RE:  COMPLAINT TO THE GRAND JURY IN THE FORM OF A PETITION UNDER THE 1^ST AMENDMENT FOR A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION INTO CRIMES UNDER N.J. CRIMINAL JUSTICE CODE 2C:5-2 AND TITLE 18 U.S.C.C. BY OFFICERS OF THE COUNTY JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND OTHERS. "Thus, the court must guarantee that the grand jury is open to individual citizens seeking to redress wrongs as laying a complaint before it." (see Annot., 156 A.L.R 336 (I 945).

Dear Sir/Madam,

It has taken me over a year to research and prepare this Petition to the Grand Jury, I hope you will take the necessary time to review it. As former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, once asked, "Who will protect the public when the government violates the law?" That protection lies with you, the fourth branch of government.

As Abraham Lincoln said, "To sin by silence makes cowards of men." Therefore, pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C.C., Section 4, "Misprision of Felony", which is defined as: "Whoever has knowledge of such a felony and conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other persons in civil or military authority under the U.S., shall be fined not more than $500.00 or imprisoned no more than 3 years or both", I am writing to you about knowledge I have concerning felonious crimes committed by members of the Somerset and Essex County judicial system, the District Attorney's office, and local law enforcement. Hence, the Grand Jury would therefore be the proper civil authority to be notified of such crime pursuant to Title 18 United States Code Section 4 "MISPRISION OF FELONY", N.J. Criminal Justice Code 2C:5-2 and other applicable Federal and State laws.

As evidenced in a book entitled "A Crime Victim's Guide To The Criminal Justice System", which states: "The Grand Jury can also hear matters even when a criminal complaint has not been signed. The Grand Jury has investigative power to call witnesses and to subpoena documents for investigations, even though no formal charges have been filed. These matters, commonly referred to as 'grand jury investigations' can result in indictments." (published by the State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety Division of Criminal Justice Office of Victim-Witness Advocacy)

This power is has been confirmed by the courts, whereas they have ruled that "Although the grand jury's primary responsibility include the determination of whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal accusations. Historically the grand jury serves a dual function: it is intended to operate both as a sword, investigating cases to bring to trial persons accused on just grounds, and as a shield, protecting citizens against unfounded malicious or frivolous prosecutions and/or violation of the Rights of the People under the color of State law Therefore, if the grand jury is available only to the prosecuting attorney and all complaints must pass through him, the grand jury can justifiably be described as a prosecutorial tool. (See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 388, 94 S. Ct. 613, 38 L. Ed. 561 (1974); State ex rel. Miller v. Smith; )

Sir/Madam, since these crimes involve individuals from all departments of the judiciary, I am confident that the system will do everything in their power to thwart such an investigation. But, as Edmund Burke proclaimed, "The only thing for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." I am confident you will find the following facts and confessions sufficient evidence that the judge in the trial, Judge Munkacsi, former County Prosecutor and convicted felon Nicholas Bissell, County Special Prosecutor Craig Barto, and others are possibly guilty of the following felonious crimes under Title 18 U.S.C. Section 241 "CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS" - "If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, 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 - They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life";

According to N.J. Criminal Justice Code 2C:5-2. "A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he: (1) Agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such a crime; or (2)Agrees in the planning or commission of such a crime or of an attempt ort solicitation to commit such a crime. b. . . . he is guilty of conspiring with such other person or persons, whether or not he knows their identity, to commit such crime . . . (3) Conspiracy is a continuing course of conduct which terminates when the crime or crimes which are its object are committed or the agreement that they be committed is abandoned by the defendant and by those with whom he conspired.";

Title 18 U .S. C. 242 "UNDER COLOR OF LAW": "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, 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 inhabitant being an alien "or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life."

As you will see, the defendant in this case, Mr. Weinstein was maliciously charged and prosecuted under N.J.S.A. 2C:13-14 (a) "Custodial and Visitation Interference" by former Somerset County Prosecutor and convicted felon Nicholas Bissell and Special Prosecutor Barto. Nicholas Bissell was found guilty of 30 counts by a jury on May 31, 1996 including "professional corruption, misconduct and abuse of powers of his office". They included ordering subordinates to destroy a suspect's written request for a lawyer, lying to Federal Investigators, committing perjury in connection with a Federal Civil Lawsuit in which he was a defendant, as well as other high crimes. Bissell, in order to obtain the indictment against the defendant, Mr. Weinstein, used these same tactics by providing the Grand Jury with falsified documents, perjured testimony, fraud, and trained his sub-ordinates in the Somerset County Prosecutors office to do the same. Participation in what can only be called "Completely Contrived Trumped Up Charges" by prosecutors Bissell and his subordinate, Craig Barto. Their dastardly deeds were then covered up by coconspirator Judge Munkacsi and others. All attempts to have his case heard on appeal have been thwarted by the judicial system. Additionally, they have denied this innocent man parole and/or bail pending appeal while murderers and rapists at set free. Therefore, it is time for the Grand Jury to conduct its investigation into this ongoing miscarriage of justice.

Sir/Madam, before I go into any further detail about the case, I would like to quote from a copy of a letter I received from a local reporter, which was apparently written by retired Superior Court Judge Paul T. Murphy to U.S. District Court Judge, Alfred Lechner, Jr., concerning Mr. Bissell and the Somerset County Judicial system at large. Judge Murphy sat on the bench in Somerset County for four (4) years and was also a target of Bissell's mischievous acts. Judge Murphy should be well acquainted with Bissell's motive of operandi:

Unfortunately, much of his conduct in office was tolerated by a judicial administration blinded by the "need" to achieve volume dispositions to the detriment of just results. Elected officials were intimidated by his reign of terror and abandoned fiscal supervision." (see page 16 for additional open confessions of violations)

I think you will agree, the aforesaid are pretty strong allegations against Bissell and the NJ Judicial System et.al.!

Now, you be the judge and jury, and, decide for yourself based upon the following facts, evidence, and supporting court cases whether or not a "conspiracy against Rights under the color of law took place against the defendant, Mr. Weinstein.

To begin with, the "court order" that was used by Bissell to obtain the indictment against the defendant, Mr. Weinstein was superseded by another "court order" from a State which had jurisdiction at the time. A copy of the final order was provided to Bissell who refused to submit it before the Grand Jury. The Final Order, was and is, in the possession of all the corrupt participants and co-conspirators. Mr. Weinstein complied with all court orders and presented proof to the judges who also refused to take judicial notice of the "true and final order", dated Dec. 1993, from a court with competent jurisdiction. Thus a violation of Amendments 4, 5 and 14 of the Constitution for the United States of America, Article 1, Sections 1 and 5 of the New Jersey State Constitution, and N.J.C.J.C. C28-6 & 7, "Tampering with or Fabricating Physical Evidence - Tampering with Public Records or Information", which states: "A person commits a crime in the fourth degree if, believing that an official proceeding or investigation is pending or about to be instituted, he: Alters, destroys, conceals, or removes any article, object, record, document or other thing of physical substance with purpose to impair its verity or availability in such proceeding or investigation; or

Makes, devises, prepares, presents, offers or uses an article, object, record, document or other thing of physical substance knowing it to be false and with purpose to mislead a public servant who is engaged in such proceeding or investigation (Source: N.J. Model Penal Code: 241.7)

Makes, presents, offers for filing, or uses any record, document or thing knowing it to be false, and with purpose that it be taken as a genuine part of information or records; purposely and unlawfully destroys, conceals, removes, mutilates, or otherwise impairs the verity or availability of any such record, document or thing is a disorderly persons offense unless the actor's purpose is to defraud or injure anyone, in which case the offense is a crime in the third degree." (Source: N.J. Model Penal Code: 241.8)

Mr. Weinstein demanded that the court dismiss the falsely obtained indictment against him, with proof (Factual Evidence) of it being obtained, by way of fraud, perjury, suborned testimony, withholding of evidence, and bullying members of the former County Grand Jury. This was accomplished by blocking Grand Juror questions, then lying to them. Thus constituting the crime of "Jury Tampering", as well as, "Tampering with Public Records or Information." As a result of the courts ignoring said factual evidence, Mr. Weinstein filed a "Petition for a Bill of Impeachment due to Judicial Misconduct; Obstruction of Justice and Violation of Oath of Office" against several judges involved in this cover-up. As previously stated, Bissell was found guilty on 30 similar counts. Can you imagine being denied the right to submit into evidence the Grand Jury Transcript that was used to indict you in you own defense, and having the judge declare "it is "irrelevant to the case"? Well, that’s exactly what Judge Munkacsi did in Mr. Weinstein’s case.

Before I go on any further, I would like to take this opportunity to provide you with a basic background of the case. According to documents filed with the court, the defendant's ex-wife fled the state of original jurisdiction, Pennsylvania, then secreted their child for approximately 10 months in New Jersey. According to documents filed in the courts, she, along with her lawyer, April Courts perpetrated fraud on the "willing" court. When the defendant located his ex-wife and missing child, by hiring a private detective, Mr. Weinstein called the Somerset County Prosecutors Office to file charges of "Custodial and Visitation Interference" (2C:13-4). However, the Prosecutor's Office refused to take the complaint, directing the defendant to go to the Franklin Township Police Department (there are taped conversations of these calls). Mr. Weinstein followed their instructions and went to the Franklin Township Police Department who refused to take a Custodial Interference Complaint against his ex-wife. According to documents filed with the court, the Franklin Township Police stated: "Nothing would happen." This was one week prior, to the false arrest of the defendant, on the very same charge of Custodial Interference 2C:13-4 that he sought against his ex-wife. Failure by the Prosecutor's office and Franklin Township Police to file charges against on behalf of Mr. Weinstein is in total contradiction to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Johnson v. Robinson, 94 S.Ct. 1160, 415 U.S. 361, which ruled: "A classification must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest upon some ground of differences having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation, so that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike." Furthermore, a "Police officer loses qualified immunity to claim that facially neutral policy has been executed in a discriminatory manner . . . if that officer knows that the policy has a discriminatory impact." (Hynson v. City of Chester Legal Dept., 864 F2d 1026, 3rd Cir.) Once again the very police department that stated "nothing would happen" turns around one (1) week later and arrests Mr. Weinstein on the very same charges. It shall be proven later in this complaint/petition by way of open confessions that a conspiracy against the rights of the man does not only exist, but is in fact being promoted by high ranking members of the judicial system.

The following week, after having been denied the opportunity to file charges against his ex-wife, Mr. Weinstein exercised his Pennsylvania Court Ordered Rights, picked up his son and immediately notified the proper authorities, including the Franklin Township Police that he had his son and was going to court to file "Protective Custody Papers" until the matter could be heard by a court of proper jurisdiction. He was arrested two days later for Custodial Interference in a New York Court House while trying to file said Child Protective Papers. It is interesting to note that the warrant was originated by Detective Lewis of the Franklin Township Police. It should also be pointed out that the Franklin Township Police and the Sumerset County Prosecutor's Office denied the defendant's request for discovery of his attempted filing of Custodial Interference Charges against his ex-wife.

The actions of Detective Lewis with the help of others, prevented Mr. Weinstein from going to Court for an "Order of Child Protection" for his son. The action violated the Uniform Rules for Engagement, Section 125.1 C1, which states: "Priority to actions and proceedings in making such decisions they shall to the extent lawful and practical, give priority to actions and proceedings in the order in which matters are listed below: 1. Child protective; 2. Criminal; 3. Acts which constitute felonies; 4. Acts which constitute misdemeanor; 5. Acts which constitute civil actions." As you can see, child protection has a greater priority than all criminal actions under the Uniform Rules for Engagement. The child protective hearing was obstructed by this unwarranted arrest and still has not been heard by a court of law. Thus a violation of Federal Law 18 USC 241-242 and applicable New Jersey Codes occurred and Mr. Weinstein was falsely arrested for enforcing/exercising his Human Rights under the U.C.C.J.A., P.K.P.A. 28 U S C 1738 (a) et. seq., and the Constitutions by way of the Pennsylvania Court Order while in a Family Court waiting for a Judge to hear a demand for said Order of Protection. I ask you, what would you do, if your husband/wife ran away with your children? If you would not go the extra mile to secure your parental rights, then you do not deserve the blessings of being a parent.

Sir/Madam, it is very important that the Grand Jury understands the love and devotion of this father for his son, i.e. Mr. Weinstein did not and still does not want this filed with the Grand Jury for fear the Child Protective Services will intervene and take their son and place him in a foster home until said case can be heard in a court of competent jurisdiction. It is imperative to point out that the son is not in any danger or being abused by his mother, and therefore, the CPS should not intervene in the matter at hand.

The real issue is, Mr. Weinstein and his ex-wife were granted joint custody and he simply wants to exercise his parental right to have a loving relationship with his son. I don’t think that is asking too much. Do you? To have CPS intervene would simply be another miscarriage of the judicial system, as the child is being cared for by a loving mother. Yet, he, the son is being denied a loving relationship with his father. Unfortunately, some divorces end up being bitter ones and the child becomes a tool.

Now, just in case you are saying to yourself, "This is a family issue for the courts to sort out." It is not the issue at all! Mr. Weinstein has filed over 30 suits in an effort to resolve the matter. The real issues are felony crimes being committed by public officials. The trial itself and other pertinent facts and evidence contained herein prove that the law has become a law unto itself.

Sir/Madam, the judge that presided over the case was Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Joyce Munkacsi, at all times prior to and during the trial, refused to place the jurisdiction of the court on record and to disclose the nature and cause of the complaint. The following court cases clearly proves that these actions are not only outside the law, they are criminal acts, too:

"Since jurisdiction is fundamental to any valid judicial proceeding, the first question that must be determined by a trial court in any case is that of jurisdiction." (Cohen v. Bakrrett 5 C, 195 ) And "Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." (Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026) "The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." (Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416) And, the "Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." (Lanatana v. Hopper 102 F2d 188; see also Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp 150) As stated, the judge refused to place the jurisdiction on the record. Furthermore, "Subject matter jurisdiction may not, however, be conferred by consent, waiver, or estoppel." (Sumers v. Sup Ct 53 Cal2d 295)

This is what the court has stated about this kind of action by Judge Munkacsi: "We [Courts] have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be Treason to the Constitution." (Cohen v. Virginia, 6 Wheat 264, 5 L.Ed. 257; see also U.S. v. Will, 449 US 200, 66 L.Ed. 392 at 406) The crime of treason committed by Judge Munkacsi is very serious.

Sir/Madam, Mr. Weinstein even filed suit against Judge Munkacsi to compel her to establish jurisdiction and disclose the nature and cause of the complaint, as the Statute is in conflict with the Constitution, thus establishing a material fact in dispute pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 1, as well as the 6th Amendment which states: " and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation." As a result of Judge Munkacsi being a defendant in a law suit brought against her by the defendant, it was impossible for him to receive a fair trial from his adversary. But this is just the tip of the iceberg! Now for the Rest of the Bloody Story!

As previously stated, the Judge denied Mr. Weinstein all of his evidence, including the Grand Jury transcript that was used to indict him. When Mr. Weinstein attempted to prove that critical evidence which would have proved his innocence was missing from the court records, he was silenced by the judge. According to newspaper articles, convicted felon and fugitive, Nicholas Bissell and the Franklin Township Police Department, admitted to altering and removing court/police documents in another case.

Despite all the above, when Mr. Weinstein took the witness stand in his own defense and was attempting to answer a question asked by Kathy Galyes of the Public Defenders Office, the prosecutor objected and the judge sustained. Mr. Weinstein invoked his 1st Amendment Right stating, "I took an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, So help me God and that’s what I am trying to do", the judge replied, "there is no such thing". Can you believe a judge who has taken an oath saying "there is no such thing!" Imagine a judge that has taken an oath of office making such a statement? Is this hyopcricy in is turest form? Or, is this hypocricy in its truest form? When Mr. Weinstein made further attempts to exercise his Constitutional Right to speak freely in his on defense, he was held in contempt of court and removed from the courtroom. Judge Munkacsi then instructed the jury to disregard all statements made by the defendant in his own defense. The law is very clear:

"It implies with the natural and inherent principles of justice . . . that no one shall be condemned in person or property without the opportunity to be heard." (Molden v. Hardy, 169, U.S. 366, 18 S. Ct. 383, 42 L ED. 780) Because the "Right to be heard in one's defense is a basic federal right available to all accused who stand in jeopardy of any incarceration" (Henssley v. Municipal Court, 365 F.Supp. 373) The Supreme Court has ruled, "A state cannot foreclose exercise of Constitutional Rights under First Amendment labels . . . State may not, under guise of prohibiting professional misconduct by attorneys, ignore constitutional Rights under First Amendment." (NAACP v. Button, 83 S.Ct 328, 371 U.S. 415, 9 L.Ed.2d 405) Isn’t that exactly what Judge Munkacsi did?

These "Fundamental Rights do not hang by a tenuous thread of a layman's knowledge of the niceties of law. It is sufficient if it appears that he is attempting to assert his Constitutional privilege. The plea, rather than the form in which it is asserted . . ." (U.S. v. St Pierre, Supra, 128 F 2d) The courts have also made it very clear that "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." (Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489) And, "If a law has no other purpose than to chill assertion of Constitutional Rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, it is patently unconstitutional." (Shapiro v. Thompson, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 394, U.S. 618, 22 LEd. 2d 600) Furthermore, "An individual may not be punished for exercising a protected constitutional Right." (U.S. v. Goodwin, 102 S.Ct 2485, 457 U.S. 368, 73 L.Ed 2d 74, on remand 687 F2d 44) "The court has long recognized the potential for abuse in exercising the summary power to imprison for contempt . . . it is an 'arbitrary power which is liable to abuse." (Ex Parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289, 313; 9 S.Ct. 77, 82) "Its exercise is a delicate one, and care is needed to avoid arbitrary or oppressive conclusions." (Cooke v. U.S., 267 U.S. 517, 539; 45 S.Ct 390. 398) The courts have also ruled, "Given that criminal contempt is a crime in every fundamental respect, the question is whether it is a crime to which the jury trial provisions of the Constitution apply. We hold that it is, primarily because in terms of those considerations which make the right to a trial by jury fundamental in criminal cases, there is no substantial difference between serious contempts and other crimes." (Bloom v. Ill, 88 S Ct. 1477) Yet, the judge converted it into a crime and passed sentence.

Equally important was his Constitutional Right to have a trial by Jury on the "criminal contempt charge" under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America. (see Buehrer, 50 N.J. 501; 236 A 2d. 592; Gompers v. Buck's Stove Range Co. 31 S. Ct 592; Blanton v. City of N. Las Vegas, NV, 109 S.Ct 1289; State v. Ownes, 54 N.J. 153; 254 A2d. 97) I think you will agree that "When the responsibilities of lawmaker, prosecutor, judge, jury, and disciplinarian are thrust upon a Judge he is obviously incapable of holding the scales of justice perfectly fair and true." (Fisher v. Pace, 336 U.S. 155) Judge Munkacsi clearly and maliciously abused her discretionary powers.

Once again, the law is very clear about this kind of action: "Government may not prohibit or control the conduct of a person for reasons that infringe upon the Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms." (Smith v. US 502 F 2d 512) In fact, "A court cannot engage in any action which deprives a party before it of his Constitutional Rights." (Powell v. McCormick, 395 US 486) Because "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making [discretionary power] or legislation which would abrogate them." (Miradna v. Arizona, United States Supreme Ct, decided June 13, 1966) "The Amendments to the Federal Constitution are equally applicable in every state criminal action, because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law." (Malloy v. Hogasn 378 U.S. 1, 84 S. Ct. 1489) "It must be conceded that there are such Rights in every free government beyond the control of the state. A government which recognized no such rights - which held the lives, the liberty and property of its citizens subject at all times to absolute disposition and unlimited control of even the most democratic depository of power - is after all but a despotism." (Loan Assc. v. Topeka, 2 Wall. 655-622) And, "Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional mandate may not be tolerated . . ." (Watson v. City of Memphis, 83 S.Ct 1314, 375 U.S. 526, 10 L.Ed. 2d; Slote v. Board of Examiners, 274 N.Y. 367,; 9NE 2D 12; 112 ALR 660) Additionally, "Before a man can be punished, his case must be plainly and unmistakably within the statute, and if there is any doubt whether the statute embraces it, that doubt is to be resolved in favor of the accused." (U.S. v. Lacher, 134 US 624) The First Amendment protects the Right of an individual to speak freely in his own defense and "Government is prohibited from infringing upon these guarantees either by general prohibition against certain forms of advocacy or by imposing sanctions . . ." (Smith v. Arkansas Highway Emp. Local 1315, 99 S.Ct 1926, 441 U.S. 463) Furthermore, "Government cannot limit speech protected by First Amendment without bearing burden of showing that its restriction is justified." (Philadelphia Newspaper Inc. v. Hepps, 106 S.Ct. 1558) If we do not have the Right to speak freely in our own defense, then when do we have the Right? I think you will agree the Right to speak freely in our own defense is imperative to our liberty. Unfortunately, Mr. Weinstein was incarcerated and then, tried in absentcia and unable to face his accusers.

In his effort to receive a fair trial, the defendant, Mr. Weinstein was unlawfully sentenced to 30 days for criminal contempt of court, for exercising his Constitutional Rights in a manner consistent with a case supported by the Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v. Johnson 76 F. Sup 538, which ruled that "Rights are valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person." This case was even raised by the defendant, but the court made it even clearer in the case of Colton v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 122; 92 S.Ct 1953, 1963, whereas the Supreme Court stated, "This is not to say that Citizens must submit to public authorities like docile lambs or fawning puppy dogs, and it is not to deny that at the Constitutional level speech need not be sedative; it can be disruptive." As we both know, the defendant has a Constitutional Right to face his accuser. And the courts have ruled that "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights." (Sherar v. Cullen 481 F 2d 946 1973) As Chief Justice Douglas stated in his dissenting opinion in the case of Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 28-29; "Those who already walk submissively will say there is no cause for alarm, but submissiveness is not our heritage. The First Amendment was designed to allow rebellion to remain our heritage . . . The America once extolled as the voice of liberty heard around the world no longer is cast in the image which Jefferson and Madison designed, but more in the Russian image." In other words, Judge Munkacsi's sentencing of Mr. Weinstein to 30 days for criminal contempt is something that echoes communism., because in America, the punishment for a criminal contempt requires due process, notice and opportunity to be heard. (City School District v. Schenectady Federation of Teachers, 49 AD2d 396, 375 NYS2d 179, 3rd Dept., Judiciary Law Section 751 subd.1; Matter of Rodriquea v. Ferberg, 40 NY2d 994, 391 NYS2d 69) Sections 750, 751, 752 of the Judiciary Law deal with criminal contempt which requires that such proceeding be instituted by order to show cause. State of N.Y. v. International Police Cont., 98 Misc. 2d 1052, 415 NY2d 317, Sup Ct) And, in a criminal contempt proceeding guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. (Michaelson V. U.S. 266 US 42, 45 S Ct. 18; Yorkstown Central School District v. Yorkstown Teachers, 42 AD2d 422, 348 NYS2d 367, 2nd Dept.; Hynes v. Doe, 101 Misc. 2d 350, 470 NYS2d 798, Sup Ct.) Finally, a proceeding to punish for criminal contempt arising out of a trial setting is a special proceeding, which is separate and distinct from the underlying action, and which requires personal service upon the contemn. (Matter of Douglas v. Adel, 269 NY 144; Board of Education v. Pisa, 54 AD2d 821, 388 NYS2d 733) Finally, "Punishment for a criminal contempt is a drastic remedy for a willful wrong." (Matter of Spector v. Allen 281 NY 251, 259) As I said, your accuser is also your executioner! Is justice blind or what?

As a result of Mr. Weinstein's invoking his Constitutional Rights, Judge Munkacsi , without probable cause ordered a psychological examination. When he passed said examination, the judge went forum shopping and requested another examination. Equally important is the fact that Mr. Weinstein was also denied the opportunity to have his attorney present during the questioning even though his attorney was in the next room. What happened to his Right to have his attorney present? The case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 473-474, 478, 479, made it very clear that "Prior to questioning the person must be warned that he has the Right to remain silent, that any statement he dose make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney." This is just another clear blatant violations of his Constitutional Rights by the court, which is suppose to protect our Rights! All together, Mr. Weinstein has passed several psychological tests, as well as a drug screening test.

Sir/Madam, "It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizen, against any stealthy encroachments thereon." (Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616, 635) "Any deprivation of Constitutional Rights calls for prompt rectification ." (Watson v. City of Memphis, 83 S.Ct 1314, 373 U.S. 526, 10 L.Ed. 2d. 529) If this kind of action is not stopped, you, a family member, or friend could be the next victim of such corruption, fraud, and deceit. "There is not one word of legal history that justifies making the term 'Due Process of Law' mean a guarantee of a trial free from laws and conduct which the courts deem at the time to be 'arbitrary', 'unreasonable', 'unfair', or 'contrary to civilized standards. The due process of law standard for a trial is one in accordance with the Bill of Rights and laws pursuant to Constitutional power, guaranteeing to all alike a trial under the general law of the land." (Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145; 88 S.Ct. 144)

To further demonstrate the continued "cover-up", Mr. Weinstein, in order to insure that the court record could not be tampered with, insisted that the proceedings be audio taped. Although the judge initially agreed, she then ordered that no audio taping of the proceedings would be done by the court and refused to allow the defendant or his assistant of counsel to conduct their own audio recording. As New Jersey State Senator Cardinale stated to me during in a meeting in the Senator's office in Trenton, N.J.: "I have personal knowledge that court transcripts are altered." For your information, Mr. Weinstein also has original copies of other "dirty" court transcripts which have been altered. I think you will agree, an audio taping would prevent such tampering. But the question that must be asked is, "Why did the judge refuse to allow Mr. Weinstein to record the court proceeding when the court room was specifically designed to do an audio recording of the proceedings?" Furthermore, it took over 90 days to receive a copy of the court transcript. This intentional delay by the court also impeded Mr. Weinstein's effort to prepare an adequate appeal. As our founding fathers declared, "In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humblest of terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."

Sir/Madam, Mr. Weinstein was even denied all witnesses including an International Diplomat to France, even though they were present at the court house. But the most important witness not allowed to be called to the witness stand was his accuser, the infamous Nicholas Bissell. To deny Mr. Weinstein witnesses in his own defense is in clear violation of Amendment VI, which specifically states; "to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor."

During testimony by the defendants ex-wife, the witness made some very damaging statements. Statements that could have and, probably did taint the jury's view of the defendant. When the defendant tried to introduce an audio tape of the conversation that would have rebuked his ex-wife's statements, it was also declared inadmissible by the judge. But, she did allow the prosecutor, Craig Barto to present undiscovered "evidence and notes" of the police files never ordered released for discovery to Mr. Weinstein. Discovery that was demanded for over 2 years by the defendant and was never provided. All attempts to obtain discovery were blocked by convicted felon Bissell, his subordinates and enablers. This is in clear violation of N.J.C.J.C. 3:13-3, "Discovery and Inspection", whereas, it specifically states, "Upon written request by the defendant, the prosecuting attorney shall permit defendant to inspect and copy or photograph any relevant books, papers, documents, or copies of police reports which are in the possession, custody, or control of the prosecuting attorney . . . Defendants request for discovery shall be made within 10 days of entry of the plea and the prosecutor shall res[pond within 10 days of the receipt by him of the defendants request. If subsequent to the compliance with a request by the prosecuting attorney or defense counsel or with an order issued pursuant to the within rule and prior to or during trial a party discovers additional material or witnesses previously requested or ordered subject to discovery or inspection, he shall promptly notify the other party or his attorney of the existence thereof."

At one point in the trial, the prosecutor had a witness read portions of a legal document and when the defendant tried to read from the very same document, the prosecutor objected and stated that the document speaks for itself and the jury would be given a copy of it to read for themselves. Needless to say, the judge sustained. Sir/Madam, we both know understanding legal documents isn't the easiest thing to do for a lay person. To deny the defendant the same opportunity afforded to the prosecutor is a pusillanimous deed and monstrous offense of prejudice. What they have done is twisted the meaning of the words. If the Constitution is in the plain language, why do the lawyers and judges use "Black's Law Dictionary" on the unsuspecting mass? How can anyone understand the meaning of a law if they don't know the definition of the words?

I think you will agree with the courts decision in Cooke v. Iverson, 122, N.W. 251: "It cannot be assumed that the framers of the Constitution and the People who adopted it, did not intend that which is in the plain import of the language used. When the language of the Constitution is positive and free from all ambiguity, all courts are not at the liberty, by a resort to the refinements of legal learning, to restrict its obvious meaning . . . We must accept the Constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous, for it is the mandate of the Sovereign Power." That's you and me! We the People are the Sovereign! Would the People ever have written the Supreme Law of their Land in a language 'foreign' (different meanings) to the People? Then why are our laws?

The court record will clearly show that virtually every objection raised by the prosecutor was sustained and every objection raised by the defendant was over-ruled. The judge even refused to allow the defendant to present case laws to support his defense. This is another clear violation of the law! The courts have already ruled that "Upon the trial of criminal cases, counsel, in their argument, may read law to the jury in the hearing of the court, subject to the correction of the court in charge." (McMath v. State, 55 GA. 303 Ga. 1985) And, "In a criminal case, counsel may, in summing up, argue the law of the case to the jury." (Lynch v. State, 9 Ind 541; Commonwealth v. Porter, 51 Mass; Hannah v. State 79 Tenn 11Lea)

Furthermore, when a detective from the Franklin Township Police Department was on the witness stand, Mr. Weinstein attempted to raise a Supreme Court decision that a police officer can lie under oath with immunity and the judge order him removed from the court. As Mr. Weinstein was being hauled off by the bailiffs, Judge Munkacsi stated, "I know the issue you are trying to raise and I will not let you raise it in my court". (see Briscoe v La Hue, 103 S.Ct. 1108, 460 U.S. 346) Pretty amazing isn't it? Knowing this, would it raise any doubts in your mind as to the validity of a police officers sworn testimony? Don't you think the jury has a right to know his oath is not worth its weight in salt? With justice like this, who needs tyranny? I don't know about you, but it makes me sick! Once again, Mr. Weinstein was removed from the court room. This was another clear attempt to deprive the defendant a fair trial because "The right of the accused to be present in the courtroom at every stage of the trial is an essential ingredient of our organic law." (Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S. Ct. 1057, 25 L. Ed. 2d 353, reh'g denied, 398 U.S. 915, 90 S. Ct. 1684, 26 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1970); Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 54 S. Ct. 330, 78 L. Ed. 674 (1934); Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370, 13 S. Ct. 136, 36 L. Ed. 1011 (1892); State v. Smith, 29 N.J. 561, 150 A.2d 769, cert. denied, 361 U.S. 861, 80 S. Ct. 120, 4 L. Ed. 2d 103 (1959). I think you will agree that "The essential elements of due process of law are notice and opportunity to defend." (Simon v Craft, 182, U.S. 427, 436, 21 Sup. Ct. 836, 45 l) "We (the court) find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have been surrender in order to assert another." (Simmons v. U.S., 390 U.S. 389) I think you will also agree, "If a state may compel the surrender of one's constitutional Rights as a condition of its favor, it may in like manner, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guarantees embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence." (Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall, 168, 181, 19 L.Ed. 357) And that's exactly what the court did!

Although Mr. Weinstein made several attempts to recuse Judge Munkacsi, it was to no avail. An unaltered court record will clearly demonstrate the bias, discrimination, and arbitrary acts of the judge towards the defendant despite 28 U.S.C. Section 455, which specifically states: "Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." In the case of U.S. v. Sciarra, 851 F.2d 621, 634, the court ruled "Under section 455(a) a recusal is required when a reasonable person would harbor doubts about the judges impartiality." Furthermore, "A judge faced with potential ground for disqualification ought to consider how his participation in a given case looks to the average man on the street. Use of the word 'might' in this statue was intended to indicate disqualification should if the reasonable man, were he to know all the circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judges impartiality." (U.S. v Poludniak, 657 F.2d 948; see also Edelstein v. Wilentz, 812 F.2d 128, 131) I think any reasonable person would agree that a judge who has been sued by the defendant cannot remain impartial. Judge Munkacsi even continued to show her bias during his sentencing with such statements that his children's songs were "nonsense" and told the defendant to get a real job. The defendant is a professional song writer and entertainer. This was absolutely uncalled for. His music and occupation had nothing to do with his sentencing. I wonder what she would have said to Frank Sinatra?

Additionally, the Seventh Circuit of Appeals has held that a public official does not have immunity simply because he/she operates in a discretionary situation. It indicated that public servants are to be held liable when they abuse their discretion or acted in a way that is arbitrary, fanciful, or clearly unreasonable. (Littleton v. Berbiling Ca. 7 Ill, 468 F 2d 389) Furthermore, when a judge exceeds his/her jurisdiction and grants or denies that which is beyond his/her lawful authority to grant or deny, he/she has perpetrated a "non-judicial" action. (Yates v. Hoffman Estates 209 F. Supp. 757) And the courts have ruled "Judges have no immunity from prosecution for their judicial acts." (Bradley v. Fishers, U.S. 13 Wall. 335) I think you will agree with the case of Rabon v. Rowen Memorial Hospital, whereas the court declared, "Immunity fosters neglect and breeds irresponsibility while liability promotes care and caution, which caution and care is owed by the government to its People." (269 N.S. 1, 13, 152 SE 1d 485 493) Judge Munkacsi's actions in this case are loud and clear. She did in fact abuse her discretionary powers in an arbitrary, capricious, and irresponsible manner. She clearly demonstrated contempt towards the defendants Rights and thus violated her oath of office. Not only is Judge Munkacsi unfit to serve as a judge, she should be sent to prison for her actions.

To further illustrate the miscarriage of justice, Ms. Gayles of the Public Defender's Office even failed to submit before the court critical evidence that would have proved Mr. Weinstein's innocence. "If counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecutor's case to meaningful adversarial testing, there has been a denial of the Sixth Amendment Right which makes adversary process itself presumptively unreliable." (U.S. v. Cronic, 104 S.Ct. 2039) Because of her incompetency and intoxication during the trial, Mr. Weinstein fired her (see attached affidavits). The courts have ruled that a defendant in a criminal action has a fundamental right to be represented by competent counsel and is entitled to "the untrammeled and unimpaired assistance of counsel for his defense"(see McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 n. 14, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 1449 n. 14, 25 L.Ed.2d 763; State v. Sugar, 84 N.J. 1, 17; U.S. v. Rispo, 470 F.2d 1099) And, as noted by Chief Justice Bazelon of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, "A great many -- if not all -- indigent defendants do not receive the effective assistance of counsel . . ." (Brazelon, The Defective Assistance of Counsel, 42 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1, 2 (1973)

It is also a well settled fact that if counsel is to be effective, she has to be an advocate of her client's cause. (Ellis v. U.S., 356 U.S. 674, 78 S.Ct. 974, 2 L.Ed.2d. 1060). This is not only an entitlement, it is a Right that is of Constitutional magnitude (U.S.C.A., Amendment 6). Included in this Right to the effective of assistance in counsel is representation free from conflicting interests. (U.S. v. Berstein, 523 F.2d 775. PRC 1.7(b) It also prohibits a lawyer from representing a client where such representation creates a conflict of interest. There was a definite conflict of interest because Mr. Weinstein sued Ms. Gayles prior to the trial for failure to properly prepare a defense (State v. Savage, 237 N.J. Supra 102; Strike Land v. Washington, 104 U.S. Sup Ct, 2066) And, demanded that she be removed from the case for being intoxicated during parts of the trial (see attached declarations). However, in retaliation, the judge threatened Ms. Gayles with contempt of court if she refused to remain on the case. The courts have made it very clear as to the importance of competent and unbiased counsel. Whereas they ruled that "Lack of counsel of choice can be conceivably even worse than no counsel at all, or having to accept counsel beholden to one's adversary." (Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109) This kind of conduct and incompetency by Ms. Gayles and the threat, duress, and coercion of the Judge Munkacsi further impeded Mr. Weinstein from receiving a fair trial. Thus creating still another miscarriage of justice. You could hear the whistle blowing throughout the whole trial.

As Sir William Blackstone said; "To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate (Rights) without accusation or (fair) trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, and must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole Kingdom" (Commentaries Book 1, Chapter 1 P. 135)

Sir/Madam, I ask you, does a defendant who is denied all the above and is being tried by his adversary really have the opportunity to defend himself? Is this the way you would like "your" trial to be conducted?

On Wednesday, November 13, 1996, Judge Munkacsi denied Mr. Weinstein's motion for bail and a new trial. The motion was denied even though according to documents filed with the court by Kathy Gayles, of the Public Defenders Office, the judge stated during the trial, "This would have been a mistrial, but because it is Mr. Weinstein, the case will continue." This damaging statement was also witnessed by others and is, of, and by itself sufficient evidence to have warranted a new trial and an immediate investigation into Judge Munkacsi and others. Furthermore, not to grant bail pending appeal after Mr. Weinstein had made every court appearance for over 2 years was a vindictive and capricious act by Judge Munkacsi. The action of Judge Munkacsi was nothing less than an malediction. As the good book says, "Therefore, the law is ignored and justice is never upheld. For the wicked surround the righteous; Therefore justice comes out perverted." (Habakkuk 1:4)

Judge Munkacsi, like yourself, is bound by oath pursuant to Article VI of the Constitution for the United States of America: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it, she has clearly violated her oath of office. And, the courts have ruled that "The State and its municipalities are prohibited from violating substantive rights." (Owen v. City 445US 622 1980) Additionally, "The state cannot diminish the rights of people." (Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516) It is very clear that Mr. Weinstein's substantive Right to a fair and impartial trial, as well as his Constitutionally protected Rights were repeatedly violated by his adversary. Due process requires that every case be heard by a "neutral and detached" judge. Mr. Weinstein's case was the old fox guarding the hen house routine. She should have recused herself from the case and motion for bail and a new trial etc. should have been granted. Remember she even admitted it was probably a mistrial. The courts have also ruled, "Judicial definition that misuse of power possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrong doer is clothed with authority of state law is action taken under color of state law within this section is applicable to judge." (Duke v. State of Texas, DC Tex 1971, 237 F. Supp 1218) And, "When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a a fraud has been perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it fraud has been perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it." (State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 N.M. 262 30 L.R.A. 630 AM ST 459) Fraud is, of and by itself a criminal act! A criminal act that was repeatedly committed by Judge Munkacsi against the defendant. "Judges may be punished criminally for willful deprivation of Rights on the strength of Title 18 U.S.C.A. 241 and 242." (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409; 96 S.Ct. 984) and it is up to the Grand Jury to hand down an indictment against her for her actions. It is time that a loud and clear message is sent to those that are suppose to uphold the law that this kind of action will not be tolerated.

Home   Delaware   New Jersey    Pennsylvania