CONSTITUTIONAL & CIVIL RIGHTS / RULE-OF-LAW / REIN IN JUDICIAL IMMUNITY / JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY /

NJ Judges Conceal, Defraud & Omit Laws & Facts
 

HELP KEEP
VICTIMS-OF-LAW
ON THE WEB

SHOP OUR ADVERTISERS

OR CONTRIBUTE NOW

DIRECTORY

HOME

ABOUT / CONTACT

TERMS / CONDITIONS

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

JUSTICE MYTHOLOGY


News & Views

ATTORNEYS & JUDGES

ATTORNEY NEWS

ATTORNEY NEWS REVIEW

JUDICIARY NEWS

BANKRUPTCY COURTS

IMMIGRATION COURTS

JUDICIARY NEWS REVIEW

JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM & INACTIVISM

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
NEWS & VIEWS

JUDGES SPEAKING OUT
FOR "WE THE PEOPLE"

PERSPECTIVES
 (Personal Observations)

U.S. SUPREME COURT

SCOTUS PG. 1

SCOTUS PG. 2

CURRENT SESSION


CRIMINAL LAW

Death Penalty

DEATH PENALTY ARCHIVES

DEATH PENALTY REPORTS

Innocents In Prison

Prison Reform


DISABILITY LAW

DISABILITY LAW

DISABILITY ARCHIVES


FAMILY LAW

Children's Rights

CHILDREN'S RIGHTS PG. 2

Family INFO  (General)

family LAW (archives)

family LAW articles
 
  Courtesy lawyers weekly

Fatherhood

Fatherhood Archives

Motherhood

MOTHERHOOD ARCHIVES


PROBATE LAW

guardianship


RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION

RELIGIOUS NEWS & VIEWS

RELIGIOUS NEWS 2006

FIRST AMENDMENT:
RELIGION & EXPRESSION


SELF-REPRESENTED
(Pro Se News)

PRO SE INFORMATION


REFORMERS

LEGAL ACTIVISTS

LEGAL ACTIVISTS Pg. 2


WHISTLEBLOWER  LAW

LEGAL & COURT BUSINESS

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES


INDEXES
TO SPECIAL
SECTIONS

FEDERAL COURTS INDEX

FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

JUDGING THE JUDGES
INDEX & RESOURCES

STATE INDEXES

FLORIDA

NEW JERSEY

NEW YORK

SOUTH DAKOTA

PRO SE INDEX

REFORMERS INDEX

WHISTLEBLOWER INDEX


LEGAL RESEARCH

LEGAL RESEARCH
(FREE SITES
)

ALSO SEE INDIVIDUAL STATE INDEXES


REFORM GROUPS

DISABILITY ACTIVISTS

FAMILY LAW

CHILDREN

FATHERHOOD

MOTHERHOOD

LEGAL REFORM ACTIVISTS

MAJOR REFORM GROUPS

PRO SE (SELF-HELP)

PRISON REFORM

DEATH PENALTY

WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS


MEDIA LINKS


PETITIONS

PEOPLE WHO HAVE
GONE PUBLIC


SEND EMAIL

 


 

"SUE THE BASTARDS" -- by: Andrew P. Napolitano

How New Jersey Judges Deceive the Public to

Deny Litigants their Rights

(Red print is what judges deliberately omitted)

 

DELIBERATELY MISLEADING JUDICIAL MISQUOTES

Before Judges NEWMAN and VILLANUEVA.

Judge Charles E. Villanueva, On Recall

 

PUBLISHED OPINION STATES PLAINTIFF SAID:
(i) tortious interference with a civil action;

PLAINTIFF ACTUALLY WROTE:

POINT I: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A LAWFUL CIVIL ACTION DENIED PLAINTIFF HER RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE TRIAL COURT.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PUBLISHED OPINION STATES PLAINTIFF SAID:
ii) violation of the separation of powers doctrine,
and the judiciary has no right to decline to exercise jurisdiction;

PLAINTIFF ACTUALLY WROTE IN POINTS II & III

POINT II: THE DESIGN INHERENT IN THE SEPARATION OF POWERS IS TO BLOCK TYRANNY BY ANY ONE BRANCH. A SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES DIFFUSES THE CONCENTRATIONS OF POWER.

Abuse of judicial power is impermissible.

It is well settled that courts may not disregard plain statutory language. In the words of the late Chief Justice Vanderbilt, "[a] clear and unambiguous statute is not open to construction or interpretation, and to do so in a case where not required is to do violence to the doctrine of the separation of powers." Watt v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Franklin, 21 N.J. 274, 277, 121 A.2d 499 (1956). ***where the language of a law is clear, courts are not free to replace it with unenacted legislative intention, for to do so leads the judiciary into undemocratic law making. State vs. Moss (Super. Ct. App. Div. 1994). 649 A.2d 1349, 277 N.J. Super. 545.

AND

POINT III WHICH INCLUDED A QUOTE FROM A PUBLISHED OPINION WAS WRITTEN AS FOLLOWS:

POINT III: ‘THE NEW JERSEY JUDICIARY HAS NO RIGHT TO DECLINE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION THAN TO USURP THAT WHICH IS NOT GIVEN. ONE OR THE OTHER WOULD BE TREASON TO THE CONSTITUTION.’[1] JUDICIAL REFUSAL TO DECIDE RECUSAL MOTIONS NULLIFIES THE INTENT OF STATUTORY LAW.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PUBLISHED OPINION STATES PLAINTIFF SAID:
iii) she has been oppressively harmed by abuses of judicial discretion denying her procedural rights

PLAINTIFF ACTUALLY WROTE:

POINT IV: PLAINTIFF HAS BEEN OPPRESSIVELY HARMED BY ABUSES OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN ITS FAILURE TO ACCORD HER PROCEDURAL RIGHTS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE DELIBERATE CONCEALMENTS OF THE MISSING DOCUMENTS.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PUBLISHED OPINION STATES PLAINTIFF SAID:

(iv) coerced or fraudulent settlements cannot defeat statutory rights;

 PLAINTIFF ACTUALLY WROTE:

POINT VI: COERCED OR FRAUDULENT SETTLEMENTS IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION CANNOT DEFEAT STATUTORY RIGHTS CREATED FOR THE PROTECTION OF DEPENDENT BENEFICIARIES OF ONE WRONGFULLY KILLED.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PUBLISHED OPINION STATES PLAINTIFF SAID:

v) there was a wanton and willful disregard with reckless indifference in an oppressive breach of fiduciary duties;

PLAINTIFF ACTUALLY WROTE:

POINT VIII: WANTON AND WILLFUL DISREGARD WITH RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE IN AN OPPRESSIVE BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO FRAUD, OMISSIONS, AND CONCEALMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PUBLISHED OPINION STATES PLAINTIFF SAID:
 (vi) Green's third party status and his disqualification based upon falsified certification was in the nature of malicious prosecution denying plaintiff free access to the courts.

PLAINTIFF ACTUALLY WROTE:

POINT IX: GREEN’S THIRD PARTY STATUS AND HIS DISQUALIFICATION BASED ON FALSIFIED CERTIFICATIONS WAS AND IS IN THE NATURE OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. -- BY THE SEVERITY OF THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON PLAINTIFF, IT GIVES DUE RECOGNITION TO THE COUNTER-POLICY IN FAVOR OF FREE ACCESS TO JUDICIAL BODIES. -- THE ‘SUBSTANTIAL RELATIONSHIP TEST’ REQUIRED A FULL PLENARY HEARING ON THE MERITS.


[1] Paraphrased from State Bar Ass’n v. New Jersey Assn’n of Realtor Bds. (287 A.2d 14, 118 N.J. Super. 203 at 209, 210 Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1972 “It would be a simple solution to retreat from judicial responsibility and ask others to undertake this important constitutional obligation. The judicial oath solemnly promises that a judge or justice of our courts will support the Constitutions of this State and of the United States and that he will perform his judicial duties faithfully, impartially and justly, to the best of his ability.

It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them. All we can do, is to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. [At 404]”

 

 

THE USURPERS

Chief Justice Deborah T. Poritz

New Jersey Judiciary Website

N.J. Supreme Court

Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex

PO Box 023, Trenton, NJ 08625-0023


Appellate Courts

Charles E. Villanueva, A.J.S.C.
(On Recall)

&

 Richard Newman, A.J.S.C.

Morris County Courthouse

155 Morris Avenue,

Morristown, 07963-0910


Trial Court

Frmr NJ Superior Court Judge

Andrew P. Napolitano
1987-1995
Still considers himself a judge.
Fixed Case on March 31, 1995; the day he stepped down from the bench.

"No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity."
--James Madison--
Federalist No. 10

&

Isabel B. Stark, J.S.C

Bergen County Justice Center

10 Main Street

Hackensack, 07601


Ethical Attorneys Involved in the Case

Trial Attorney
Robert B. Green

Chatham, NJ

 

Appellate Court Attorney

Fred Shahrooz Scampato

Website

445 East Broad Street
Westfield, NJ 07090
Phone: (908) 301-9095
Fax: (908) 301-9790


And who protects 'we the people' from the law-breaking judges?

'SUE THE BASTARDS"

"Congress and the State legislatures should make it easier to sue the federal and state governments for monetary damages when they violate our constitutional liberties."

--Former Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, page 186 in "Constitutional Chaos" --

 

Due to server's technical difficulties the numbering restarted on 6/19/06
You are visitor number

Hit Counter

INAUGURATED ON: August 20, 2005
Updated on: 02/20/2010