*

Peter BreskoLarra BreskoJoan Breskoclo 25 Chilhowie DriveKinnelon, New JerseY A7405

(352)219-1391

[rI THE GENERAT ASSpnl4qITYOF

Peter Bresko, )))))))))))))))))

NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURTJUDGETHOh{AS J. CRITCHLEY, JR.,

Individually, ffid inher Official and

Coqporafe Capasity,

PETITIOI.IFORABILL OF

IMPEAffiDUETOJTJDICIAL / OFFICIALMISCONDTJCT; JUDICIAL I

W;GOVERNMENTOPPRESSION; VIOLATION OF

OATH OF OFFICE; OBSTRUCTIONOF ruSTICE; NEW JERSEY STATECONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTSVTOLATIONS; GENDER BIAS HATE

CRIME; FLARASSMENT; RLC-O,I\{ALFEASAI{C E & MISFEASA}ICE

1947 New Jersey Star Constitution-' Ardcle YI, Sestion YI, ParagraPhs 4 &

5; Article Vn, Section III, Paragraphs

lo2&3

Petitioner,

vs.

A.

B.

Respondenl

PETITION

New Jersey state constitution, Article 7, section 3, Paragraph 1:

#:h:3ffi H'*#;'*fi ,ffiffiffi '#ffi retoimpeac.hmentror

misdemeanor ;;tft'"d duing their respective continuance in office."

NewJerseySarcConstitution'ArticleT,Section3,Pamgreph2:

;ffi ffig'ffi3#'#^ffiHffi ff{ffi f ry,ry"Pfi'!'i#.:i"i.,-ffi

',{a'ffi*m$ry*Fltgry-+rur'S*Hq'No oerson,t"iltuliiiiii"a *itn""tthe"concurrence oftwo- thirds of all the

mtfrters of the Senate-

1.. The New Jeruey sute constittrtion of rg47 provides two A)

other concepts for imPeachment:

a Article VI, Section VI, ParagPPh 4:

b. Article vI, section vI, Paragraph 5:

,,Wheneve,ftheSrry,remeCorntshallcertiryotheGovernorthatitappersthat

ffi*ff.ffiffiry-Hmmms'xt;l;ffiffi;bffiA;";;;il u" -'v ue pinvidea bv lau'

Pursuant to New Jersey Stelte NJ'Sj'' 41: l-l :

'Every person Yhgis or$1!-TJnYH by lawto give qp{!$aqce of fide[T and

ffiffi tr#laf": jHhTffi ffi {ff &3';:ail;ft ah-;fallegiance:

that ,';r1i ""pp"'i ";s g:ff:i&"trott ;Tfr "L"i$tt"*e: *andtheConstitution-ottheStateofNewJersey,andthatlwilr bear true faitf and arreqiance to the same and to the

Governrnents establi.rrr"J l" the ilnited states and in this state'

under the authotitv oilhe people' So help me God.'

3. RespondenL S*perior Court' Monis Co'nty Domestic Viole'lrcelFamily Court

Judge Thomas J. Critchlen Jr., by taking the oarh to suppor! protec! defend md uphold the

constitution of the united states and constit*tion ofNew Jersey, also falls'nder the p'rview of

the Federal Statutes, United States Code, Title 28 U:Iu]' $$351 (filing of complaints against

judges), Ma anQ455 (disqualification ofjudges) for direction on filing this Petition for

Impeacbment, and regarding the reinoval ofjudges from office not acting in good behavior'

disability, incompetence or for other reasons'

Article vII, Section ltr, ParagFph 2 of the New Jersey constitution provides for

2.

4.

the filing of a complaint with the General Assembly, in this instance whe're the above named

Responde,nt 'a+

and contin*es to e,ngage in conduct prej.dicial to the effective md expeditious

adminis.tration ofthe business of&e courts, d'e to mental and physical disability, more fully

demonsuated hereinafter'

5. Frrrtbermore, Title 2s u.s.c. $351 also provides for the filing of a written

complaint containing abrief statement of the facts constituting such conduct aforementioned'

6.BecarrseneithertheNewJerseyConstitrrtioaorNewJerseystatrrteshavea

formalschemeforfilingofwritteircomplaintsinvolvingjudicialimpeachme,nt'Petition€rswill

rely upon the united sffi€s code' 28 U-S.C. $$351, 144' and 455 as their soyrce and guidance in

this mffier. since Article I, pragsaph 2 of fte New Jersey constihrtion states tbat all political

power is inhereot inthe peopre, andthatfrvemm€,lrtis instifided forthe protection' sec'rity and

benefit of the people, and the pople have the dght at all times to alter or reform the sallre'

wheneverthepubricgoodmayrquireit petitionershavetheriglttofilethispetitionfor

Impeachment since petitioners have no otherremedies because no publio offioiar will rernove

judgesfromofficeorsuethemduetoallegedfictionalimmrmities.

STATEMENT/HISToRYAI{DNATUREoFPRoCEEI}INGroRPETmoNroRlur,r,oFIMPEACuMENTAGAINSTI\tEwJERSEYsurrnroncoI,RTJI]DGETHoMASCRITCfELEV

T.Petition€,rsPet€rBresko,I,auraBreskoandJoanBreskohavebeeirinvolvedwith

theNewJersey family court system since PetitionerPeter Bresko filed for divorce fromhis

former wife Re,nate Bresko in Jan.ry 20r r under Monis cormty Family court Docket No. FM-

r4-g7g_rr - Renate Bresko filed an aileged domestic violence comptaing Docket No- Fv-840-l I '

agpinst petitiontir Peter Brsko and was awarded a final Res'aining Older' (TRO*)' by

Respondent Critchley, which is now cgrrently pendiag on appeal' As a result of the FRO and the

subsequent?iungon-ofmultipleviolationsofthe*"T'"torderbyhisformerwife'without

substantiation or erride,noe, ttat have been heard before Respondeirt., Petitioner Peter Bresko has

rmceremonio'sly been deprived of his firndamentally protected panental rights without the

prerequisite cles and convincing widence, justificarion' proof or substantiation by Respondent'

E. Accodingto PetitionerPeter Bresko's forms wife's diary' in m elrtry she wrote

ol Jury 26,2u,she Stated abo'tpetitioner thd..I wilr so fucking divorce you-and you will so

fucking suffer for the rest of your rife-. petition€r peter Brsko's wife has sblked him as well'

when petitionerpeter Bresko brought a domstic violence stalking charge ageinst his former

wife, in Jrme 201l, the mder w€NIt before Respondent critchlen uiho is the Morris couuty

Domestic violence Judge. Responde,nt critchrey denied petition€r petEr Brcsko's applicdion for

arcstrainingorder sayinghe didn'tbave enoug!proof Yef' Respon ent allowedPeterBreko's

forrrerwifetofileunzubstanti*ed,uncorroboratedallegations.sinceMarchT'2oll

Respondent critchreybas amendedthe FRo onm'ltiple occasions, effectively t€NminatingPeter

Bresko,s puelrtal rights, incarceraing him without bail' refirsed multiple requesb to release him'

and Respondent Critchley entered his own olders to Show cause on three sePtrde occasions.

Respondent Judge Cdtchl€y has act€d asthe

Petitioner Peter Bre-sko and his &mily'

9. As a result of Petitioner father Peter Bresko being the stay-at-home dad for the

pastsix(6)years'uihiletheformerwifegothercollegedegreeandcertifiedpublicaccorrnting

lice,rcse, the childrenbame bondedto petitionerfather. Respondenthas deNddPetitiorer access

to both ofhis childrcrr, I(aterinaBresko, 13 years of agq and Peter Breskoo h' 9 yea$ of age,

without cause or justification of harm to the childftn'

RESPONDENTJUDGETHOMASCRITCUI'EYHASACTEI)I]NCONSTITUTIoNALLY nv nv.mctr*c HIs owN PERSoNAL BIAsr"s ANI)

IMPROPRIETIES INTO THE C*SN ACANWT PETMONEN' PETERBRESKO

10.R€spondsNfbasjail€dPetitionerPeterBreskoforoverS0daysasofthisvdting'

withor$ due process or equal protection rmder law, as a result of the false cbarges and told him

that he will keep him in jail for as ..rong as it takes for the mother and childrcn to bond"'

Reqpondent being a state judicial officer has carrsed the state to impropefly and

unconstitutionally interfere with Petitioneds fundamentally secured rtarcffal dghfs'

I l. Responde,nt Critchley has interjected his oum personal biases and improprieties

against petitioner wiftoril justificdion for terminating petitioneds parentat dghts' In fact"

Respondeirthas made it apersonat vendefia agpinstpetitioner's frmiln includingPetitioner

Lanra Bresko, and his t3-ywold mother, petitioner Joan Bresko- Respoadent told Petsr Br€sko

that if he wants to get out ofjail he will have to pay penalties' as ordered unlaurfully by

Rspondent, and if he cannot pay the pe,nalties, he can get it from his family to pay to get out

12.Respondeirtbasmadeandcontimrestomakeftt€dsofmorejailtimeand

penalties against petitiontr paer Bresko. As a result of petitioner peter kesko's unlawful

incarceration on acivil aEestwarftrntissuedwitro'tForrth Amendm€ntp'obabre cause on

september z,zorrand issud witho't jurisdiction or ardhority kause petitionerbad filed a

Fed€ral Removal Notics and Petition prior to the hearing ad issumce of the rest wrrmt

(wherein petitioner peter Bresko was arrested 6 days'ater on satember g, 20')' bas caused

him to be deprived of his due process dghts to defe,lrd the divorce and child custody action.

Child custody was grantedto the formerwife by defarlt

RESpoNDEIrtr JITDGE CRrrcuLEy conmfirrrED Orrrcur,lruorcr'ltMISCONDUCT AII{D IS ACTING I'S-I';ruXCMOO COURT/STAR CHAIYIBER'

A*AINST PETITIoNER BY Us^IA'irlvcorvsrrnrnomr, POLICIES AGAINST

NON4T]STODIAL PARENTS

13.Itisclearlyrypuenttr*nesporragrrt&itchleynmsa"KanggooCourt/Star

chambefalongwiththerestoftheMonisCormtyFamilycourtjudiciaryinwhatcanonlybe

termed "(Inconstitutionol Poltcye against non- ststodialpatena' Respondent Critcbley' being

aformerdomesticviolenceprosecutorinMonisCountyandnowaFmilyCorrrtDomestio

viole'ce Judge has an inhe,rent bias against those accused, whether farsery or not, of domestio

violence and shorrld have removed himself from Petitioner Bresko's domestic violencej

application instead of denying it'

14. As for petitioner peter Bresko getting out ofjail, Respondent continually "mises

the baro regarding what Petitioner is required to do. Respondent critchley has ordered that

petitioner pay m arbitrary anno'nt of $20,0fi) in penalties so his formrcr wife can have money to

make a life for herself md the childre,n- Petitioner Bresko cannot pay the monies bwuse his

ja'ing on false allegations caused his bnrsiness to be desfroyed. R€spond€ntiust recently reduced

the penarlies to $7,500.00, The amord is obviousry abitrry, hf petitioner Bresko still cmnot

pay it.

15.Furthermorc,RespondenthasallegedthdPetition€rwasofferedagoodpaying

job by the former wife,s new husband. The record does not indicate thd ther€ is any job offer,

but only m e-mail from the former wife,s new husbmd to Petitioner for aiob possibility' with no

guaxantffi orbenefits. since there was no offer, even on letterhea4 petitioner contends therc

wasnooffer.Petitionercannotmakeadetermindionbetweenajobofferandane-mail.This

indicates incompete'lrcy and impropriety on the part of Rsspondent'

16.SinceerlySeptember2lll,RespondentCritchleyhasbeenactingrmfairlyand

uconstit'tionally as Judge and P'osecr*or inthe case against Peter Brsko' SinCe his arrest on

se,pte,mberS,20ll,PAerBreskohasbeenbeforeResponde'nton6occasions'onealhofthose

occasions, Respondeirt has rcfised to release peter Bresko and has remanded him back to jail'

One three (3) se,parate instmcc the Respondelrt entered his own Orders to Show Cause' in

violdion of Judicial cmons, directing lr{r. Bresko to come fonrrard and demonstrate why his

prior court filings were frivolous and why the court should not impose penatties and sanctions'

Bresko assertd Fifr Amendment claims on the issues because he didn't know how to ansv/er

the orders to show cause and was denigrdedby Respondentby Respondent sayrngthe Fiffh

Amendmentdoesnotapplyinfamilycourtcivilmatters-when"indee4theUnitedStates

Supreme Court has said over and over that it does'

17. Nowthere r€mains no court dates pending. Respondeirt crirchley has filmed his

atteirtion to other cases involving peter Bresko. Respondent Judge critchley has expressed his

interest to reachlnto other courts where Petitioner Peter Breslso has matters pending and

influence the outcome of those ",*es

as well. Judge critchley is reaching into the landlord-

tenantactionby petitionerJoanBresko against bothpeter Brcsko andhis fornrerwife Renate

Bresko for failure to pay Joan Bresko rcnt, aS ase4 forover 3 years. Respondent critchley has

no authority or jruisdictionto be involved in a landlord-tenant dispute'

6

RESPONDENT JT]DGE CRITCHTHT HAS I]NLAWTT]LLY INTERI|:ERED WITH

PETTflONER'S I}UE PRNESS NTi#S' TROTERI"Y RIGHTS AND PARENTAL

RIGHTS

18. RespnentCritchley,inconcertwithMonisCormtyFamilycourtJudge

catherine Enright conspired to deprive petitioner peter Bresko of aproper divonce defense and

case, by holding Peter B'€sko in jail, not being able to access the courts properly' having no

counse|andbasicallyis$uingadefrultjudgnelrtag8instPet€rBrgkoonflimsyandarbitrary

decisions. This has been compormded by the Federal Notice of Removal filed on septemb€r 2'

zorr,which precedes a[ issues that have rmlaurfirlty and unconstit'tionally put Petitioner Peter

Breskoinjait.Theirunlaqfirlactionsandillegal@ingstoissuevoidordersadarrest

warrants rcpr€se,lrtufiat is known as a'tangarco courf' The evidence corfirmsthatPetitioner

peterBresko has been punishd by mis'se and abuse of theNew Jersey prcve,ntion ofDomestic

viorence Laws in a state that has women/mother-ce,ntered riaws, for exencising his parental rights'

lg. Respndent crirchley has also violated N'J'S'A' 2A:l549dand the New Jersey

Code of Judicial conduct, Canons L,2 and3. Respondent bas failed to uphold the integrity of

&e co'rtandhas not asted impartially by sidingwiththe former wife on everymotion and

argumentpresentedbefore her, wenthougbthere is no evidence against Petitionertoterminae

his f'ndamentar prental rights. Respondent has not acted diligently, as he has failed to read

petitioneds pleadings, has denied Petitioner's frmdamentally secured rights in orderto bc

politically conect against males, and in practicing .ann'(Jnconstiturional Policy" againstnon-

custodial Parents-

20. There is no question that Respondent Judge critchley has assumed a personal

int€r€st in the orrtcome of the domestic violence case. The co'rt's odsinar domestic violence

order dates baokso lvlargh 7,zlll. Now, more thanr 9 months ldcr, Respondent Judge critchley

contin'es to modif his prior orders, continues to eirter his ourn orders, and refirses to release

petitionerpeterBresko fromrmlaufirl andrmconstit'tional incarceration for acivil disput€'

ufuich has been adjudicated by the u-s. supreme cornt md u's' courts of Ap'peals as being a

vioration of the Fourth Amcndme,lrt bucause no probable cause to arbst exists in civil matt€rs'

and despite the fact Petitioner Peter Bresko has not been convicted of any crime'

RF,SPOI{DENT JTJDGE CRITCSLEIS'S OTTICHUJTTDICIAL MISCONDUCT

PRESENTSarrcnnnoFAIrtulrr-msvsrnrvrTHATHAsDAMAGEDTEENTTNCNTTV OF Tffi NEW JER,SEY JTIDICIARY

21. such a strong interest inthe outcome of this case hao destnoyed the corut's

nentality and vioraies N.J.S.A. 2A:r54gd. Respondent Judge critchley official de,privation of

petition€r Peter Bresko's civil righfs and pattern of official misconduct' violafes N'J'S'A' 2C:.30'

6 and N.J.S .A.2C:30_7, respectively. Respondent's pattern of conduct pres€Nrts a pict're of an

unfair system formale and pro se ritigants andhas inede€mabry damagedthe credibility and

integrty of the New Jersey Judiciary'

22.PetitionerPeterBreskohasthrcecriminalcbargespendinginMonisCountyand

sarem corurty, as part of the..piling on- doctine initiatedby battened womens' services and

domestic viorence pros€cutors and judges. h[r. Bresko's family, petitioners La'ra Bresko and

Joan Bresko, have posted bail in the amo.nt of $25,000 on the Monis cormty ohargc and posted

bail on the sale,m county charges as well. onNovember 18,2011' Respondent Judge crirchley

indicat€d that he intended to speak with judges who were handling the criminar cases in Monis

and salem counties and encourage them to revoke petitioner peter Bresko's bail. As of this

uniting it seems thatthe bail in salem county has, indd been revokd, orthere is an atternptto

revoke.

23. There can be no question that Respondent Judge Critchley is not only gender

biased againstPetitionerPeterBresko, but is pelsonallybias€d againsthim andhis family'

Laura and Joan Bresko. AS a result, Respondent crirchley has violated his oarh of ofEce'

committed offEcial Misconduct, mdhas committed aBias Intimidationcrime inviolationof

N.J.S.A. 2Czl6-\.

RESPoNDENTJIIDGECRITCHI,EYHAsACTEDINTffiABSENCEoFALLJuRrftDrcrroN rN PpTttronnR'slrlm ca"sn sINcE Tm sTArE cAsE EAI)

BEEN REMo\rEo fo rEtERAr coui$imonro ns^spoNDENT rssrlrNc A

cwIL ARRDST Winnar,{T asnisfrn-rmounn Ar{D STIBSEQT]ENTLY

HAVING fffmOffin rll,Sruv,ffn6rso AND TALSELY IMPRISONED;

REspoNDENT JuDcE gnmcm'ri sAs Nmffinous uNcoNsrrrurroNAlC0}mLICTSOT-II.ITEREST rglt mr vIoLATtr{G PETm0NER'S

rMVN^IWNTAITV SECI'RED RIGHTS

24.Frrrthermore'alloftheordersissuedbyResponde,lrtJrrdgeCritchleycafire

$uhqueNrt to Petitioner Peter Bteskoos Federal Reinoval Astion, Case No. 2:11+v45098-ccc

_JAD. Respondent critchley is arso a defendmt in civil action 2:l r-cv-5346' presently pe'nding

inthe District ofNew Jersey. petitione* Inuxa and Joan Bresko have also fild suit in Federal

co'rt agaiost Respondent Judge critchley,nder civil astion 2:ll*rr46907-ccc-JAD BRESK'

et al v. CRITCHLEY, st al. Responde,nt crirchley is not only a defendmt in these Fed€ral

actions, b,oby Respondeirtcontinuingto sit ontbe state case againstpetitionerpeterBresko has

an unconstitrilional conflict-of-intergt

25.Inhisfed€ralsuitagainstRcspolrdentCritchley,PefitionerPetefBreskoalleges

violations of 42 U.S.C. $lgg3, inteifional infliction of e*otional dishess' negligent infliction of

emotionar dishess, false arrest, farse imprisonment, malicious abuse of legal process, official

misconduct'andstatecon*itrrtionald$tsviolrations.PeterBreskoissuingRespondent

Critcbtey for $1 0,000,000 for these violations'

26.BecauseRespondentfudgeCritchleyisade,fe,ndantinthefederalactions'hehas

interest in the state domestic violencr action to: (a) Punish Petitioner Peter Bresko for filing suit

againsthlm;o)punishPetitionerPeterBrcskoforalsobringingajudicialmiscondugtcomplaint

withthe Advisory committ€e on J'dicial coduct against Rsspondfft critohtey<ven though it

is commontnowledge with&epublicthatthe AcJc isnothing morethan a*nrbber stamp"

committee that srryports judges ratlrer than finds against them; (c) kee'Ping Peter Bresko

inoarcerdted so he cannot proscutehis civil complaints orhis divorce complaing whichhas nou'

been defa'ltd against him; and (d) this a[ows Respondent Judge critchley.to subsrantiate and

manioulatehis oqm defenses ndwdeminePeterBresko's claims by uafmga self-serving

I

9

record.

2T.ResporrdentJrrdgeCrirchleyisalsoadefendantinafedemlac.tionpendinginthe

NorthernDisfrictofFloridatbsthasb€€Nltransf€rldtotheNewJerseyDistrictfiledby

petitioners La'ra Bresko and Joan Bresko. La'ra Bresko is peter Breskoos sister and Joan

Bresko is peter Bresko,s mother. The Bresko's allege violations of 42 U'S'C' $1983, 42 U's'c'

$1gg5, intentional infliction of emotionar disrress, negligent infliction of e,motional distness,

malicious use of legal p'ocess, official misconduct, s*te constitutionat dghts violations,

defamation" liber, slander, invasion of privacn and RICo violations. The plaintiffs are zuing

Respondent Critchley for more than $10'000f000'

2g. Because Respondent cdtcil+ is agpin a defendant in yet another Federal oisaist

court Action, that started in the Northem Dipnict of Flori<la and has been transfer€d to the

Disuict ofNew Jersen Responde,nt critchl+ has an interest-conflict-of-int€rest- inthe state

domestic violence astionto (a) continue to fo"iru petitionerpeterBresko beca'se his family

filed zuitagainstRespondent Judge Critcil+ &) keep Pet€'rBresko incarceratd so he cannot

I

assist his family in prosecrring their claims,lr"l *u Respondent is d€mpting to s'bstmti*e his

own defenses to underrrine the Bresko" "r{tt by creating a self-serving reord'

I

29. Respondent Judge critchley f^ "*

*" rY *:rl** misconduct inquitry

for his actions as ajudge over this case. H{wwer, b""ause of his self-serving statements to the

Advisory conmittee on Judicial conduct,1^*ot petitionerpeterBresko, being incarcerated'

could not timely respond the judicial *t"{tat" complaint nms dismissd- This judicial

I

miscond'ct complaintagainst Respondent {*".a yet anotherconflict-of-interestwherebyhe is

(a) punishing petitioner petsr Bresko f"r fi4"g a judicial misconduct complaint against hin0, (b)

l-.he is keeping peter incarcsatd so ue cann{t prosrcrse his judicial miscond'ct complaint' and

(c) is using the iricarceration of Peterto zulsantiate his

30. Given that trro (2) launuits fnd a judicial misconduct case have arisen against

I

Respondent Judge Critchley in the ,tutu *{t, Respondent has an interest' albeit a conflict-of-

interest, in the outcome of keping PetidoSr incarc€rated without Due proCess' henoe'

Respondent has pnesided in an uofair and biased manner to deprive petitioner of his Liberties, his

r0

childrcn, his hopertyRights, his DueProcessRights' mdhisRightsprnsumtto E$nl

kotectionUnder Law.

31. Aftsr the Respondent Judge Critcbley received official Notice that tb€ state case

he was presiding over, Renate Bresko v. Peter Brcsko- FV-1+840-11, had been removed to

federal court at gz02 um.on september 2,2011, Respondent critehley nevertheless e,ntered an

rmlaufirl civil arrest warraot against peter Bresko based ullon an arleged violation ofNew Jersey

Co'rt Rule 5:3-7. peter Bresko was arrested six (O days after 1fos filing of the Fede'ral Notice of

Removal, on September 8, 2011, and brought before Respondent Crirchley on six occasions

sinoe his incarceration. on each occasion, Mr. Bresko enplainedthatthe case bas be€nrc'moved

to federal cornt and that the sta;te court lacked jurisdiction as of se,ptember 2,2011'Nevertheless'

on all six occasions, Respondent Critchley arbitarily and unlawfully rejected the argUment and

formd cause to re,mand Mr. Bresko backto jail'

32. Following his Septe,lnber 8, 2011 incarceration, Mr' Bresko was brougfut before

Judge critchrey on se,pte,mber g,z0rr.There, the court explained that IvIr. Bresko's arrest was

the result of a violation of a parenting order, purnrant to N.J. Ct Rule R 5:3-7 ' Despite the fact

that there were criminal contcmpt compraints filed and pending for violations of a domestic

violence resnaining ordero which in itselfwas rmder ape€al in the appell*e division on grormds

it did not rise to the level of domestic viole,nce even thoug! Respondent Critchley granted the

FRO, and for \ryhich Mr. Bresl(o had posted bail, thc Respondent Judge continued bis

incarceratio4 ls6ssning, ..I intend that the incarceration should continue until she tRenate

Bresko] bas a reasonable basis to expect and get the protection of the Domestic violence liaws'"

3i'. Now, morethm 3 months later, Pet€r Bresko rcmains in jail onRespondentJudge

Critchley's unlartfirl and unconstitutional civil arrest warrant Respondeirt crirchley firrther

explained that until !"1r. Bresko makes arrangements for the rehrn of certain property belonging

to Renate Bresko, it is likely he will remain incarcerated rmtil that time." The property in

question includes:

1l

1. The Bresko's daughter's passport;2. Renat€ Bresko's personal diaries, one which shows thd Renate Bresko was going to divorcePetitioner Peter Bbesko and make him "suffer for the rest of his life";3. Photo albums;4. Handmade baskets;5. A Cherry Wood bowl;6. A bicycle; i

7, A kitchen-aid mixer;8. Children's toys; and9. Chil&en's clothes and otherpersonal iterhs.This list of nine commonplace items, nrhich should be the zubject of a property settlement

agreement in the divorce case, is one of theichief reasons Respondent Judge Critchley, who is not

even the judge, unconstitoti,onally refirses to release ltdr. Bresko. The difficultyI

is that many of thce items have already Ueen retum* to Renate Bresko, and those thd have

not beenretumed were lost ordestroyed in ppending landlord tenant action-I

34. Petitioner Peter Bresko has np ability to personally refirrn any property while he

reilrains incarcerated in the Monis Counf jidl. The,refore, in effect, Respondent Judge Critchley.

has created an unconstitutional demand which he knows is impossible to meeL in orderto

justifr Mr. Bresko's contiaued incarceration.

I

35. The next time Peter Bresko aippeared before Respondent Jrdge Crirchley was on

Septernber 14,2011. Mr. Bresko had no colnset retained or assigned and the Respondent

int€rrogated Mr. Bresko with regard to whe&er he was responsible f61filing a cross motion, that

the Respondent deemed frivolous. Mr. Bresko attempted to explain that the pqpose ofthe filing

was to alert Respondent Critchley that his case had been rerroved to federal court and that

I

Morris County no longer bad jrnisdiction The Respondent rejected Mr. Bresko's argument and

again r€manded Mr. Bresko to jail.

36. Respondent Critchley,strated *I intend to get to the ofthis grotesque fraud

on the Court, and he lPeter Bresko] is the one who can ansrwer that question- Untit tbat question

t2

isansweredhewillnotberereased-,, Respondenthastrmedthecaseintoapersonalve'ndetta

against Petitioner Peter Brc*o'

3T.PetitionerPetgBreskoappearedbeforeRespondentJudgeCritchleynexton

Septe,nber 27,20Ll.Again he had no attomey to speak on his behalf. Again he explained to the

Resp[ondentthathiscasehasbeenre,movedtofederalcour!andagainthestatecorrrtrejected

the argume,lrt.

RESPoNDEII{TJI]DGE..STEPPEDDowNoFFImBENCPACTINGASTITnADvERsARY AND nRosEcUTOR lbmrst PETmolmR PETER BRESKo

38. on septe,mber 27,zlll,Respondent critchley *stepped down offthe be'lrch" and

acted as an advermry/prosecutor against Petitioner when Respondent entered his oum Order

to Show cause requesting Mr. Bresko come forward and show ca'se why petitioner's clross

motion fired in opposition to Respondent,s orders and arrest warrant, shourd not be deemed

frivolous zubjecting him to sanc,tions, since the case had bee,n re,moved to Federal cornt. on the

one han4 Respondent Judge critchley says that sincethe case was removedto Federat court'

Petitioner Bresko's pleadings are frivolous and meritless' Ye! on the other hand Respondent

Judge Critcbley ignores the Fede,ral removal actioi and continues to act in the absence of all

j'risdiction. This is evidence of Respondent Judge critchley's lack of impartiality and lack of

comlrtence in the matten he is bringing against petitioner while acting in the absence of all

jurisdiction.

39. A$o, Respondent Critchley continued to interrogate Mr- Bresko. As a result Mr'

Bresko invoked his 5tr Ame'dment dght to remain silent. Respondent crirchley rejected that

Mr. Bresko had any 5th amendment protections and remanded him back to jail. Even thoug! the

unit€d states supreme courthas heldtime and againthat 56 Amendment protmtions not only

exists in criminat proceeaings, but exists in all types of legal proceedings, including family court

13

or domestic violence proceedings. Given that Petitioner Bresko had numerous other pending

criminal and civil matt€,rs, he was withinhisrigbtto invokethe 5tr Ameirdmelrt. Respondent

Judge Critchley once again showed lack of impartiality, lack of integrity and lack of competence.

40. Petitioner Peter Bresko was bnought before Respondent Judge Critchley next on

Octob€r 11, 2011. This time, with the aid of counsel, Mr.Bresko explaind that his case had been

remoyed to federal court and objectod to the present proceeaing. The Respondent again rejectd

the argument and intenogated Mr. Bresko over cormsel's objections. The Respondent then

deemed Mr. Bresko's earlier cross motion tivolous, imposed $20,000 in sanctions, and

remanded Mr. Bresko back to jail.

41. However, in doing so, the Respondent e,ntered a second Order to Show Cause on

his own behalf, asking Mr. Bresko to demonstrate why it should not impose a daily pe,nalty, each

day the property in dispute is not turned over.

42. Petitions Peter Bresko was nent brought before Respondeirt Judge Critchley on

October 25,2011. Again, it was explained to the Respondent that the case had been removed to

Federal Court and again the Respondent improperly and rmlawfirlly rejected the argument. On

that date, the Reqpondent enterd athird Omder to Show Cause, on his own initiative. This time

asking Petitioner Mr. Bresko to come forward and demonstrate why the filing ofthe Federal

Petition to Remove and Notice of Rennoval is not frivolous litigation zubjecting Mr. Bresko to

firther sanctions. Respondent Judge had no dght to demand this, since Respondent Judge was

acting in the absince ofjurisdiction and was demanding of Mr. Bresko to declare a Federal

matter frivolous, even though Respondent is a state court judge. It is obvious here that

Reqpondent is exhemely worried about the Fede,ral Removal action belqg inplace nihen

Respondent acted without jurisdictiou against Petitioner aod had him unconstitr*ionally arrested.

t4

Again, Mr. Bresko was remanded back to jail.

43, Mr. Bresko last appeared before the Monis Cormty Cornt onNovember 18' 2011.

At that hearing, on Mr. Bresko's motion, the Courtreconsidered ib $20,000 sanction and

rcdlrced it to $7,500. AFin" the Cou* rejected that the District ofNew Jersey had jurisdiction

over the domestic violence case. AgairU Mr. Bresko was remanded to jail'

M. Now, more than 80 days since Mr. Bresko incarceration from a civil arrest

warrant, its apparent that Judge Critchley never intends on releasing Peter Bresko fromjail. All

attempts to appeal Judge Crirchley's arrest order have been rejected by the Appellate Division

under the correct belief tbat tfte matter is crrrrently before the Fderal Court.

45. On October l!,2011,Mr. Bresko filed an Emergent Application with New Jersey

Appellate Division Judge, Hon Marianne Espinos4 J.A.D. Judge Espinosa denied the emergent

application for the following reason:

'opg15uaot to 28 U.S.C. $1'145(d), the federal cout must

be the court to decide whether the state court action

challenged is improper and mustbe invalidated-"

46. Despite Judge Espinosa's correct rmderstanding of 28 U.S.C. $ 1446(b),

Respondent Judge Thomas Critchley remains obstinate in violation of the Supnemacy Clause of

the United Stat€s Constitution, continues to issue fintherrmconstitutional andrmlaufirl orders,

and refirses to release Petitioner Peter Bresko fi'om jail.

47. It is the Respondent Judge's obligation to see that justice is done in every case thati

comes before him. This includes not only reaching the correct legal result in the particular case,

but also the exhibiting at all times ofjtrdicial demeanot patience and rmdersunding. People

cometothecourttobeheard- Theyhavearighttoexpecttbatinpresentinqtheirgrievances

they will be teated with reqpect. (Inre Albano, 75 N.J- 509' 514)-

48. The poorest, weakes! most hapless or illiterate defendant standing before an

15

American court, is entitled to exactly the sme respect rights and hearing as would be the Chief

Justice ofthe United Stafs standing before the court...." (Ttt n" Yengo, 72 N.J. 450).

49. Respondent Judge Critchley has acted uncon*itutionally, hence unlauftlly, has

freated Petitioner with hostility, gender bias, disdain and loafhing and has made his feelings well

knouminthecasethathedoesntlikePetitioner. NotonlyhasResponde,lrtcausedrmlaurfrrl

@or incidents against Petition€r (e.g., rmlawful anst and imprisonmeng denial ofparelrtal

rights, denial of properfy Rights, derdal of Due Process, denial of Equal Protection Under Law),

but has made it a personal vendetta against Petitioner Peter Bresko. Respondent has made it

known that he is biad and that his bias is a virulent form of disrespect for the Petitioner, and

the people and citizens ofNew Jersey.

50. Respondent Critchley's cavalier dimegard of Petitioner's basic and frmdamental

constitutional rights exhibits an intolerable degree ofjudicial incompetence, and a failure to

comprehend and safeguard the very basis of our constitutional stnrcture. Respondent's remarks

have been so ex@me show that his decisions have been prdetermined and improper bias or

prejudice will be formd to exist.

51 . At present Petitioner Bresko's Rights are non-existent for the past 3 months.

Petitioneds hearings are being conducted in what can be temrcd a Star-Chamberproceeding

where the Respondeirt judge is nrnning a "Kangaroo Courf'. Respondent gives Petitioner short

shrift at hearings and limits hearings to only what Respondent demands of Petitioner.

52. An appeal is not the answer. Petitioner has filed numenous e,mergent applications

to the appellate pivision, who have correctly nrled they have no jurisdiction because the matters

involved are in the Federal courl Also, the original final resEaining order is under formal appeal

whichmaytake up to one year or longer to be heard doesnt have the money or

wherewithal to file alrother apeeal. Nor does he have the time to wait for over a year for the

New Jersey Appellate Division to make a nrling on his appeal. Petitioner has no remedy other

T6

thanthis Petition for Impeachmenl

couNrt-ffi%" ""cRIMEsriiltiffiUrl'-:Woxnuqqrrrcnlunpnrvafr o'x tir -qd.rycgrs' AI{D PATTERNororrrciii'nd$qb'q{pu-cr'nrilEI1ryGPETrrrohtEROF HISRrcErs lrvfiffi*Ei@gfnffi lcTntc lN rmffiEI.IcE or AtL Jt RrsDrcrroN

53.PetitionerBreskoreallegesandreaversthezubstanceofparagaphsl-52,herein'

and incorporates the same by this reference as if fully stated herein'

54.PetitionerBresko,andhisfamily,Petitionersl-auraandJoanBreskohavebeen

deprived of firndane,ntal, unalienable rights and liberties by Respondent without cause'

j'stification, zubstantiation or proofs. The deprivation of his liberties by Respondent has now

become punishment without any trial by j'ry. The Responde,nt refuses to release petitioner Peter

Bresko from rmconstitutional, rmlaufirl incarceration, refirses to allowhim to speat humiliates

him in open cour! threatens him, intinidates him, admonishes him, and deprives him ofhis God-

given parent-child relationship for no reasonable cause'

55. This is violation of petitionels nafirral and unalienable dghts of enjoying

life and liberty andpursuing safety and happiness pursuantto theNew Jersey

Constitution" Article I, Paragraph 1'

56.RespondentJudgeThomasCrirchley,asaSuperiorCourtJudgeofthestateof

New Jersey (Monis co'nty), tluough government oppression anrd judicial tyranny' bas us'rped

his authority andhas s'.spended, chilled and violafed petitioner peter Bresko's fimdamental,

rurarienable rights under the constitution for the unlted states of America and New Je'mcy state

Constitrtion

Respondent Judge Thomas Ctitchley has and is continuingto perpefrate official57,

t7

misconductfudicial misconducr NJ.S.^L 2C:30'2 (Official Msconduct) states:

,,A public senrant is stilty of ofrcial misconduct ufi€q with purpose to' '

.it:i* or deprive mother of abe'nefit:

a.Hecornmitsana6trelatirrgtohisofficebrrtconstitrrtinganuna'tnorireO *r*i". ;hit offiJral fimctions' knowing that such act is

nnauthorized or he is committing such act in an rmauthorized mann€f,"

5S.RespondenthasdeprivedPetitionerofthefimdamentallysecure4constitutional

liberties, parent-child relationship with his children" due process and property rights without

justification" substantiation, evidence, proofs or any evidence, therefore depriving Petitioner of

his fimdamental rists without a compening state intere$t Respondent is therefore liable to

Petitioner for harm and damages to his rights'

59.BydeprivingPetitionerofhisfundamentallysecrrredristswithoutacompelling

srate int€r€st, Respondent is in violation ofNJ.sA .2c2304(off6cial deprivation of civil rights):

A public servmt actingorpurportingto act in anofficial capacity

commis the crime Jim.,i.t a.ptiu"tiooof civil rights if' howing

th"thir conduct is unlaufirl, and actingwiththepufposeto

i"ti*iartr or discriminate "iptttt

an inaiviOttat or group-of

individuals because of race,-color, religion' gender' l;an9icaP'*,,r.1 orientation or etbnicity, the public servant (2) denies or

i-p"Oo -"tUo i"til tt"tntt "*.oite

or e4iolment of any dght'

privilege, Power or immunitY'

(1) Except as provided in paragraphs Q) and(3) of this F

*iUt""tiot" a public servant who violates the provrsrons or

][[,*.d;u- ortni, section is gtritty of a crime of the third degrce.

Notwithstanding the provisionsgfN'{'S' 2C:1-8 or any other law'

;;;;.dr" orom"ili deprivarion of civil rights under ttis section

Jfrutt oot merge with a *oui"ti* of any other *TT"t offe'nse'

nor shall such other conviction m€,fge with a conviction under this

,."tioo, and the cornt shall impose separafe s nt€nces upon each

violation of this section and any other criminal offense'

L

b.

d.

18

e.Forprrrposesofthissctioqanactisunlaurfrrlifitviolarestheconsdfifi;;Jtn unit€d starfs orthe constindon of this state,

orifit*"''i*-'t''acriminaloffensermderthelawsofthisState.

60.Respondenth3sintimidatedandthreatenedPetitioner.Ropondentbasviolated

petitioney's Constit'tionally secured rights by perpetrating gender bias, discrimination and

intimiddion in violation ofNJSA '2C:30'6'

61. petitioner is being denied/deprived of his Liberties for a cumulative total of over

g0daysandisbeingdeniedafundamentallyprotectedrelationshipwithhischil4without

reason.

62. The acts complained sf ngainst Respondent constitutes a violation of Petitioner's

Constitutionatly protected rights, widencing a pattern of official misconduct Prrsumt to

N.J.S.A. 2C:30'7 (Patt€m of Official Misconduc't):

L A person commits the crime of pattein of ofrcial misconduct ifhe commits two or more acts that violate the provisions gfllJ's'2C:3&i2orsection2ofP.L.2003,c-31(c'2c:30-o'Itshallnotrc u a"i*r" tnut tn" violations were not part of a oorrmon plan or

*n...'*didnothavesimilarmethodsofcommission

b. Pdtern of official misconduct is acrime of the second degree ifoo" oiii" acts comnited by the defendant is_a first or second

Oegfee crime; othe^rrise, itl a crime of the third degree' provide4

however, tnaiae ofnonimprisonmeirt set forth in

,ou,""tiooe.ofNJ.S.ZC: $tforpersonsuihohavenotptt"i;;lt been convictsd of an offense shall not apply'

NotwiCIianding the provisions of N.J.S. 2C:l-8 or any other l3w,

! a*""irti* or-ilt"* of official misconducf official depliv{ion

"r"iii Jgt t , * *y other criminal offense, nor shall such other

*"ni"tioi;."g" with a conviction rmder tbis srctioq md the

cotrt shall impose seerate senteirces upon eachviolation ofN.J'S'

2C-3o:2and sestions 2 ald3 of P.L. 2W3, c.3l (c'2C:306 and

C.2C:30'7)

Petitionerhas no re,mdy at law or equity because Respondent continually and63.

19

maliciously changes the terms of petitioner's conditions on his ability to be released from the

rmconstitutional' mlav/fuI incarceration'

64-ReslnndentistorturingPetitioner,inviolationoftheu's'constiartionEighft

A*endment,s cruel and unusual punishment cliause, through abuse of his a'ttrority as a Judge

and acting in concert with Petitioneds former wife's dorney' vl&o wam't eve'n a lic€ns€d

attomeyuihenhetookonrepresentation'rmlavftlly,oftheformerwife.

COUNT tr - OBSIRUCTION OFJUSTICfE AI{D YIOLATION OT THE

NEWJERSEYconsrmmonANDcoNsTITUIToNFoRTffiI]I\I TED STAIES OT AIVIERICA

6s.PetitionerPeterBreskoreallegesandreaversthesubstanceofparagraphsl.64'

he,reiq and incorporates the same by this ref€,re'lrce as if ftlly stated herein'

66. Respondent has violated his Oattr to srryport the Constitution for the Unit€d States

of America and New Jersey State Constitution by denying Due Process, Equal kotestion of the

Laws, Depriving petitioner of his firndamentally sec,red lib€rty interests, due process dghts'

equal protection dghts, parental rights, theatening him with forc,e to intimidate him in Court'

attempting to paintPetitioner in abadlight as mentally distrrbedwhen all mentalhealthexperts

involved inthe case say he is not. Respondent has violated petitioneds fimdamental' ,nalienable

Freedoms and Rights under Article I, Paragraph I of theNew Jersey state constihrtion'

67 . Respondent has cornrritted gender bias crimes, in violation ofN'J'S'A '2C:16-l

on the basis of petitioneds gender and madtal stafiis, in violation of the gender bias crimes

against intimdatign and threats, and also in violation ofNew Jersey constihrtion' Article I'

Paragraph 5 [Prohibition against gender bias] andthe New Jersey Laws Against Discfimination

tLADl.

68. Rwponde,lrt Critchley was and continues td be in violation of the New

Jersey Code of Judicial Conduct:

20

Canon 1-A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and

IndePendence of the Judiciary;

Canon 2--A Judge Should Avoid hpropnety 1n| ry.epfuarance of Impropriety in All Activities;

canonr__"r#j*ffiffi ftg#lff rr'dicial

69. Under Canon l, Respondent Critchley violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by

viorating and denying petitioner an of his Rights to which he is entitle4 while Respondent is

acting in the abse,nce of all jurisdiction to unconstitutionally and rmlaufirlly violate Petitioner's

Rights. Petitioner's parental rights were summarily t€rminat€d without any vestige of due

process or equal protectionunderthe law'

70. Respondent Critchley has t€stified on the record as a litigat and adversary

againstpetitionerby claiming petitioner,s Federal re,moval action is frivolous and amotionfiled

by petitioner is also frivolousn which deprives Petitioner the right to access the courts and defend

himserf. Respondent threatened petitioner that he wil not release Petitioner'1mtil he

[RespondentJ feels like it". Respondent "st€pped down" offofthe bench as Petitioner's

adversary, and therefore, lost all immunities'

71. Under Canon 2, Respondent violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, by violating

petitioneds dghts in usurping crearly estabtished lawand constitrtional prohibitions, and clearly

has a speciat intercst in violating Petitione'fs rights because Responde'n! being a former domestic

violence prosec'tor and now the domestic violence judge in Monis Cormty, believes he is above

the law and continues to violate Petitiorer's fundamenAlly secured rights'

72. Uqder Canon 3, Responde,nt violated the Code of Judicial Conducq and violated

and denied petitionerhis rights by usurping clearly established law and Constitutional

prohibitions, by "discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of his male gender, and his

marital status (divorced father) in violation ofN.J.S.A .2C.16'l (bias hate cripes), and the New

Jersey state constit'tior1 Article I, paragraph v [which prohibits disqimination on the basis of

genderJ and Paragraphs )o(I and )oil tfights of victims and rights of state inhabitants]'

27

RESPONDENT JUDGE CRITCHLEY IS ALSO TAIT{PERING WI['H EVIDENCE AND

A.wtfl{Ess'mNcE,rAn|PgnuvcwrrgTffiSTATE&FEDERALCASE

73-RespondenthasfirtherviotatedPetitione'dsrights,inviolationofcanon3

of the Judicial conduct code, by denying and depriving petitioner his liberties and due prccess

rights. Respondent is violating petition€,fs rights to force him to take an improper psychological

test that is not required by any law and that is not rerevant to the matte,r at hand. Respondent is

forcing petitioner to take said test to try and find somefhing w*rng o'ft! him to justif taking

away his parental rights and giving sore custody and all parental dghts to petitioneds former wife

who has stafed in her own penonar diary on Jury 26,2009:"I will so fucking divorce you-and

you wilr so fucking suffer for the rest of yo'r life". This does not sormd like someone needing

domesticviolenceprotectionsfromRespondent. And,Responde'ntisdemandingPetitionerturn

overthat diary, to eliminate (sporiate) the evide,nce that will mitigpte petitioner's charges against

hinr" or petitioner will remain incarcerate4 arbeit'nlaurfully. This is evidence trd Respondent

is tampering with evidence in violation of N'J'S'A '2C.28-5 Campering with witnesses) and

N.J.S.A. 2C:2S-6(lxTampering with physical evidence)

74. Respondeirt has effectivety suspended Petitioneds rights to Due

process of raw, both proced'rally and substantiveln 'nder

the Fifth (5th) and Fo'rtee'nth (14th)

Amendments of the constifirtion forthe united states of America Respondent has deprived

petitioner of his liberties and rightto pursuit of happiness without any compelling s'tate interest'

75. Respondent is ,,blanket,, denying every one of Petitioneds motions' orders to show

cagse or any other petitions to defend himself, and tben accuses Petitioner sf filing *frivolous"

applications to the co'n Respondent is hampling petitioleds fimdamentar s*bstantive and

procedrrraldueprocessdghtsinamaliciorrscampaigntodeprivehirnofhislibertiesandhis

children, and to break petitioner.s parent-child bond with his children by keeping Petitioner

22

untaufirlly incarcerate4 a[owing the former wife enclusive possession of the children, wherein

thechildre,haveexpressedtheirdesiretobewiththeirfather.

76. Respondent Jqdge critchley is in firrther violations of the provisions ofNJ'S'A-

2C:2g-r (0bstruction of Governmental process). By acting in the absence of all jrrisdiction'

since the state case has been re,moved to Federal co,rt on September 2'2011and has not been

remanded back to state court as of December g,z}lr,Respondent is also in violation ofthe

united States cdminal code, Title 18 U.S.C. 24l-conspiracy Against Rights of citirens' and

Title 18 U.5.c.242-Deprir'dion of Rig[ts Under Color of l,aw.

77. Title f

8 u-s-c- 241 states:nlftwo or more persons conspire to injure, opprcss' t!rynteq or intimidate

""i i1rr"n6i, Ao "*.oG or e,njolment of any riglt orprivilege

ffi mw;:.n:mm;ruffi"JH*:ffi m'*$10,000 or imprisoned not more ' rr ten years, or bolh; and if death results,

*d;hdl t" rirUi*t to impritonment for any term of years or for life"'

78. Title 18 TJ-S.C-242 $ates:

'Whoeve,r, rmder color of my law, stahrte' ordinance' regUption' or custom'

willtully srfijects ;t*"t* oi*y Stde, Territory, or Disfiictto the

deprivation of any ti'gntt, prirrileges, oi imn roitits securd or protec'ted by

the Constitt1ion ot ii*t oitna Unite4 States, or to differcnt prmishmrents'

p"l*,*p*uftio,o"**t-tofsuchinhabitantbeinganalien"orbyreason of his color, or racc' than are pmescribed for the prmishment of

;d"*", shall be nr"a o"i *ot" than- $1'000 or imprisoned not more tban

one year, or both; ;Jlf dr"th results shalt be stfij@t to imprisoament for

any term of Years or for life."

Tg.RespoadentisfirrtherviolatingtheprcvisionsofTitlelsU'S'C'241atd242'

arong with N.J.S. A.2C:30-2,2C:304 and2cz30-7 by treating petitioner like chattel property

with no rights and made liable to pay an alleged "debf'that is based on fraudulent pretenses, by

the use of trreats, coercion, duress, menace' prmishment dnd continud uncolstitutional'

unlawful imPrisonment

S0.BydenyingPetitionerthepanoplyofrigltsthathewasandcontinrrestobe

23

entitled to, Respondent violated Petitioneds fimdamental' unalienable figh8 under the

constitution for the utritod ststes of America andNew Jersey state constitution' and also

violared 42 U.S.C. 1983, 19S5(2) and (3), and 1986 of the 1866 and 1871 Civil Rights Act of

Congress, in a conspiracy contextwith the divorce judge' Monis County Family Colrt Judge

cafiherine E*ignq pedtion€r,s former wife and her attorney, and other u'rnamed co-conspirators,

who continually insist that they are virtuany immrme from any kind of civil rights deprivation

actions, zuits, or proceedings by the judicially created fictitious "immunity" doctrine'

gl. Respondent has furttrer violated Petitionet's firndamenral, unalienable rights to be

Free from deprivations of his Libertis by Respondent obviously not knowing the la% and not

knowing the facts of the case in a fair and equitabre maoner, and not acting with competency'

couNT m - RI-C.O.

S2.PetitionerPeterBreskoreallegesandreaversthesubstanceofpaagrryhsl.Sl,

hereiq and incorporates the same by this reference as if fully restated herein'

33.RespondentisaidingandabettingPetitionedsformerwife,whohascommitted

financiat fraud against the I.R.S. and state of New Jersey Division of raxatioru by depriving

petitioner of his liberties and other rights, is trying to elimioate petitioner fum his children's

lives, ufoile at the sasre time extort money from Petitioner, in the form of rmlaurfirl penalties'

This is not only a travesty ofj'stice, but constifirtes a criminar enterpise pursuant to RI'C'O'

raws (both Federal and state). Responden! being ajudiciar officer and pubric serrrant knows

full well that his continued presiding over the case in the absence of all jurisdiction constitutes

violations ofpetifioner,s federauy protected and state protected rights. Furthermore, Respondent

has a financial motivation in the case. If he can get petitioner to pay rmlaufirl fines to get out of

jail, this extortion is indirectly and directly related to increases in Petitioner's judicial pe'lrsion

and salary. Therein lies a m{or conflict of interest for judges sitting on casr uihere they have an

int€rest inthe financial outcome of such cases'

24

g4. Respondent has steadfastly refirsed to allow Petitioner redress of grievances and

has interfered with petitioneds parental dghts through us€ of kidnapping criminal resnaint' false

arres! false imprisonmeNrt, intimidation andte,troristic threattactics, uftichhave beenused in

other case before Respondent as well, and are in violation of the United States code, Title 18'

RI.C.O. and New Jersey Cdminal Statutes'

g5. Respondent is a "person" as thatterm is defined in 18 g-S.C- 1961(3) of RI'C'O''

with no entitlementto immunity forher unlal"ful conduct.

g6. At all times relevant, Respondent Crirchley was and is associated with an

,,enterprise,' as that term is defined in rg u.s.c. 196l(4) of R.I.c.o., which was and is engaged

in interstate, intastate and foreign commerce. For puqloses ofthis claim under 18 U'S'C' 1962

(a), o), (c), and (d) of R.I.C.O., the enterprise consists ofthe superior court ofNew Jersen the

Adminishative Office of the Courts, the Supreme Cotrrt ofNew Jersey, or in the alternative, an

association-in-fact of Respondent and Petitioneds formerwife and her attorneys, the Jersey

Battered womens, services who helped get Respondent promoted to superior court Judge and

now domestic violence j'dge, and others not yet na*e4 some who are all licensed lawyers by

private frat€fnal State Bar Associations and elements of tlre New Jersey Judiciary and/or

enjoying offices oftnrst, honor andprofit'

87. In violation of l8 U.S.C. |962(a),(b), (c), and (d) of RI.C.o., Respondent has

received and conspiredto receive, directly or indirectly' income derived from apatternof

racketeering activity (through funding program contracts with the state Judiciary for the

utavftr incarceration and housing of inmates (in this o,be,aoivil deainee)forprofit and gain)'

and has usrd orinveste4 or conspiredto use or invesf directly or indirectly, such income, orthe

25

proceeds of zuch income, in the operation of the New Jersey state co'rts or, alternatively an

association-in-fact with others. The above referenced income consists of incentive monies and

,,kickbacls,,. It is a money-making racket of gargantuan proportions--unconstitutionally and

unlaufirlry arresting and incarceratingpeopre, especialry in civil matters where there is no Fo'rth

Amendment Probable Cause to arrest, terminating parelrtal rights of male parents in New Jersey

and then forcing them through extortion at the point of a gun to pay ransom in the form of

penalties and/or child zupport for childrenthey cannot see beca'se Respondent is involved in an

Ilnconstitutional policy again* male parents'

gg. Respondent has and is engaging with others in the above refere' rced violations of

18 U.S.C. I g62(a),(b), (c), (d) of R.I.C.O. thrcugh a pattern of racketeering activity' as tlrat term

is defined in 18 u.s.c. 196r(1) (b) and rg u.s.c 196r(5) of RI.c.o. The racketeering acrivity

in which Respondent engaged and continuesto engage ininvolves interstate commercewiththe

intent to promote ,W,establish, carry on' or facilitate the promotion" manage'ment,

establishmenL or carrying on of thesuspending of Petitioner's First (lst), Fourth (4th)' FifttI

(sth), sixth (6th),Ninth (9ttr), Tenth (10th) and Foi[teenth (l4th) Amendments to the

con*itution for the unit€d stats of America and zuspending Article I, Paragraphs 1,2,3,5,6,

7,g,lO,lL,12,L3,!4,18,20,21,22'oftheRightsoflndividualsundertheNewJerseyState

Constitrtion.

g9. As"alleged in greater detail above, acts of mail fraud by which the Respondenf in

violation of the Federal lvlail Fraud statute, 18 U.S.c. 1341, caried out the above-referenced

scheme or artifice to expedite the proscribed unlaufirl conduct, by orderingP.etitionerthrouS

the mail, tbat his rights are being denie4 and by a notice to appear under th,eat of contemp! by

mailing/faxing/e+nailing a copy of the rmconstitutional, unlaufirl civil arrest u/aniant' and for

26

the rmlawful incarceration of petitioner, to get him into court to unlaufirlly gain in pefsonam

j,risdiction ovq'him tbrough fral4 deception' thrcd' d'ress, coercion and menace' while

Respondent Judge critchley was acting inthe absence of all jurisdiction'

g0.Theabove.referencedpredicateactsalloccurredaftertheeffectivedateofthe

implementation of the Federal R.I.C.O. stafi$e (octob€r l5,lg70) and within ten (10) years of

each other. Each of the Respondent's racketeering activities we,re undertaken for the purpose of

fi'thering a "o*mon

scheme or artifice to deny unrepresented litigants equal access to justice

(remedy-relief-recourse), obtaining proceeds tbrough unlawful imprisonment for debt [violation

ofNew Jersey constitgtion, Article I, paragraph 13 prohibiting imprisonment for debt in 6'all"

actions; vioration of the r3s Amendment prohibition against invorrmtary servitude and

imprisonment for debt; and in violation of 18 U.S.C. $$lssl (prohibition a$inst peonage) and

1589 (prohibition against forced labor), and firrthering the interference of Governmmt into

Petitioner's life without any compelling state interests.

91. Each such act of racketeering activity has similar purposes ' involving the

sarne or similar prtioipants and has similar results impacting similar victims, namely

Respondent Judge Thomas Critchley and/or his predecessors in int€rest and her

colleagues are part of a reclrring pattern of similar sche'mes, and this constitgtes a pattem of

of racketeering activity, as that temr is deined in 18 U'S'C' 1961($ of RI'C'O' The

Responde,nt herei{ named and those f* unnaled have conspired with each other to

committhe above referenced predicare acts'

gZ. As a direct and proximate result of Respon{elrt's activities and conduct in

violation of 18 u.s.c. 1962(a),(b), (c), (d) of RLC-O-, Petitioner has been unlaufirlly

and unduly injurd" damage4 oppressed, threafene4 coerced' menace4 intimidate4

27

badgered, harasse4 and has suffered er,tre,me anxiety, loss of sleep, loss of Liberty'

loss ofFreedom, loss of confidence, self-esteem and suffered financial ruination through

Respondent's and othe,r Judicial Misconduct and obstnrction ofJustice'

co'Nr*-ffiJ s8$m*o

93. petitioner peter Bresko realleges and reavers the substance of paragraphs l-9'

hereirU and incorporates the same by this reference as if fully stated herein

94. As a resglt of the direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned actions

by Respondenf Respondentcommitted genderbias hate crimes by violating Petitioner's

Constifirtionally protected parental rights on the basis of Petitioner's gender and marital

Status (divorced father)-

95. As a direct and proximafe cause of the afore,mentioned actions by

Respondent Judge Thomas critchley, Respondent committed gender in violation ofN'J'S'A'

2C:16-tas well as N.J.S.A .2C:334(d)--BIAS CRIME against Petitioner based on his gender

and marital status.

96. petitionerBresko had areasonable expectationthat such acting appointed

government officiar(s) wourd aot viorafe the supreme Laws ofthe Land and this sate and his

(thelr) oaths of office. under the provisions of 18 u.s.c. 1964 (c) of RI'C'O" Petitioner will/

not only seekteble damages andreasonable attorneys'fees forthose amotmts sought against

Respondent for the violations of petitioneds firndamental, ualienable rigfuts, but also seeks an

inmediafe suspension of Responde,nt Judge Thomas Cdtcirley's salary, a lie'lr against all of his

property, assets and holdings in said amount's, and firther demands an investigation erutue

28

against Respondent and others, and each of the'm" resulting in Impeachmelrt' suspension and

removal from office, dudng which interim, no finlhercases shouldbe assignedto them' and

cases currently onher docket" shouldbe reassigned as soon as possible so as notto admit of

delay.

97. Given the nature of comrption and malfeasance that permeates the Superior Court

ofNew Jersen specifically Morris cormty Family couG at this time, the General Asse'nbly has

no choice butto institute ImpeacbmentpMings againstResponde,nt Judge Thomas critchley,

wlro is an appointd not elde{ public servant'

9g. ,,The,rc comes atime when enough is more thnn enoug[. -- its just too much"'

Williamson v. 9.S,., 311 F-2d 4/.1,45 (5th Cir' 1962)'

99. The be'cbmark of the Gene.ral Assembly's inquiry is United Stxes v. Lee- 106

u.s. 196, 22A QSS}), udrerein the u.s. Supre'me court stated that:

,,fNJo man in this country is so high that he is above the law- No officer of the law

maysstthatlawatdefiancewithimpnity.Alltheofficersofthegovernment'ao- a"nighot to the lowest, are creaturcs ofthe law md are bound to obey it' ft

is the only zupreme pow€r in orn system of govenrmen! and wery man wh9 by

o".ptlGomo participates in its itmctionsis ontythe mol strcngly bormdto

submitto t* sgpremacv, andto obsenre the limitations v&ic'h it imposes upon

the exercise ofthe adhority ufuich it gives'"

WmREFORE, petitioner Peter Brcsko, respectfrrlly demands an investigation

forthwith ensue against RespondentJudge Thomas critchley and others to cleanup the Judicial

Miscondust inNew Jersey's State courts immediately;

a. Upon a finding of reasonable cause or suspicion' for the proscribed

29

con&rct demonsnated herein, forthwith impeach" tremove and forever suspend without

pay and pension, the above named Responden&-Judge Thomas crirchley;

b. During the interim, all cases presently assigned to the Respondelrt

be andthe same hereby re-assignedto another Judge who shall holdhis/her office in Good

Behaviour, and impartially discharge the business before him or her;

c. If good and sufficient cagse be found against the above named

Respondent for Impeachment, immediately wzeand put into the custody of the law, all

property, assets and holdings of or betonging to or in the possession of Respondent' including

Respondent,s judicial pension and/or any salery, pending final resolution on the medts of this

Petition, fs1 damages susained by the Petitioner'

Dated: Ilece,mber 8, 201 1

Ao 25 ChilhowielhiveKinnelor, New JerseY 07405

l-352-219- 1 391 (sister's cell)(Petitioner currentlY in MorrisCounty Correctional FacilitY,43 John St.o Monis TownshiP,NJ 07860).

30

Cc: AssemblY (80 members)

Governor Chris ChristieAdminisfrative Office of the Courts

Peggy Wright (DailY Record)

31