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

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; ; 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. al.

2 This Court just recently denied the State of Texas right, to original jurisdiction. Unfathomably, this Court’s seven “justices” stripped a party standing access to the courts. Much like Petitioner’s void state rulings resulting in theft by lies that are never remedied by “judges”, this void ruling by this Court involving fraud in a national elections cannot now be remedied. From, the top down, this scheme of denial and delay to prevent access to the court and the remedies within is in play. Fraud is begetting nothing but fraud as a result. 2

I. Duty to Act: Article III Powers Mandate Action

Failure to provide lawful rulings in a case brought with jurisdiction is “treason to the constitution.”3 A judge must uphold the law. 42 U.S. Code § 1983-1988 and the All Writs Act are laws. Vindications, injunctions, declaratory relief and stays (until the legal claims are resolved) are remedies. They have all been denied repeatedly and without any basis in the law.

Due to the illegality of federal judges, Petitioner has lost her liberty, privacy and properties by void rulings, repeatedly and for more than a decade. State orders are void and proven in the record, but there has been no relief. As demonstrated by this latest void order, there is never any reason for any such denials. (Ap 1)

Vengeance is in play. Petitioner is being silenced and extorted by void orders. She can either accept being raped of her property and stop acting to undo these void orders or she can remain in litigation at her cost in a futile effort to obtain remedies in the law no judge wall provide. This is the cause and effect of this endless lawlessness in play by unfit judges.

With no cost to federal judges who weaponize the courts (with reliance on the Executive Branch to further

3 Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US 264 — US 1 1821 3 this fraud by more fraud as per their false claims of representation when federal judges are sued as individuals), the games by federal judges can be played forever. And they are.

Petitioner can cry “void” all day long, but without a judge doing their jobs and stopping judges from “doing that which [they have] no legal right to do,”4 there is no end. This latest set of denials is proof no end to this scheme involving state judges will ever come.

It is absolutely disgusting that a citizen has had to seek relief from void orders in the first place. Petitioner’s properties should not have been stolen by void orders by state judge-defendants! Federal judges should have remedied this scam years ago. It was then and is now the duty of federal judges to act to uphold the 14th Amendment. They have failed entirely.

When due process has not been provided, Article III judges can do nothing but what has been asked: declare void void orders.

A. Judicial Immunity Used to Further and Perpetrate Fraud by Judges

Because of the imposition of immunity, there are no checks and balances on unelected judges.

4 Ex parte Young, 209 US 123 - USl 1908 4

This Court’s void immunity orders are relied upon by other rogue judges in furtherance of fraud. Created and championed by this Court, federal judges have taken full advantage of being able to act lawlessly. They do shamelessly and with the expectation they will get a pass by their colleagues. Despite the delusions of this Court, judicial immunity does nothing to benefit the people.

The foreseeable injustice this Court intended to cause against the people has been and is being caused by this Court’s gift of immunity. It is not in the least surprising that void orders are being rendered by this Court’s minions in the lower courts so readily.

Federal judges rely on immunity to break the law.

5 The timing of this ruling, Apl, came days after notice of another federal court suit having been filed.. Due to deprivation of adjudication by Judge CJ Williams, resulting in another year of foreseeable loss and real loss to Petitioner, a new suit had to be filed. When the new suit was made known, suddenly the circui t judges (who did not sign the order to hide their names) jumped into action as defense counsel in this case; an act likely done to impair the latest federal suit. On the same day, a filing fee (sent to the US Supreme Court on April 29, 2020) was finally cashed. The coordinated efforts between these “courts” to hide Petitioner’s petition, delay docketing and prevent motions from being adjudicated has been in play for years. If not for the new federal suit filed, these cases and the petition would have remained in legal limbo still. The delays caused by all were to ensure the raping in by rogue state judge was carried out (again) before the denials and dismissals come in this court. It is a routine. 5

II. Fourteenth Amendment: Equal Protection and Reverse Incorporation

Every federal judge (and federal officer) is liable under the 14th Amendment. “[I]t is unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty to the Federal government than a state actor.”6 There is no excuse for the deprivation of remedies in the law by either state or federal judges.

Void orders will always be void.7 The remedy to void that which is void cannot be withheld by federal judges as is being done. A citizen suffering from an unconstitutional act with the force of law must be allowed to seek refuge in the protections of the la w and obtain same.

“[I]f [a judge] act without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nudities. They are not voidable, but simply void. . ,.”8

“Freeform fundamental fairness notions divorced from traditional practice cannot transform a judgment rendered without authority into law7.”9

Petitioner’s rights have been violated and continue to be violated by void orders. Yet there is no option but for a FEDERAL JUDGE to act to void that which is void.

6Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 US 497 - US I 1954 7 Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 - USl 1878 8 Elliot v. Piersol, 328, 340 - USl 1828 9 J. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicasiro, 564 US 873-USl 2011 6

This is not a game of wait and see. Justice delayed is justice denied. How many times does all this need to be said?

Petitioner has a right to be secure in the State of New Jersey. It is the duty of federal judges to uphold Petitioner’s rights (and millions of others) that are impaired by rogue state actors. Federal judges have no right to simply slap “denied” and “dismissed” on everything when the law is clear that a remedy exists.

As per the injunctions and writs, the All Writs Act (Mitchum v. Foster, USl 1972) cannot be denied. Yet the policy to deny this relief by federal judges (repeatedly since 2014) is clearly another unwritten policy in play in the Judiciary for the benefit of judges by judges. Until Petitioner’s legal claims are addressed, state judges need to be restrained by a federal court as is permitted, authorized relief by the All Writs Act.

CONCLUSION and RELIEF

Federal judges have no right to act as defense counsel. The first void orders in all state cases must be declared such. When done, every order thereafter must be declared void.

“[T]he validity of every judgment depends upon the jurisdiction of the court before it is rendered, not upon what may occur subsequently.” Pennover. 7

Where jurisdiction fails to exist and orders are void as a result, relief must be given. Petitioner cannot continue to be subject to unlawful, coercive state power and loss by the deprivation of remedies by federal judges. Nothing makes vabd that which is void. Thus there is no basis for any delay to the remedies.

Denials for the sake of denials without any basis in the law (Ap 1-2) does not remedy the wrongs being done. A remedy has been and is due now. s/Chris Jaye Chris Jaye Pro se PO Box 5015 Clinton, NJ 08809