Disgraced retaliatory judge throws constitution, civility, temperance and true leadership in the trash to harm a young boy father and inheritantly his little boy who cried for his father, while being ripped away by lawyers and this judges orders.
a true coward, a powerfless soft boy beta male!
Judge Israel Izzy Claustro should rename himself to Israel Clouded Claustro aka Dizzy Izzy
😞Judge Israel Izzy Claustro, loves stealing Indian Children away from their ancestors
Michael Lombardi is an Registered American Indian. He is from theYaqui Indian Tribe and Piro-Manso-Tiwa tribe
The Yaqui are a Native American people of Arizona. The Piro-Manso-Tiwa tribe is an historical tribe located in the Mesilla Valley in southern New Mexico. The tribe is a Pueblo people and lived along the Rio Grande River Valley in Las Cruces, New Mexico.
you can read about Michael Lombardi’s Great Great Grandfather Frank C. Brito who fought side by side with Teddy Roosevelt and was an active member of The Rough Riders. You can read all about Frank and his patriotic historic life that is in American History Books and Museums including the Smithsonian
Michael Lombardi was taken illegally from the father, due to Judge McConville being vindictive nature and removed from the case.
The mother is a Belize Citizen, born in Belize who has finally obtained naturalization in the United States. The courts have given 100% custody to a BELIZEAN BORN NATIVE WOMAN and the courts have assisted the mother and her old council the perjurer Paul Toepel in an ferocious attempt in STRANGLING THE REALTIONIONSHIP of MICHAEL LOMBARDI’s AMERICAN INDIAN HERITAGE AND REALTIONS WITH HIS TRIBE AND FAMILY OF THE TRIBE
Marcia is a naturalized Citizen who underwent the Naturalization is a process. Citizenship is a status. Naturalization is the process by which an immigrant becomes a U.S. citizen after meeting certain requirements, while citizenship applies to anyone who is a United States citizen, regardless of whether they were born within the U.S. or outside the U.S. We are Native American Indians who were savagely victimized and slaughtered by the US Government and given sovereignty and rights all our own.Now the US Government is once again victimizing an entire US BORN NATIVE AMERICAN FAMILY! Grandparents cannot see their own grandchild! Grandma is 100% Native Indian!
This judge must RECUSE HIMSELF (Why Judges, District Attorneys or Attorneys Must Sometimes Recuse Themselves)
This case has had so many corrupt players from several judges to OCDA Office tampering, malicious prosecution, abuse of process and denial of my due process and civil rights and liberties. All my cases need a CHANGE OF VENUE all these judges and DA’s are friend. THE JUDGES COULD CARE LESS CARE ABOUT JUSTICE. THESE JUDGES ONLY CARE ABOUT PROTECTING THEIR OWN KIND FROM TORT CLAIMS AND LOSS OF LICENSE, DIGINITY, REPUTATION, STATUS, POWER AND OF COURSE FUTURE WORK! ON THE OTHER HAND THEY THE JUDGES HAVE DONE NOTHER TO PROTECT MY SON FROM A WANTED FUGITIVE SEX OFFENDER WHO HAS MULTIPLE SEX CRIME WARRANTS AND HAS STILL NOT BEEN PROSECUTED FOR ALL THE DICK PICS HE TOOK WITH MY SONS PHONE, AND WAS ON MY SONS PRIMARY COMMUINCATION DEVICE WHICH IS A FELONY 288PC OR 288.2 PC. THEY LIKE MY SON AROUND A FUGITIVE SEX OFFENDER, THEY COULD CARE LESS! BUT HISTORY HAS SHOWN MANY GOVERMENT OFFICIALS DONT LIKE FAMILY UNITS AND HAVE SHADY PASTS OR ACCUSAATIONS OF INAPPROPRIATENESS THEMSELVES WITH CHILDREN.
“The elements of a cause of action for negligence are: duty, breach of duty, legal cause, and damages. (Friedman v. Merck & Co. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 454, 463.)”
HOW DID MY SONS LA COUNTY FAMILY LAW CASE GET INTO BIASED ORANGE COUNTY ANYWAYS? I LIVE IN LA COUNTY. MY SON WAS BORN IN LA COUNTY. THE FAMILY DEPENDENCY CASE WAS STARTED IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY. WE ARE OUT OF JURISDICTION. MRS ROBERTSON, THE PETITIONER MANIPULATED THE WHOLE SYSTEM. SHE SIMPLY WENT TO FILE A RESTRAINING ORDER AND CUSTODY AND BROUGHT THIS LA COUNTY CASE INTO ORANGE WITHOUT MY CONSENT. I DID NOT UNDERSTAND JURISDICTION AT THE TIME OF MY FIRST ORANGE COUTNTY HEARING. PLEASE RETURN MY FAMILY LAW CASE BACK TO ITS ORIGIN WHICH IS LA COUNTY ALSO PROTECT MY AMERICAN INDIAN SON AND RETURN HIM TO OUR FAMILY AND TRIBE.
OUR TRIBE IS PREPARED TO DEFENT OUR RIGHTS
This case started in Los Angeles as a dependency case at Edmund D. Edelman Child Courts somehow the mother filed paperwork in the wrong county, as she lives in LA Habra on the border of Los Angeles. My son was born in Panorama City Kaiser Permanente with Me at his side and he resided in Los Angeles County at one of my mansions in Santa Clarita. I never agreed to have it switched, and the mother, living on the border of Los Angeles / Orange County may have accidentally or intentionally chose orange county courts. This case is out of its jurisdiction where it started in Edmund D. Edelman courts, please return this case back to Edmund D. Edelman courts meanwhile return custody and visitation to us the Native American Family and punish the contemptuous mother. By repeatedly allowing a wanted fugitive sex offender over against the judges orders repeatedly passive aggressively spits on the judges orders! another instance when the judge had issued phone calls for me the father, she never gave me one call!! I got mad in court at the judge Scott B. Cooper for allowing her to NEVER OBEY HIS ORDERS and he punishes me for being mad at the courts consistent prejudice towards me the father and the blatant passive aggressive spitting on judges orders by the mother, all the time me losing more and more of my son time with me.
MY SON IS A REGISTERED AMERICAN INDIAN THAT YOU THE US GOVERNEMENT ARE DEPRIVING OF HIS FATHER, HIS FAMILY, HIS AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBAL BLOODLINE. THESE ARE DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS
The right to an impartial judge is based on the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution and is expressly set forth in many state constitutions.[16] In addition, state codes of judicial conduct require that judges be impartial. The ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, state code analogs, and the common law of many states use a two-part test for disqualification or recusal – a subjective and objective test.[17] The subjective test is met when the judge believes that she is, in fact, biased; the objective test is met if a disinterested person might reasonably question the judge’s impartiality. If either test is satisfied, the judge must recuse herself.[18]
Counsel may question a judge’s impartiality based on her treatment of, and comments made to or about, counsel or counsel’s client. According to Liteky v. United States,[19] judicial remarks and actions require recusal when “they reveal an opinion that derives from an extrajudicial source” – that is, the judge has relied on evidence from outside the case – or where they “reveal such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible.” As to the first part, judges may be exposed to extrajudicial information, but they cannot rely on it.[20] For example, the judge may overhear court staff discussing a parent’s bad behavior in the courthouse lobby, but the judge cannot issue an order based on that information unless it is introduced in evidence. In a Massachusetts case, Care and Protection of Zita, the judge granted temporary custody to CPS based on her memories of a previous dependency case that involved the mother’s other children; as a result, the appellate court reversed.[21] Further, judges cannot actively seek outside information; they cannot do web searches for the parties or the facts at issue, and they cannot ask their law clerks or other staff to do so.[22]
What isn’t Bias?
Inappropriate behavior. Litecky sets a high bar; mean or rude comments by a judge do not constitute bias unless they “reveal such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible.”[23] Criticism, disapproval, or even hostility to counsel, the parties, or their cases isn’t bias unless it is extreme or pervasive.[24] Appellate courts are extremely forgiving when judges only make one or two nasty comments; they examine the entire trial to place the judge’s comments in context.[25] Even if the judge’s comment or behavior is clearly inappropriate, judges are given considerable leeway. For instance, in an Ohio case, State v. Johnson, the judge cried during sentencing because she was sympathetic to the victim’s family.[26] The appellate court affirmed; the judge was permitted to exhibit human emotion, and doing so did not show bias.[27]
Preference for a party. Judges may show a preference for one side, but only if that preference is based on information learned from the case.[28] A judge may, therefore, express her preliminary views of the merits of the case so long as those views stem from information learned at trial or observations of the parties during trial. A judge’s preference shows bias only if it is “undeserved, or because it rests upon knowledge that the subject ought not to possess . . . or because it is excessive in degree.”[29] Accordingly, if a parent equivocates during testimony, the judge can question the parent’s credibility and call him a liar. But the judge probably cannot call him the “worst liar ever” (which is excessive) and definitely cannot say he’s a liar based on extra-judicial information.
Criticism of counsel. Judges may scold and criticize counsel in an effort to control the courtroom and the progress of trial.[30] If, for example, counsel is talking over the judge or repeatedly asking leading questions to a witness on direct despite warnings to stop, the judge can criticize counsel’s performance. Indeed, the worse counsel’s behavior, the harsher the judge is permitted to be to manage the trial. A judge is not biased if she held counsel in contempt in a prior case or even in the same case.[31] Even if the judge’s poor behavior is unrelated to counsel’s misconduct, it does not indicate bias unless it is extreme, pervasive, or “reveal[s] such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible.”[32]
Remanded or related dependency cases. Judges may sit on the same dependency case on remand, even if the appellate court has found prejudicial errors (although an appellate court can remand specifically to a different judge).[33] Judges who presided over a parent’s prior dependency cases involving the same or other children can sit on new cases, even if the judge terminated parental rights in the prior case.[34] The judge cannot rely on memories of the prior cases when ruling in the current case – she must rely on evidence admitted, or observations made, in the current case.[35]
What is Bias?
Judges do not get a free pass for all types of mistreatment of counsel and clients.
Unfair treatment. Sometimes a judge’s treatment of counsel is so virulent that her fairness must be questioned. For example, where the judge’s extreme harshness:
is not intended to address misbehaving counsel,
has not been triggered by counsel’s misbehavior,
is grossly disproportionate to counsel’s misbehavior, or
is aimed at only one lawyer when all are acting the same way.
In a Massachusetts case, Commonwealth v. Sylvester,[36] the judge ridiculed defense counsel, threatened to cut off her argument, and interrupted her questioning of witnesses. Most of the judge’s harsh comments were directed at her, nearly all disparaged her skills, and many had personal overtones. Meanwhile, defense counsel had conducted a skillful trial, objected respectfully, and “painstakingly attempted to preserve her client’s rights.”[37] The appellate court reversed, holding that the judge’s bias denied the defendant a fair trial.[38]
Denial of due process. Appellate courts will also reverse when a judge’s harsh treatment deprives that party of due process.[39] For example, if counsel bungles a cross-examination, the judge can call counsel inept and warn him publically that he must raise his game. But the judge cannot declare that, as a result of the incompetent cross, the client has rested. Judges also cannot, in order to “punish” a poorly behaving client or underperforming lawyer, refuse to hold a normal trial, act as a prosecutor, improperly restrict counsel’s cross-examination, prevent offers of proof, or unreasonably cut off counsel’s closing.[40]
Early determination of case merits. Appellate courts will reverse for bias when judges make up their minds on the merits before all evidence is presented.[41] Although, as noted above, tentative views of the merits are permissible before the end of trial (provided they arise from what the judge has heard and observed in the case), the judge cannot “decide” a legal issue before the end of trial. For example, in Adoption of Adina,[42] a Massachusetts case, the appellate court reversed because the trial judge stated that the mother was unfit even without a trial. Even appearing to have decided the merits before the close of evidence is reversible. In another Massachusetts case, Adoption of Tia,[43] the appellate court warned that trial judges must maintain not just fairness but the appearance of fairness; otherwise, counsel and the parties will lose faith in the impartiality of the judiciary.[44]
Expression of personal bias or prejudice. Finally, appellate courts will reverse for judicial bias when the judge expresses an actual personal bias or prejudice about the parties or counsel. For instance, judges cannot express disdain for people of a certain faith or color or an opinion that single parents are per se inadequate. In a United States Supreme Court case, Berger v. United States,[45]a criminal case in which the defendant had German ancestry, the trial judge made several insulting comments about Germans, including “[t]heir hearts are reeking with disloyalty.” The Court reversed based on bias.[46]
Removing the Judge
Sometimes it serves the client’s interests to seek recusal of a judge. As noted above, many states apply a two-part test for recusal. First, the subjective test – does the judge believe she is, in fact, biased? Second, the objective test – would a disinterested person reasonably question whether the judge is biased? If either the subjective or objective test is satisfied, the judge must recuse herself.[47] In addition, the judge should recuse herself if she has personal awareness of material, disputed facts.[48]
Counsel must file a motion to recuse at the earliest moment after learning the facts suggesting bias or improper conduct.[49] This can be tricky if the problematic statements or conduct occurred in a lobby conference or sidebar, where judges tend to be less careful with their comments about clients, counsel, and disputed facts. In such a case, counsel must move to recuse immediately after the lobby conference or sidebar. If the lobby conference or sidebar was unrecorded, counsel must, on the record, state what occurred, including the judge’s exact words (to the extent possible); otherwise, there is no record of the judge’s improper statement or action for the appellate court to review. Judges should rule on counsel’s motion to recuse in a timely fashion.[50] If a judge believes recusal is necessary, in most jurisdictions that recusal is for all purposes; the judge should have no involvement with any aspect of the case.[51] source
His honey company was hand built with his dad and all the proceeds are for Michael, they are for his future and to teach him to save, handle money, and run a business! like a good parent should be doing!
Click Below to see the relationship that you are harming and depriving from both me and my son! not just me you sick twisted vindictive humans!
On top of the judge abusing the process for his former employers, in the DAs office
His request is irrational and won’t actually provide the opposing party there due process rights and the opposing parties due process rights would include the ability to investigate and see all evidence I want to give the mother’s attorney everything I want her rights to be fully intact
“On top of the other issues the judge abusing the process for his former employers, in the DAs office…”
His request is irrational and won’t actually provide the opposing party there due process rights and the opposing parties due process rights would include the ability to investigate and see all evidence I want to give the mother’s attorney everything I want her rights to be fully intact
It is impossible to provide video files on paper and these video files are lengthy, huge video data files that have the forensic location of when and where it took place. This evidence that opposing counsel with me can only be provided digitally.
I don’t want anyone to say they didn’t have all the evidence!
so I uploaded all of the evidence, both videos, photos and digital paperwork.
this avoids also destroying trees and hurting the environment with useless printing of digital documents since the rest of the digital evidence videos cannot be printed they are videos!
so in the end everything provided in one solid format, called digital format is better than partial evidence provided in paper format, and then not be able to give the opposing counsel everything to be prepared, I would never want opposing counsel not to have every bit of evidence that I am offering. I don’t want any excuses,
The digital evidence that would be beneficial to my case and opposing party, needs to defend herself, was was given to them as a Google Drive link
At first, the judge because he didn’t look over the case, and didn’t know any thing about the case. Instructed me to actually give the evidence and contact the opposing party. Had he done some homework and read a little bit about the case he would’ve known I have a restraining order that was falsely give it to me, however, I still do have one and I can’t contact her mother so he then told me to give it to the courts
I wanted to provide every opportunity to opposing party. which hopefully the mother or her attorney will use
The Google Drive link also shows if people fail to do look, which will help my case.
Since there’s so much prejudiced in the quart room, I need evidence that people are doing what they are supposed to do in the Google Drive link I provided
so I’ve provided a method that is not only fluent in one format, which saves the environment and provides all the needed evidence that the mother would need.
It is also impossible to provide video files on paper and these video files are lengthy, huge video data files that have the forensic location of when and where it took place.
This evidence that opposing counsel with me can only be provided digitally. I don’t want anyone to say they didn’t have all the evidence! Because I care about opposing party’s due process and ability to defend herself against her multiple contempt’s, so I uploaded all of the evidence, both videos, photos and digital court paperwork. This avoids also destroying trees and hurting the environment with useless printing of digital documents since the rest of the digital evidence videos cannot be printed, they are videos!
In the end everything I provided in one solid format, called digital format is better than partial evidence provided in paper format, and then not be able to give the opposing counsel everything to be prepared, I would never want opposing counsel not to have every bit of evidence that I am offering. I don’t want any excuses, regarding the digital evidence that would be beneficial to my case and is 100% exactly what the opposing party needs to defend herself. All of which was given to them as a Google Drive link
The judge also, aside from taking time to bring the bias from a previous judge and court her never took the time to look up the mother and what she has been up to nor see the angle she played the courts for.
Judge Israel Claustro didn’t ever look over the case other than learn the bias he must carry over from another judge! Had he looked at the case which he would know the basic contents and history, which would be needed to judge any case. He unfortunately didn’t know anything about the case. Instructed me to actually give the evidence and contact the opposing party. Had he done some homework and read a little bit about the case he would’ve known I have a restraining order that was falsely give it to me, however, I still do have one and I can’t contact her mother so he then told me to give it to the courts
So I emailed it to them. By me giving it to the courts as the judge has instructed me that the other side needs the evidence and to give his courtroom L62 The evidence I have emailed the Google Drive link to L62@occourts.org
I’ve also taken the liberty to send via certified mail which they have signed for. a scannable link to scan and there is a QR code which they have scanned so they have also read the same exact evidence and these words here
they now know that they should check their email for the Google Drive link for sure!
Thanks to GOOGLE’s awesome statistics. It will also be able to provide the courts proof of who actually uses the Google link and access is it to defend himself or herself.
AND REMEMBER The Google Drive link also shows if people fail to do look, which will help my case.
I wanted to provide every opportunity to opposing party. which hopefully the mother or her attorney will decide to open and use. But if anyone ever paid attention this mother has been using a perjurious attorney and her own perjury to manipulate the tribunal and avoid accountability for the willful endangerment my son after the fact, willfully goes against a judges order and entered contempt ally by allowing a WANTED FUGITIVE SEX OFFENDER to be around my son.
I am not the criminal here! I am the caring good father who demands justice, fair equal time with his son and a safe environment for my son!
Since there’s so much prejudiced in the quart room, I need evidence that people are doing what they are supposed to do in the Google Drive link I provided
so I’ve provided a full proof method that is not only fluent in one format that the court legally allows when submitted via email prior to the hearing.
This also saves the environment and provides all the needed evidence that the mother would need. It will also provide proof of people accessing it, or not accessing it, which is vital.
And don’t forget to recuse yourself please
SEARCH GOOGLE FOR “Clouded Claustro”
SEARCH GOOGLE FOR “Judge Israel Claustro”
WE ARE GOING TO NEED A CHANGE OF VENUE THE OC COURT SYSTEM CO-MINGLING WITH THE OCDA OFFICE AND HAVING PAWNS EX-DA NOW BEING JUSTICES WITH NO EXPERIENCE OUTSIDE OF PROSECUTION DOES NOT SOUND LIKE FAIRNESS. NOR DOES THE REPEATED ABUSE OF THE PROCESS, THE SYSTEM, JUSTICE ITESELF, ABUSE OF MY SONS RIGHTS AND SAFETY, ABUSE OF MY RIGHTS OR ABUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN ALLOW THIS. THE SYSTEM IN OC COURTS IS CORRUPT, I PERSONALLY HAVE BEEN A VICTIM OF THE ABUSE WHICH STARTED IN THE FAMILY COURTS, CARRIED THROUGH LHPD AND LACK OF HELPING A MINOR ARROUND A SEX OFFENDER REPEATEDLY THAT HAS TAKE PHOTOS OF HIS PENIS AND PUT THEM ALL OVER MY 8 YEAR OLDS PRIMARY COMMUNICATION DEVICE WHICH IS A FELONY TO DO THIS PC 288 OR PC 288.2 AS THIS WANTED FUGITIVE SEX OFFENDER IS ALSO A CAREGIVER TO A MINOR (MY SON IS 8) THE CAREGIVER IS A FULL GROWN ADULT MALE WHO IS WANTED FOR OTHER SEX CRIMES IN OTHER COUNTIES. HE HAS NOT YET BEEN CHARGED FOR WHAT HE DID TO MY SON! THIS HAS NOW SPILLED INTO THE PENAL SYSTEM AND BACK INTO FAMILY LAW COURTS WHERE JUDGE ISRAEL CLOUDED CLAUSTRO HAS FORCED ME TO ATTEND A CIVIL HEARING THAT I STARTED! THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT CLAIM I FILED INTO THE FAMILY LAW CASE THE MOTHER OPENED YEARS AGO, IS PROOF THIS WANTED SEX OFFENDER IS STILL IN AND OUT OF THE HOME ALL THE TIME AND AROUND MY MINOR SON AS WELL. THERE IS A JUDGES ORDER BANNING THIS HE WAS ORDERED TO MOVE OUT AND NEVER BE THERE AGAIN AROUND MY SON IN ANY WAY YET HE HAS! THIS JUDGE IS WILLING TO LET THE MOM REPEATEDLY ENDANGER MY SON, FINE ME FOR NOT SHOWING UP, ALLOW ANOTHER SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ORDERS TO BE REPEATEDLY BROKEN BY MOM ALL SO HE CAN HELP HIS FRIENDS IN THE DA OFFICE SECURE AN ARREST WITH FALSE CHARGES. THEY WOULD RATHER MY SON NOT HAVE A DAD, BE AROUND A WANTED FUGITIVE SEX OFFENDER WHO HAS CRIMES AGAINST OTHERS, HE IS ALSO NOT BEEN ARRESTED FOR THE FELONIES HE DID TO MY SON ALL ALONG THIS SYSTEM PROTECTS HER AND HARRASS ME DUE TO THEM BEING INCOMEPTANT AND HATING A MAN WHO STANDS HIS GROUND AND WANTS GOOD FOR HIS FAMILY
THEY NEVER RELEASE BODY CAM FOOTAGE WHICH SHOWS OFFICER HUNTLEMAN DOING THE FOLLOWING :
as you can see above Mr. Bradbury is quite aware of his MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, and since has not only NOT DROPPED THEM but ADDED 3 MORE FALSE FELONIES from a lying cop OFFICER HUNTLEMAN. They wont even give up the BODYCAM FOOTAGE which also verifies my claim that the wanted fugitive sex offender is at my sons home. on his bodycam footage you will see the sex offender there. but they dont want to give this up and instead this same cop files fake 422 and stalking charges to cover hismself from not
I am being abused by the OCDA OFFICE, Mr Mathew Bradbury is Maliciously Prosecuting me and Abusing the Process with the Warrant system on false charges he plans on dismissing. This punk judge was a DA earlier this year, now this man of all Judges is my judge. He demands I physically show up to a CIVIL CASE, his willingness to carrying out the injustices and ABUSE THE PROCESS for his friends in the OCDA office which he just left
THIS ARTICLE WAS SUBMITTED BY ONE OF OUR VALUED READERS!
WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE TRUTHCLICK HERETO LEARN MORE
Lawyers, upon being licensed and admitted to the practice of law are under oath and have a duty to be truthful with the Court in all pleadings, appearances and interactions in their role as a lawyer with the Court.
20-659 Thompson v. Clark (04-04-2022)Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal officials can be sued personally for money damages for on-the-job conduct that violates the Constitution.
Cases in which federal employees face personal liability cut across everything the government does in all three branches of government.
Whether they are engaging in every-day law enforcement, protecting our borders, addressing national security, or implementing other critical government policies and functions, federal employees of every rank face the specter of personal liability.
DIRECT VIOLATION OF California Civil Code Section 52.1 AND THE US CONSTITUTION THE OC DA OFFICE HAS LIMITED OR TAKEN MY FREEDOMS BY BOOKING ME WITH FALSE FELONY CRIMES BY A LYING HOSTILE WITNESS THAT HAS COMMITED PERJURY IN OPEN COURT MULTIPLE TIMES,
THEIR STAR HOSTILE WITNESS HAS MISLEAD/MANIPULATED THE COURT OVER 20 TIMES, AND LIES DIRECTLY IN POLICE REPORTS WITH FACTS THE DA DID NOT CHECK :)
AND THEIR POLICE CAUGHT ON TAPE LYING... AND THEY FILE FALSE CHARGES THAT ARE PROVABLE!
PLEASE MAKE PEACE WITH YOU
(harassment by law for failure of them to uphold laws to protect my son) aka vindictive malicious prosecutionary misconduct with gross negligence and failure to protect a child by ignoring his orders completely and siding with a 22 wanted fugitive sex offender and his momma. call them in good faith to help and they refuse so you call them a few 1st amendment legal names and they book you. never once do they tell me to stop and how can they ? i am a citizen needing their help with a good faith phone call!)
Identifying Abuse of Process
As distinguished from extortion, abuse of process is the actual filing of a lawsuit or the taking of other legal action, to achieve a purpose unrelated to the substance or merits of the legal action. To prove an abuse of process, a plaintiff must show that the defendant entertained an ulterior motive in using the legal process, and committed a willful act in a wrongful manner. See Coleman v. Gulf Insurance Group (1986) 41 Cal.3d 782, 792. “The gist of the tort is the misuse of the power of the court: It is an act done under the authority of the court for the purpose of perpetrating an injustice, i.e., a perversion of the judicial process to the accomplishment of an improper purpose. Younger v. Solomon (1974), 38 Cal.App.3d 289, 297.
He knows he has NO 401 CASE …..but he still keeps them 401 charges on AGAINST HIS OWN WORDSon andaddstheCHARGEShe said he was going to add so he iscompelled toadd more 653(M) to violate my constitutional rightseven more to become even more malicious by adding chargesBUT ..NOT CORRECT HISMALICIOUS PRESEUCTION OF 401pc LIKE HE SAID HERE IT IS
He abuses the process as well by requiring I pay for a bail warrant on crimes he admits he has to drop!
IMAGINE I AM A LEGAL TAX PAYING BUSINESS OWNER AND THEY USE MY TAX DOLLARS TO FRAME MY UP AND NOT EVEN FIX THEIR MISTAKES TRUE DOUCHE BAG IS A CRIMINAL NOT ME…. The PROSECUTOR, is the ignorant law violatingDAMN CRIMINAL! He is not a prosecutor of criminals he is a criminal prosecuting innocent tax paying fathers seeking help for the sex offender this SHIT BAG OFFICE LEAVES with my son!! AGAINST A JUDGES ORDER AND THEY DONT DO THEIR JOB TO ENFORCE THE JUDGES ORDER OR PICKUP THIS WANTED SEX OFFENDER WITH 2 WARRANTS FOR SEX CRIMES LIVING AT MY SONS HOUSE AGAINST COURT ORDERS. WAY TO HELP OUT CAITLYN HARRINGTON AFTER SHE FAILED TO DUE HER JOB, YOU THEN HELP HER “FIX ME” FOR COMPLAINING ABOUT THE DUMB CUNTS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF LAW AND INTEGRITY TO THE CASE!
The tort of malicious prosecution includes continuing to prosecute a lawsuit discovered to lack probable cause. (This decision expands the tort, which previously was limited to commencing an action without probable cause.) Evidence to this effect is sufficient to defeat a special motion to strike a complaint for malicious prosecution.
learn about how NOT TO violate your employers rights, after all civil servants work for the people, the tax payer. Got it DA Federal Civil Right$ $tatute$
424 F.2d 1021 US v. Horton R. PRUDDEN,No. 28140. . United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.April 1970Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.
U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299, 300 (1977) Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. We cannot condone this shocking conduct… If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately.
Morrison v. Coddington, 662 P. 2d. 155, 135 Ariz. 480(1983). Fraud and deceit may arise from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an untruth. In regard to courts of inferior jurisdiction, “if the record does not show upon its face the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have existed.”
Introducing the DA’s & Cops TEXTs & EMAIL as Digital Evidence
Julie should know that judge ISRAEL CLOUDED CLASUTRO has violated my rights, become vindictive and used the law illegally to block my rights to challenge his lack of knowledge of law and Rights afforded to me via the US Constitution. He labeled me a vexatious litigant when the two cases mentioned I am the respondent on, and the law requires 5 cases to be fininalyzed NOT IN MY FAVOR! Family law case is still open, and i am only the respondent! So you have not met any of the criteria necessary for vexatious litigant. Being in charge of an abusive subordinate is now your responsibility morally, civically, constitutionally and now legally through Martin v. Thomas et al. 2022. It is imperative that all leaders are civic minded, show temperance and use caution when inherent rights of the US Constitution is involved, which they swore an oath to protect FIRST!
A Judge’s requirement is to make sure with diligence that he/she does not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process rights of parents involved in custody disputes. California has “sufficiently important” interests, Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 388 (1978), in ensuring the orderly resolution of disputes and protecting parents and courts from vexatious litigants. See Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 562 (1965).
Wolfe v. George With respect to a First Amendment claim, the Court must first determine whether the Vexatious Litigant Statute actually encroaches upon a right guaranteed by the First Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that the right to petition for a redress or grievance is a liberty safeguarded by the Bill of Rights and is intimately connected both in origin and in purpose with the other First Amendment rights of free speech and free press. United Mine Workers of America, Dist. 12 v. Illinois State Bar Ass’n, 389 U.S. 217, 222 (1967). However, the Supreme Court has also consistently held that “baseless litigation is not immunized by the First Amendment right to petition.” Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 461 U.S. 731, 743 (1983) (“[S]ince sham litigation by definition does not involve a bona fide grievance, it does not come within the first amendment right to petition.”). In fact, as the Supreme Court stated in Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, “The first amendment interests involved in private litigation — compensation for violated rights and interest, the psychological benefits of vindication, public airing of disputed facts — are not advanced when the litigation is based on intentional falsehoods or on knowingly frivolous claims.” Id.
The First Amendment is “incorporated” against the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 512-13 (1939).
the statute is only implicated once the state court has concluded that there is “no reasonable probability that [the plaintiff] will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant.”Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 391.3. Further, even when a plaintiff has been declared a vexatious litigant, the statute does not preclude a plaintiff from filing subsequent lawsuits, so long as those lawsuits have merit. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 391.7; see Wolfgram v. Wells Fargo Bank, 53 Cal. App. 4th 43, 60 (1997) (“When a vexatious litigant knocks on the courthouse door with a colorable claim, he may enter.”) Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff’s argument is premised on his belief that the Vexatious Litigant Statute encroaches upon a First Amendment right because it is a prohibitive ban on meritorious litigation, his argument is fatally flawed. The Vexatious Litigant Statute is not, as Plaintiff contends, an absolute ban on the right to petition for grievances.
The court was required to assess the merits of the petition before refusing to file it under the prefiling order, we direct the trial court to file the petition and evaluate it in accordance with habeas corpus procedure. ( People v. Duvall, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 474-479.)
Bravo v Ismaj 2002 – [7] Under our state Constitution, a party must generally prove he or she was prejudiced by an error to obtain a reversal. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13.) An exception to this rule applies if the defendant was denied a fair hearing. [99 Cal. App. 4th 226] (Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal. App. 4th 659, 677.) [6b]
the significant consequences that result from the outcome of a motion to declare a litigant vexatious support that a party is entitled to an oral hearing, regardless of whether the defendant is seeking security or a prefiling order. (See McColm v. Westwood Park Assn., supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at p. 1216, fn. 4; TJX Companies, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at pp. 750-751.)
[7] Under our state Constitution, a party must generally prove he or she was prejudiced by an error to obtain a reversal. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13.) An exception to this rule applies if the defendant was denied a fair hearing. [99 Cal. App. 4th 226] (Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal. App. 4th 659, 677.) [6b]
Pierce v. Cantil-SakauyeId. at 383. Instead, it calls for an individualized determination that a litigant is vexatious based on specific instances of harassing or frivolous litigation tactics. SeeCal. Civ. Proc. Code § 391(b); Wolfe v. George, 486 F.3d 1120, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 391.2-391.3. It then requires a court to examine a pro se parent’s proposed filings to ensure that “the litigation has merit and has not been filed for the purposes of harassment or delay” before allowing the parent to seek a custody-order modification. SeeCal. Civ. Proc. Code § 391.7(b); George, 486 F.3d at 1126-27. And if a court orders a vexatious litigant to post security, see Cal. Civ. Proc. Code. § 391.7(b), it must “make an individualized determination of the appropriate amount.” George, 486 F.3d at 1126-27 (citing Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 391.3).
Nor does applying the VLS to parents in custody disputes “destroy permanently all legal recognition of the parental relationship.” M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 128 (1996). It does pose an additional hurdle to modifying a custody order, but only after the litigant has been found to be vexatious. The statute therefore does not unnecessarily perpetuate the “unique kind of deprivation” that imposing record preparation fees on parents appealing parental status termination decrees did. See id. at 127.
.
Being a firm believer in family rights the judges she rules over and oversees should be aware of her position and the US Constitution regarding the rights of parents, which is often overlooked in family courts!
That said all of the judges she oversees should study the 2 informational pages to learn more about the oath to the US Constitution they took and are clearly breaking
Further, even when a plaintiff has been declared a vexatious litigant, the statute does not preclude a plaintiff from filing subsequent lawsuits, so long as those lawsuits have merit. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 391.7; see Wolfgram v. Wells Fargo Bank, 53 Cal. App. 4th 43, 60 (1997)
The court was required to assess the merits of the petition before refusing to file it under the prefiling order, we direct the trial court to file the petition and evaluate it in accordance with habeas corpus procedure. (People v. Duvall, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 474-479.)
Israel Claustro failed to actually look into the issue. Israel Claustro lack of care and due diligence has caused me substantial emotional and psychological harm as he is assisting in the violation of my Civil Rights afforded to me via the US Constitution.
The Hon. Julie A. Palafox allows my cases with merit in, only to have a subordinate male bias judge reject the very paperwork his superior let in, as it was a very valid cases with merit and the The Hon. Julie A. Palafox knows the law and wanted to protect me but she may be unaware of the bias and prejudice of her subordinate Judge Israel Claustro !
Judge Palafox is a great judge so we learn, but oversight over the vindictive personalities beneath her must be stepped up to find justice for children and their best interests which is 2 parents!
In the midst of a successful career as a civil litigator, the Honorable Judge Julie A. Palafox made an altruistic pivot that ultimately led her to becoming a judicial officer and Family Law Supervising Judge. While Judge Palafox described her eight years as a family law judge as the “best job ever,” Judge Palafox has found that greater attention must be given to the ever-increasing demands placed on the family court and that the greater bar and court system do not recognize the importance of the family court’s work.
The Supreme Court made the same astute observations in Elkins v. Superior Court, 41 Cal. 4th 1337 (2007), acknowledging that family law litigants may often be “subjected to second-class status or deprived of access to justice.” This led to the appointment of the Elkins Family Law Task Force to “study and propose measures to assist trial courts in achieving efficiency and fairness in marital dissolution proceedings and to ensure access to justice for litigants.” However, despite Elkins and the efforts that followed, Judge Palafox asserts “much more needs to be done.” Now, Judge Palafox brings these pivotal issues to the forefront of Orange County and embarks on a five-year self-imposed deadline to re-examine the Elkins Commission.
What led Judge Palafox to this pivot from civil litigator to crusader for justice in our courts? Her journey is in some ways typical, which makes the destination that much more remarkable. Judge Palafox comes from the American Southwest with familial roots in El Paso and Chihuahua, Mexico. Judge Palafox went on to the University of Notre Dame, which had just become coeducational. Judge Palafox made up one of the very first classes with a significant female student body. While she truly enjoyed one of the most quintessential collegiate experiences, the midwestern climate proved too cold for the native of the American Southwest. Judge Palafox came out west where she obtained her juris doctor degree at Pepperdine Caruso School of Law.
In Southern California, Judge Palafox made her home in Orange County. Judge Palafox went into civil litigation where she became a partner at Alevizon, Smith, Susson, and Palafox and then Alevizon, Edwards, and Palafox. In 2000, Judge Palafox left her partnership to become a solo practitioner. The move afforded her more flexibility to juggle her family life and maintain some semblance of work-life balance. In her private practice, Judge Palafox handled just one family law matter, which she recalled being a rather unpleasant experience. This perhaps shaped her drive toward the bench and her desire to improve family law in Orange County.
Once her three children were launched, Judge Palafox was at a crossroads. She wanted to close her small practice to return to something with more activity and fulfillment. This is when Judge Palafox had an epiphany. She questioned whether she made a difference and, when she looked back at her life, whether she had made a positive impact on the lives of others. Judge Palafox understood that service to others can be the highest calling and most rewarding. In this moment, Judge Palafox decided to submit an application to the governor for a judicial appointment.
It was a long three years before the governor called, but he eventually did, and in 2015, Judge Palafox began her assignment on the family law bench. The opportunity afforded her the chance “to do something more meaningful” and make a substantial difference in the lives of children and families. In a stark contrast with her civil experience, where attorneys had fewer trials and less frequently dealt with real people and real problems, family law of fered that in spades. Typically, each day, Judge Palafox took a morning walk around the courthouse, often with the late Honorable Frank J. Ospino. Each day, she was front and center adjudicating issues for dozens of litigants in evidentiary hearings and trials. Judge Palafox would try child custody, domestic violence, spousal support, and law and motion practice, all before lunch. Judge Palafox explained that, on the bench, she felt as if she “accomplished something meaningful to someone every day.”
Judge Palafox recalled one hearing as particularly impactful. In a custody case that involved a parent overcoming severe substance abuse issues, Judge Palafox recognized the angst felt between the parties and sense of betrayal.The emotions permeated the courtroom. Understanding that the parent had started a multi-step program requiring an admission of wrongdoing and an apology, Judge Palafox poignantly asked the parent whether there was any other person in the courtroom that the parent wanted to address.The parent turned to the other and accepted responsibility by apologizing for the betrayal. On another occasion, where Judge Palafox issued multiple restraining orders against a parent with a substance abuse issue that led to a child abduction, after thirty hearings over the course of five years, there was a pivotal moment which led to a full recovery and tearful forgiveness from the abused family.These heartfelt moments diffuse the litigiousness in the courtroom and are starting points for those involved and for others to observe that rebuilding trust for the fractured families is possible.
While these dramatic scenes may only happen from time-to-time, the intensity of emotions and the importance of the work is a constant. Unfortunately, even after Elkins, family law judicial resources are strained. Judges, clerks, and administrators work tirelessly, but Judge Palafox emphasizes that “more must be done” and repeats the California Supreme Court’s finding: “The same judicial resources and safeguards should be committed to a family law trial as are committed to other civil proceedings.” Elkins, 41 Cal. 4th at 1368. Family law courts have significant volume and while streamlining does help, family law litigants are entitled “to resolve their disputes in the usual adversary trial proceeding governed by the rules of evidence established by statute.” Id.
Beyond those two best practices, Judge Palafox offered some advice to newer attorneys. “Consider looking into family law because there is so much court time” and “you can get into the arena” more quickly than in almost any other practice. Unlike civil law and motion practice, family law courts hold evidentiary hearings for temporary issues such as custody, support, and attorneys’ fees, and routinely bifurcate trial issues to have multiple trials over extended periods of time. For these new attorneys, Judge Palafox stressed the importance of learning evidence and how to present evidence in a persuasive manner.
Attorneys who have appeared before Judge Palafox recognize her efforts to help heal families, think prospectively and practically, and have clarity in her rulings. “Judge Palafox applies common sense to her rulings and makes orders that actually work for the parties and their children. A judge who makes clear orders prevents future problems,” said Jason Blonska of The Blonska Firm. Jason Schwartz of Stegmeier, Gelbart, Schwartz, and Benavente echoed those comments:
Judge Palafox makes a great effort to understand the nuances of each case and encourage the litigants to reach a fair resolution of their matter before trial. However, she is not afraid to make the tough call at trial. Win or lose, Judge Palafox makes sure you understand the reasoning for her decision. It is helpful for us as attorneys to explain what went right or wrong to our clients because of the detail she includes in her rulings.
Michael A. Morris of Minyard Morris summed it up most succinctly, “Good judge. Great understanding of family law. Wonderful to try a case in front of.”
After five years on the bench, in the midst of the pandemic, Judge Palafox ascended to her current role as Supervising Judge where she still maintains her full case load. As both a judicial officer and Supervising Judge, she works every weekend. She still volunteers and undertakes often thankless projects to streamline existing court procedures or create new ones to help litigants. However, the Supervising Judge functions within a large court system filled with longtime courthouse staff with immense institutional know-how and experience. Judge Palafox had to coordinate between the clerk’s office, the administration offices, the Orange County Sheriff for courtroom deputies, and navigate judicial calendars following elections, appointments, and reassignments.
Judge Palafox treated the institutional complexities as one of her motivations to improve the court system. Judge Palafox steadfastly promised herself to “leave the court in a better place” than when she arrived. She has spearheaded programs to clear the backlog caused by the pandemic and to facilitate settlement for future cases such as working on a pilot program for early mediation for self-represented parties and continuing to support the Family Law Voluntary Settlement Program launched by Judge Silbar and the Family Law bar during the pandemic. In doing all of this, Judge Palafox feels that she “made a difference for the better and considers this last chapter [her] best chapter.”
Today, there is good and bad news to report. The good news is the family law backlog from COVID-19 is much improved and, in some cases, nonexistent, and courtrooms are again processing cases both in-person and remotely. Even short-staffed, the family law court now processes orders and judgments more quickly than before. In family law, especially with child custody, “people need timely orders” and any delay can harm families according to Judge Palafox. The bad news is, while the world and court are recovering, filings are ticking up again and, in some cases, such as domestic violence, are even greater than pre-pandemic filings. This is proving challenging with the limited availability of judicial officers which, in turn, limits in-person hearings and justice for litigants on an already constrained family law court system. The family court has about four fewer judicial officers on the bench than just a few years ago.
In an effort to increase visibility for the benefit of the family law court, Judge Palafox has reluctantly stepped outside her judicial comfort zone and into the legal community. She has hosted the Annual Judge’s Barbeque on behalf of the Orange County Hispanic Bar Association. Judge Palafox presented at the most recent American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers Annual Conference in San Diego. She has now made regular appearances at the Orange County Bar Association’s Judges’ Night.
Judge Palafox emphasizes that she “enjoys” her role as Supervising Judge, but before she leaves the court, Judge Palafox hopes to develop a five-year plan, with the assistance of the presiding judges, the court executives, the family law bench, and bar to re-examine Elkins’ recommendations and put Orange County at the forefront of family courts in California.
Judge Palafox still finds time to enjoy Orange County and spend time with her musically talented husband. When not working, Judge Palafox attends her husband’s local gigs or they play golf together. She and her long-time friends also take full advantage of the local hiking trails. Judge Palafox “loves Orange County.” Having lived in both Los Angeles and Orange County she reasons Orange County “is not Los Angeles, but has the best of Los Angeles.” Judge Palafox noted Orange County has less traffic than Los Angeles but still has a myriad of diverse ethnic communities, subcultures, restaurant options, and outdoor activities from hiking to the beach. Orange County offers all of this while having perfect weather, a far cry from South Bend’s winters and El Paso’s dry scorching summers.
Miranda vs Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 p. 491 “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
“The officers of the law, in the execution of process, are required to know the requirements of the law, and if they mistake them, whether through ignorance or design, and anyone is harmed by theirerror, they must respond in damages.” Roger v. Marshall (United States use of Rogers v. Conklin), 1 Wall. (US) 644, 17 Led 714.
“It is a general rule that an officer, executive, administrative, quasi-judicial, ministerial, or otherwise, who acts outside the scope of his jurisdiction, and without authorization of law may thereby render himself amenable to personal liability in a civil suit.” Cooperv. O`Conner, 69 App DC 100, 99 F (2d)
“Public officials are not immune from suit when they transcend their lawful authority by invading constitutional rights. “AFLCIO v.Woodard, 406 F 2d 137 t.
“Immunity fosters neglect and breeds irresponsibility while liability promotes care and caution, which caution and care is owed by the government to its people.” (CivilRights) Rabon vs Rowen MemorialHospital, Inc. 269 N.S. 1, 13, 152 SE 1 d 485, 493.
Government Immunity – “In Land v. Dollar, 338 US 731 (1947), the court noted, “that when the government entered into a commercial field of activity, it left immunity behind.” Brady v. Roosevelt, 317 US 575 (1943); FHA v. Burr, 309 US 242 (1940); Kiefer v. RFC, 306 US 381 (1939).
The high Courts, through their citations of authority, have frequently declared, that “…where any state proceeds against a privateindividual in a judicial forum it is well settled that the state, county, municipality, etc. waives any immunity to counters, cross claims and complaints, by direct or collateral means regarding the matters involved.” Luckenback v. The Thekla, 295 F 1020, 226 Us 328; Lyders v. Lund, 32 F2d 308;
“When enforcing mere statutes, judges of all courts do not actjudicially (and thus are not protected by “qualified” or “limitedimmunity,” – SEE:Owen v. City, 445 U.S. 662; Bothke v. Terry, 713 F2d 1404)
Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 583; Keller v. P.E., 261 US 428; F.R.C. v. G.E., 281, U.S. 464 “but merely act as an extension as an agent for the involved agency — but only in a “ministerial” and not a“discretionary capacity…” .
Thompson v. Clark 2022 Holding: Larry Thompson’s showing that his criminal prosecution ended without a conviction satisfies the requirement to demonstrate a favorable termination of a criminal prosecution in a Fourth Amendment claim under Section 1983 for malicious prosecution; an affirmative indication of innocence is not needed.
Immunity for judges does not extend to acts which are clearly outside of their jurisdiction. Bauers v. Heisel,C.A. N.J. 1966, 361 F.2d 581, Cert. Den. 87 S.Ct. 1367, 386 U.S. 1021, 18 L.Ed. 2d 457 (see also Muller v. Wachtel, D.C.N.Y. 1972, 345 F.Supp. 160; Rhodes v. Houston, D.C. Nebr. 1962, 202 F.Supp. 624 affirmed 309 F.2d 959, Cert. den 83 St. 724, 372 U.S. 909, 9 L.Ed. 719, Cert. Den 83 S.Ct. 1282, 383 U.S. 971, 16 L.Ed. 2nd 311, Motion denied 285 F.Supp. 546).
“Judges not only can be sued over their official acts, but could be held liable for injunctive and declaratory relief and attorney’s fees.” Lezama v. Justice Court, A025829.
“The immunity of judges for acts within their judicial role is beyond cavil.” Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1957). Keyword within their role, outside of that role they are not.
At least seven circuits have indicated affirmatively that there is no immunity bar to such relief, and in situations where in their judgment an injunction against a judicial officer is necessary to prevent irreparable injury to a petitioner’s constitutional rights, courts will grant that relief. “There is no common law judicial immunity.” Pulliam v. Allen, 104S.Ct. 1970; cited in Lezama v. Justice Court, A025829.|
“Judges, members of city council, and police officers as well as other public officials, may utilize good faith defense of action for damages under 42-1983, but no public official has absolute immunity from suit under the 1871 civil rights statute.” (Samuel vs University ofPittsburg, 375 F.Supp. 1119, ‘see also, White vs Fleming 374 Supp. 267.)
U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882) “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law.No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. “
Pierce v. United States (“The Floyd Acceptances”), 7 Wall. (74 U.S.) 666, 677 (“We have no officers in this government from the President down to the most subordinate agent, who does not hold office under the law, with prescribed duties and limited authority”);
Cunningham v. Macon, 109 U.S. 446, 452, 456, 3 S.Ct. 292, 297 (“In these cases he is not sued as, or because he is, the officer of the government, but as an individual, and the court is not ousted of jurisdiction because he asserts authority as such officer. To make out his defense he must show that his authority was sufficient in law to protect him… It is no answer for the defendant to say I am an officer of the government and acted under its authority unless he shows the sufficiency of that authority”); and Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 287, 5 S.Ct. 903, 912
“Personal involvement in deprivation of constitutional rights is prerequisite to award of damages, but defendant may be personally involved in constitutional deprivation by direct participation, failure to remedy wrongs after learning about it, creation of a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occur or gross negligence in managing subordinates who cause violation.”(Gallegos v. Haggerty, N.D. of New York, 689 F. Supp. 93 (1988).
“The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 533
“If you’ve relied on prior decisions of the Supreme Court you have a perfect defense for willfulness.” U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346
Before we place the stigma of a criminal conviction upon any such citizen the legislative mandate must be clear and unambiguous. Accordingly that which Chief Justice Marshall has called ‘the tenderness of the law Page 11 of 48 for the rights of individuals’ [FN1] entitles each person, regardless of economic or social status, to an unequivocal warning from the legislature as to whether he is within the class of persons subject to vicarious liability.Congress cannot be deemed to have intended to punish anyone who is not ‘plainly and unmistakably’ within the confines of the statute. United States v. Lacher, 134 U.S. 624, 628, 10 S. Ct. 625, 626, 33 L. Ed. 1080; United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476,485, 37 S. Ct. 407, 61 L. Ed. 857. FN1 United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95, 5 L.Ed. 37.
We do not overlook those constitutional limitations which, for the protection of personal rights, must necessarily attend all investigations conducted under the authority of Congress. Neither branch of the legislative department, still less any merely administrative body, established by Congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168,196 [26: 377, 386]. We said in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 630 [29: 746, 751]—and it cannot be too often repeated—that the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of the government and its employes of the sancity of a man’s home, and the privacies of his life.As said by Mr. Justice Field in Re Pacific R. Commission, 32 Fed. Rep. 241,250, “of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happinessthan the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from the inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.”
Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326 When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost. JURI$DICTION: NOTE:It is a fact of law that the person asserting jurisdiction must, when challenged, prove that jurisdiction exists; mere good faith assertions of power and authority (jurisdiction) have been abolished.
Albrecht v. U.S. Balzac v. People of Puerto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)“The United States District Court is not a true United States Court, established under Article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article 4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court.”
“Jurisdiction of court may be challenged at any stage of the proceeding, and also may be challenged after conviction and execution of judgment by way of writ of habeas corpus.” [U.S. v. Anderson, 60 F.Supp. 649 (D.C.Wash. 1945)]
Stump v. Sparkman, id., 435 U.S. 349. Some Defendants urge that any act “of a judicial nature” entitles the Judge to absolute judicial immunity. But in a jurisdictional vacuum (that is, absence of all jurisdiction) the second prong necessary to absolute judicial immunity is missing. A judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity.
Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872) “Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction.”
Chandler v. Judicial Council of the 10th Circuit, 398 U.S. 74, 90 S. Ct. 1648, 26 L. Ed. 2d 100Justice Douglas, in his dissenting opinion at page 140 said, “If (federal judges) break the law, they can be prosecuted.”Justice Black, in his dissenting opinion at page 141) said, “Judges, like other people, can be tried, convicted and punished for crimes… The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution“.
Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938) A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts.
“Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250
Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828) Under federal Law, which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “if a court is without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered, in law, as trespassers.”
Griffin v. Mathews, 310 Supp. 341, 423 F. 2d 272 Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State Court Cases. Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) “The practice of law is an occupation of common right.”
Tort & Insurance Law Journal, Spring 1986 21 n3, p 509-516, “Federal tort law: judges cannot invoke judicial immunity for acts that violate litigants’ civil rights.” – Robert Craig Waters.
WHEREAS, officials and even judges have questioned immunity (See, Owen vs. City of Independence, 100 S Ct. 1398; Maine vs. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502; and Hafer vs. Melo, 502 U.S. 21; officials and judges are deemed to know the law and sworn to uphold the law; officials and judges cannot claim to act in good faith in willful deprivation of law, they certainly cannot plead ignorance of the law, even the Citizen cannot plead ignorance of the law, the courts have ruled there is no such thing as ignorance of the law, it is ludicrous for learned officials and judges to plead ignorance of the law therefore there is no immunity, judicial or otherwise, in matters of rights secured by the Constitution for the United States of America. See: Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.
“When lawsuits are brought against federal officials, they must be brought against them in their “individual” capacity not their official capacity. When federal officials perpetrate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires (beyond the powers) and lose the shield of immunity.” Williamson v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 815 F.2d. 369, ACLU Foundation v. Barr, 952 F.2d. 457, 293 U.S. App. DC 101, (CA DC 1991).
NO IMMUNITY – “Sovereign immunity does not apply where (as here) government is a lawbreaker or jurisdiction is the issue.” Arthur v. Fry, 300 F.Supp. 622 “Knowing failure to disclose material information necessary to prevent statement from being misleading, or making representation despite knowledge that it has no reasonable basis in fact, are actionable as fraud under law.” Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 1990
[a] “Party in interest may become liable for fraud by mere silent acquiescence and partaking of benefits of fraud.” Bransom v. Standard Hardware, Inc., 874 S.W.2d 919, 1994
Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. Out of fraud no action arises; fraud never gives a right of action. No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act. As found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 509.
“Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters,” Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S 426.
“Fraud vitiates everything” Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210
“Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments.” U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61
When a Citizen challenges the acts of a federal or state official as being illegal, that official cannot just simply avoid liability based upon the fact that he is a public official. In United States v. Lee, 106 U.S.196, 220, 221, 1 S.Ct. 240, 261, the United States claimed title to Arlington, Lee’s estate, via a tax sale some years earlier, held to be void by the Court. In so voiding the title of the United States, the Court declared: “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives. “Shall it be said… that the courts cannot give remedy when the citizen has been deprived of his prop erty by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government without any lawful authority, without any process of law, and without any compensation, because the president has ordered it and his officers are in possession? If such be the law of this country,it sanctions a tyranny which has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, nor in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights.”
Marbury v. Madison Chief Justice John Marshall Marbury v. Madison,5 US (1Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803) All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes that they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137,(1803) “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803) “… the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states “NO State (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of the United States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, … or equal protection under the law”, this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional. “In declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank”. “All law (rules and practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution are VOID”. Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states “NO State (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of the United States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, … or equal protection under the law”, this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional.
JUDICIAL IMMUNITY: See also, 42 USC 1983 – Availability of Equitable Relief Against Judges.
Note: Judges have given themselves judicial immunity for their judicial functions. Judges have no judicial immunity for criminal acts, aiding, assisting, or conniving with others who perform a criminal act or for their administrative/ministerial duties, or for violating a citizen’s constitutional rights. When a judge has a duty to act, he does not have discretion – he is then not performing a judicial act; he is performing a ministerial act. Nowhere was the judiciary given immunity, particularly nowhere in Article III; under our Constitution, if judges were to have immunity, it could only possibly be granted by amendment (and even less possibly by legislative act), as Art. I, Sections 9 & 10, respectively, in fact expressly prohibit such, stating, “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States” and “No state shall… grant any Title of Nobility.” Most of us are certain that Congress itself doesn’t understand the inherent lack of immunity for judges. Article III, Sec. 1, “The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior.”
Both the US Constitution and Californian Constitution has
42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, 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.
California Civil Code Section 52.1
Interference by threat, intimidation or coercion with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights The Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 52.1) forbids anyone from interfering by force or by threat of violence with your federal or state constitutional or statutory rights. The acts forbidden by these civil laws may also be criminal acts, and can expose violators to criminal penalties. California Civil Code Section 52.1 – Interference by threat, intimidation or coercion with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights.
Maybe the Judge did not understand his oath or get the new message from the WHITE HOUSE to all judges, prosecutors and police
He lives here, maybe the local community, through peaceful public assembly, should get together and let their Judge Israel “Izzy” Claustro to resign for his criminal activities and negligence
We also have the Hartman v. Moore (2006) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution ClaimsAgainstGovernment Officials – 1st Amendment
We also have the Reichle v. Howards (2012) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution ClaimsAgainstGovernment Officials – 1st Amendment
We also have the Insulting letters to politician’s home are constitutionally protected, unless they are ‘true threats’ – Letters to Politicians Homes – 1st Amendment
We also have theFirst Amendment Encyclopedia very comprehensive – 1st Amendment
The proposed Parental Rights Amendment will specifically add parental rights in the text of the U.S. Constitution, protecting these rights for both current and future generations.
The Parental Rights Amendment is currently in the U.S. Senate, and is being introduced in the U.S. House.
Rule 1.1 – Competence (DA REPRESENTS THE STATE)
Rule 1.2 – Assisting in a Crime
Rule 3.1 – Meritorious Claims & Contentions
Rule 3.4 – Fairness to Opposing Party and Council
PAUL TOEPEL PLAY THE NEXT VIDEO REMEMBER SUGGESTING ME TO BE MADE A VEXATIOUS LITAGANT YOU PUNK FUCK
Model Rule 3.8 pt.2 – Special Duties of Prosecutors
Epic Criminal / Civil Right$ SCOTUS Help – Click Here
Epic Parents SCOTUS Ruling – Parental Right$ Help – Click Here
Judge’s & Prosecutor’s Jurisdiction– SCOTUS RULINGS on
