Falling Back on the Constitution to Avoid
the Tyranny of the Courts
You can talk to the Judge or anyone in the courts.
When the hearing starts, ask your question,
"Does this court take judicial notice
of the US Constitution?" Wait for the answer, and make sure your on the record.
When they answer yes, ask "Does this court take judicial notice of (your
wait for the answer, say nothing, silence means guilt on their part for the
When they say, yes, hold up your copy of the Constitution and say,
In my copy of the constitution there is Common law, Equity law, and Admiralty
law is this one of those?
Wait for the answer, silence for the record, if no answer at all they go out of jurisdiction.
If they answer, this is family
law and statutory law and or quote the chapter or section, you reply with, although the Constitution recognizes
statutory law, it does not say it in the Constitution and that means I would
have to voluntarily enter into the contract and I don't.
If the reply is, you
are in contempt, you ask is it civil or criminal, wait for the reply, for
the record, if they say civil, you don't have a contract with the
judge, if they say criminal, who makes the claim, who is the injured party, if
they reply they are, the state nor judge cannot be the injured party, it has to
be a person and you have not injured anyone in the court, the judge works for
the state on state funds and so don't the rest of them, the judge is out of
jurisdiction and looses immunity, US 42 AND TITLE 18 apply.
The judge becomes a
minister of his/her own prejudice, Pierson v. Ray and violates the cannons of
which they are sworn to. The judge is singling you out, thus se the Communist
7A.REFERENCES, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS VIOLATION OF CASE LAW ATTACHED
8A.STATED IN PEIRSON V. RAY,
U.S. Supreme Court Reports
PIERSON v. RAY, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)
386 U.S. 547
PIERSON ET AL. v. RAY ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.
Argued January 11, 1967.
Decided April 11, 1967. *
When a judge acts intentionally and knowingly to deprive a person of his
constitutional rights he exercises no discretion or individual judgment; he acts
no longer as a judge, but as a " minister" of his own prejudices. [386 U.S. 547,
A judge is liable for injury caused by a ministerial act; to have immunity the
judge must be performing a judicial function. See, e. g., Ex parte Virginia, 100
U.S. 339 ; 2 Harper & James, The Law of Torts 1642-1643 (1956). The presence of
malice and the intention to deprive a person of his civil rights is wholly
incompatible with the judicial function.
9A.Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 - Pattern and Practice
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245 - Federally Protected Activities
DATES OF INCIDENTS: FACTS
A. AUG.5,2004 MR. CEFALO WAS NOTIFIED OF A SHELTER HEARING BY DCF MR GORE AT
10:31 AM AUG,5,2004 TO APPEAR IN COURT BY 1:00PM THE SAME DAY, LEAVING MR.
CEFALO WITH NO ADVANCED NOTICE OF A HEARING AND UNABLE TO CONTACT MR. CEFALO
ATTORNEY AT A SHORT NOTICE, LEAVING MR CEFALO AT A DISADVANTAGE AND DUE PROCESS
BEING VIOLATED, THIS WITNESSED BY A FLORIDA RESIDENT.
B. OCTOBER 15,2004,A HEARING WAS HELD AND A CASE PLAN PRESENTED. MR CEFALO
REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY R. H. VAN HART.AMY CEFALO REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY
ROTHFELD AND AMY CEFALO'S BROTHER ATTORNEY CHRIS MOAKLEY. MR CEFALO WAS IN A
MEETING ABOUT THE CASE PLAN WITH ALL PRESENT. AT APROX.10:08 AM, ATTORNEY
MOAKLEY AND AMY CEFALO REMOVED THEMSELVES FROM THE CASE PLAN MEETING AND
PROCEEDED TO A SEPARATE MEETING WITH JUDGE ALLAN APTE, THUS HAVING A PRIVATE
CONFERENCE WITH JUDGE ALLAN APTE LEAVING MR. CEFALO AT A DISADVANTAGE
ON OCT.15,2004 THE CASE PLAN BEING SUBMITTED WAS WELL OVER THE 60 DAY FLORIDA
LAW FOR SUBMISSION. MR CEFALO DID NOT SIGN IT AND WAS ADVISED NOT TO SIGN BY
ATTORNEY R. H. VAN HART. IT WAS PRESENTED AND SET THAT A PRE-TRIAL FOR THE CASE
PLAN WOULD BE HEARD ON DECEMBER 7,2004,ALL AGREED.
C. THE CASE PLAN WAS NOT SIGNED BY AMY CEFALO, NOR HER ATTORNEY UNTIL NOVEMBER
D. DECEMBER 7,2004,ATTORNEY R.H.VAN HART CALLED MR.
CEFALO AND TOLD MR. CEFALO DO NOT GO TO THE COURT FOR THE HEARING. ATTORNEY R. H.
VAN HART ADVISED THAT HE HAD SPOKEN TO DCF ATTORNEY N. JOHNSON AND JUDGE ALLAN
APTE, AND BOTH OF THEM TOLD ATTORNEY R.H.VAN HART THAT MR. CEFALO WAS NOT NEEDED
AT THE HEARING AND FOR MR CEFALO NOT TO BE THERE, CONFIRMED BY A FLORIDA
WITNESS, SHE WAS TOLD THE SAME BY ATTORNEY R.
H. VAN HART, THIS
BY CONFERENCE CALL AT 3152 SHINGLE CREEK CT. KISSIMMEE FLORIDA 34746.
MR. CEFALO COMPLIED TO THE AUTHORITY OF JUDGE ALLAN APTE ON , DECEMBER 7,2004
AND MR. CEFALO DID NOT GO TO THE COURT HOUSE FOR THE HEARING.
E. DECEMBER 14,2004,MR. CEFALO WAS INFORMED THAT THE CASE PLAN WAS SIGNED BY
JUDGE APTE, NO HEARING, PRE-TRIAL, A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS AND JUDGE ALLAN
APTE KNEW OF THE CASE PLAN AND THE DATE. THE DATE OF THE CASE PLAN CLEARLY BY
7,2004 WAS WELL OVER THE 60 DAY FLORIDA LAW FOR CASE PLANS. THE PLAN WAS TO BE
SUBMITTED BY OCT.5,2004 THIS WAS VERIFIED BY MR CEFALO, READING ABOUT CASE PLANS
FROM SENATOR SKIP CAMPBELL AND HIS ATTORNEY DOLCE, WHO MONITORED COURT WATCH IN
THE SHADOW OF THE SUNSHINE STATE, LENGTHENING SHADOW REPORTS, RELEASE DATE
NOVEMBER 2004,BY ATTORNEY DOLCE, SAYING CASE PLANS ARE NOT GOOD IF SUBMITTED
AFTER THE 60 DAY LAW, OF WHICH MR CEFALO'S CASE PLAN APPLY, WHEREFORE, JUDGE ALLAN
APTE SIGNED THE CASE PLAN WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED FALSELY AND UNDER
GUISE BY DCF ATTORNEY N. JOHNSON IN ORDER TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE FOR AMY CEFALO ON
DECEMBER 7,2004. MR. CEFALO FOUND OUT AND SUBMITTED THE INFORMATION TO ATTORNEY
R. H. VAN HART AND COMPARED THE ORIGINAL SHELTER HEARING DOCUMENT AND AGAIN ON
OCT.15,2004,CONTINUING, WITH THE ONE SUBMITTED ON DECEMBER 7,2004,NEITHER OF
THEM WERE THE SAME AND WORDS, SUCH AS FALSE ADDED WORDS THREATEN TO KILL WERE PUT
IN BY DCF ATTORNEY N. JOHNSON, WHICH ARE LIES SUBMITTED IN A COURT DOCUMENT, TO
GAIN AN ADVANTAGE FOR AMY CEFALO, DISCRIMINATING AGAINST MR.
CEFALO. COPYS OF BOTH/ALL ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AND ATTY VAN HART CAN BE
CALLED FOR WITNESS.
F. ON DECEMBER 19,2004,MR CEFALO, received BY WORD FROM THERAPIST M. FOLEY'S, SLIP
OF HER TONGUE,MR CEFALO WAS NOT TO KNOW OF A SECRET HEARING DATE OF DECEMBER
21,2004.MR CEFALO NOTIFIED ATTORNEY VAN HART ON DECEMBER 20,2004 A.M., AND
ATTORNEY VAN HART STATED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF ANY HEARING ON DECEMBER
21,2004.ATTORNEY VAN HART STATED ON RECORD DECEMBER 21,2004 OF NOT BEING
NOTIFIED OF THE HEARING, AND PRIOR HAD CALLED JUDGE ALLAN APTE LEGAL SECRETARY
ASKING ABOUT THE HEARING TO CONFIRM IT, ATTORNEY VAN HART CALLED THE COURT
20,2004 AND CALLED MR CEFALO AND CONFIRMED THERE WAS A HEARING TO TAKE PLACE ON
DECEMBER 21,2004.MR CEFALO WAS DENIED CHRISTMAS WITH HIS CHILDREN.
JUDGE ALLAN APTE STATED TO DCF AND ON RECORD OF BIAS AND DISCRIMINATION AS TO
WHO, ABOUT MR CEFALO BEING DISCRIMINATED AND DCF CLEARLY SHOWING BIAS, RECORDED ON
RECORD, BY JUDGE ALLAN APTE AND HEARD BY ALL IN THE COURTROOM
G. DECEMBER 27,2004 MR CEFALO WAS TOLD BY ATTORNEY R.H. VAN HART THAT AT THE VERY
LEAST THERE ARE SEXUAL BATTERY CHARGES AGAINST AMY CEFALO DUE TO WHAT SHE DID TO
HER DAUGHTER LEIGH CEFALO, ON JULY 23,2004,AND REPORTED ON A SEPT 17,2004 CASE
REPORT BY MS KAREN WALKER.
MR CEFALO HAD NOT SEEN THE REPORT AND HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT AS IT WAS BEING
WITHHELD BY DCF ATTORNEY N.
JOHNSON, AGAIN IN CLEAR FAVOR OF AMY
CEFALO, DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MR CEFALO. MR CEFALO ASKED FOR THE REPORT AND WAS
DENIED THE REPORT UNTIL IT WAS FINALLY ACQUIRED IN APRIL 15,2005 THE REPORT BY
KAREN WALKER,407-595-6487 SAYS THAT THE MOTHER AMY CEFALO WASHED UP THE DAUGHTER
ROUGHLY IN HER VAGINA AREA. THIS CAUSED LEIGH PAIN AND MR CEFALO ON JULY 23,2004
TOOK LEIGH TO THE PEDIATRICIAN DR. CARON, WHO IN TURN SENT MR CEFALO AND
DAUGHTER LEIGH TO THE OSCEOLA REG HOSPITAL FOR EXAMINATION OF WHICH THE HOSPITAL
DOCTOR INSTRUCTED AFTER HIS EXAM HIS HEAD NURSE SANDY TO CALL THE RAPE TEAM OF
WHICH KISSIMMEE POLICE CAME AND ESCORTED MR CEFALO AND DAUGHTER LEIGH TO THE
FLORIDA HOSPITAL KISSIMMEE FLORIDA, AND AFTER THEIR EXAMINATION OF LEIGH, THEY
ALSO CALLED THE RAPE TEAM, INSPECTOR C.
HESS AND .THE DOCTOR, INSPECTOR HESS, BOTH TOLD DCF M VENTURA THAT THE CHILDREN
ARE TO STAY WITH DAD, MR CEFALO, THE CHILDREN WILL BE SAFE WITH HIM. THE DOCTOR AND
STAFF AND INSPECTOR HESS AND DCF VENTURA TOLD MR CEFALO THAT THERE WOULD BE A
FORENSIC EXAM FOR LEIGH JULY 26,2004. ON JULY 26,2004 MR CEFALO SENT FAXES TO
DCF MR HAMMETT AT 2;07 PM AND INSPECTOR HESS, AND JUDGE WALLER, AND NOTIFIED THEM
THAT NO ONE CONTACTED MR CEFALO AT ALL ON JULY 26,2004 ABOUT THE MANDATORY
FORENSIC. MR CEFALO AT 4:30PM WENT TO DCF ,JOHN YOUNG PARKWAY AND HAD A FACE TO
FACE WITH DCF MILLIE AND DCF NILDA, THEY BOTH STATED, THERE WAS NO FORENSIC EXAM
FOR LEIGH CEFALO. MR. CEFALO WAS NOTIFIED ON JULY 27,2004 AT 4PM THAT A FORENSIC
EXAM FOR DAUGHTER LEIGH WOULD NOT TAKE PLACE TILL JULY 28,2004 AT 2PM IN ORLANDO
FL. THE INCIDENT WITH LEIGH CEFALO TOOK PLACE JULY 23,2004, A DCF FIVE DAY
DELAY, OF A FORENSIC, EXAM FOR A LITTLE GIRL, MY DAUGHTER LEIGH CEFALO OF WHICH
DR, CARON THE PEDIATRICIAN PRESCRIBE MEDICATION BY PRESCRIPTION FOR LEIGH, YET
THE FIVE DAY DELAY BY DCF, INTENT TO ASSIST AMY CEFALO AND DCF DENY MEDICAL
TREATMENT FOR LEIGH CEFALO AGE 7 YEARS, WHICH IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF MY
DAUGHTER LEIGH CEFALO.
COULD IT BE A COVER UP BY DCF KISSIMMEE FLORIDA.
H. JANUARY 14,2005,A HEARING FOR MOTION TO WITHDRAW BY ATTORNEY VAN HART, THE
ONLY MOTION HEARING SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 14,2005 WHICH MY COURT RECORD SHOWS TO
LAST FOR FIVE MINUTES. MR CEFALO WAS DISCHARGING ATTORNEY VAN HART DUE TO
FAILURE AND HE WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE OF THE REPORT OF KAREN WALKER AND THE
KNOWLEDGE OF THE AT LEAST SEXUAL BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST AMY CEFALO. AT THE
HEARING FOR DISCHARGE, ATTORNEY VAN HART WAS DISCHARGED. IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE
DISCHARGE .JUDGE ALLAN APTE HELD A HEARING FOR THE SECOND AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT
OF THE CASE OF JUDGE MCDONALD, NUMBER DR 02 - DS - 135, NOT THE NEW CASE NUMBER
DUE TO JUDGE MCDONALD BEING RECUSED.J UDGE WALLER HAD THE NEW CASE NUMBER ON HER
SCHEDULE PER MY PRINTOUT OF HER DOCKET AND COPIED.
JUDGE ALLAN APTE DENIED MR. CEFALO'S REQUEST FOR CONTINUE AND HELD A COURT
SLAUGHTER OF MR. CEFALO. MR CEFALO HAD ONLY HIS BIBLE WITH HIM, AND HELD IT IN
HIS HANDS. ATTORNEY READING AND AMY CEFALO HAD THE ONLY PAPERS AS IT SHOWED TO
BE ALL PRE ARRAIGNED BY THEM FOR THIS HEARING OF WHICH SHOULD NOT BE TAKING
PLACE ,DUE TO THE RECUSAL OF JUDGE MCDONALD ON SEPT 24,2004.JUDGE ALLAN APTE WAS
PRESENTED MR CEFALO'S ANUITY FUNDS WHICH MOST WERE ACQUIRED BACK IN 1982 AND
CONTINUED AND MORE PURCHASED WHEN MR CEFALO WAS AWARDED
APROX.1/2 MILLION DOLLARS IN 1994 BEFORE THE MARRIAGE TO AMY MOAKLEY. THE
MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE ON JUNE 3,1994, THE DISABILITY SETTLEMENT WAS MARCH 1994.
AND ALL CLAIMS FOR INJURY WERE DATED APRIL 1989.MR CEFALO DID NOT KNOW AMY
MOAKLEY TILL NOV. 1992 THE ANNUITY FUNDS HAD THE NAME OF JOAN L. CEFALO, AND
JEFFREY CEFALO, ON THEM COPY ENCLOSED AND MR CEFALO AND JOAN L. CEFALO HAD BEEN
MARRIED FOR 27 YEARS PRIOR TO AMY MOAKLEY. JUDGE ALLAN APTE WHEN HE SEEN
THESE, SAID, CLEARLY, "THESE LOOK LIKE OLD ONES ROLLED OVER", MR CEFALO SAID,"YES
THEY ARE,THEY WERE PURCHASED IN 1982 AND 1985,1987,1989,AND ROLLED OVER BY FIRST
INVESTORS, MAT HALL,MR CEFALO'S FINANCE HANDLER, IN WALTHAM MA.. ATTORNEY READING
STATED THE ANNUITY WERE PURCHASED IN 1999 AFTER THE MARRIAGE AND AMY CEFALO
TESTIFIED TO IT ALSO. JUDGE ALLAN APTE ,SHRUGGED HIS SHOULDERS AND
SAID, OH, WELL, AMY CEFALO TAKES HALF. THIS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF DISABLED FUNDS
AWARD SETTLEMENT BEFORE THE MARRIAGE OF AMY MOAKLEY AND HAS CLEARLY, JOAN L.
CEFALO NAME ON THEM.
JUDGE APTE, ADMINISTERED HIS OWN WITH HIS OWN PREJUDICE, WILLFULLY KNOWING ,AND
VIOLATED MR CEFALO RIGHTS, CAUSING GREAT HARM TO MR. CEFALO. JUDGE ALLAN APTE
JOINED IN WITH ATTORNEY READING AND AMY CEFALO AND IT BECAME A SLAUGHTER IN THE
COURT OF MR CEFALO, CASE REFERENCES ATTACHED.
I. MARCH 10,2005 NEWS FLASHES WFTV, AND CHANNEL 13,ORLANDO FLORIDA BROADCASTED
THAT JUDGE ALLAN APTE WAS BEING BOOKED AND INDICTED. HIS FACE APPEARED ON TV. AND
IN THE NEWSPAPERS. GOV. BUSH IN AN INTERVIEW, WITH CHANNEL 13,I TAPED IT, HE GOV.
BUSH SAYS THAT JUDGE ALLAN APTE WILL BE IMPEACHED. JUDGE ALLAN APTE BEING
ACCUSED OF PECUNIARY GAIN FOR SOLICITING EZZIE THOMAS FOR VOTES FOR ALLAN APTE
SEAT AS A JUDGE.
ADMIN. JUDGE PEERY CAN SHED MORE INFORMATION ON ALLAN APTE.
CLEARLY BY JUDGE ALLAN APTE BEING ON TV AND IN THE NEWS HAS RAISED THE ISSUE OF
PUBLIC TRUST, MORE SO SINCE HIS ACTIONS AGAINST MR. CEFALO AS JUDGE APTE
PERFORMED ON JANUARY 14,2005,WILLFULL ASSISTING ,AMY CEFALO AND HER ATTORNEY
READING TO FRAUD, EXTORTION OF ANNUITY FUNDS FROM A TOTALLY DISABLED MR
CEFALO. PUBLIC TRUST VIOLATIONS BY JUDGE ALLAN APTE. IT WAS SENT OUT BY THE COURT
AND GOV. BUSH THAT ALL HEARINGS THE JUDGE APTE HAD SCHEDULED WERE CANCELLED, DUE
TO ALLAN APTE BEING BOOKED AND INDICTED.
J.MARCH 28,2005,MR. CEFALO WENT TO THE COURT HOUSE AND PRESENTED HIMSELF TO PAM,
THE JUVENILE RECORD KEEPER. MR CEFALO ASKED FOR A HEARING SCHEDULE AND PAM,
PRINTED OUT THE SCHEDULE, WHICH SHOWED ALL HEARINGS CANCELLED AND NOTHING FOR
MARCH 28,2005,NOR FOR APRIL 4,5,2005.ALL HEARINGS WERE TO BE RESCHEDULED WITH
JUDGE MORGAN. THE EARLIEST BEING APRIL 25,2005.THIS ALSO RECORDED ON A COURT
RECORD THAT WAS SENT TO ME FROM MY ATTORNEY C.D.
JAMIESON, WEST PALM BEACH FL. COPY ENCLOSED SHOWS HEARING FOR APRIL4,2005,A
TYPO, DUE TO A FALSE DATE, WHICH ON A COURT RECORD SHOWS TWO HEARINGS FOR APRIL 5,
2005 OF WHICH WERE CANCELLED DUE TO JUDGE APTE BEING BOOKED AND INDICTED EAVING
,THE JUVENILE RECORD ROOM I NOTICED THE DCF ATTORNEY N. JOHNSON AND CASE WORKER
KIDS HOPE UNITED, B. BIRON, AND ATTORNEY ROTHFELD, AMY CEFALO ATTORNEY, AND AMY
CEFALO ALL ENTERING THE COURTROOM OF JUDGE MORGAN. MR CEFALO ALONG WITH A WITNESS
ENTERED THE COURTROOM ALSO TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON FOR ALL OF THEM TO BE THERE.
MR. CEFALO WAS TOLD BY CASE WORKER B. BIRON TO LEAVE THE COURT, THERE WAS NO
HEARING SCHEDULED AND MR CEFALO NEEDS TO SPEAK WITH HIS ATTORNEY C. JAMIESON
ABOUT THE HEARINGS. B. BIRON WENT FURTHER AND TOLD DCF ATTORNEY JOHNSON ABOUT MR
CEFALO BEING IN THE COURTROOM ,SHE ALSO TOLD ATTORNEY ROTHFELD. DCF ATTORNEY N.
JOHNSON WROTE A HAND NOTE AND SO DID B. BIRON, KIDS HOPE UNITED AND GAVE IT TO
CEFALO SAYING NO HEARING ,DON'T NEED TO BE HERE. MR CEFALO TOOK NOTES OF WHAT
THEIR CONVERSATION WAS ABOUT, THIS ALL WITNESSED BY A FLORIDA RESIDENT. MR. CEFALO
WAITED TILL 11:30AM, SINCE BEING IN THE COURT SINCE 8:36AM AFTER LEAVING
JUVENILE RECORDS, BEING TOLD BY PAM NOTHING SCHEDULED TILL APRIL 25,2005
CONFIRMED. AT 11;30 AM, AMY CEFALO'S ATTORNEY ROTHFELD PRESENTED TO JUDGE MORGAN
THAT THE MOTHER WANTED THE SON, JEFFREY TO DO A SLEEP OVER THAT VERY NIGHT, MARCH
MR CEFALO OBJECTED AND TOLD JUDGE MORGAN WHAT'S THIS HEARING ABOUT, ALL WERE
CANCELLED. MR CEFALO WAS TO SEE HIS SON THAT NIGHT, MARCH 28,2005,TWO DAYS AFTER
HIS SONS BIRTHDAY, OF WHICH MR CEFALO WAS DENIED TO SEE HIS SON ON HIS BIRTHDAY
MARCH 26,2005,THIS BEING THE THIRD YEAR IN A ROW, MR CEFALO HAS BEEN DENIED
SEEING HIS SON ON HIS BIRTHDAY DUE TO DISCRIMINATION AND BIAS CONSPIRED BY AMY
CEFALO, DCF, KIDS HOPE UNITED, ATTY READING ,ATTY ROTHFELD, MS FOLEY, AND THE 9TH
MR CEFALO IN MARCH 26,2004 HAD TO CALL THE OSCEOLA SHERIFF DEPT. TO HAVE HIS
CHILDREN RETURNED TO MR CEFALO. THE SHERIFF HAD TO SPEAK TO AMY CEFALO SEVERAL
TIMES WHILE OSCEOLA EMT'S ASSISTED MR CEFALO WITH BLOOD PRESSURE OF 128/112,WITH
OXYGEN AND NITRO TABS DUE TO THE STRESS CAUSED BY AMY CEFALO OF THREATS AND NON
RETURN OF THE CHILDREN TO MR CEFALO TO COMPLETE THE SPRING VACATION THAT WAS
COURT AWARDED TO MR CEFALO. MR CEFALO THEREFORE SPENT 5 HOURS AT THE OSCEOLA
HOSPITAL, DOCUMENTED DUE TO THE INCIDENT CREATED BY AMY CEFALO ET.AL. A MOTION
WAS TURNED IN, BY MR. CEFALO AND DENIED BY THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT, JUDGE MCDONALD.
THE WEEK BEFORE, MR CEFALO'S APARTMENT WAS BROKEN INTO AND ALL SOCIAL SECURITY
CARDS, COURT RECORDS, CREDIT CARDS MILITARY ID, STOLEN FROM MR CEFALO'S
APARTMENT, D THEFT WAS REPORTED AND DOCUMENTED.
IN JANUARY 5,2005 MR CEFALO RECEIVED WRITTEN CONFIRMATION OF FRAUDULENT CHARGES
BY A DR. M.J. BONE WHO HELPED HIMSELF TO MR CEFALO'S AT&T CREDIT CARD WITHOUT
AUTHORIZATION AND CHARGED IT TWICE. DR. BONE WAS THE PSYCHOLOGIST THAT WAS DOING
AN EVALUATION OF THE CEFALO FAMILY AND ASSISTED AMY CEFALO AND DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST MR CEFALO WHEN MR CEFALO CAUGHT DR. BONE CHARGING MR CEFALO'S CREDIT CARD
ILLEGALLY. DR. BONE TURNED IN FALSE REPORTS ABOUT MR.
CEFALO TO THE OSCEOLA COURT DUE TO DR. M.J. BONE BEING CAUGHT WITH FRAUD., DR.
BONE IS ALSO AN ATTORNEY JUST LIKE AMY CEFALO'S BROTHER. WHICH FURTHERS ME ALONG
TO JUNE 30,2005 AND JULY 13,2005 OF WHICH JUDGE ALLAN APTE CLEARLY PROCLAIMS IN
THE COURT, WHEN MR CEFALO SAID THAT HE JUDGE ALLAN APTE GAVE AWAY HALF OF MY
ANNUITY FUNDS THAT WERE NOT AMY CEFALO AND THAT MY AWARD SETTLEMENT WAS BEFORE
THE MARRIAGE TO AMY CEFALO AND THE AWARD WAS A VALUE OF $1.79 CENTS FOR MR.
CEFALO FOR THE REMAINDER OF HIS LIFE WHICH SOCIAL SECURITY DEEMED TO BE AGE 89,
MY PRESENT AGE IS THE CORNER OF 60 YEARS A SENIOR. JUDGE APTE TOOK ONE HALF OF MY
$1.79 CENTS AND GAVE IT AWAY ALONG WITH MY DISABLED HOUSE AND ALL MY BELONGINGS
AND EVERYTHING I OWNED AND BOUGHT WHEN HE RULED ON JANUARY 14,2005 APPLYING HIS
OWN PREJUDICE AND When a judge acts intentionally and knowingly to deprive a
person of his constitutional rights he exercises no discretion or individual
judgment; he acts no longer as a judge, but as a " minister" of his own
JULY 13,2005 JUDGE APTE STATES, "MR CEFALO YOU FIRED YOUR ATTORNEY, THERE WERE NO
GUARANTEES FOR YOU",,
CLEARLY JUDGE ALLAN APTE HE SAYS," MR CEFALO YOU ARE NOT AN ATTORNEY, THEREFORE
NO JUSTICE AND NO LAW FOR YOU"
CONSPIRED WITH CHRIS MOAKLEY ,AMY CEFALO BROTHER, ATTY ROTHFELD, ATTORNEY
JUDGE ALLAN APTE HAS FORCED MR CEFALO TO FURTHER COSTS OF LITIGATION IN THE 5TH
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN DAYTONA BEACH FLORIDA .THE CASE IS IN APPEAL AND
ITS UNDER APPEAL RIGHT NOW COSTING ME HARM AND MORE DOLLARS IN TRAVEL AND
INCONVENIENCE AND VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MR CEFALO.
JULY 13,2005 AT THE SAME HEARING JUDGE ALLAN APTE INSINUATED THAT MR CEFALO WAS
A LIER. MR CEFALO DUE TO HEART SURGERY ON JUNE 7,2005 AND BEING HARASSED BY DCF
ELBOWING THEIR WAY THROUGH MR CEFALO'S FRONT DOOR ON JUNE 9,2005,LESS THAN 35
HOURS OF HAVING HEART SURGERY, DCF VENTURA CLEARLY VIOLATING MR CEFALO FOURTH
AMENDMENT RIGHT ,MY CHILDREN WERE NOT WITH ME NOT HAS ANYONE TOLD THEM OF MY
HEART SURGERY, THEY ALL WILLFULLY WANTING ME TO DIE AND HAVE FORCED PREMEDITATED
MURDER ON MR CEFALO. DCF VENTURA SCREAMED AT MR CEFALO ABOUT A LETTER SENT TO AS
DCF VENTURA CALLED AND SCREAMED "I NEED TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THAT LETTER YA SENT
BUSH LAST MONTH" DCF VENTURA TRIED TO ELBOW HER WAY PAST MY
CAREGIVER, FRIGHTENING HER AS MY CAREGIVER SHOOK IN FEAR AT MY FRONT DOOR.
DCF COWORKER TOLD DCF VENTURA ,'WE NEED TO LEAVE", DCF VENTURA RAGGED IN SPANISH
AS SHE TURNED ROUGHLY AND HANDED MY CAREGIVER A DCF FLYER WITH HER NAME AND ALL
DCF NAMES FOR CONTACTS. CLEAR VIOLATIONS OF 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS BY DCF CONSPIRED
WITH AMY CEFALO ET.AL. TO GAIN ADVANTAGE. PERSONAL GAIN PECUNIARY GAINS.
JULY 13,2005,,JUDGE ALLAN APTE,, MR CEFALO YOU FIRED YOUR ATTORNEY, NO GUARANTEE.
JUDGE APTE HAS VIOLATED THE INTEGRITY, AND ETHICS.
JULY 13,2005,JUDGE ALLAN APTE TELLS MR CEFALO 'YOU SMOKE THREE PACKS OF
CIGARETTES A DAY, YOUR PRESCRIPTION STINKS OF TOBACCO. MR CEFALO SAYS "I SMOKE
THREE CIGARETTES A DAY AND MY LUNGS ARE CLEAR". JUDGE APTE SAYS, "THEN YOU DON'T
HAVE PNEUMONIA LIKE YOU SAID",, MR CEFALO REPLY, THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID, I DO
HAVE PNEUMONIA MY LUNGS HAVE NO BLACK SMOKE MARKS ON THEM, I HAVE MY VETERANS
FEDERAL MEDICAL REPORT THAT THEY DIAGNOSED ME WITH PNEUMONIA. COPY'S AVAILABLE
YES I DO HAVE PNEUMONIA", JUDGE ALLAN APTE INSINUATING AND TRYING TO SAY I'M A
LIAR AND LEAD ME TO BE A LIAR OF WHICH I AM NOT. HE INSERTED HIS OWN REMARKS
ASSAULTING MR CEFALO IN VERBAL WORDS, LOOKS, ACTIONS, ALL IN THE COURTROOM
WITNESSED HIS ACTIONS AND WORDS, ATTY VILLAZON, ATTY PATRICK, ATTY EDDY, COURT
RECORDERS, GALS, ETC. AND FLORIDA RESIDENT WITNESSES.
K. NEXT HEARING DATE OCT.3,2005,PRE TRIAL.
I JEFFREY PAUL CEFALO TOTALLY DISABLED,,dob,12-09-1945 SAY THAT THE STATEMENTS IN
THE ABOVE ,IN THE FOREGOING ARE TRUE AND CORRECT.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1 -207
JEFFREY PAUL CEFALO, DATE:OCT.1,2005
CC; GOV BUSH
7A.REFERENCES ,SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS VIOLATION OF CASE LAW ,INTEGRITY, ETHICS
Pierson v. Ray. 386 U.S. 547 at 567 (1967) "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)
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).
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,
"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.
"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
Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844.
"Judge must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular
emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality."
28 U.S.C.A. 144 Pfizer Inc. Lord
456 F.2d 532, cert. denied 92 S.Ct. 2411, 406 U.S. 976 ( U.S. Ct. app - Minn. -
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).
"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
"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
"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.
"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
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)
"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)
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
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
UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42, SECTION 1988 "When any court violates the clean
and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one
is bound to obey it." State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147 65 NW 262 30 ALR 660. Also
see (Watson v. Memphis, 375 US 526; 10 L Ed 529; 83 S.Ct.
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." Imbler v.Pachtman, 424 U.S.
409; 96 S.Ct. 984 (1976) [The fact that there are federal rules\laws regarding
suing including judges for violations of constitutional rights is proof enough
that it occurs.] [Often instead of coming right out with it phrases like "an
error of law" are used, not that the law is in error, but that the judge's
ruling\ order or decision is "in error of the law". This means the judge's
ruling is contrary to or in opposition to the law. Note the law may be "case
"Chapter 39 of the Magna Carta (1215) was a guarantee that the government would
take neither life, liberty, nor property without a trial in accord with the law
of the land that already existed at the time the alleged offense was committed."
This means that the Due Process Clause gives all Americans, whoever they are and
wherever they happen to be, the right to be tried by independent and
unprejudiced courts using established procedures and applying valid pre-existing
laws. There is not one word of legal history that justifies making the term "due
process of law" mean a guarantee of a trial free from laws and conduct which the
courts deem at the time to be "arbitrary", "unreasonable", "unfair", or
"contrary to civilized standards.". The due process of law standard for a trial
is one in accordance with the Bill of Rights and laws passed pursuant to
constitutional power, guaranteeing to all alike a trial under the general law of
the land. Duncan v.
Louisana, 391 U.S. 145; 88 S.Ct. 1444 (1968)
"Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named
individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to
inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial are bills of attainder
prohibited by the Constitution." United States v. Brown. 381 U.S. 303,
66 S.Ct. 1073 (1946)
An individual may not be punished for exercising a protected statutory
constitutional right. U.S. v.
Goodwin, 102 S.Ct. 2485, 457 U.S. 368, 73 L.Ed2d 74, on remand 687 F.2d 44
(1982) Within limits of practicability, a state must afford to all individuals a
meaningful opportunity to be heard. . .Whenever one is assailed in his person or
his property, there he may defend. . .The right to meaningful opportunity to be
heard within limits of practicality must be protected against denial by
particular laws that operate to jeopardize it for particular individuals.
Boddie v. Connecticut, 92, S.Ct. 780, 401 U.S. 371. 28 L.Ed.2d 113 conformed t
329 F. Supp. 844 (1971) Quite apart from the guarantee of equal protection, if a
law impinges on a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the
Constitution it is presumptively unconstitutional. Harris v. McRae, 100 S.Ct.
2671, 448 U.S. 297, 65 L.Ed.2d 784,rehearing denied 101 S.Ct. 39, 448 U.S. 917,
65 L.Ed.2d 1180
A state cannot foreclose the exercise of constitutional rights by mere labels.
Virginia, 95 S.Ct. 2222, 421 U.S. 809 (1975 There is a right to be free from
unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a
person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child Cohen v. Chesterfield
County School Bd., 94 S.Ct. 791, 414 U.S. 632 (1974)
Neither Fourteenth amendment nor Bill of Rights is for adults alone. Application
of Gault, 87 S.Ct. 1428,
387 U.S. 1 (1967) Vague laws offend several important values; first, vague laws
may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning; second, vague law
impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries
for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with attendant dangers of
arbitrary and discriminatory application; and third, where a vague statute abuts
on sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms, it operates to inhibit the
exercise of those freedoms. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 408 U.S.
The singling out of an individual for legislatively prescribed punishment
constitutes a "bill of attainder" whether individual is called by name or
described in terms of conduct which, because of its past conduct, operates only
as a designation of particular persons. Communist Party of U.S. v.
Subversive Activities Control Bd., 81 S.Ct. 1357, 367 U.S. 1, 6 L.Ed.2d 625,
rehearing denied 82 S. Ct. 20,
368 U.S. 871, 7 L.Ed.2d
72 UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42, SECTION 1983 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 18 U.S.C.A. 242 (U.S.
Criminal Code): "Whoever, under color of law, statute, or ordinance, regulation,
or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitants of any state to the deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution
or Law of the United States. . . shall be fined no more than $1,000 or
imprisoned one year or both."
Title 18 U.S.C.A. 241, 242 are the criminal equivalent of Title 42 U.S.C.A.
1983, 1985 et seq. "Judges have no immunity from prosecution for their judicial
Bradley v. Fisher, U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871 "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)
"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
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
No action was ever taken to change the wording of the law and it remains as such
today.] "Judges are not immune for their nonjudicial activities, i.e.,
activities which are ministerial or administrative in nature." Santiago v. City
of Philadelphia, 435 F.Supp.
136 "Under the common law of England, where individual rights were preserved by
a fundamental document such as the Magna Carta, violations of those rights
generally could be remedied by a traditional action for damages; violation of
constitutional right was viewed as a trespass, giving rise to a trespass action.
Widgeon v. Eastern Shore Hosp. Center, 479 a.2d. 921 "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. -
A conspirator is responsible for the acts of other conspirators who have left
the conspiracy before he joined it, or joined after he left it; statutes of
limitations tolled for previous acts when each new act is done. US v. GUEST, 86
S.Ct. 1170; US V.COMPAGNA, 146 F.2d 524.
The rights of parents to parent-child relationships are recognized and upheld.
Fantony v. Fantony, 122 A 2d 593, (1956); Brennan v. Brennan, 454 A 2d 901,
(1982). State's power to legislate, adjudicate and administer all aspects of
family law, including determinations of custodial; and visitation rights, is
subject to scrutiny by federal judiciary within reach of due process and/or
equal protection clauses of 14th Amendment...Fourteenth Amendment applied to
states through specific rights contained in the first eight amendments of the
Constitution which declares fundamental personal rights...Fourteenth Amendment
encompasses and applied to states those preexisting fundamental rights
recognized by the Ninth Amendment.
The Ninth Amendment acknowledged the prior existence of fundamental rights with
it: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The United States
Supreme Court in a long line of decisions, has recognized that matters involving
marriage, procreation, and the parent-child relationship are among those
interests protected by the Constitution. Thus, the decision in Roe v. Wade, 410
US 113; 93 S Ct 705; 35 L Ed 2d 147, (1973), was recently described by the
Supreme Court as founded on the "Constitutional underpinning of ... a
recognition that the "liberty"
protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment includes not only the
freedoms explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but also a freedom of
personal choice in certain matters of marriage and family life." The
non-custodial divorced parent has no way to implement the constitutionally
protected right to maintain a parental relationship with his child except
through visitation. To acknowledge the protected status of the relationship as
the majority does, and yet deny protection under Title 42 USC § 1983, to
visitation, which is the exclusive means of effecting that right, is to negate
the right completely. Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, (1981).
They violate several Articles of the MA Constitution and several Amendments
to the US Constitution. What makes you think they'll allow this one. The MA
Probate court hold themselves above the law, the Constitutions, morals and
ethics! We are the ones that have allowed this to happen. We have to be the ones
to stop it. The Preamble of the MA Constitution says, "The end of the
institution, maintenance and administration of government, is to secure the
existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who
compose it, with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquility their natural
rights, and the blessings of life: And whenever these great objectives are not
obtained, the people have the right to alter the government, and to take
measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness."
This is our order to take back what has been taken by a corrupt government.
This probate court is nothing but an illegal job program for lawyers. We have to
stop them now.
United We Stand!
"OBJECTION". "I object to that" is something should be liberally sprinkled
throughout your hearings in court. If something feels wrong and you don't know
why, speak up and object to it. Even if you are not sure why at least get
something into the record. Perhaps you can recover with a good reason later for
your bad feeling. If you say nothing you are guaranteed to have lost any hope of
appeal. No rights are preserved.