE AGAINST COURT CORRUPTION

WORTHY OF RESEARCH:

WE WOULD STOP CONSENTING TO GO TO THESE EXPERT EVALUATIONS AND PRODUCING DISCOVERY THAT DOESN’T EXIST, BY WAIVING YOUR PRIVACY RIGHTS:

SEE: U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS BINDING ON ALL FIFTY STATES

GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT

BODDIE V. CONNECTICUT

AT A MINIMAL THESE CASES MAY SUGGEST (IN OUR NON-EXPERT, NON LAWYER CAPACITY, FOR THE PURPOSES OF RESEARCH ONLY): THAT:

1) You Actually Have A Right To Privacy With Regard To Your Family Affairs And Your Thoughts About It, Or Your Relationship With Your Family

2) You Have No Burden Of Proof With Regard To Your Fitness To Parent, The Burden Of Proof Is The Adverse Parties… We Would Tell Them To Present You Evidence That Exists And That We Can Not Produce Adverse Evidence That Does Not Currently Exist (AN Evaluation Of Our Parenting Skills)!

3) If The Court Were To Threaten Our Parental Rights Without Clear And Convincing Evidence, We Would Appeal And Likely Win – See:

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

The U.S. Supreme Court declared the ‘best interest of the child’ resides in the fit parent – not in the state:

“To deny a parental right requires constitutional due process that proves he’s either unfit or a clear danger to his children – proven with ‘clear and convincing’ evidence.”

SANTOSKY V. KRAMER, 455,745 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court and its findings that:

“emphasized: to restrict a fundamental right of a p“Our constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that a child is a “the mere creature of the State” and, on the contrary, asserted that parents generally have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare [their children] for additional obligations.”

LEGAL DISCLAIMER FOR ALL LEGAL REFERENCES CONTAINED HEREIN:

Do not rely on anything contained on this site as legal advise it is:

expressly not legal advise, nor are we lawyers

FURTHER TAKE NOTE:

We’ve consulted with a man that the state of New Jersey has deemed to be legally incompetent after

1) he prevailed in court on several occasions (Derek Syphrett)…

2) And then the state declared him competent….

So clearly we are just a bunch of confused citizens….We’re not lawyers or judges!

WE ARE JUST: confused journalists: writing for a free internet publication, reciting the facts there-of!

IN NEW JERSEY COURTS

THE TRUTH IS STRANGER THAN FICTION!

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 …

CITIZENS ARE THE MOST POWERFUL “LEGAL PERSON” IN COURT

Standard

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

NOTICE:

THE FIRST 1-2 ARTICLES ON THIS SITE ARE

PERMANENT STICKY POSTS SCROLL DOWN OR VISIT ARCHIVES

TO VIEW NEW ARTICLES

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

A DIFFERENT THEORY ON:

HOW TO DECLARE CITIZEN’S SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY

AS A CONSTITUTIONAL CREATION: A CITIZEN

Some of our readers have asked us about “Sovereign Citizen Movements” and they have asked what our opinon is (as if it matters in court).

THE BAD NEWS FOR SO CALLED SOVEREIGN CITIZENS:

Without taking a stand one way or the other on the legal theories offered by sovereign citizen movements such as Posse Comitatus etc. Our position is simple. “Sovereign Citizens” rarely win in court and the complex legal arguments are rarely helpful to anyones cause (whether they are right or wrong).

THE GOOD NEWS:

We don’t believe that anyone needs to give up their drivers license or pitch a conspiracy theory to a Judge to claim Sovereignty. We believe that CITIZENS ARE INHERENTLY “THE SOVEREIGN” with or without their Drivers License or Social Security Card.

The Sovereignty of citizen / the people is recognized by the Constitution of the United States of America, visa vi the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which states (in toto):

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”

(Clearly the Constitution recognized both the sovereignty of the state and the people by expressly establishing that both have inherent power / authority independent of the Federal Sovereign, and independently from each other!)

THE MOST POWERFUL LEGAL PERSON IN COURT:

A pro se / Self Represented Litigant Appears as at least 5 “legal persons”:

1. A citizen (A Constitutional Creation) who claims ownership of the authority of; The Court, The Executive Branch, The Legislatrure (as the primary sovereign Authority in America)

2. As Attorney-in-Fact (A Legal Person) with Litigation Privileges Equal to an Attorney at Law)

3. A Witness-of-Fact (A Legal Person) with the authority to speak to the facts of the matter thereof, and put them before the court (Neither Lawyer or Judge may do this)

4. A Real-Party-of-Interest (A Legal Person) with rights to advocate for their individual legal interests in the matter before the court, without being either representing the Defendant or Plaintiff in the matter before the court.

5. A Natural Man in the Flesh (A Sovereign Creation) empowered with INALIENABLE RIGHTS that pre-date the Magna Carta (With the Power to reform Government and arrest any criminal)

CONVERSELY

JUDGES & ATTORNEYS LACK SIMILAR AUTHORITY & RIGHTS:

A Judge appears: ONLY AS as the highest ranking an officer of the Court at trial & Neutral Fact Finder.
- A Judge enters the court in this single capacity (not as citizen, or sovereign, but only as agent to the sovereign)
- A Judge: CAN NOT ACT AS WITNESS TO THE FACTS OF THE MATTER BEFORE THE COURT, (except with regard to facts of the matter that occurred during the court proceedings) (Citation: N.J.R.E. 605, F.R.E. 605)
- A Judge Can Not Over-rule a Citizen Jury at trial.
- A Judge Can Demand a Verdict From a Jury BUT A JURY CAN NULLIFY A CASE AND REFUSE TO PROVIDE A VERDICT!, because they are sovereign citizens… IN FACT THE JURY IS THE “4TH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT”, per U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia

(Citation Williams v. United States, 1996)

An Attorney-at-law appears: ONLY as an officer of the Court at trial on behalf of a client.
- An Attorney HAS NO RIGHTS, JUST PRIVILEGES, which can be taken at away at the whim of the court or B.A.R. Association
- An Attorney can only advocate for their privileged title / position (if taken away) by invoking their rights as a citizen – but not while acting as a retained lawyer.

…AS SUCH:

NO PARTY IN COURT HAS MORE AUTHORITY & RIGHTS THAN

A PRO SE CITIZEN

HERE IS OUR THEORY ON CITIZEN SOVEREIGNTY

&

THE FACT THAT CITIZENS ARE MORE POWERFUL THAN JUDGES

YOUR HONOR – TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THIS THESE FACTS:

The American Form of Government (and our legal system’s) primary difference with the British Common law is that we rejected the concept of divine sovereignty of royals, and instead recognized the sovereignty of natural men and their rights to self-govern with sovereign power.

AS SUCH:

WE hereby assert that WE (THE CITIZENS) have the sovereign authority to now hold you (JUDGES) accountable for these transgressions in open court today.

WE make this assertion with out making any claim to the disputed or conspiratorial theories espoused by so-called “Sovereign Citizens”.

Importantly WE take no stance on any of the purported theories of such Sovereign Citizens, nor do WE attempt to claim any allegiance to any groups that advocate for such theories (e.g. Posse Comitatus, or their ilk)

Unlike the Posse Comitatus and their ilk:

I / WE make claim to my citizenship & sovereignty BY ASSERTING MY CITIZENSHIP RATHER THAN DISAVOWING IT AS SO-CALLED “SOVEREIGN CITIZENS” PURPORT TO DO.

I / WE do not believe that consenting to hold a drivers license or Social Security Card interferes with OUR sovereign authority as a citizen.

… INSTEAD WE MAKE THE FOLLOWING CLAIM:

I / WE MAKE OUR CLAIM TO SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY BECAUSE I / WE ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL CREATION.

I / WE ARE CITIZEN(S) OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND I / WE ARE A CITIZEN OF NEW JERSEY.

AS SUCH:

I / WE ARE MEMBERS OF THE MOST POWERFUL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, AS CITIZENS.

AS SUCH:

I / WE HAVE AN OWNERSHIP STAKE IN ALL FOUR BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT

(Executive, Legislative, Judicial, and Jury (Grand Jury & Petite Jury) )

To this point I /WE demand you take judicial notice of the following widely known facts:

1) The system of Self-Government embodied by the Federal and State Constitutions recognize the power of citizens to form or reform the government however we so choose, because the power of the sovereign is recognized to originate from the citizen class.

2) Citizens are the alpha-omega of sovereignty in the American Legal System:

The Government is simply a result of our sovereignty, as such it is indisputably the “BETA” to the citizens “ALPHA” position within the legal construct of Government.

Citations: Declaration of Indpendence 1976 (in toto / in whole), Constitution of the United States of America, original Jurisdiction 1787 (in toto), State Constitution of New Jersey 1947 (in toto)

3) Citizens own and control the FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT (THE GRAND JURY). This was confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in the majority Opinion written by Justice Scalia in United States v. Williams (90-1972), 504 U.S. 36 (1992).

Citation: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1972.ZS.html

4) The American Form of Government (and our legal system’s) primary difference with the British Common law is that we rejected the concept of divine sovereignty of royals, and instead recognized the sovereignty of natural men and their rights to self-govern with sovereign power.

5) Citizens are among the only Constitutional persons who can completely disregard the doctrine of separation of powers between each of the branches of government, because we own all four branches.

Citizens own the authority’s granted to the Governor

Citizens own the authority granted to the legislature

Citizens own the authority granted to the court

Citizens are the authority of the Jury (Both Grand and Petite)

Citizens of New Jersey are the only persons constitutionally empowered to both arrest and prosecute the a criminal matter, which the same (person/)citizen witnessed

Citizens are the only constitutional creation who can conspire to reform all four branches of government by the sheer power of their will.

While the individual branches of Government lack the sole authority to control AND fund a well armed Militia… We the citizens can fund and control a Well Armed Militia, in fact in some rare cases – WE ARE the Well Armed Militia.

WHAT WE DO WHEN A JUDGE ACTS UNLAWFULLY TOWARD

“THE SOVEREIGN”

WE DECLARE A MISTRIAL

&

WE DECLARE OUR SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY TO DO SO

======================================================
YOUR HONOR, GIVEN THE ABOVE:

…. A FEW OF US CITIZENS THREW SOME TEA IN THE OCEAN AND….
======================================================

YOUR HONOR, YOU HAVE INSULTED, DEMEANED, AND DIMINISHED THE INTEGRITY OF THIS COURT.

AS YOUR SOVEREIGN I WILL NOT TOLERATE IT A SECOND LONGER.

LIKE A CHILD WHO DISOBEYS THEIR PARENT YOU HAVE DISAPPOINTED ME AND WILL NOW BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO YOUR PARENT.

YOUR HONOR, YOUR BIGGEST MISTAKE WITH REGARD TO MY LEGAL AFFAIRS AND YOUR BIGGEST SIN HAS BEEN YOUR ARROGANCE.

TODAY I WILL ASSURE YOU I WILL REMOVE THAT CONCERN FROM THIS COURT FOREVER.

AS YOUR SOVEREIGN I DEMAND YOU STEP DOWN FROM THE BENCH WITH REGARD TO THIS MATTER.

YOU ARE NOT CLOAKED IN ANY JUDICIAL IMMUNITY GIVEN THE TRANSGRESSIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE (YOUR COURT ORDERS), YOU ARE NO LONGER NEUTRAL, AND YOU ARE NO LONGER THE JUDGE OF THE FACTS THEREOF IN THIS MATTER…

BEGONE I SAY…

BEGONE NOW OR:

I WILL PLACE YOU UNDER ARREST.

I WILL DEMAND YOUR TREASON BE FULLY PROSECUTED BY THE STATE, AND

BE ASSURED THAT ANY MISDEMEANOR CRIMES MAY BE PROSECUTED BY MYSELF AS A PRIVATE PROSECUTOR PURSUANT THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION AND:

MY COMMON LAW RIGHT TO HAVE YOU CRIMINALLY SANCTIONED AT TRIAL!

I remind the court that I hold more powers and privileges than

any other legal person in the court today.

Citizens appear in court as:

5 DISTINCT LEGAL “PERSONS” SIMULTANEOUSLY!

1) I am a “Citizen” of New Jersey (“a legal person”) empowered with the right to:

a) Arrest criminals who commit crimes in my presence (even a Judge can not do this while on the bench)

b) Prosecute crimes privately per the New Jersey Constitution of 1947 (even a Judge while on the bench)

c) I have the right to conspire to reform any of the three representative branches of Government without regard to the Separation of Powers Doctrine

2) I am an pro se “Attorney-in-Fact” (a “Legal Person”) for the cause before the court with the right to

a) File my pleadings without adhering to the court rules (neither a judge or a member of the bar can do this)

b) Access the court in whatever legal manner I desire to with regard to resolving my legal matters

3) I am a “Witness-of-Fact” (a “Legal Person”)

a) I have the power to testify to facts-of-the-matter-thereof, unlike an attorney or Judge

b) A judge can not do this according to N.J.R.E. 605 / F.R.E. 605 because: “a judge may not serve as witness and judge in the same matter”.

c) A lawyer can not testify to facts of the matter if those facts are also within the Knowledge of their client… only a pro se, citizen can testify in this manner.

4)I am a “Real Party” (a “Legal Person”) with rights greater than a witness-of-fact or citizen

1) A Real Party of Interest is a party with a stake or claim to the underlying legal proceedings

2) A Real Party of Interest has the right to be notified of court proceedings affecting their interests and they have the right due-process.

3) All court orders which result without providing opportunity for a real party of interest to be heard are voidable, even if they were issued years ago.

5) I am a “Natural Man” (a “Sovereign Creation”)

a) I have INALIENABLE RIGHTS which pre-date the Declaration of Indpendence, the Magna Carta, and the corpus of common-law.

b) American Jurisprudence and law is founded on the idea that every man has inalienable rights such as freedom and pursuit of liberty

CONCLUSION:

WE BELIEVE THAT WHEN WE FILE WITH THE COURT WE SIMPLY NEED TO INVOKE THE RIGHTS OF ALL 5 LEGAL PERSONS WITHIN THE MOTION PAPERS TO ASSERT THE RIGHTS DESCRIBED ABOVE.

IN OTHERWORDS:

Expressly include in our motions:

Plaintiff/Defendant

appearing as the following legal persons:

pro se, attorney-in-fact;

Citizen of New Jersey & United States of America;

witness-in-fact;

real party of interest; and

Natural Man

(herewith invoking legal all rights and privileges applicable to the aforementioned legal persons)

ITS A CUMBERSOME SOLUTION BUT, ITS A RESULT OF HAVING MORE LEGAL TITLES THAN ANY OTHER PARTY IN COURT.

OUR MOTIONS WOULD THEN INCLUDE:

A SHORT LEGAL ARGUMENT

SUPPORTING OUR AUTHORITY AS THE AFOREMENTIONED LEGAL

PERSONS AND OUR SOVEREIGNTY PURSUANT THE 10TH AMENDMENT.

ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY – NOT ABSOLUTE IN NEW JERSEY ANYMORE!

Standard

THE BIG NEWS

3 FEDERAL COURT JUDGES PLAY ROLE OF THE HEROES!!!

Today the New Jersey Law Journal has published a short article describing the amazing decision of the Third Circuit Judges Today.

BE ADVISED THIS IS HUGE NEWS, BECAUSE LAWSUITS AGAINST JUDGES IN FEDERAL COURTS HAVE BEEN DEAD ENDS FOR DECADES

THEY ARE ROUTINELY DISMISSED

YET TODAY WE NOW HAVE A “NEW DEAL” IN NEW JERSEY DUE TO THIS CASE

HERO JUDGES OF THE YEAR:

The Third Circuit panel of:

The Very Honorable Judge Michael Chagares,
The Very Honorable Judge Joseph Greenaway Jr.,
The Very Honorable JudgeThomas Vanaskie

THESE FINE DISTINGUISHED JUDGES STATED THE FOLLOWING

IN THEIR 16 PAGE UNANIMOUS OPINION:

(edits included for style and emphasis (bold, line breaks, etc)

“we must decide whether the Complaint set forth allegations that, taken as true, establish that the application of an exception to the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity is “above thespeculative level [].

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see also McTernan v. City of York, 577 F.3d 521, 526 (3d Cir. 2009) (We have stated that, indeciding a motion to dismiss, all well pleaded allegations of the complaint must be taken as true and interpreted in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, and all inferences must be drawn in favor of them.”) (internal quotation marks and alter ations omitted).

For the reasons set forth below,[:]

we agree with the District Court’s determination that[:]

Judge DiLeo is NOT entitled to absolute judicial immunity.

The well – established doctrine of absolute judicial immunity shields a judicial officer, who is performing his duties, from lawsuit and judgments for monetary damages. Mireles v. Waco , 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); Gallas , 211 F.3d at 7 68. This doctrine derives from the belief that a judge should be able to act freely upon his or her convictions without threat of suit for damages. See Stump v. Sparkman , 435 U.S. 349 , 355 (1978) ( stating that a “judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, [should] be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of p ersonal consequences to himself ”) . That said, it is an equally familiar principle that judicial immunity is not absolute. See Mireles , 502 U.S. at 11; Gallas , 211 F.3d at 768. Indeed, there are two exceptions: “First, a judge is not immune from liability for nonjudicial actions, i.e. , actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity. Second, a judge is not immune for 8 actions, though judicial in nat ure, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Mireles , 502 U.S. at 11 – 12 (internal citations omitted). If the Complaint contains allegations sufficient to establish that either exception applies, Judge DiLeo ’s motion to dismiss on grounds of a bsolute judicial immunity must be denied. See i d . ; s ee also Stump , 435 U.S. at 355 – 69 ; Gallas , 211 F.3d at 768 – 73 .”

THE NEW JERSEY LAW JOURNAL WROTE IN PART:

Remarkably these judges: “rejected DiLeo’s defenses based on absolute judicial immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity, and also upheld counts against Linden based on direct liability and conspiracy.”

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU GET THE 16 PAGE DECISIONS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT BECAUSE THEY ARE DAMNING TO JUDGES WHO BREAK THE LAW.

SEE THIRD CIRCUIT OPINION HERE:

KIRKLAND v. DILEO THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS 2014

Today the Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals PIERCED JUDICIAL IMMUNITY.

THIS DECISION MAY HELP SET A LEGAL PRECEDENT IN NEW JERSEY & PA

(OFFICIALLY HOWEVER THE DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL…)

FOR OVER 100 YEARS AMERICAN JUDGES HAVE PLACED THEMSELVES

ABOVE THE LAW.

ACCORDING TO THE JUDGES THEMSELVES: Judges have decided that they can not be sued for their actions as judges, in fact they have decided they can not be criminally prosecuted for committing crimes while acting as judges.

While Congress nor any state legislature has ever passed a law providing immunity for Judges, the judges within the United States have granted immunity to themselves. Often despite local and state statutes which EXPRESSLY recognize OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT as a crime that any public office holder can be convicted of.

Judges have often reinterpreted the law to exclude themselves and their peer group from any criminal or civil liability, as such Supreme Court precedents and follow-on lower court rulings have built up a massive library of precedential rulings that support JUDICIAL IMMUNITY. Cases such as:

Bradly v. Fischer (1873)- Is Recognized by Scholars as the first case granting judicial immunity in
Stump v. Sparkman (1978)- Judge was immune after unlawfully ordering a womans reproductive organs removed
Pierson v. Ray (1967) – Immunity is available only when a judge has jurisdiction over the subject-matter

NOTABLE HISTORY AND CONTROVERSY OF

“JUDICIAL IMMUNITY”

Stump v. Sparkman was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court and became the law of the land. It is often cited as grounds for absolving a Judge of any criminal or civil liability under the “doctrine” of “Judicial Immunity”.

Notably:

Stump v. Sparkman was a contraversal decision – even for the Supreme Court. Two Justices entered dissenting opinions and called the decision of the Supreme Court’s Majority “Beyond the Pale”:

Justice Stewart’s dissent

(In Stump v. Sparkman)

Associate Justice Potter Stewart entered a vigorous dissent. Agreeing that judges of general jurisdiction enjoy absolute immunity for their judicial acts, he wrote, “…what Judge Stump did…was beyond the pale of anything that could sensibly be called a judicial act.”^[11] Stating that it was “factually untrue”^[11] that what Judge Stump did was an act “normally performed by a judge,” he wrote. “…there is no reason to believe that such an act has ever been performed by any other Indiana judge, either before or since.”^[12]

Justice Stewart also denounced it as “legally unsound” to rule that Judge Stump had acted in a “judicial capacity”.^[12] “A judge is not free, like a loose cannon,” he wrote, “to inflict indiscriminate damage whenever he announces that he is acting in his judicial capacity.”^[12]

Concluding, Justice Stewart argued that the majority misapplied the law of the Pierson case:

Not one of the considerations…summarized in the Pierson opinion was present here. There was no “case,” controversial or otherwise. There were no litigants. There was and could be no appeal. And there was not even the pretext of principled decisionmaking. The total absence of any of these normal attributes of a judicial proceeding convinces me that the conduct complained of in this case was not a judicial act.^[13]

Justice Powell’s dissent

(In Stump v. Sparkman)

Joining in Justice Stewart’s opinion, Justice Lewis Powell filed a separate dissent that emphasized what he called “…the central feature of this case – Judge Stump’s preclusion of any possibility for the vindication of respondents’ rights elsewhere in the judicial system.”^[14] Continuing, he wrote:

Underlying the Bradley immunity…is the notion that private rights can be sacrificied in some degree to the achievement of the greater public good deriving from a completely independent judiciary, because there exist alternative forums and methods for vindicating those rights.

But where a judicial officer acts in a manner that precludes all resort to appellate or other judicial remedies that otherwise would be available, the underlying assumption of the Bradley doctrine is inoperative.^[15]

WORSE STILL:

PEIRSON V. RAY: GRANTED IMMUNITY TO ANY JUDGE WITH SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.

TRANSLATION INTO ENGLISH:

ALMOST ALL STATE JUDGES IN SUPERIOR COURTS HAVE GENERAL JURISDICTION
THIS HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE COURTS TO MEAN THEY ALWAYS HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND ARE ALWAYS IMMUNE

….. BUT TODAY WE GOT SOME GOOD NEWS

IN THIS ABUSIVE AREA OF “THE LAW”…..

THE BACK STORY ON

TODAY’S FEDERAL COURT RULING (3rd Circuit):

Judge Dileo, a former Judge of Linden, NJ Municipal Court convicted two defendants of crimes at a trial in which the Prosecutor was not present. READ AN ARTICLE HERE FOR DETAILS:

The Judge acted as prosecutor and let a police officer cross-examine the defendants at the “trial”. This violated the constitutional rights of the accused according to the complaint filed by the Defendants in Federal Court.

Judge Dileo later resigned from office after this issue came to light.

The New Jersey A.C.J.C. (Judicial Conduct Watchdog) publicly sanctioned Judge Dileo AFTER HE RESIGNED. The Supreme Court of New Jersey barred him from acting as a Judge in New Jersey as a result

See the ACJC documents and the N.J. Supreme Court Order Describing the JUDGE DILEO’S OUTRAGEOUS ACTS HERE

READ IT AND THEN THINK

…WOW!!!

HERO JUDGE: JUSTICE ALBIN SUPPORTS: DV Defendant’s Right to Counsel

Standard

IF I WAS A POOR PRO-SE I WOULD FILE THIS LEGAL ARGUMENT PRE-TRIAL TO GET A LAWYER FOR FREE

HERE IS HOW I WOULD DO IT:

(Dislaimer This is not Legal Advice. I am not A lawyer.

This is simply what I would do in if I was poor and was facing a false DV Charge)

1) I would copy and paste Justie Albin’s Legal Argument and submit it to the trial court pre-trial to get a free lawyer if I was poor

2) I would do this as an immediate appeal and caption it with the “pleading” ” 1)REQUEST FOR COUNSEL FOR INDIGENT DEFENDANT”, “2) REQUEST TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL DETAILS TO SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE TO CONFIRM MY INDENGENCY

3) i WOULD THEN INCLUDE A SHORT SUMMARY OF MY INCOME AND BANK ACCOUNT BALANCES UNDER THE TITLE “STATEMENT OF FACTS”, I WOULD STATE THAT I AM THE DEFENDANT IN A DV CASE.

4) I WOULD THEN INSERT A TITLE “LEGAL ARGUMENT” AND COPY AND PASTE JUSTICE ALBINS DISSENT BELOW AND USE IT AS MY LEGAL ARGUMENT.

I BELIEVE NEW JERSEY COURTS ARE READY TO EVOLVE

SEE LEGAL ARGUMENT BELOW

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

JUSTICE ALBINS 9 PAGE AUTHORITATIVE DISSENT

SUPPORTING INDIGENT / POOR PEOPLES RIGHT TO A LAWYER IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES

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

D.N. v. K.M. (

429 N.J. Super. 592, 2014)

From: C-808 September Term 2012

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

JUSTICE ALBIN

A REAL AMERICAN HERO (JUDGE)

(See Albins Dissent & Invitation for a Brave Pro Se to Set a Date at the N.J. Supreme Court)

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

MAJORITY OPINION OF JUSTICES DID NOT GRANT RIGHT TO COUNSEL

THE DISSENT WOULD HAVE…

READ THE DISSENT BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT MEN NEED TO FILE

IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE LAW IN NJ:

SUMMARY OF MAJORITY OPINION

NJ SUPREME COURT:

(App. Div. 2013). Consistent with current law, the Appellate Division concluded that “the protections of due process do not require the appointment of counsel for indigents presenting or defending a private party’s civil domestic violence action.” Id. at 606.

The dissent recommends that the Court grant certification in this case and examine whether counsel should be appointed for indigent 1 citizens in civil proceedings under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. The Act itself does not authorize appointment of counsel for the parties in a domestic violence action. In that regard, New Jersey is not alone.

Only one state provides for appointment of counsel for both parties under comparable civil domestic violence laws. See N.Y. CLS Fam. Ct. Act 262(a)(ii). Thus, without any statutory authority, a directive from this Court requiring appointment of counsel would rest on constitutional grounds. To be sure, such a ruling would affect thousands of cases annually.

For the last court year alone, from July 2012 through June 2013, there were approximately 15,800 hearings for final restraining orders, according to the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC).

The AOC estimates that the vast majority of plaintiffs and defendants in those hearings were not represented by counsel. By way of comparison, there were a total of about 1200 Madden1 appointments for the year, and roughly two-thirds of them were for contempt proceedings in domestic violence cases. In any event, this case is not a good vehicle to embark on a constitutional analysis of the issue presented because, based on the record before us, petitioner did not assert that she was 1 Madden v. Delran, 126 N.J. 591′

SUPREME COURT “PUNTS” BECAUSE:

DEFENDANT NEVER ASKED FOR FREE LAWYER

(2010). The panel observed that “[t]he record does not reflect that defendant ever sought the appointment of counsel prior to or during the adjudication of this domestic violence matter. Accordingly, in the present setting, the issue is purely academic.” Ibid. The same is true here.

The petition for certification is denied. See R. 2:12-4. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, PATTERSON, and FERNANDEZ-VINA, and JUDGES RODRÍGUEZ and CUFF (both temporarily assigned) join in this per curiam opinion. JUSTICE ALBIN filed a separate, dissenting opinion. 3 SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY C-808 September Term 2012 072186 D.N., Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. K.M., Defendant-Respondent.

JUSTICE ALBIN WRITES A GREAT

DISSENTING OPINION FOR:

POOR DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN DV CASES

Today, my colleagues refuse to hear a case that raises significant questions about the fairness of our civil justice system — a case that meets every criterion for the grant of certification under our Court Rules. See R. 2:12-4. D.N. has filed a petition for review of D.N. v. K.M.,429 N.J. Super. 592

(App. Div. 2013), in which the Appellate Division held that an indigent defendant is not entitled to appointed counsel when prosecuted for violations of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (“Domestic Violence Act”), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35.

That decision cuts against the grain of a long line of jurisprudence in New Jersey guaranteeing the right to counsel to impoverished defendants facing consequences of magnitude, even in civil cases.

The Appellate Division ruled that a poor defendant has no right to appointed counsel in a domestic violence case despite the enormity of consequences that flow from a violation of the Domestic Violence Act.

Thus, a defendant mother, who is found to have violated the Act, could lose custody of her children and possession of her house; could face crushing financial penalties and placement of her name on an offender registry, jeopardizing her ability to secure employment, credit and housing; and could forfeit her right to possess a firearm.

The loss of these rights and imposition of these penalties may occur on an unlevel playing field where an inarticulate defendant, ignorant of the law and courtroom procedures, is 2 prosecuted by a well-trained, skilled, and experienced attorney representing the opposing party. The issue before the Court is not “purely academic” as my colleagues contend. D.N. v. K.M., N.J. , __ (slip op. at 3) (quoting Crespo v. Crespo,

408 N.J. Super. 25

, 45 (App. Div.

2009), aff’d o.b.,

201 N.J. 207

(2010)). My colleagues rely on Crespo, supra, 408 N.J. Super. at 45, a case in which the Appellate Division declined to address the issue of the right to appointed counsel in a domestic violence case. Unlike Crespo, here the Appellate Division decided the issue, and its ruling stands as the law of the State until this Court says otherwise. My colleagues cannot expect that an uncounseled defendant, such as D.N., would know to assert her right to appointed counsel in a domestic violence case. It was the obligation of the Family Court to advise her of that right, which did not happen here. Importantly, D.N. argued on appeal (when represented by counsel) that she was indigent and had the right to appointed counsel, and the Appellate Division addressed the issue in a published decision. I do not understand how my colleagues can say that “this case is not a good vehicle to embark on a constitutional analysis of the issue presented,” D.N., supra, N.J. at (slip op. at 2), when the issue was presented to and decided by the Appellate Division. 3 Last year marked the fiftieth anniversary of the landmark ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright,372 U.S.335,83 S. Ct. 7929 L. Ed. 2d 799

(1963), a case trumpeting the right to counsel for the indigent in criminal cases. After Gideon, this Court took a giant step forward — far ahead of other courts in the nation — to secure for the poor the opportunity for equal justice in courtrooms throughout this State. See Rodriguez v. Rosenblatt,

58 N.J. 281(1971).

‘

The right to counsel is an essential attribute of a fair trial. The denial of this petition will surely disappoint those who expect this Court to remain at the forefront of ensuring a fair adversarial process for the poor who face serious consequences of magnitude in civil cases.

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

For the reasons I have given and for those that follow, I respectfully dissent.

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

I. In Rodriguez, supra, this Court held that “as a matter of simple justice, no indigent defendant should be subjected to a conviction entailing imprisonment in fact or other consequence of magnitude without first having had due and fair opportunity to have counsel assigned without cost.” 58 N.J. at 295 (emphasis added). In Rodriguez, we recognized that, in our adversarial system, defendants untrained in the complexities of the law are disadvantaged and in no position to represent themselves. Ibid. Because the practicalities of life did not permit for “a universal rule for the assignment of 4 counsel to all indigent defendants,” we accepted that the denial of counsel “may be tolerable” in cases where litigants face no “serious consequence.” Ibid.

But we were unwilling to abide the denial of counsel to an indigent defendant who faced a “consequence of magnitude.” Ibid. In the wake of Rodriguez, the landscape of the law changed in New Jersey, and our Court Rules reflect this new reality.

Now, under Rule 7:3-2(b), if an indigent defendant is facing a “consequence of magnitude” in a municipal court case, he or she must be assigned a municipal public defender. In the municipal court setting, the potential imposition of a sentence of imprisonment, a period of license suspension, or even a monetary sanction of $750 or greater, each individually, constitutes a “consequence of magnitude” entitling a defendant to the appointment of counsel. Guidelines for Determination of Consequence of Magnitude, Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, Appendix to Part VII at 2503 (2014). In deciding Rodriguez, we did not hinge our decision on the number of defendants who might be entitled to appointed counsel. We did not suggest that for defendants facing consequences of magnitude, the right to appointed counsel — and therefore the right to a fair trial — depended on a cost analysis. Had the United States Supreme Court taken the cost-analysis approach, Gideon would not be on the books today, nor would Rodriguez. My colleagues note in their per curiam opinion that “last court year alone, from July 2012 through June 2013, there were approximately 15,800 hearings for final 5 restraining orders, according to the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC).” D.N., supra, N.J. at (slip op. at 2).

However, during that same period, according to the AOC, our court system disposed of 35,641 driving-while-intoxicated cases, and in every one of those cases involving an indigent defendant, the right to appointed counsel was guaranteed. Our approach has not been that if too many indigent defendants require counsel, we will provide counsel to none. Appointed counsel, moreover, is provided to many thousands of criminal defendants, and to a multitude of defendants in civil cases, as is evident below.

II. An indigent defendant must be assigned counsel in civil cases if he is facing imprisonment for failure to pay child support, Pasqua v. Council,186 N.J. 127, 149 (2006); termination of parental rights, N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. B.R.,192 N.J. 301, 306-07 (2007); tier classification for community-notification purposes in a Megan’s Law case, Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 31 (1995); involuntary civil commitment, In re S.L.,94 N.J. 128, 142 (1983); and contempt proceedings for violating a restraining order, State v. Ashford,374 N.J. Super. 332,337 (App. Div. 2004).

Yet, a defendant who is prosecuted for an act of domestic violence is not entitled to counsel even though he faces a host of consequences of magnitude,including:

an order expelling him from his home, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)(2);

barring him from having contact with his children, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)(3)(b),

or suspending his custodial rights to his children, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)(11);

compelling him to pay compensatory and punitive damages, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)(4),

or emergency monetary relief, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)(10); seizing his firearms, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)(16),

and suspending his right to own a firearm or retain a firearms permit, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b);

restraining him from entering places frequented by the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s family or household members, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)(6);

requiring him to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, N.J.S.A. 2C:25- 29(b)(18), or professional counseling, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)(5);

dispossessing him of an automobile, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)(9), or a family animal, such as a dog, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)(19);

mandating that he submit to fingerprinting, N.J.S.A. 53:1-15; placing his name on a central registry for domestic violence offenders, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-34;

requiring him to report to the intake unit of the Family Court for monitoring, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)(15), and imposing other restrictions on his liberty and property interests.

This catalogue underscores that “[t]he issuance of a final domestic violence restraining order ‘has serious consequences to the personal and professional lives of those who are found guilty of what the Legislature has characterized as a serious crime against society.’” Peterson v. Peterson,374 N.J. Super. 116, 124 (App. Div. 2005) (quoting Bresocnik v. Gallegos,367 N.J. Super. 178, 181 (App. Div. 2004)).

The inescapable reality is that a finding that one has committed an act of domestic violence, in addition to everything else, 7 brands that person as a “batterer.”

The stigma of that branding is recorded in the Domestic Violence Registry, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-34, and has far-reaching effects.

How can our jurisprudence reconcile the right of appointed counsel to a defendant facing a $750 fine or a one-day license suspension in municipal court with the denial of that right to a defendant who is facing much more serious consequences in Superior Court in a domestic violence case?

Yet, the appellate panel in this case held that “[t]he entry of a domestic violence [final restraining order], along with an order granting the additional relief available under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29b, does not result in a ‘consequence of sufficient magnitude’ to warrant the mandatory appointment of counsel.” D.N., supra, 429 N.J. Super. at 604.

The appellate panel’s decision does not appear to reflect the holdings or the spirit of our jurisprudence.

In Pasqua, [THE CASE THAT GIVES “DEADBEAT DADS THE RIGHT TO COUNCIL IN CIVIL COURT] supra, we made clear that “[u]nder the due process guarantee of the New Jersey Constitution, the right to counsel attaches even to proceedings in which a litigant is not facing incarceration.” 186 N.J. at 147. We acknowledged that “the adverse consequences of a particular civil proceeding can be as devastating as those resulting from the conviction of a crime.” Id. at 142.

The assistance of counsel is an indispensable component of the right to a fair trial in an adversarial proceeding. “A person of impoverished means caught within the tangle of our criminal or civil justice 8 system” who is facing a consequence of magnitude should have “the assistance of a trained and experienced lawyer.” See id. at 146.

In Pasqua, we could “find no principled reason why an indigent facing loss of motor vehicle privileges or a substantial fine in municipal court . . . would be entitled to counsel under state law but an indigent facing jail for allegedly willfully refusing to pay a child support judgment would not.” Id. at 149. What principled reason can be found to deny an indigent defendant, facing so many consequences of magnitude in a domestic violence case, the right to appointed counsel, when counsel is provided to a municipal court defendant who may be fined $750? Certainly, this is an issue worthy of review.

III. The petition before us meets every ground for certification under Rule 2:12-4.

The petition “presents a question of general public importance” that has not been settled by this Court, the appellate panel’s holding and reasoning “is in conflict with” decisions of this Court, and, last, it is in the “interest of justice” that this Court determine whether indigent citizens can be deprived of significant rights in a domestic violence hearing without the assistance of counsel. See R. 2:12-4.

With Gideon and Rodriguez as our guides, it is difficult to imagine a case presenting a more compelling issue for review: the 9 right of indigent defendants, who are facing calamity, to a fair shake in our civil justice system. I am not willing to turn away from this important issue.

Because I would grant certification, I respectfully dissent.

AMEN JUSTICE ALBIN!

THE SUPREME COURT MUST SOMEDAY

ADDRESS THIS ISSUE

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

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

COURT REFUSES TO ALLOW ME TO SPEAK WITH OMBUDSMAN

Standard

Article Published after Receipt from Derek Syphrett:

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

AFTER MOTIONS I FILED WENT MISSING IN A DV CASE I WAS FOUND GUILTY, THE COURT HAS CONTINUED TO RETALIATE AGAINST MY EFFORTS TO SEEK JUSTICE.

PRIOR TO THE DV TRIAL I HAD REQUESTED TO SEE MY FULL FILE AS I SUSPECTED THE PRIOR RECUSED JUDGES WOULD ATTEMPT TO REMOVE MOTIONS FROM THE FILE TO RETALIATE…. IT APPEARS THIS HAPPENED.

6/7/2013 Motion Stamped Received and discussed on the Record 6/13/2013 was removed from the file before the continued 2/19/2014 trial of the DV (after recusal of prior Trial Judge – MISSING FROM CASE FILE FV-11-887-13 (Kathryn Bischoff v. Derek Syphrett)

12/11/2013 Motion filed for dismissal of DV claim due to recusal of trial judge who issued the TRO. (Kathryn Bischoff v. Derek Syphrett). THIS MOTION WAS DELIVERED TO THE COURT IN TRIPLICATE ON 2 SEPARATE DATES – ITS MISSING

1/12/2013 to 2/4/2013 I sent letters to the court requesting to review my case file prior to the scheduled TRIAL in FV-11887-13, RE-DOCKETED IN BURLINGTON COUNTY AS FV-03-1154-14.

2/6/2014 I WAS PUNISHED FOR REQUESTING TO VIEW MY FILE PRE-TRIAL:

Judge Bookbinder issued an unlawful court order: prohibiting me from appearing in court pre-trial or at trial for any reason without EXPRESS PERMISSION FROM A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE. This was unlawful because it violates my constitutionally protected rights to due process under the 1st Amendment & 14th Amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America (1787 Original Jurisdiction)and the New Jersey Constitution which establish the inalienable right to access the court and to be tried consistent with due-process under the law.

ADDITIONALLY I FILED A “IMMEDIATE APPEAL” with regard to the DV charge. This is a rarely used statutory right if you are accused of Domestic Violence in New Jersey – see Statute N.J.S.A.: 2C:25-28i.

An immediate appeal is meant to allow the Defendant to challenge a TRO issuance since the TRO was issued without the Defendant present in court to defend himself/herself.

THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO SEND LEGAL NOTICE AFTER SCHEDULING AN IMMEDIATE APPEAL ACCORDING TO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROCEDURE MANUAL (link to PDF). IN MY CASE THE COURT NEVER SCHEDULED THE IMMEDIATE APPEAL AND JUDGE PETER WARSHAW ERRONEOUSLY DENIED MY IMMEDIATE APPEAL BECAUSE HE SAID I SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED THE PLAINTIFF AFTER I SERVED THE PLAINTIFF THE IMMEDIATE APPEAL.

I WAS DENIED STATUTORY DUE PROCESS BECAUSE THE COURT NEVER SCHEDULED THE IMMEDIATE APPEAL.

RETALIATION CONTINUED WHEN JUDGE JOHN TOMASELLO THREW ME OUT OF COURT AT TRIAL IN BURLINGTON FOR MAKING MY 1ST AND ONLY OBJECTION IN A DIFFERENT CASE… YET HE IS SET TO BE THE TRIAL JUDGE IN THE POST-TRIAL HEARING DESPITE THE FACT HIS BIAS AGAINST ME IS CLEAR AND CONVINCING!

NEW POST TRIAL FILINGS FOR RELIEF

LOOK AT HOW RIDICULOUS THIS HAS BECOME:

THIS WEEK: I have filed post trial motions to confront the corrupted court process.

Here are the recent letters to AND from the court:’

Letters and Letter Briefs set to the court to protest the court’s failure to schedule my immediate appeal:

2014-08-07 TO 14 – LTRS – Biased Court

LETTER FROM JUDGE BOOKBINDER

2014-08-14 LTR From Judge Bookbinder

LOOK AT ALL THE PEOPLE COPIED TO THIS LETTER !!!

– New Jersey Clerk of the Courts;

– Acting Director of the Courts;

– Chief of Staff for the Courts, etc

IMAGE OF JUDGE BOOKBINDER’S LETTER

	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…

PARENTS IN NEW JERSEY UNITE

FOR A COMMON CAUSE:

FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE

In September the Group is sponsoring Classified ads on NJ.Com in addition to its PURCHASE OF A BILLBOARD IN TRENTON NEW JERSEY which will be erected in the second week of September and followed by an event open to local journalist.

DONATE TO THE FCLU VIA THIS LINK:

CONTACT THE FCLU AT THIS PHONE NUMBER:

856-441-FCLU

EMAIL THE FCLU AT:

FCLUFIGHTS@GMAIL.COM

While we would like to speak and report on this story after getting additional information from the whistle blowing law clerk that currently appears to be impossible…..

because

shortly after filing his complaint THE LAW CLERK WAS SENT TO A MENTAL HOSPITAL AGAINST HIS WILL, PRESUMABLY AS A RESULT OF A COURT ORDER DESIGNED TO SMEAR THE LAW CLERKS NAME AND IMPEDE HIS ABILITY TO CONTINUE WITH HIS LAWSUIT.

BUT THAT IS JUST THE BORING STUFF FOR STARTERS,

THE UNIQUE STUFF INCLUDES:

AFTER AWAKENING FROM

BENIGN ACCEPTANCE OF CORRUPTION

IN NJ:

I REPORTED THE FOLLOWING CRIMES

TO THE FBI

SEE THE LETTER COMPLAINTS HERE:

WHEN A MAN IS STRIPPED OF HIS RIGHTS& CHOICE

…HE WILL MAKE THE ONLY CHOICE AVAILABLE

…HE WILL FIGHT

“I am ashamed to say it, but I am still optimistically (without good cause) hoping for justice and the right to my pursuit of happiness, liberty, and freedom…. with my beloved Children.”

*** BREAKING NEWS ***

UPDATE

DON’T TAKE OUR WORD FOR IT

SEE THE FACTS HERE:

*** OH IT GETS WORSE ****

CHECK THIS OUT:

EXPERT REPORT FROM WALLACE V. SYPHRETT:

READ IT AND WEEP FOR THE CHILDREN BECAUSE

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

A DEFENSE AGAINST COURT CORRUPTION

WORTHY OF RESEARCH:

LEGAL DISCLAIMER FOR ALL LEGAL REFERENCES CONTAINED HEREIN:

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

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

IN JUST ONE EPISODE OF THIS UNMITIGATED DISASTER

THIS WAS AN UNLAWFUL KIDNAPPING OF AN ATTORNEY,

JUDGE PEDRO JIMENEZ ACTED BEYOND ALL AUTHORITY AND MAY NOW BE

ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED CIVILLY AND CRIMINALLY FOR THIS!

THE ABOVE PROVIDED TO:

REMIND NEW JERSEY PUBLIC OFFICIALS THAT:

* BREAKING NEWS *

* OH IT GETS WORSE **