Proof of a Conspiracy

The following exerts from an article in New Jersey Law Journal titled "N.J. Judges Told To Ignore Rights In Abuse TRO's" (April 24, 1995) will further prove that such a "Conspiracy Against Rights" does exist under Title 18 USC, Section 241 - 242; N.J.C.J.C. 2C:5-2, as  evidenced by the following confessions and statements made during a training seminar for judges:

The trainers at the seminar were Richard Russell, a municipal court judge in Ocean City and Woodbine, Nancy Kessler, chief of the juvenile and family services for the AOC, and Somerset County Superior Court Judge Graham Ross. These three individuals, as in the case of Judge Munkacsi, Bissell, Barto, Detective Lewis of the Franklin Township Police Department, and others fulfill the necessity of two or more persons as required under Title 18, U.S.C.C., Section 241 and New Jersey Criminal Justice Code 2C:5-2. And I quote Municipal Judge Richard Russell, telling the other judges attending the training seminar that "Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man you're violating . . ."

If this isn’t an open confession that they are knowingly, willingly, and intentionally violating the Constitutional Rights of the People, then I’d like to know what is!

Russell also stated " . . . we don't have to worry about their rights . . ." Imagine, a judge who has taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend our Rights, isn’t worried about them.

On a tape of the April 1994 session obtained by the NJ Law Journal, Kessler, (Chief of the Juvenile and Family Services for the AOC) told the judges: "in that the legislative findings section, people are told to interpret the law broadly in order to maximize protection for the (so-called) victim. So if anybody ever came back at you and said," 'Gee, that's a real reach in terms of probable cause,' You have a legislatively mandated response which is 'I erred on the side of caution for the victim' . . . And as long as you do that you have a much better chance of feeling protected than if you go the other way.' Seriously, That's a, that's just a tip. If you wanna talk about it philosophically or even legally, no that's not the law. The law is, this is the standard (not the law), but that's not quite frankly what perhaps [is] the right thing to do."   

In other words, forget what the law says, just make up the rules as you go along.

Judge Russell told the audience, "If I had one message to give you today, it is that your job is not to weigh the parties rights as you may have been inclined to do as a private practitioners."

He even admitted that "it just blew up all of my learning and all my understanding, all my (his) concept of constitutional protections and had to acclimate myself to a whole new game."

Doesn't this judge know that "Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional mandate may not be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily promote in some respects the best interest of the public." (Slote v. Board of Examiners, 274 N.Y. 367,; 9 NE 2D 12; 112 ALR 660) Or, that "The State and its municipalities are prohibited from violating substantive rights." (Owen v. City 445US 622 1980) "A conspiracy is actionable under U.S.C. 1985, when there has been an actual denial of due process." (Jennings v. Nester, 217 F2d 153, cert. denied 349 U.S. 958, 99 L.Ed.2d. 1281, 75 S.CT 888, U.S. CT App, 7th Cir Ill.)

Reacting to a question that arose during Russell's presentation. "The statute says we should apply just cause in issuing the order," an unidentified, new municipal judge said, adding, "You seem to be saying to grant every order."

Russell quickly replied, "Yeah, that's what I seem to be saying . . . Throw him out on the street. Give him the clothes on his back and tell him, 'See ya' around.' "

If, the statute says "to apply just cause in issuing the order" and they are instructing the other judges to issue every order against the man, then as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court under 18 USCS Section 241 this is a "Conspiracy Against Rights" under Section 242 "Under the Color of Law".  Section 242 refers to the misuse of power possessed by virtue of state law which is made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law. "The statute making one who, acting under color of any statute, subjects any citizen to deprivation of any Rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Federal Constitution . . . must be deemed to include members of state judiciary acting in official capacity." (Picking v. Pennsylvania Co., 151 F2d 240) Thus the acts of officers or employees of a state or territory will be deemed to be "under color of state law" if the alleged deprivation of right is committed in fulfillment of tasks assigned to them. And, "Actions by state officers and employees, even if unauthorized or in excess of authority, can be actions under 'color of law'" (Stringer v. Dilger, 313 F2d. 536) "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 vs. State of Texas, DC Tex 1971, 237 F. Supp 1218)

In response to this napalm approach to ignore Constitutional Rights, one judge responded: "[It's] one of the most inflammatory things I have ever heard . . . We're suppose to have the courage to make the right decisions . . ."

And, former Appellate Division Judge Philip Gruccio, had this to say about the trainers approach: "My view is that you just can't say, 'Forget about the defendants rights.' You can't say that, it is wrong to say that . It is wrong to train people that constitutional rights aren't important." This would lead one to believe the former Appellate Division Judge realized a conspiracy was being committed "under color of state law".

Gruccio, a professor at Widemer University Law School and director of its judicial administration program said it best: "I think what has happened is, for emphasis purposes, somebody has lost their way." I don’t know about you, but I whole heartedly agree!

As former Federal Court Judge Robert Bork said: "America is in decline and the rot is spreading. It is the courts that threaten our liberty - the liberty that govern ourselves -- more profoundly than does any legislature". (New Jersey Herald & News, Sept. 17, 1996) Because, ". . . 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 guaranties 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) Isn't that exactly what this training seminar was all about, manipulating Rights out of existence and then conspiring to cover it up with a so-called "legislatively mandated" response which is "I erred on the side of caution for the victim"? This is nothing less than a sanctimony and a cover-up in its truest sense. (Slote v. Board of Examiners, 274 N.Y. 367,; 9 NE 2D 12; 112 ALR 660)

According to the article, "Sitting judges interviewed for the article readily agree with Gruccio. Says one: 'The constitution is being ignored in order to satisfy a particular legislative objective. And if the judiciary should feel it is obligated to close its eyes to constitutional considerations in order to assist the Legislature in maintaining a currently popular objective, it will have prostituted itself and abrogated its responsibilities to maintain its independence and its primary responsibility of upholding the constitution.' " Isn't this also a severe violation of the separation of powers doctrine and a usurpation by the judicial branch?

Russell also confessed, "So when you tell me, am I doing something wrong telling judges they have to ignore the constitutional protections most people have. I don't think so. . . I would never approach the topic by saying 'Look these people are stripped of their constitutional rights."

Is there a difference between knowingly, willing, and intentionally ignoring the Constitutional Rights vs. stripping People of their Rights? Do they just make up the rules as they go along? Is this what is happening to America's system of jurisprudence and the Rights of We the People? To put constitutional considerations aside in favor of "so-called" legislative mandates is in strict violation of the SPIRIT of the Supreme Law of the Land and their oath of office. This is especially true, when 2 out of 3 of the trainers are Judges who know that "The Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of legislature; the Constitution and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which the both apply ." (Marbury v. Madison 5, U.S. 137, 174, 176). And, "All acts of the legislature apparently contrary to natural rights and justice are, in our law unconstitutional and must be in the nature of things be considered void . . . We are in conscience bound to disobey such laws." (Robin vs. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, Va., 1772).

Judge Graham Ross in trying to intimidate the judges attending the seminar stated: "If you don't follow the law after I told you what to do I will guarantee that you will be headlines. That's not a threat, that's an absolute promise on my part. This is serious stuff." Is this about justice? Or, is it about not having their names in the newspapers? According to the Article, much of the seminar's rhetoric alludes to actions that keep the judges out of the headlines. One municipal court judge liked the realism of the media references. "A newspaper headline can be death to as municipal court judge's career," says the long time jurist, "and the prospect of an unfavorable newspaper headline is frightening." The judge added, "However, that attention getting device must not be confused with legal principles."

Referring to Russell, the judge declared, "What he said is valuable because he is expressing the current state of affairs. He should be commended for his candor, although I must say I find his viewpoint to be anathema."

Anathema - "Anything devoted to evil, curse; to flaunt their beauties, in spite of; changing a law

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.

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)

Is this justice? 

Call Today and tell them to FREE Barry!

Governor Christine Todd Whitman (609) 777-2500 
Attorney General - Division of Justice, Mr. Trapp (609) 984-0029
Parole Board - Mary Keating Disabato, Chairwoman (609) 292-0845
Parole Board - Danny Porrovecchio, Chief of Release (609) 984-4591
Judge Munkacsi (908) 745-3459
Sumerset County Prosecutor (908) 231-7100 ext. 3302
Somerset County Court Criminal Division (908) 231-7191 #4
Department of Corrections - William Pauver, Commissioner (609) 292-4037

Call the Media!

Star Ledger - Mike Drewniak (908) 685-0015
Philadelphia Inquire - Chris Conway (609) 989-8990
Trenton Times -Mark Waligore (609) 989-7800
Irv Homer Talk Show (215) 365-4100
Topics - Jim Gearhart (800) 283-1015

Find out more about his "alleged" crime -

The Grand Jury Complaint