WRIT OF MANDAMUS
CASE # 1:09-MC-28 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D.OF N.Y.
ORIGINAL FILED
MAR 13 2009
LAWRENCE K. BARMAN.CLERK
ALBANY, NY
Writ of Mandamus
Petitioners Joseph Barton and Jay Debberman, Pro Se in forma pauperus
v.
Respondents J. Michael Bruhn, Ulster County Court Judge and J. Holly Carnwright, Ulster County District Attorney,
Petitioners appeared before the respondent J. Michael Bruhn, who was sitting as a local court , based on an accusatory instrument , a search warrant and charges by Ulster County District attorney, J. Holly Carnwright . They allege it is flawed by error of law. The flawed search warrant was used as an excuse for trespassing in their home and sanctuary under color of law depriving them of all civil rights and specifically freedom of religion protected by the Constitution of the State of New York and the constitution of the United States without due process of law on November 14th, 2008.
Petitioners Joseph Barton and Jay Debberman each filed a separate civil case, Pro Se , requesting strict judicial scrutiny , in The Supreme Court State of New York, Ulster County Court House December 3, 2008 before the Honorable Christopher Cahill Joseph Barton Index # 08 5880 RJI 5502-08-02334 requesting a jury trial of the facts of law as guaranteed by the New York State Constitution and the Constitution of the United States ”the supreme law of the land”. Jay Debberman's case is index # 08-6009 RJI 55-08-02336
Petitioners also filed motions and an Order to show cause to order a stay of prosecution in the criminal case until a jury of 12 peers heard and judged the facts of the error of law in the Supreme Court of New York State. This motion was served on District Attorney, J. Holly Carnwright. This was done before any evidence against the petitioner had been presented to a Grand Jury or criminal court.
Petitioners Joseph Barton and Jay Debberman both hand delivered these motions on January 20th, 2009 to J. Michael Bruhn, criminal court judge in Ulster County asking for a delay in the Grand Jury hearing until the their civil complaint had been adjudicated.
Respondent J. Michael Bruhn on the same day violated his oath of office and the duty delegated to him by the Constitution of the State of New York and the Constitution of the United States and trespassed again on petitioners' rights to due process with the return of the motions by mail saying: “please be advised that my policy is that any motion on behalf of a defendant who is represented by counsel must be made through counsel. As such I will give no notice to the motion you have submitted." Petitioner Joseph Barton was acting Pro Se and was not represented by council.
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.” Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958)
Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. That judge is engaged in acts of treason.
Respondent J. Michael Bruhn also refused all oral and written motions by Joseph Barton and Jay Debberman to defend themselves Pro Se with assistance of Counsel ,again trespassing on there inalienable rights.
Having taken two, if not three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State of New York, any judge who has acted in violation of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason.
If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution then his orders are void., in re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in treason.
Under Federal law which is applicable to all States, the US. Supreme Court stated that if a court is without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments and sentences, are considered in the law, as trespassers.” Elliot v. Fiersol, 1 Pet. 329, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that “when a State officer acts under State law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of the Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representive character and is subject in his person to the
consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the Supreme authority of the United States.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled; Whenever a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the Judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed. 2d. 192, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)
Respondent three time rejected the petitioner’s written motions to delay the Grand Jury hearing until his civil case on the error of law was heard and judged, thereby trespassing against the rights of the defendants in violation of the Constitution of the United States.
Respondents letter Dated January 20,2009 is prima facie evidence that J. Michael Brun had placed his personal policy above the Constitution of the United State in an arbitrary and capricious manner trespassing on the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed by the constitution of the United States.
Petitioners are facing irreparable injury if this court fails to reverse the wrongful decision of J. Michael Bruhn to ignore the motions he has acknowledged he received on January 20, 2009 There is no other method of relief befoer the pending Grand Jury hearing March 24, 2009
The petitioners are asking this court to order a stay of prosecution by the people of the State of New York against the petitioners until the constitutional claim of error of law is adjudicated in the Supreme Court Ulster county State of New York
Joseph Barton Pro Se
Jay Debberman pro Se
The Supreme Court guidelines on writs of mandamus
The Supreme Court observed in Kerr that the writ of mandamus was traditionally used by federal courts only to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its jurisdiction, or to compel an inferior court to exercise its authority when it had a duty to do so.
The Court also noted that mandamus is available only in exceptional cases because it is so disruptive of the judicial process, creating disorder and delay in the trial.
"The writ would have been appropriate", opioned the Court, "if the trial court had wrongly decided an issue, if failure to reverse that decision would irreparably injure a party, and if there was no other method for relief. Because the prison officials could claim a privilege to withhold certain documents, and had the right to have the documents reviewed by a judge prior to release to the opposing party, other remedies existed and the writ was inappropriate.”
