Home Recommended Products Contact Us
 
 
Home
Resources & Links
Fatherlessness Statistics
Child Support
Legal Resources
Search This Site
Bad Judges List
Free Templates
Restraining Orders
Judicial Abuse Stories
Father's Stories
Legal Help & Referrals
Constitutional Rights
Donate
Table of Contents
Terms & Conditions
 
 
Signup for Newsletter
 
E-mail:  
 
 
Search Site
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judicial Tyranny Example # 951
 
BE a Court Watcher! IF you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. I not an attorney. FOLLOW only you're HEART!
 
 

I would never have believe this before I saw it with my own eyes. We are all brought up believing the judges are fair, honest and smart. As son as they put on that black robe they have enormous power. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the system is set up so these judges can do whatever they want and as time goes by, and their egos and arrogance gets the best of them they get worse and worse. Judges are suppose to do two things: 1) Determine the facts, 2) Apply the law. Unfortunately judges come to believe they are the law. They come to believe whatever they think and say is right, because no on in the court house dares go against them. In fact lawyer kiss judges as as a matter of standard operating procedure, embedding in every motion compliments and massaging the egos of judges to win their favor. It is disgusting to watch because it immediately shows that judges have little ability to remain impartial to the facts of the case. Good lawyers win bad cases, and poor lawyer lose good cases.

There are many cases where the injured party begins to fight back for his civil and constitutional rights. This then reveals the true nature of judges because they beging to go after that person. Judges should NEVER be able to go after anyone. In fact they are not allowed to make a case, this is the job of an opposing counsel. However, there are many examples where judges are working hard to put someone in jail because they don't like them and they are simply fighting for their rights and exposing a judges overzealous and illegal actions.

Here is an example where a judge is overstepping because James is a true warrior in the cause to bring these out of control judges down and make them accountable for their unlawful actions. James founded a group called Livebeat dads and them began marketing a program nationally to set up The National Association of Court Watchers (NACW). This is very threatening to judges because they know they are breaking the laws every day and they are vulnerable if this is documented by a system out of their control. They break the law every day by making statements of the records (asking the recording be paused so they can threaten and intimidate people). They break the law every day by taking away fundamental constitutional rights of people and denying due process. They break the law every day by doing what they WANT do do instead of what the law says they MUST do.

09/22/2005 SDTIN -  56233162 Sep 22 2005 9:46:53:450AM Realized $ 0.00
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------

09/22/2005 O -  56233726 Sep 22 2005 10:14:38:340AM Realized $ 0.00
ORDER OF COMMITMENT FOR PUNISHMENT RETURN FROM DAVID L MOSS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------

09/22/2005 O -  56233736 Sep 22 2005 10:16:11:463AM Realized $ 0.00
ORDER OF CONSOLIDATION AND NOTICE OF TRANSFER
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------

09/22/2005 CTFREE -  56239124 Sep 22 2005 4:31:38:410PM Realized $
0.00  
CANTRELL, DAMAN: ON THE RECORD WITH ROBERTA ADKISSON. STEVE VINCENT ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW. PLAINTIFF REPRESENTED BY JIM WILLIAMSON. GUARDIAN AD LITEM, RICK CLARKE, PRESENT. DEFENDANT SENTENCED TO AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS IN DAVID L. MOSS. PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND OR, DECREE OF DIVORCE. DEFENDANT GIVEN 7 DAYS TO RESPOND. CONTINUED EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE ORDER PO-05-3122 SET 10-5-05 9:00 P.M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------



---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------

Report Generated by The Oklahoma Supreme Court Network at September 24, 2005 00:28:28.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------

End of Transmission.

Disability Petition C/O Clerk of Court United States Court of Appeals
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse
40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007


Administrative Office of the Courts,
1915 North Stiles, Suite 305,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105,


Office of the Attorney General
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd, Ste 112
Oklahoma City, OK 73105


Attorney General
Alberto R. Gonzales
U.S Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530?0001


Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.),
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Federal Building, Suite B-120
17 South Park Row
Erie, PA 16501


Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.),
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Harrisburg Office
Room 1104, Federal Building
228 Walnut Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101


Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.),
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Philadelphia Office
600 Arch Street Suite 9400
Philadelphia, PA 19106


U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform
1615 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20062-2000


Office of Governor Brad Henry
State Capitol Building
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 212
Oklahoma City, OK 73105


H. Marshall Jarrett,
Counsel Office of Professional Responsibility
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 3529
Washington, D.C. 20530


Office of the Circuit Executive
United States Courts for the Tenth Circuit
Byron White United States Courthouse
1823 Stout Street
Denver, Colorado 80257


Judge Tom C. Gillert,
Tulsa-Pawnee Administrative District,
Tulsa County Courthouse,
500 S. Denver, Rm. 501,
Tulsa, OK 74103


Oklahoma Bar Association
1901 N. Lincoln Blvd.,
Oklahoma City,
OK, 73152-3036


Oklahoma County Bar Association
119 N. Robinson, Suite 240,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73102


Tulsa County Bar Association
1446 South Boston,
Tulsa, OK, 74119


Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.),
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Washington DC Office
711 Hart Building
Washington, DC 20510


Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.),
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Pennsylvania Offices
Allentown Office
Suite 3814, Federal Building
504 W. Hamilton
Allentown, PA 18101



James read the Bible to his children now Senator Williamson along with Special Judge Cantrell and Guardian Ad Litem Rick Clarke have been looking into his sanity based on his "crazy reading of the bible" to his children. Where are our morals and where are our religious rights, where is our due process. IF you do not stand up to these tyrants who will be next? The Sunday school teacher or the Pastor?

(1) Did the Senator Williamson, Special Judge Cantrell and Guardian Ad Litem Rick Clarke commit perjury?

(2) Did the Senator Williamson, Special Judge Cantrell and Guardian Ad Litem Rick Clarke obstruct justice?

(3) Did the Senator Williamson, Special Judge Cantrell and Guardian Ad Litem Rick Clarke tamper with witnesses; and

(4) Did the Senator Williamson, Special Judge Cantrell and Guardian Ad Litem Rick Clarke abuse the power of his office

Jaime-Alvaro Burbano In Propria Persona Sui Juris No. Case No. FD- 2004-4392

Who is being held without bale, without the right to due process.

This principle of law was stated by the U.S. Supreme Court as "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 IS EVEN PRIOR TO REVERSAL." [Emphasis added]. Vallely v. Northern Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 (1920). See also Old Wayne Mut. I. Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct. 236 (1907); Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 495, 540, 12 L. Ed, 1170, 1189, (1850); Rose v. Himely, 4 Cranch 241, 269, 2 L.Ed. 608, 617 (1808).

Former Connecticut governor gets a year in prison Rowland: 'I let my pride get in my way'

NEW HAVEN, Connecticut -- Former Gov. John G. Rowland was sentenced to a year in prison and four months under house arrest Friday for selling his office in a corruption scandal that destroyed his career as one of the Republican Party's brightest and fastest-rising stars. The judge imposed the sentence after Rowland pleaded for leniency and confessed he had lost his way morally and developed "a sense of entitlement and even arrogance." "I let my pride get in my way," he told U.S. District Judge Peter C. Dorsey. He resigned last summer amid a gathering drive to impeach him.

Sen. James Williamson (Bar # 9698). is in fact, the County of Tulsa Attorney and a Senator a conflict of Emolument, and wholly unconstitutional.

Wanton Negligence of my rights, and the already violated rights. COMES NOW THE PETITIONER, in this matter, TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHT, to Disqualification of a Judge. Due to the violation of rights, and by violation the Constitution of the United States of America by which Judge Contrell, swore to uphold. Special Judge Cantrell is NOT an elected JUDGE! has Violated Constitution! While a Judge may issue orders to control his court, he has no lawful authority to issue any order which violates the Supreme Law of the Land.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Section. 6.

Clause 2: No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office. Guardian Ad Litem Rick Clarke is trumping up evaluations to delay decisions.


Free Jaime-Alvaro Burbano
In Propria Persona Sui Juris
No. Case No. FD-2004-4392

First: Jurisdiction. Judge Cantrell has no jurisdiction in this matter.

Yes, James has done the correct thing and challenged it--and he has APPEARED SPECIALLY; however, there is something even more powerful which keeps the judge at bay right now.


1.) James is doing a Habeas Corpus action to secure his child. He is in the midst of making that formal legal demand by writ of habeas corpus. As you know, there cannot be two trial matters on the same subject matter. You cannot have two cases deciding the same thing (surplusage and replication.) That is why, courts hold off on prosecuting a criminal Federally while the state is in the midst of adjudicating him. Once that trial is over, the criminal is shipped off to the Federal venue in which to also stand trial there. A man may commit several murders in several states: each state waits their turn while the guy is prosecuted in state after state. After each trial, the criminal is processed to the next state to stand the same exact charges.

2.) Writ of Habeas Corpus is a trial procedure in itself. As that procedure is pending: no trial or hearing can ensue UNTIL that habeas process is over.

In its order granting the Appellees' motion for summary judgment, the district court began its analysis by setting forth the elements of a 1983 claim against an individual state actor as follows:

(1) [the plaintiff] possessed constitutional right's of which (s)he was deprived;

(2) the acts or omissions of the defendant were intentional;

(3) the defendant acted under color of law; and

(4) the acts or omissions of the defendant caused the constitutional deprivation. Estate of Macias v. Lopez, 42 F. Supp.2d 957, 962 (N.D. Cal. 1999). The court also stated that, to establish municipal liability, a plaintiff must show that

(1) [the plaintiff] possessed a constitutional right of which (s)he was deprived;

(2) the municipality had a policy or custom;

(3) this policy or custom amounts to deliberate indifference to [the plaintiff's] constitutional right; &

(4) the policy or custom caused constitutional deprivation.

3.) While James has his Habeas process going (which they have recognized on the record), he cannot have a collateral process working on the same subject matter.

We have a case in Massachusetts, (Cimini) where the federal judge ruled when presented with the legal question of "Who owns the children?" (oddly, that man was not arrested for doing so); that judge admitted on the federal record, that "Yes, the father has these rights, BUT THEY ARE NOT ABSOLUTE."

(e.g. the 3 "postive disqualifications" contravening a fathers custody does not make the right absolute).

So we know these rights exist, James is being pullied by Cantrell in which to frustrate James Habeas process--SO THE JUDGE CAN RUSH THROUGH HIS STATUTORY PROCESS TO ATTEMPT TO SUPERCEDE THE HABEAS CLAIM.

Cantrell in OPEN COURT today, actually turned to the audience in court and made a small silliloque that he was not biased nor prejudiced to fathers. "Oh," he asserted, in what was clearly a weeping rendition of "I have a dream"; "I have been good to fathers, I gave two fathers their children last week." (Probably solely due to the pressure we have put on him in open court and this case.)

PLEASE PRODUCE A SOLE SINGLE MOTHER TO WHOM YOU HAVE BADGERED AND BERATED IN OPEN COURT, AND TOLD TO SHUT UP; TOLD TO SIT DOWN; THEN PUT IN JAIL FOR STANDING UP FOR HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND FOR DISQUALIFYING YOU.

ODDLY, we put in a SUBPOENA today which made the claim that a Judge had to give several warnings to a litigant before finding them in DIRECT CONTEMPT. Whereas the Judge in question is in direct contempt of his oath of office and in violation of due process!

We should be pushing the Presiding Judge Gillert in this matter, and everyone must call him and ask when James jury trial hearing is set for the disqualification. We must ask Gillert why ONLY PLAINTIFF'S WITNESSES ARE ALLOWED BEFORE CANTRELL. They are trying to now find James incompetent (I presaged this defense over a week ago)--WITH NO ASSEVERATIONS FROM ANY DEFENSE WITNESS! "Only plaintiff's get to testify here" is the resounding rejoiner in Cantrells' Court.

We need EVERYONE whom has witnessed these events to get their affidavits in order . All he has is tyranny in his arsenal and he is using it to his advantage, but that clock is ticking.

Here's what must be done:

1.) Habeas to OKL Supreme Court (working on it now).

2.) Habeas to the Federal Court (District Court of the United States- -NOT the USDC).

3.) Mandamus to Appeals court on Disqualification.

4.) NOTICE TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE (people must WRITE him (not call) about what is transpiring) to give him NOTICE. Here's why:

5.) IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS to the Oklahoma Senate against Cantrell and Gillert.

Send a formal Notice to the purported "judge" (who is nothing more than a special master/ministerial actor in this case) that he cannot keep James in jail without probable cause and must release him within 48 hrs. of the jailing. The nature of the case involved is CIVIL in nature. Pursuant to Allen v. City of Portland, 73 F.3d 232, 237 (9th Cir. 1995, and later cases, e.g., Stevens v. Rose (2004), since there can be no probable cause to arrest and jail people in civil matters (probable cause is defined as someone who has committed or is committing a CRIME), James must be immediately released or he has a state civil rights claim against all involved, as well as criminal charges of official misconduct against the purported "judge".

Any misdemeanor or felony against a judge is considered official misconduct, which is an impeachable offense that can be brought to the state assembly for charging and then transferred to the senate for trial.

(k) Allegations of criminal conduct. If a judicial council dismisses, solely for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 351 et seq., non-frivolous allegations of criminal conduct by a judge, the judicial council's order of dismissal shall inform the complainant that the dismissal does not prevent the complainant from bringing any allegation of criminal conduct to the attention of appropriate federal or state criminal authorities. If, in this situation, the allegations of criminal conduct were originally referred to the circuit by a Congressional committee or member of Congress, the judicial council if no petition for review of the dismissal by the Judicial Conference lies under 28 U.S.C. 357.

Corruption in Family Courts is rampant: IF you answer yes to the following "impeach able facts:" Then it is corruption!

Due process is NOT allowed. Shut up, sit down and you are arrested for defending yourself.

"The courts of justice of the State shall be open to every person, and speedy and certain remedy afforded for every wrong and for every injury to person, property, or reputation; and right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, delay, or prejudice." Okla. Const. Art. 2, 6.

TITLE 28--JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE PART II--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CHAPTER 31--THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Sec. 528. Disqualification of officers and employees of the Department of Justice The Attorney General shall promulgate rules and regulations which require the disqualification of any officer or employee of the Department of Justice, including a United States attorney or a member of such attorney's staff, from participation in a particular investigation or prosecution if such participation may result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof.

Such rules and regulations may provide that a willful violation of any provision thereof shall result in removal from office. (Added Pub. L. 95-521, title VI, Sec. 603(a), Oct. 26, 1978, 92 Stat. 1874.) Effective Date Section effective Oct. 26, 1978, see section 604 of Pub. L. 95-521, set out as a note under section 591 of this title.


Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241

Conspiracy Against Rights U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 241

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 242

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S. This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race. Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False Statements TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES

CHAPTER 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01
Section 1001. Statements or entries generally (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

Title 42 USC Section 1983 Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 42 : Section 1983

Sec. 1983. - Civil action for deprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, 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, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia

The "liberty interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests" recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. Troxel v. Granville, 527 U.S. 1069 (1999). Moreover, the companionship, care, custody, and management of a parent over his or her child is an interest far more precious than any property right. May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533, (1952). As such, the parent-child relationship is
an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 27 (1981).

I swear an oath to the constitution, that the forgoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Signed_______________________________ Print Name: _____________

Signed:_______________________________Print Name: ____________



All Rights Reserved by the Citizen and None Waived.

Article. IV.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

CaseMasterID=1555958;

 

 

Back to List of Judicial Abuse Stories