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 state) Constitution?
wait for the answer, say nothing,
silence means guilt on their part
for the record.
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 case below.
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.
No. 79.
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, 568]
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 ,DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST.
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 WOULDBE HEARD ON
DECEMBER 7,2004,ALL AGREED.
C.THE CASE PLAN WAS NOT SIGNED BY
AMY CEFALO,NOR HER ATTORNEY UNTILL
NOVEMBER 11,2004.
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,CONFIMED
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 DECEMBER
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 SENITOR SKIP CAMPBELL
AND HIS ATTORNEY DOLCE,WHO MONITORED
COURT WATCH IN THE SHADOW OF THE SUNSHINE
STATE,LENGTHINING 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 FALSLY 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 COMPAIRED
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
SECRITARY ASKING ABOUT THE HEARING
TO CONFIRM IT,ATTORNEY VAN HART CALLED
THE COURT DECEMBER
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 FINALY 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 PEDIATRITION 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 DOCOTR,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 PEDIATRITION 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.JUDGE
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 ARRAINGED
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 ANDMR 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 ANUITY 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 DISABLEDD 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,WILFULLY 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 BROAD CASTED
THAT JUDGE ALLAN APTE WAS BEING BOOKED
AND INDITED.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 ACCUSSED 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 ANUITY
FUNDS FROM A TOTALY 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
SCHEDUALED WERE CANCELLED,DUE TO ALLAN
APTE BEING BOOKED AND INDITED.
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 SCHEDUALE
AND PAM, PRINTED OUT THE SCHEDUALE,WHICH
SHOWED ALL HEARINGS CANCELLED AND
NOTHING FOR MARCH 28,2005,NOR FOR
APRIL 4,5,2005.ALL HEARINGS WERE TO
BE RESCHEDUALED 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
INDITED.L 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 SCHEDUALED 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 MR.
CEFALO SAYIING NO HEARING ,DONT 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 SCHEDUALED 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 28,2005.
MR CEFALO OBJECTED AND TOLD JUDGE
MORGAN WHATS 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 CIRCUIT COURTS.
MR CEFALO IN MARCH 26,2004 HAD TO
CALL THE OSCEOLA SHERIFF DEPT. TO
HAVE HIS CHILDREN RETURNED TO MR CEFALO.
THE SHERIIFF 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 CIRUIT 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 ASSITED AMY CEFALO
AND DISCRIMINATED AGAINST MR CEFALO
WHEN MR CEFALO CAUGHT DR.BONE CHARGING
MR CEFALO'S CREDIT CARD ILLEGALY.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 ANUITY 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 SECUIRTY DEAMED 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 prejudices.
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
READING.
JUDGE ALLAN APTE HAS FORCED MR CEFALO
TO FURTHER COSTS OF LITIGATION IN
THE 5TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN
DATYTONA 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
SERGURY ON JUNE 7,2005 AND BEING HARRASSED
BY DCF ELBOWING THEIR WAY THROUGH
MR CEFALO'S FRONT DOOR ON JUNE 9,2005,LESS
THAN 35 HOURS OF HAVING HEART SERGURY,DCF
VENTURA CLEARLY VIOLATING MR CEFALO
FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT ,MY CHILDREN
WERE NOT WITH ME NOT HAS ANYONE TOLD
THEM OF MY HEART SERGURY,THEY ALL
WILFULLY 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,FRIENTENING
HER AS MY CAREGIVER SHOOK IN FEAR
AT MY FRON DOOR.FINALY A 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 PRECUNIARY GAINS.
JULY 13,2005,,JUDGE ALLAN APTE,,MR
CEFALO YOU FIRED YOUR ATTORNEY,NO
GUIARENTEE. 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 TABACCO. 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, THATS 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 LIER 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 TOTALY 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, 635, (1885)
--
"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 is lost."
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. - 1972)
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.
Bankruptcy Ct.)
----------
"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)
-----------
"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
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 "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.
1314)
--
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
law".]
--
"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
(1980)
---
A state cannot foreclose the exercise
of constitutional rights by mere labels.
Bigelow v.
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.
104 (1972)
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 acts."
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 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.] "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. -
1972)
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 fundamental "liberty"
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).
================================================
|
