Petitioner, V
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
f p >\ n A I! Ul ' 20=1228 No. FILED JAN 2 1 2021 OFFICE OF THE CLERK SUPREME COURT. U.S. In The Supreme Court of the United States CHRIS JAYE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR, ET. AL. Respondents. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari To the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 20-3597 Chris Jaye Pro se PO Box 5015 Clinton, NJ 08809 [email protected] RECEIVED FEB - “i 2021 k.) QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Because rights are God-given to individuals, what legal authority did this Court have to impair the lights of the governed, specifically in exchange for so-called common law which benefits government actors? By what judicial authority via Article III does this Court have to impose its will on the people and the laws they want for their benefit (Article 1)? 2. Is it an unwritten policy in the Judiciary for federal judges to further this Court’s judicial immunity decree by depriving remedies in the law, e.g. 42 U.S. Code § 1983-1988 and the All Writs Act? If so, how does a citizen undo this policy or get the remedies in the law when the laws are being violated by federal judges? 3. What powers do federal judges have to act on or in furtherance of void orders? Can a federal judge deny voiding a void order? If so, how can a citizen free themselves from a void order (which is always void) if such cannot be done in the federal courts? 4. When a federal judge fails to comply with the rules of court and impairs a citizen’s rights by the rules of court, is there a remedy to address such violations of due process before an appeal? Can a federal judge direct a clerk to violate federal statutes? If so, are these merits-based rulings as it applies to judicial discipline procedures? II TABLE OF CONTENTS Questions Presented for Review 1 Table of Contents n Opinions Below m Jurisdiction m Constitutional Provisions Involved in Rules and Statutes m R. 14(l)(a)(iii): List of Related Cases 1V-V11 List of Parties vm Petition 1-8 APPENDIX January 20, 2021 Apl Denial of Rehearing, Denial of Motion for Injunction, Denial of Voiding Void Orders December 18, 2020 Ap2 Denial of Writ, Denial of Injunction (All Writs Act) and Denial of Voiding Void Orders iii OPINIONS BELOW The judgment and decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was entered on December 18, 2020. It is reproduced in Appendix as Ap 2. Petition for a rehearing was denied on January 20, 2021. It is reproduced in Appendix Ap 1. JURISDICTION The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked per 28 U.S. Code § 1292 (a)(1) and 28 U.S. Code § 1254 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED US Constitution, First Amendment, Fifth Amendment (including, Takings Clause) Seventh Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Article I, Article III, Article VI. RULES AND STATUTES FRCP 1 FRCP 8 FRCP 55 FRCP 57 (Declaratory Relief) 42 U.S. Code § 1983-1988 (Civil Rights), 28 U.S. Code § 1654 (Right to Manage Case), 28 U.S. Code § 2283 (Stay of State Action), 28 U.S. Code § 16541 (All Writs Act). iv LIST OF RELATED CASES 11 NT-1,-539-08 Property Fraudulent C-12107-8 (Primary) representation HNT-L-594-09 Contract by attorney; various parties (impaired settlement). SOM-L-618-12 Property Standing not HNT-375-12 (Primary) resolved. A-4856-12T2 Contract NJ Supreme: 075665 US Supreme: 15-753 C-120-13 Civil Rights NJ Judge A-3817-13 represented by NJ Supreme: 077545 N J AG ME R-5300-14 Property Standing not A-3298-14 (Primary) resolved. Contract. 14-7471 Civil Rights Standing not resolved. 18-2186 (Third Circuit US Supreme: 17-738 US Supreme: 17-739 15-cv-5303 Removal (denied) Not served; ex parte ruling. 15-083245 Property/Contract No jurisdiction 16-2515 FDCPA by circui t 17-2564 (Third Circuit) judges. 18-2187 (Third Circuit) US Supreme: 16-451 Two appeals US Supreme: 18-1374 due to non- final orders. V 16-07771 Civil Rights, etc. NJ AG/ US Illegal Closed AG. Case closed illegally. F-6447-16 Primary Standing not A-4262-16 (Primary) resolved, no Illegal right to Foreclosure defend. 17-5257 Civil Rights Defendants Denied did not W aivers/1illegally appear. Closed R-3715 Probate (Heir) Void orders. Property Jurisdiction issues. No right In adjudication of claims. UNN-L-2542-17 Property/Torts Case illegally stayed for three years. No right to adjudication of claims. F-3132-17 Property No (Primary) jurisdiction. Second Illegal Void orders. Foreclosure No right to defend. 18-1200 Takings (Federal Illegally 2019-1458 (Federal Claims) dismissed; Circuit) Primary and lack of US Supreme: Filed other properties. jurisdiction. vi 19-cv-121 Civil Rights US AG. In 20-2073 limbo for over 20-3597 a year. Sua sponte stays ordered. C-66-20 Property Stripped of (Beneficiary) and defenses, right Torts to claims. 11 NT-L-d 38-20 Civil Rights Pending. 420-CV-321 Civil Rights Pending. Cases directly related as per the enjoining of state actors and voiding void orders denied in this matter; • In every state case brought against Petitioner (with or without standing, with or without jurisdiction), rulings were rendered against her. • In state cases involving contracts and negotiable instruments, no contract and no note (proof of ownership) was ever reviewed or considered. No right to a jury trial was given. Rulings were simply rendered against Petitioner without a trial by judges without jurisdiction. • In every state and federal case brought by Petitioner, not one claim was adjudicated on the merits by any state or federal judge. • In all but two state cases, no evidence was entered. The inviolate right to a trial was denied in all state cases. • The right to amend in all cases has been repeatedly denied (even when it could not be by FRCP 15). • In all civil rights cases, not one summary action proceedings was had before cases were dismissed. vii Petitioner’s summary judgments were not adjudicated at all in any federal court. • State claims in 15-08324 were dismissed with prejudice due to lack of supplemental jurisdiction. There were not remanded to any court. • All wilts and supplemental jurisdiction denied; causing piecemeal litigation. Three properties have been stolen by void orders since 2016 by state judges. Another illegal foreclosure (F-3132- 19) is now pending and no adjudication on Petitioner’s motion has been had since March 2020. Multiple property have been impaired by void judgments. Petitioner’s primary residence has been impaired by hens and illegal state action since 2009. No right to any relief has been given in over a decade by anyone. See Third Circuit, 17-2231. Petitioner’s claims under the Takings Clause were brought to the US Court of Federal Claims. Petitioner received a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction (which was a he). This prevented adjudication the merits of those claims by Defendant Judge Loren Smith, 18-1200L. This Court will soon deny the petition that has been in hiding for a year by court staff. The right to declaratory rehef, supplemental jurisdiction, stays of state action and every other avenue to prevent injuries caused by 19-cv-121 was pending was denied and further denied by the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (via judges who did not sign the order). (Ap 1) R. 14(1)(C) REQUIREMENTS This petition is under 1500 words. A table of contents and a table of cited authorities are not required. VIII LIST OF PARTIES Respondents: William P. Barr, US AG; US AG Fitzpatrick; Daniel Gibbons, US AG; Russel Upton, US AG; Joseph Hunt, US AG; Steven John Gillingham, US AG; Robert E. Kirschman, US AG; Michael Shipp; Peter Sheridan; Robert Kugler; Judge Simandle; Magistrate Judge Apert; Magistrate Judge Bongiovani; William Walsh; Circuit Judge Ambro;-eircuit Judge Chagares; Circuit Judge Jordan; Circuit Judge Hardiman; Circuit Judge Vanaskie; Circuit Judge Shwartz; Circuit Judge Krause; Circuit Judge Restrepo; Circuit Judge Scirica; Circuit Judge Nygaard; Circuit Judge Fuentes; Circuit Judge Michael Fisher; Circuit Judge McKee; Chief Judge Brooks; Loren Smith; Alan David Lourie; S. Jay Plager; Kathleen O'Malley; Sharon Prost; Scott Harris; James C. Duff; Stuart Rabner; Jaynee Lavecchia; Anne Patterson; Lee Solomon; Faustino Fernandez-Vina; Walter F. Timpone; Ban-y T. Albin; Gubir S. Grewal; Lyndsay Ruotolo; Mary Melfi; United States Department of Justice; Kathleen Dupuis; Yolanda Ciccone; Karen Cassidy; Margaret Goodzeit; Kenneth J. Grispin; Michelle Smith; Marc Ciarrocea; Steven R. Rowland; John Bridgandi; Kenneth Sauter; Jessica N. Baker; Catherine M. Brennan; Ian Doris; Rodger Levenson, individually and in the capacity as Corporate Chief Executive Office of WSFS Financial Corp. and John Does, 16-50. 1 BRIEF FACTUAL BACKGROUND New Jersey judges have used and are using unauthorized powers to render void orders. This unconstitutional conduct is systemic and statewide. Petitioner life has been altered by the illegitimate rulings of state judges; acts furthered by federal judges preventing her from ending this unconstitutional practice via the relief she has been due for years. In seven years of federal litigation since 2014, not one federal judge has rendered void any lawless orders, including this Court.1 Rather than uphold the law, federal judges have guaranteed there will be no remedy to this illegality by state judges via their own void orders. For years, every federal judge has plotted to strip Petitioner of access to the courts and her right to jury (Seventh Amendment). This has been done to ensure federal judges can rig the case and block the very remedies the courts are required to provide.2 1 15-753, 16-451, 17-738, 17-739, 17-2546, 19-720, et.