Liberty For Life Association

     C Jefferson

Liberty For Life

CONTENTS

Support our advertisers

Hire STRATEGIZE.com

The World's Leading Strategic Consultancy

STRATEGIZE CONSULTANCY


The Earth Pan

LFL Founder Out Of Hiding With Extraordinary Solution to fix
Government:
Peopleisim.org

Peopleisim


The Construct of Live & Origin of Everything - Soulisim

Soulisim



MenuVert
Support Adverts it helps cover costs. Ads randomly generated by advertising companies:

ADVERTISE HERE:

 

InfoTelesys Lawsuit: I. CLAIMS UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED / CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATED

Claim 8 Kidnap

Eighth Claim For Relief Aggravated Kidnap / Kidnap / Parental Alienation

PLAINTIFFS:

Clive Boustred, RCB, WFB with damage to All Plaintiffs

DEFENDANTS: 

IRWIN JOSEPH, Irwin Joseph

SAMUEL S. STEVENS, Samuel S. Stevens

MICHAEL E. BARTON, Michael E. Barton

ANAMARIA BOUSTRED/TICHATSCHKE, Anamaria Boustred/Tichatschke

MARK TRACY, Mark Tracy (Former Sheriff)

MICHAEL MACDONALD, Michael Macdonald (Deputy Sheriff)

M POOL, M Pool (Deputy Sheriff)

HEMMINGWAY, Hemmingway (deceased)

AMY CHRISTY, Amy Christy

BROZOZOWSKI, Brozozowski

BOB LEE, Bob Lee (Santa Cruz District Attorney)

STEVE DROTTAR, Steve Drottar

STEFAN TICHATSCHKE, Stefan Tichatschke

VICKI J. PARRY, Vicki J. Parry

JOHN A. CHRISTERSON (CA State Bar 889096), John A. Christerson

DENNIS J. KEHOE (State Bar 34687), Dennis J. Kehoe

LEONARD DUECK (VP Twin Lakes Baptist Church, Inc.), Leonard Dueck

Twin Lakes Baptist Church, Inc.

MARK SPURLOCK, Mark Spurlock

JEREMY FOGEL, Jeremy Fogel,

JAMES WARE, James Ware

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, Phyllis J. Hamilton

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, County of Santa Cruz

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, State of California

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, United States of America

Jon Doe’s, 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

Without any hearing or proper notice in an Ex Parte emergency hearing on or about February 20, 2002 under the color of law Judge Thomas Kelley apparently issued an order unlawfully modifying the Stipulated Custody Order and Agreement covering the custody of PLAINTIFF Clive Boustred’s children RCB and WFB, this void ex parte order precipitated into the attempted murder of Clive Boustred on March 10, 2003.

Following the attempted murder of Clive Boustred on March 10 , 2003, when Santa Cruz Sheriffs Shooting Instructor Michael Macdonald without cause shot at Clive Boustred with WFB aged three also in the direct line of fire and RCB aged seven only two feet off the line of fire and the violent kidnap of RCB and WFB from their father Clive Boustred the custodial parent, on multiple occasions up until present time, in the above named Judicial District, commit the crime of AGGRAVATED KIDNAP and or KIDNAP and or PARENTAL ALIENATION, in violation of Constitutionally Guaranteed Rights, including PLAINTIFFS 1st, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendment Rights and U.S.C. Section 1738A and 42 and  654, 663, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980, CA PC § 278, 278.5, 280, §40 Aggravated Kidnapping, § 44.1 Second degree kidnapping, § 45 Simple Kidnapping, § 46 False imprisonment, California Civil Code § 771, a felony and or misdemeanor was committed by DEFENDANT/S listed above, who did willfully and unlawfully under the color of law commit AGGRAVATED KIDNAP and or KIDNAP and or PARENTAL ALIENATION in addition to INTERFERENCE WITH FAMILY AND POLITICAL RELATIONS of PLAINTIFFS.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

Authorities

AUTHORITIES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

Parent Can Sue For Interference With Parental Rights

Either parent can sue for interference with parental rights:

STRODE V. GLEASON, 510 P.2d 250 (1973);

Federal Court Has Jurisdiction on Divorce Claims

Federal Courts can rule on federal claims (constitutional questions) involved in state divorce cases and award money damages for federal torts or in diversity of citizenship cases involving intentional infliction of emotional distress by denial of parental rights, "visitation", as long as the Federal Court is not asked to modify custodial status:

LLOYD V. LOEFFLER, 518 F.Supp 720 (custodial father won $95,000 against parental kidnapping wife)

FENSLAGE V. DAWKINS, 629 F.2d 1107 ($130,000 damages for parental kidnapping)

KAJTAZI V. KAJTAZI, 488 F.Supp 15 (1976)

SPINDEL V. SPINDEL, 283 F.Supp. 797 (1969)

HOWARD V. KUNEN, USDC Mass CA No. 73-3813-G, 12/3/73 (unreported)

SCHWAB V. HUTSON, USDC, S.Dist. MI, 11/70 (unreported)

LORBEER V. THOMPSON, USDC Colorado (1981)

Custody May Be Changed If Constitutional Rights Abridged

Custody can be changed if visitation is denied.

Wife can be held in contempt if visitation is denied.

ENTWISTLE V. ENTWISTLE, 402 NYS 2d 213

 

Custody can be changed if wife is "disrespectful" of "visitation" order:

MURASKIN V. MURASKIN 283 NW 2d 140 (N. Dakota 1979)

 

U.S.C. Section 1738A and 42 and  654, 663

The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (28 U.S.C. Section 1738A and 42

U.S.C. Section 654, 663) is a federal statute enacted in 1980 to address kidnapping by noncustodial parents and inconsistent child custody decisions made by state courts. The law provides for penalties for kidnapping and requires states to recognize and enforce the custody decisions of courts in other states, rather than make a second, and possibly inconsistent, decision.

California Penal Code Kidnap

278.  Every person, not having a right to custody, who maliciously takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals any child with the intent to detain or conceal that child from a lawful custodian shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both that fine and imprisonment.

 

278.5.  (a) Every person who takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals a child and maliciously deprives a lawful custodian of a right to custody, or a person of a right to visitation, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or two or three years, a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both that fine and imprisonment.

   (b) Nothing contained in this section limits the court's contempt power.

   (c) A custody order obtained after the taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing of a child does not constitute a defense to a crime charged under this section.

280.  Every person who willfully causes or permits the removal or concealment of any child in violation of Section 8713, 8803, or 8910 of the Family Code shall be punished as follows:

   (a) By imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year if the child is concealed within the county in which the adoption proceeding is pending or in which the child has been placed for adoption, or is removed from that county to a place within this state.

   (b) By imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, if the child is removed from that county to a place outside of this state.

§ 44 Aggravated Kidnapping

Aggravated kidnapping is the doing of any of the following acts with the intent thereby to force the victim, or some other person, to give up anything of apparent or prospective value, or to grant any advantage or immunity, in order to secure the release of the person under the offender’s actual or apparent control:

(1)       the forcible seizing and carrying of any person from one place to another; or

(2)       the enticing or persuading of any person to go from one place to another; or

(3)       the imprisoning or forcible secreting of any person.

A FELONY

§ 44.1 Second degree kidnapping

A.        Second degree kidnapping is the doing of any of the acts listed in Subsection B wherein the victim is:

(1)       used as a hostage or shield;

(2)       used to facilitate the commission of a felony or the flight after an attempt to commit or the commission or a felony;

 (4)      imprisoned or kidnapped for 72 or more hours, except as provided by RS 14:45 (A) (4) or (5); or

(5)       imprisoned or kidnapped when the offender is armed with a dangerous weapon or leads the victim to reasonably believe he is armed with a dangerous weapon.

B.        for the purposes of this section, Kidnapping is:

(1)       the forcible seizing and carrying or any person from one place to another; or

(2)       the enticing or persuading of any person to go from one place to another; or

(3)       the imprisoning or forcible secreting of any person

A FELONY

§ 45 Simple Kidnapping

A.        Simple kidnapping is:

(1)       the intentional and forcible seizing and carrying of any person from one place to another without his consent.

(2)       The intentional taking, enticing or decoying away, for an unlawful purpose, of any child not his own and under the age of fourteen years, without the consent of his parent or the person charged with its custody.

(3)       The intentional taking, enticing or decoying away, without the consent of the proper authority, or any person who has been lawfully committed to an orphan, insane, feeble-minded or other similar institution.

(4)       The intentional taking, enticing or decoying away and removing from the state, by any parent of his or her child, from the custody of any person to whom custody has been awarded by any court of competent jurisdiction of any state, without the consent of the legal custodian, with intent to defeat the jurisdiction of the said court over the custody of the child.

(5)       the taking, enticing or decoying away and removing from the state, by any person, other than the parent, of a child temporarily placed in his custody by any court of competent jurisdiction in the state, with the intention to defeat the jurisdiction of said court over the custody of the child. A FELONY

§ 46 False imprisonment

False imprisonment is the intentional confinement or detention of another, without his consent and without proper legal authority. A MISDEMEANOR

Federal Court Has Jurisdiction Over Custody Matters

Federal judges can set aside or overturn state courts to preserve constitutional rights:

MITCHUM V. FOSTER, 407 US 225 (1972)

Title 28 US Code sec. 2284.

Federal Courts can rule on federal claims (constitutional questions) involved in state divorce cases and award money damages for federal torts or in diversity of citizenship cases involving intentional infliction of emotional distress by denial of parental rights, "visitation", as long as the Federal Court is not asked to modify custodial status:

LLOYD V. LOEFFLER, 518 F.Supp 720 (custodial father won $95,000 against parental kidnapping wife)

FENSLAGE V. DAWKINS, 629 F.2d 1107 ($130,000 damages for parental kidnapping)

KAJTAZI V. KAJTAZI, 488 F.Supp 15 (1976)

SPINDEL V. SPINDEL, 283 F.Supp. 797 (1969)

HOWARD V. KUNEN, USDC Mass CA No. 73-3813-G, 12/3/73 (unreported)

SCHWAB V. HUTSON, USDC, S.Dist. MI, 11/70 (unreported)

LORBEER V. THOMPSON, USDC Colorado (1981)

 

Right of parents to the care, custody and to nurture their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principals of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, AND SUCH RIGHT IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT PROTECTED BY THIS AMENDMENT AND AMENDMENTS 5, 9, and 14:

DOE V. IRWIN, 441 f. SUPP. 1247, U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF MICHIGAN (1977)

 

Parents have fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal bond with their children:

MATTER OF DELANEY, 617 P.2d 886, Oklahoma (1980)

 

The United States Supreme Court noted that a parent's right to "the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children" is an interest "far more precious" than any property right:

MAV V. ANDERSON, 345 U.S. 528, 533; 73 S.Ct. 840, 843 (1952)

 

"No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child.":

CARSEN V. ELROD, 411 F.Supp. 645, 649 (U.S. District Court Eastern Dist. Virginia 1976)

 

"A parent's right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent's achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability to participate in the rearing of his children. A child's corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship deprives form the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult." - FRANZ V. UNITED STATES, 707 F.2d 582, 595-599 (U.S. Ct. App. D.C. Circuit 1983)

 

Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government. - ELROD V. BURNS, 96 S Ct 2673; 427 US 347, (1976).

Parent's right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. - REYNOLD V. BABY FOLD, INC., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).

 

The United States Supreme Court noted that a parent's right to "the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children" is an interest "far more precious" than any property right. - MAY V. ANDERSON, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952).

 

A parent's right to care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. - IN RE: J.S. AND C., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.

 

Parent's rights have been recognized as being "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man." - MEYER V. NEBRASKA, 262 or 426 US 390 ; 43 S Ct 625, (1923).

 

No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child." - CARSON V. ELROD, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976).

 

State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights. - GROSS V. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 312 F 2d 257; (1963).

Custody is a Constitutionally Secured Right – Enabling Federal Jurisdiction

The Court stressed, "the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection." A parent's interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility.

A child has an equal right to be raised by the father, and must be awarded to the father if he is the better parent, or mother is not interested:

STANLEY V. ILLINOIS, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208, (1972).

 

A parent's right to the custody of his or her children is an element of "liberty" guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

MATTER OF GENTRY, 369 N.W.2d. 889, Mich. Appellate Div. (1983)

 

The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. -  DOE V. IRWIN, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).

Ex Parte Hearings on Custody Orders Unconstitutional

Ex Parte conferences, hearings or Orders denying parental rights or personal liberties are unconstitutional, cannot be enforced, can be set aside in federal court, and can be the basis of suits for money damages.

RANKIN V. HOWARD, 633 F.2d 844 (1980);

GEISINGER V. VOSE, 352 F.Supp. 104 (1972).

If Mother has Boyfriend Custody Awarded To Father

If custodial mother has boyfriend living with her, state can change custody to father.

JARRETT V. JARRETT, 101 S.Ct. 329

Father has Right to Custody

Custody can be awarded to father of girls of "tender years" if mother commits perjury, and is otherwise immoral.

BEABER V. BEABER, 322 NE 2d 910.

Judges Criminally Liable For Willful Depravation of Custody Rights or any Constitutional Violation

Fathers' Rights Case Law Title 42 USC 1983 is for (federal) civil rights violations. "Judges may be punished criminally for willful deprivation of rights on the strength of Title 18 U.S.A. 241 and 242."

"Judges may be punished criminally for willful deprivation of rights on the strength of Title 18 U.S.A. 241 and 242."

[The fact that There are federal rules\laws regarding suing including judges for violations of constitutional rights is proof enough that it occurs.]: - IMBLER V. PACHTMAN, 424 U.S. 409; 96 S.Ct. 984 (1976)

 

"When a judge acts intentionally and knowingly to deprive a person of his constitutional rights, he exercises no discretion or individual judgement; he acts no longer as a judge, but as a "minister" of his own prejudice.": PIERSON V. RAY, 386 U.S. 547 at 567 (1967)

 

"Referring both to the objective and subjective elements, we have held that qualified immunity (Ed. Note: or "good faith") would be defeated if an official "knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the [plaintiff], or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury. . ." - HARLOW V. FITZGERALD, 102 S.Ct. 2727 at 2737, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)

 

Every person who, under color of any statute ordinance, regulation, custom, or by usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. EVERY PERSON SHALL BE LIABLE IN AN ACTION AT LAW SUIT IN EQUITY N0 EXCLUSION FOR JUDGES BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42, SECTION 1985 (3) If two or more persons . . . conspire. . for the purpose of depriving. any person. . . of the equal protection of the laws . . . the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages . . . RECOVERY OF DAMAGES AGAINST ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE CONSPIRATORS N0 EXCLUSION FOR JUDGES BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42, SECTION 1986 Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs . . . are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do . . . shall be liable . . . EVERY PERSON SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ALL DAMAGES NO EXCLUSION FOR JUDGES BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42, SECTION 1988: - UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42, SECTION 1983

 

"We should, of course, not protect a member of the judiciary "who is in fact guilty of using his power to vent his spleen upon others, or for any other personal motive not connected with the public good." - GREGOIRE V. BIDDLE, 177 F.2d 579, 581.

 

"Government immunity violates the common law maxim that everyone shall have remedy for an injury done to his person or property." - FIREMAN'S INS/ CO. OF NEWARK, N.J. V. WASHBURN COUNTY, 2 Wis.2d 214, 85 N.W.2d 840 (1957)

 

Immunity fosters neglect and breeds irresponsibility, while liability promotes care and caution, which caution and care is owed by the government to its people." - RABON V. ROWEN MEMORIAL HOSP., INC, 269 NSI. 13, 152 S.E.2d 485, 493 (`1967)

 

"Actions by state officers and employees, even if unauthorized or in excess of authority can be actions under 'color of law'." -  STRINGER V. DILGER, 313 F.2d 536 (U.S. Ct. App 10th Circ. - 1963

 

"A judge is not immune from criminal sanctions under the civil rights act."   "State officials acting in their official capacities, even if in abuse of their lawful authority , generally are held to act "under color" of law. This is because such officials are “clothed with the authority" of state law, which gives them power to perpetrate the very wrongs that Congress intended Section 1983 to prevent. “- EX PARTE VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 339, 346-347 (1879)

 

"The language and purpose of the civil rights acts, are inconsistent with the application of common law notions of official immunity. . . “- JACOBSEN V. HENNE, 335 F.2d 129, 133 (U.S. Ct. App. 2nd Circ. - 1966) Also see" ANDERSON V. NOSSER, 428 F.2d 183 (U.S. Ct. App. 5th Circ. - 1971)

 

"Governmental immunity is not a defense under (42 USC 1983) making liable every person who under color of state law deprives another person of his civil rights." - WESTBERRY V. FISHER, 309 F.Supp. 95 (District Ct.- of Maine - 1970 "

 

Judicial immunity is no defense to a judge acting in the clear absence of jurisdiction." - BRADLEY V. FISHER, U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871)

 

As long as a DEFENDANT who abridges a plaintiff's constitutional rights acts pursuant to a statute of local law which empowers him to commit the wrongful act, an action under the Federal Civil Rights statute is established. 42 U.S.C.A. 1981 et seq. - LAVERNE V. CORNING, 316 F.Supp. 629

 

"The Supreme Court initially discussed judicial immunity in Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 523, 19 L.Ed. 285 (1869). In Randall, the Court wrote that judges of superior or general jurisdiction courts were not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts, where the acts, in excess of jurisdiction, are done maliciously or corruptly." [Editor's Note: In more recent cases: Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) and Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 it was found that judges were really not acting in a malicious and corrupt manner and the proofs also showed that. Congress by its words and meaning enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and that meaning included judges to be held responsible to an injured plaintiff for the deprivation of Constitutional Rights. Any judge made case finding to the contrary is hereby challenged as unconstitutional and unlawful. No Court has ever challenged the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, and therefore said Congressionally enacted legislation stands as law. The only way to change an act of Congress is by an act of Congress. No judge can change it and any such findings and changes are not to be upheld in Federal Courts as lawful. No changes in the wording have ever been made to Title 42 U.S.C.A. 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988 and therefore these Congressionally enacted laws are enforceable in the Federal Courts. The only change made to Title 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 took place in 1979. At this time the words "or the District of Columbia" were inserted following "Territory". If any judges or persons representing judges had wanted to make a change this would have been an opportune time to do so. No action was ever taken to change the wording of the law and it remains as such today.]  - RANDALL V. BRIGHAM, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 523, 19 L.Ed. 285 (1869).

 

"I agree with the substantive standard announced by the Court today, imposing liability when a public-official DEFENDANT "knew or should have known" of the constitutionally violative effect of his actions. This standard would not allow the official who actually knows that he was violating the law to escape liability for his actions, even if he could not "reasonably have been expected" to know what he actually did know. Thus the clever and unusually well-informed violator of constitutional rights will not evade just punishment for his crimes. I, also agree that this standard applies "across the board," to all "government officials performing discretionary functions." - Harlow at 2739, Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, and Justice Blackmum concurring. In Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting

 

"Judges are not immune for their no judicial activities, i.e., activities which are ministerial or administrative in nature." - SANTIAGO V. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, 435 F.Supp. 136

 

"It is not a judicial function for judge to commit intentional tort, even though tort occurs in courthouse." - YATES V. VILLAGE OF HOFFMAN ESTATES, ILLINOIS, 209 F.Supp. 757

 

"There was no judicial immunity to civil actions for equitable relief under Civil Rights Act of 1871. 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 Shore v. Howard. 414 F.Supp. 379 "There is no judicial immunity from criminal liability". Id. "Repeated pattern of failing to advise litigants of their constitutional and statutory rights is serious judicial misconduct." - MATTER OF PEEVES, 480 N.Y.S. 2d 463.

 

"When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction or acts in face of clearly valid statutes or case law expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost." - RANKIN V. HOWARD, 633 F.2d 844.

 

"There is no judicial immunity from criminal liability." - SHORE V. HOWARD, 414 F.Supp. 379

 

"State judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights." - GOSS V. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 312 F2d. 1279 (U.S.Ct.App. - Illinois - 1963)

 

"Conduct of trial judge must be measured by standard of fairness and impartiality." - GREENER V. GREEN, 460 F.2d 1279 (U.S.Ct. App. - Pa. - 1972)

 

Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. 28 USCA § 2411; - PFIZER V. LORD, 456 F 2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct App MN, (1972).

 

"A judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes or case law expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost." Id. "Law requires not only impartial tribunal, but that tribunal appears to be impartial." 28 U.S.C.A. 455.-  IN RE TIP-PAHANDS ENTERPRISES, INC., 27 B.R. 780 (U.S. Bankruptcy Ct.)

 

Municipality and Sate may be Sued

A parent may bring a suit against a municipality which failed to provide protection against an ex-spouse, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The parent may recover damages for her son's death and her own injuries, where the police force assured her of protection from a violent ex-spouse:

RAUCCI V. TOWN OF ROTTERDAM, No. 89-7693, U.S. Dist. Ct. --N.Y., April 27, 1990

Police Officers No Immunity

Police officer loses qualified immunity to claim that facially neutral policy has been executed in a discriminatory manner in a domestic violence situation if that police officer knows that the policy has a discriminatory impact:

HANSEN V. CITY OF ) LEGAL DEPT., 864 F.2d 1026, 3rd Cir. (1988)

Attorney’s Can Be Sued

Attorney can be sued for malpractice under consumer protection laws.

DEBAKEY V. STAGG, 605 SW 2d 631 (1980)

The Court Has a Duty To Ensure Constitutional Rights

It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of the citizen, against any stealthy encroachments thereon." -BOYD V. U.S., 116 US 616, 635, (1885)

“In short, the federal courts could step in where the state courts were unable or unwilling to protect federal rights." - ALLEN v. McCURRY, 449 U.S. 90 (1980)

Evil Orders Are Unconstitutional

Laws and court procedures that are "fair on their faces" but administered "with an evil eye or a heavy hand" was discriminatory and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 S.Ct. 356 (1886)

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied

Justice delayed is justice denied.

MAGNA CHARTA, Art.40, June 15, 1215.

Void Orders

Judge's dismissal for no cause is reversible.

FOMAN V. DAVIS, 371 US 178 (1962)

Non-Lawyers Entitled To Court

Non-lawyers can assist or represent litigants in court.

JOHNSON V. AVERY, 89 S.Ct. 747

Members of group who are competent no lawyers can assist other members of group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law"

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY TRAINMEN V. VIRGINIA , 377 US 1;

NAACP V. BUTTON, 371 US 415 (1962);

SIERRA CLUB V. NORTON, 92 S.Ct. 1561;

UNITED MINE WORKERS V. GIBBS, 383 US 715;

FARETTA V. CALIFORNIA, 422 US 806.

Pro Se To Be Considered Without Technicality

Pro Se (Without a Lawyer, representing self) pleadings are to be considered without technicality; pro se litigant’s pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.

HAINES V. KERNER, 92 S.Ct. 594;

JENKINS V. MCKEITHEN, 395 US 411, 421 (1969);

PICKING V. PENNA. RWY. CO. 151 F.2d 240;

PUCKETT V. COX, 456 F.2d 233.

 

The pleading of one who pleads pro se for the protection of civil rights should be liberally construed:

BLOOD V. MARGIS, 322 F.2d 1086 (1971)

Second Claim For Relief                 Treason – Jeremy Fogel

PLAINTIFFS:

All PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS: 

JEREMY FOGEL, Jeremy Fogel,

Jon Doe’s, 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On multiple occasions, including on or about September 9, 2005, January 27, 2006, March 3, 2006, July 12, 2006, July 21, 2006, October 3, 2006, September 12, 2006 and September 13, 2006, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of TREASON, in violation of 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1, a felony, was committed by JEREMY FOGEL, who did willfully and unlawfully commit TREASON.  JEREMY FOGEL having knowledge of the law and the fact that PLAINTIFFS in U.S. District Court San Jose case number C07 00391 had filed said case under the 11th Amendment in which said case was filed not only against JEREMY FOGEL’s employer but also his colleagues and that said case was filed by citizens of another State across state borders against the State and thus in accordance with not only due process, but also in accordance with the 11th Amendment of the United States Constitution JEREMY FOGEL had no Judicial power in said case and JEREMY FOGEL thus exceeded subject matter jurisdiction by making rulings in a case in which Judicial power was clearly prohibited JEREMY FOGEL acted under color of state and or territorial law.

U.S. Constitution, Eleventh Amendment: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”  

JEREMY FOGEL did Breach his Duty and exceeded subject matter jurisdiction in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1.  “Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.” U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 .Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)

Let the JURY NOTE: JEREMY FOGEL proceeded to not only assume jurisdiction when he had none, he went on to ignore extremely serious felonies committed against PLAINTIFFS including false arrest, assault, attempted murder, kidnap and JEREMY FOGEL allowed the continued kidnap of RCB and WFB.  As a DEFENDANT in the afore mentioned Federal case, JEREMY FOGEL, exceeded subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case against himself and his co-conspirators and even dismissed the case against DEFENDANTS who had made no appearance what so ever.  JEREMY FOGEL’s actions were willful and malicious. 

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

As a consequence of the willful and malicious actions of JEREMY FOGEL/Jeremy Fogel, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum certain amount of $66,016,803,250.00.

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITIES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

18 U.S.C. Section 1 “Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.” U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 .Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)

MenuVert

The Earth Plan's Peopleisim  is THE Solution to the Worlds Problems do IT!
It's time to shut down the Pedophiles & Lucifer Worshipers who sacrifice children - please visit & support Veterans For Child Rescue.
Liberty For Life can not endorse any adverts below as they are randomly generated by advertising companies.