Mandamus – Judicial Corruption – Turning A Blind Eye: Perjury In Domestic violence (DV) Cases

by Irwin Ironstone & Bob Vinick –

What Follows Is A True Story

A complaint drafted by Bob Vinik Questioning the unconstitutional instructions taught to new Judges in New Jersey.

Irwin Ironstone, J.D. added other information to assist the reader with some of the legal terms and concepts. (I would like to thank Bob Vinik for allowing this Complaint to be used by others as an example. It may be used by individuals to become familiar with several federal laws that may apply to state actors (workers).

I would like to thank Mr. Bob Vinik for allowing me to Post this action. This federal action was filed because a bunch of New Jersey Judges violated their oath of office. New judges are usually trained in special classes. These classes are for all types of judges – However, this class was for municipal judges. In one of these classes, the judges were being taught and told to ignore the constitution. They were being taught that when there is a charge of domestic violence the judge should find for the mother or woman and kick the father out of the house (Divorce lawyers must have loved this because of the number of false allegations filed in domestic relations cases to gain an advantage.)

One of the new judges in his notes wrote this information down and then someone obtained a copy and it became public knowledge. I am not sure if the judge who wrote this information down was aware of what he was doing (Some judges are honest and follow the law.)

Mr. Bob Vinik, who is not an attorney, filed this action with another member of the New Jersey Counsel for Children’s Rights. Bob has been doing what some believe is the job that belongs to the State or Federal Attorney General.

At one time, I was at a law conference and was talking to a New York judge who expressed similar feelings. The judge said if there is a possibility of finding his name on the front page of a daily newspaper, he said that he was going to err on the side of caution (ignore the law.) This discussion was about the time when another judge had released someone who was charged with domestic violence and that party later killed his girl friend.

TURNING A BLIND EYE: PERJURY IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (DV) CASES

Accurate testimony is essential to maintaining integrity and justice in the criminal system. In In re Michael, 326 U.S. 224, 227 (1945), the court said:

….[ All] perjured relevant testimony is at war with justice, since it may produce a judgment not resting on truth. Therefore it cannot be denied that it tends to defeat the sole ultimate objective of a trial.

Perjurious testimony poses one of the greatest threats to the judicial system. Although perjury charges would seem a logical and uncontroversial solution for addressing false statements, the issue becomes murky when false statements arise from the bar or from the bench. In the instant case, it appears that judges are bypassing the constitution to protect themselves. Because a large number of DV complaints are either dismissed or withdrawn, it appears that judges are taking the law into their own hands. In one instance a judge, expressing frustration over the functioning of the justice system in Domestic Violence cases said:

[I]t is simply unacceptable for our process to turn a blind eye to the dangers of such abuse by shrugging our shoulders and saying that nothing can be done within the framework of existing law.

False statements in domestic violence cases are a significant problem and considered an epidemic. In my opinion and experiences, domestic violence cases are not the only ones where judges and lawyers violate canons and rules of professional conduct without any consequences.
Many of the words and laws related to this article appear after the federal complaint.

What Follows Is A True Story 1
TURNING A BLIND EYE: PERJURY IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (DV) CASES 2
The Complaint follows – It can be used as a model, but there are consequences when an individual or a group goes after members of the judiciary. 3
New Jersey Judges Told: Issue The Restraining Order Or Else 17
The definitions that may assist the reader are in the back of this document emoluments, Mandamus, novitiate judges, Prohibition, 19
emoluments e·mol·u·ment noun formal plural noun: emoluments a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office. 19
MANDAMUS (man-dame-us) n. Latin for “we order,” a writ (more 19
novitiate judges the period or state of being a novice, especially in a religious order. 19
PROHIBITION An order issued by a higher court commanding a 19
RULE 1:33. Administrative Responsibility 19
1:33-1. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; Acting Chief Justice 19
18 USCA § 241 Conspiracy against rights 20
18 USCA § 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law 20
The all writs act 28 U.S.C. § 1651 21
Contents 21
Act 21
Conditions for use 22
28 §1343(3) 28 U.S.C. § 1343 : US Code – Section 1343: Civil rights and elective franchise 22
14th Amendment 23
Amendment XIV 24
F.R.E. 201(a) et seq Federal rules of evidence – Judicial notice 25
18 U.S. Code § 2382 – Misprision of treason 26
18 USC § 2383 Rebellion or insurrection 26
18 USC § 2384 Seditious Conspiracy 26
18 USC § 371 Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States 26
The Complaint follows – It can be used as a model, but there are consequences when an individual or a group goes after members of the judiciary.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
_________________________________ Hon. Mary Little Parell, U.S.D.J.

BOB VINIK :
ERICH STONE Docket No. 3:95cv02609
Petitioners
:

v. :

: VERIFIED
ROBERT WILENTZ PETITION FOR WRIT OF
ROBERT LIPSCHER : MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
NANCY KESSLER
T. GRAHAM ROSS :
RICHARD RUSSELL
Respondents :
_________________________________

Comes now petitioners BOB VINIK and ERICH STONE, citizens of New Jersey, petitioning this Hon. Court for a Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition directing the proper authority, the Supreme Court of New Jersey, to remove respondents from any office or position held, deny emoluments, and Issue a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting them from exercising the duties of any office or position or practicing law as an officer of the court during the pendency of this action.
INTRODUCTION
This action arises from the instruction to novitiate judges by respondents RUSSELL, ROSS and KESSLER. The former two are judicial officers and the third is an attorney employed by the Administrative Office of the Courts. The aforementioned three respondents had the responsibility under authority of the Administrative Office of the Courts of New Jersey for conducting training of novitiate judges. During this training each of them taught, instructed and advocated to the members of the class composed of novitiate judges that they were to ignore the Constitution and the constitutional rights of people appearing before them.

PARTIES
Petitioner BOB VINIK is a resident of the State of New Jersey. He, as a personal policy, does not hit or abuse women. His ex-wife, upon learning this, hit and abused him with immunity from both him and the courts.
Petitioner ERICH STONE is a resident of the State of New Jersey. He as a personal policy, does not hit or abuse women. Nevertheless, his ex-wife filed false charges of abuse against him thereby causing him not to see his son for extended periods of time. However, when he brought his son with welts and bruises inflicted by mom and her boyfriend(now husband) to the hospital for care and in the presence of DYFS personnel no action was taken.

Respondent ROBERT WILENTZ is employed by the state of New Jersey as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and is the chief administrator of the entire court system of New Jersey and all it’s political subdivisions pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 1:33 et seq. and is a resident of New Jersey.

Respondent ROBERT LIPSCHER is employed by the state of New Jersey as the director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, and is a resident of New Jersey. He is a subordinate of Respondent ROBERT WILENTZ and has a master-servant relationship with him pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 1:33-1 et seq.

Respondent NANCY KESSLER is employed by the state of New Jersey by the office of the Administrative Office of the Courts, and is a resident of New Jersey. She is a subordinate of the aforementioned respondents and has a master-servant relationship with them pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 1:33-1 et seq.

Respondent T. GRAHAM ROSS is employed by the state of New Jersey as a Superior Court Judge, and is a resident of New Jersey. He is a subordinate of respondents WILENTZ and LIPSCHER and has a master-servant relationship with them pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 1:33-1 et seq.

Respondent RICHARD RUSSELL is employed as a Municipal Judge of a municipal court and as a training instructor of novitiate judges by the Administrative Office of the Courts, and is a resident of the state of New Jersey. He is a subordinate of respondents WILENTZ and LIPSCHER and has a master-servant relationship with them pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 1:33-1 et seq.

JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction of this honorable court is invoked pursuant to Title 28 §1651 et seq. known as the “ALL WRITS ACT.”

Jurisdiction of this honorable court is also invoked pursuant to Title 28 §1343(3), to redress the “Deprivation Under Color of Law of a right or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States of America.”

Jurisdiction of this honorable court is also invoked pursuant to Amendment 14 §3 of the Constitution of the United States of America which directs the prohibition that: ” No person shall. . .hold any office. . .under any state, who having previously taken an oath. . .as a[n] judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same. . .”

FACTS
Respondents ROSS, RUSSELL and KESSLER, while conducting a training session for novitiate judges, under the authority of the respondents WILENTZ and LIPSCHER, and the Administrative Office of the Courts advised, instructed and recommended that the novitiate judges: DISREGARD THE U.S. CONSTITUTION THEY HAD JUST TAKEN AN OATH TO UPHOLD, AND TO DISREGARD THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS.

Petitioners invoke F.R.E. 201(a) et seq., requesting this court to take judicial notice that Respondents ROSS, RUSSELL and KESSLER, while conducting a training session for novitiate judges, under the authority, pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 1:33-1 et seq., of the respondents WILENTZ and LIPSCHER, and the Administrative Office of the Courts advised, instructed and recommended that the novitiate judges: DISREGARD THE U.S. CONSTITUTION THEY HAD JUST TAKEN AN OATH TO UPHOLD, AND TO DISREGARD THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS.

One week later respondents WILENTZ and LIPSCHER caused to be published in the New Jersey Law Journal a directive that the advice, instruction and recommendation by respondents ROSS, RUSSELL and KESSLER, to ignore the Constitution, be disregarded.

Petitioners invoke F.R.E. 201(a) et seq., requesting this court to take judicial notice that one week later respondents WILENTZ and LIPSCHER caused to be published in the New Jersey Law Journal a directive that the instruction by respondents ROSS, RUSSELL and KESSLER, to ignore the Constitution, be disregarded.

Petitioners invoke F.R.E. 201(a) et seq., particularly ¶ (d) requiring that this court take judicial notice of the facts reported by the New Jersey Law Journal that the respondents have in fact committed the acts as alleged herein.

Each of the respondents took an oath of office wherein they pledged to support the United States Constitution while serving in their office pursuant Amendment 14 §3 of the Constitution of the United States of America, as well as state requirements.

Petitioners invoke F.R.E. 201(a) et seq., requesting this court to take judicial notice that each of the respondents took an oath of office wherein they pledged to support the United States Constitution while serving in their office pursuant Amendment 14 §3 of the Constitution of the United States of America, as well as state requirements.
COUNT 1
By advocating the disregard and violation of the Constitution by the Courts of the State of New Jersey, Respondents ROSS, RUSSELL and KESSLER committed insurrection in violation of U.S.C.A. Title 18 § 2383.

COUNT 2
By advocating and instructing, in a supervisory capacity, the disregard and violation of the Constitution by state courts judges, respondents ROSS, RUSSELL and KESSLER committed the aforementioned acts in violation of Amendment 14 §3 of the Constitution of the United States of America and shall not hold public office.
COUNT 3
Each of the respondents had knowledge of the aforementioned acts and failed to make known to the proper officials those acts as required by U.S.C.A. Title 18 §2382 and committed Misprision of Treason.
COUNT 4
Each of the respondents conspired to oppose or delay the execution of the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution of the United States of America, and has therefore entered into a Seditious Conspiracy in violation of U.S.C.A. Title 18 USC § 2384

COUNT 5
Each of the respondents conspired to oppose or delay the execution of the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution of the United States of America, and has therefore entered into a Seditious Conspiracy in violation of U.S.C.A. Title 18 USC § 371.
COUNT 6
Each of the respondents conspired to oppose or delay the execution of the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution of the United States of America, and has therefore entered into a Seditious Conspiracy Against Rights in violation of U.S.C.A. Title 18 §§241 and 242
COUNT 7
Respondents WILENTZ and LIPSCHER became aware of the aforementioned acts by three subordinates with whom each has a master-servant relationship pursuant to New Jersey Rule of Court 33:1-1 et seq. Respondents WILENTZ and LIPSCHER then caused to be published a memorandum to all judges advising them to disregard the aforementioned instructions. The aforementioned published memorandum is clearly indicative that respondents WILENTZ and LIPSCHER had knowledge of the acts complained of herein which were committed by respondents ROSS, RUSSELL AND KESSLER.

Respondents WILENTZ and LIPSCHER knew of the acts by respondents ROSS, RUSSELL AND KESSLER, proscribed by Amendment 14 §3, Title 18 §§2383, 2384, 371, 241 and 242 and did not act or notify the required parties in pursuant to Title 18 §2382 thereby committing of Misprision of Treason.

COUNT 8
If any duty, imposed by law, rule or doctrine, on the courts of this Country and the States, is greater than all others it is the obligation to uphold the Constitution of the United States. This country was born in a rebellion against England for the very reasons this petition is now before this Honorable Court. The courts, both state and federal are the standard-bearers of justice with the supreme duty to up hold the Constitution. The oath of office taken by freshly appointed judges is that they will uphold the constitution. For respondents ROSS, RUSSELL and KESSLER to instruct the novitiate judges that they are to disregard the Constitution they just swore to uphold is an outrageous act of Sedition of Treason that shocks the conscience of the average man and makes a mockery of justice and the courts. The aforementioned acts committed by respondents violates the rights of petitioners and all citizens of the state guaranteed by U.S.C.A. Title 42 §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, and they are entitled to recovery pursuant to §1988

DEMAND FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, petitioners respectfully ask this court for:

Declaratory relief that not withstanding any instruction or direction to the contrary, all judges in the State of New Jersey are to know by this rule that:
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IS THE “SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND” AND MUST BE FOLLOWED ABOVE ALL OTHERS, BY JUDGES, LAWYERS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND ALL POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS THEREIN, WHO HAVE TAKEN AN OATH TO SUPPORT AND UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

A Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition directing the Supreme Court of New Jersey to remove each of the respondents from their office and that they shall be prohibited from holding any such office henceforth, hereafter and forevermore.

A Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition directing the Supreme Court of New Jersey to remove each of the respondent’s license to practice law and that they shall be prohibited from practicing law henceforth, hereafter and forevermore.

A Temporary Restraining Order restraining all respondents from exercising any duties of any state or federal office held, or the practice of law, pending disposition of this petition.

That all respondents be denied any and all emoluments that they may have been entitled to resulting from their employment as justices, judges or lawyers..

That the respondents are each declared in violation of U.S.C.A. Title 18 §§ 2383, 2384, 371, 241, 242 and Amendment 14 §3 of the United States Constitution.

Any and all relief that petitioners are entitled to pursuant to F.R.C.P. 54(c)

Any and all other relief that the court deems equitable and just in the interest of justice.
Dated: ________,1995 _____________________
BOB xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dated: ________, 1995 _____________________
ERICH XXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

VERIFICATION
I, Bob Xxxxxx, hereby certify and verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing petition are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief.

Dated: ________,1995 _____________________
BOB xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
VERIFICATION
I, ERICH xxxxx hereby certify and verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing petition are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief.

Dated: ________,1995 _____________________
ERICH xxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx

New Jersey Judges Told: Issue The Restraining Order Or Else
https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/798-new-jersey-judges-to-798

Trenton, N.J.–As I explained in my recent co-authored column Restraining Orders Can Be Straitjackets On Justice (Newark Star-Ledger, 7/28/08), there is a controversy over a recent New Jersey court ruling which raises the evidence standard needed to obtain a domestic violence restraining order. Evidence shows that the orders are often applied for to get an advantage in custody litigation, and that many of the domestic violence claims made to get the orders are fraudulent. The current controversy brings to mind an amazing article in the New Jersey Law Journal in 1995 which accurately reflects the mentality which is sometimes behind the issuance of these restraining orders. The article “New Jersey Judges Told to Ignore Rights in Abuse TROs” (4/24/95) details a judges’ training session given by the Administrative Office of the Courts. The article is excerpted below–after that, see the kicker:

On Friday, at a training session at the Hughes Justice Complex in Trenton, novitiate municipal judges were given the “scared straight” version of dealing with requests for temporary restraining orders in domestic violence cases. The recommendation: Issue the order, or else. Failing to issue temporary restraining orders in domestic violence cases, the judges are told, will turn them into fodder for headlines. They’re also instructed not to worry about the constitution. The state law carries a strong presumption in favor of granting emergency TROs for alleged domestic violence victims, the new judges were told at the seminar run by the Administrative Office of the Courts. Public sentiment, mostly due to the O.J. Simpson case, runs even stronger. The judges’ training is rife with hyperbole apparently designed to shock the newcomers. It sets down a rigid procedure, one that the trainers say is the judges’ only choice under a tough 1991 domestic violence law and its decade-old predecessor. Since the Legislature has made domestic violence a top priority, municipal court judges are instructed that they can do their part by issuing temporary restraining orders pronto. “Throw him out on the street,” said trainer and municipal court judge Richard Russell at a similar seminar a year ago, ‘give him the clothes on his back, and tell him, ‘See ya’ around.'” This napalm approach to implementing the domestic violence statute has some state judges talking. No one disputes the presumption in the law of granting a TRO, and there have been no serious court challenges to the statute’s ex parte provisions. The strident teaching, however, doesn’t always sit well with some judges, even those who characterize the instruction as deliberate verbal flares directed at a worthy goal. “[It’s] one of the most inflammatory things I have ever heard,” says one municipal court judge, who asked not to be identified, about a presentation held last year. “We’re supposed to have the courage to make the right decisions, not do what is ‘safe.”‘
At the same time, even former and current municipal and Superior Court judges who are critical of the seminar have words of admiration for the candor of trainers Russell, Somerset County Superior Court Judge Graham Ross and Nancy Kessler, chief of juvenile and family services for the AOC. One municipal court judge says that while the statements reflect an incorrect approach, “I wouldn’t be real keen to inhibit the trainers at these sessions from exhibiting their honest opinions.” For their part, Russell and Kessler say they are doing what the law says they should do — protecting victims, which in turn can save lives. Ross didn’t return telephone calls about the training. He, Russell and Kessler were scheduled to conduct Friday’s program for new judges, a program Kessler says the trio has conducted for judges at least five times since the law was passed. The law, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 et seq., requires judges to be trained on the issue of domestic violence, a requirement that women’s rights advocates say is unique. The TRO provisions also were reemphasized three years ago, encouraging the use of such orders after a municipal court judge hears from one complainant.

The kicker? Judge Richard “Throw him out on the street [and don’t worry about the constitution]” Russell apparently still serves on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s State Domestic Violence Working Group, the Executive Committee of the State Bar’s Family Law Section, and the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Family Practice Committee. He currently is the chair of the court’s Child Support Subcommittee. Thanks to Richard Smaglick of
www.fathersandhusbands.org for the information.
The definitions that may assist the reader are in the back of this document emoluments, Mandamus, novitiate judges, Prohibition,

emoluments e·mol·u·ment noun formal plural noun: emoluments a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.

MANDAMUS (man-dame-us) n. Latin for “we order,” a writ (more
modernly called a “writ of mandate”) which orders a public agency or governmental body to perform an act required by law when it has neglected or refused to do so. Examples: After petitions were filed with sufficient valid signatures to qualify a proposition for the ballot, the city refuses to call the election, claiming it has a legal opinion that the proposal is unconstitutional. The backers of the proposition file a petition for a writ ordering the city to hold the election. The court will order a hearing on the writ and afterwards either issue the writ or deny the petition. Or a state agency refuses to release public information, a school district charges fees to a student in violation of state law, or a judge will not permit reporters entry at a public trial. All of these can be subject of petitions for a writ of mandamus.(See: writ of mandate)

novitiate judges the period or state of being a novice, especially in a religious order.

PROHIBITION An order issued by a higher court commanding a
lower court to cease from proceeding in some matter not within its jurisdiction.

Writs of Prohibition or Mandamus are used by individuals when they believe a lower court has failed to act or has acted beyond its jurisdiction. The person who brings these actions wants a higher court to order a lower court or agency to do or not do a particular act.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
RULE 1:33. Administrative Responsibility
1:33-1. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; Acting Chief Justice

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/r1-33.html
For additional sections of this rule, use the link above.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall be responsible for the administration of all courts in the State. To assist in those duties the Chief Justice shall appoint an Administrative Director of the Courts who shall serve at the pleasure of and report directly to the Chief Justice. A full-time judge of any court of this State may be designated to serve temporarily as Acting Administrative Director, in which event such judge shall continue to hold, and shall only be paid the salary of such judicial office. If there is a vacancy in the office of Chief Justice, the senior justice shall serve temporarily as Acting Chief Justice. Seniority shall be determined by order of taking of oath as a member of the court. If the Chief Justice is absent or unable to serve, the senior justice shall serve temporarily as Acting Chief Justice.

18 USCA § 241 Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Last visited 3/22/16 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241
18 USCA § 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Last visited 3/22/16 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

The all writs act 28 U.S.C. § 1651
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Writs_Act
For additional information use the link above.
The All Writs Act is a United States federal statute, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which authorizes theUnited States federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”
The act in its original form was part of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The current form of the act was first passed in 1911[1] and the act has been amended several times since then.[2]
Contents
[hide]
• 1Act
• 2Conditions for use
• 3Application to electronic devices
• 4References
Act
The text of the Act is:[2]
(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
(b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which has jurisdiction.
Conditions for use
Application of the All Writs Act requires the fulfillment of four conditions:[3]
• The absence of alternative remedies—the act is only applicable when other judicial tools are not available.
• An independent basis for jurisdiction—the act authorizes writs in aid of jurisdiction, but does not in itself create any federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Necessary or appropriate in aid of jurisdiction—the writ must be necessary or appropriate to the particular case.
• Usages and principles of law—the statute requires courts to issue writs “agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. New York Telephone Co. 434 U.S. 159 (1977) that the act provided authority for a U.S. District Court to order a telephone company to assist law enforcement officials in installing a device on a rotary phone in order to track the phone numbers dialed on that phone, which was reasonably believed to be used in furtherance of criminal activity.[4]

28 §1343(3) 28 U.S.C. § 1343 : US Code – Section 1343: Civil rights and elective franchise
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/28/IV/85/1343 use this link for further information

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:
(1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42;
(2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent;
(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States;
(4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote.
(b) For purposes of this section –
(1) the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a State; and
(2) any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. – See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/28/IV/85/1343#sthash.6vBCvsWL.dpuf

14th Amendment

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used — and frequently litigated — phrase in the amendment is “equal protection of the laws”, which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights), Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination), and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education). See more..
Amendment XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
F.R.E. 201(a) et seq Federal rules of evidence – Judicial notice
Rule 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts
(a) Scope. This rule governs judicial notice of an adjudicative fact only, not a legislative fact.
(b) Kinds of Facts That May Be Judicially Noticed. The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it:
(1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or
(2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
(c) Taking Notice. The court:
(1) may take judicial notice on its own; or
(2) must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information.
(d) Timing. The court may take judicial notice at any stage of the proceeding.
(e) Opportunity to Be Heard. On timely request, a party is entitled to be heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice and the nature of the fact to be noticed. If the court takes judicial notice before notifying a party, the party, on request, is still entitled to be heard.
(f) Instructing the Jury. In a civil case, the court must instruct the jury to accept the noticed fact as conclusive. In a criminal case, the court must instruct the jury that it may or may not accept the noticed fact as conclusive.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
18 U.S. Code § 2382 – Misprision of treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2382

-=-=-=-
18 USC § 2383 Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

last visited 3/23/16 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
18 USC § 2384 Seditious Conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
last visited 3/23/16 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

18 USC § 371 Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.
last visited 3/23/16 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply