*

Peter Bresko

Larra Bresko
Joan Bresko
clo 25 Chilhowie

Drive

Kinnelon, New JerseY A7405 (352)219-1391

[rI THE GENERAT

OF

ASSpnl4qITY

Peter Bresko,

Petitioner,

vs.

NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGETHOh{AS J. CRITCHLEY, JR., Individually, ffid inher Official and
Coqporafe Capasity,

Respondenl

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

PETITIOI.IFORABILL OF

IMPEAffiDUETO JTJDICIAL / OFFICIAL MISCONDTJCT; JUDICIAL W;GOVERNMENT

OPPRESSION; VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE; OBSTRUCTION OF ruSTICE; NEW JERSEY STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VTOLATIONS; GENDER BIAS HATE CRIME; FLARASSMENT; RLC-O, I\{ALFEASAI{C E & MISFEASA}ICE

' Ardcle YI, Sestion YI, ParagraPhs 4 & 5; Article Vn, Section III, Paragraphs

1947 New Jersey

Star Constitution-

lo2&3

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

#:h:3ffi H'*#;'*fi
misdemeanor

;;tft'"d

duing their respective

retoimpeac.hmentror ,ffiffiffi '#fficontinuance in office."

B.

NewJerseySarcConstitution'ArticleT,Section3,Pamgreph2:

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

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

the the Senate-

1..

The New Jeruey

two A) sute constittrtion of rg47 provides

other concepts for imPeachment:

4: a Article VI, Section VI, ParagPPh

b. Article

vI,

section

vI,

Paragraph 5:

,,Wheneve,ftheSrry,remeCorntshallcertiryotheGovernorthatitappersthat

ffi*ff.ffiffiry-Hmmms'xt ;l;ffiffi;bffiA;";;;il -'v

u" ue pinvidea bv
41:

lau'

2.

Pursuant to New Jersey

Stelte

NJ'Sj''

l-l :

ffiffi tr#laf": allegiance:

'Every person Yhgis

or$1!-TJnYH by lawto give qp{!$aqce of fide[T jHhTffi {ff &3';:ail;ft ah-;f

ffi

and

that ,';r1i ""pp"'i ";s g:ff:i&"trott ;Tfr "L"i$tt"*e: andtheConstitution-ottheStateofNewJersey,andthatl to the same and to the
wilr bear true faitf and arreqiance states and in this state' the ilnited Governrnents establi.rrr"J l" people' So help me God.' authotitv oilhe under the

3.

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

md uphold the taking the oarh to suppor! protec! defend Judge Thomas J. Critchlen Jr., by
the p'rview of constit*tion ofNew Jersey, also falls'nder constitution of the united states and

Title 28 the Federal Statutes, United States Code,

judges),

U:Iu]'

against $$351 (filing of complaints

Ma

anQ455 (disqualification

for ofjudges) for direction on filing this Petition

behavior' ofjudges from office not acting in good Impeacbment, and regarding the reinoval disability, incompetence or for other reasons'

4.

Article

vII,

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

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

Responde,nt

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

'a+

adminis.tration

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

demonsuated hereinafter'

5.

Frrrtbermore, Title 2s

u.s.c.

for the $351 also provides

filing of a written

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

6.BecarrseneithertheNewJerseyConstitrrtioaorNewJerseystatrrteshavea
formalschemeforfilingofwritteircomplaintsinvolvingjudicialimpeachme,nt'Petitionrswill
guidance in 144' and 455 as their soyrce and united sffis code' 28 U-S.C. $$351, rely upon the political pragsaph 2 of fte New Jersey constihrtion states tbat all since Article I, this and instifided forthe protection' sec'rity power is inhereot inthe peopre, andthatfrvemm,lrtis or reform the sallre' have the dght at all times to alter benefit of the people, and the pople

mffier.

wheneverthepubricgoodmayrquireit

petitionershavetheriglttofilethispetitionfor

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

judgesfromofficeorsuethemduetoallegedfictionalimmrmities.

roRPETmoNroRlur,r,oFIMPEACuMENTAGAINST

STATEMENT/HISToRYAI{DNATUREoFPRoCEEI}ING

I\tEwJERSEYsurrnroncoI,RTJI]DGETHoMASCRITCfELEV
T.Petition,rsPetrBresko,I,auraBreskoandJoanBreskohavebeeirinvolvedwith Bresko filed for divorce fromhis theNewJersey family court system since PetitionerPeter No. FM20r r under Monis cormty Family court Docket former wife Re,nate Bresko in Jan.ry violence comptaing Docket No- Fv-840-l I ' r4-g7g_rr - Renate Bresko filed an aileged domestic (TRO*)' by petitiontir Brsko and was awarded a final Res'aining Older'
agpinst Peter

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

subsequent?iungon-ofmultipleviolationsofthe*"T'"torderbyhisformerwife'without
Bresko has heard before Respondeirt., Petitioner Peter substantiation or erride,noe, ttat have been protected panental rights without the rmceremonio'sly been deprived of his firndamentally

by Respondent' widence, justificarion' proof or substantiation prerequisite cles and convincing forms wife's diary' in m elrtry she wrote Accodingto PetitionerPeter Bresko's you will so so fucking divorce you-and

E.

ol Jury 26,2u,she

Stated

abo'tpetitioner thd..I wilr

fucking suffer for the rest of your

rife-.
a

petitionr peter Brsko's wife has sblked him as well'

ageinst his former domstic violence stalking charge Morris couuty Respondent critchlen uiho is the

when petitionerpeter Bresko brought wife, in Jrme 201l, the mder

wNIt before

petitionr petEr Brcsko's applicdion for Judge. Responde,nt critchrey denied Domestic violence enoug!proof Yef' Respon ent allowedPeterBreko's arcstrainingorder sayinghe didn'tbave

forrrerwifetofileunzubstanti*ed,uncorroboratedallegations.sinceMarchT'2oll FRo onm'ltiple occasions, effectively tNminatingPeter Respondent critchreybas amendedthe him' bail' refirsed multiple requesb to release rights, incarceraing him without Bresko,s puelrtal occasions. olders to Show cause on three sePtrde Respondent Critchley entered his own
and

asthe Respondent Judge Cdtchly has actd

Petitioner Peter Bre-sko and his &mily' being the stay-at-home dad for the As a result of Petitioner father Peter Bresko

9.
lice,rcse, the

pastsix(6)years'uihiletheformerwifegothercollegedegreeandcertifiedpublicaccorrnting access bondedto petitionerfather. Respondenthas deNddPetitiorer

childrenbame

13 years of agq and Peter Breskoo to both ofhis childrcrr, I(aterinaBresko,

h'

9 yea$ of age,

without cause or justification of harm to the childftn'

RESPONDENTJUDGETHOMASCRITCUI'EYHASACTEI) owN PERSoNAL BIAsr"s ANI) I]NCONSTITUTIoNALLY nv nv.mctr*c HIs PETMONEN' PETERBRESKO IMPROPRIETIES INTO THE C*SN ACANWT
withor$ due process or equal protection

10.RspondsNfbasjaildPetitionerPeterBreskoforoverS0daysasofthisvdting' and told him rmder law, as a result of the false cbarges

..rong as it takes for the mother and childrcn to bond"' that he will keep him in jail for as has carrsed the state to impropefly and Reqpondent being a state judicial officer fundamentally secured rtarcffal dghfs' unconstitutionally interfere with Petitioneds his oum personal biases and improprieties Responde,nt Critchley has interjected I

l.

petitioneds parentat dghts' In fact" petitioner wiftoril justificdion for terminating against includingPetitioner vendefia agpinstpetitioner's frmiln Respondeirthas made it apersonat Respoadent told Petsr Brsko mother, petitioner Joan BreskoLanra Bresko, and his t3-ywold by will have to pay penalties' as ordered unlaurfully that if he wants to get out ofjail he pay to get out he can get it from his family to and if he cannot pay the pe,nalties, Rspondent,

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

Amendmntp'obabre cause on on acivil aEestwarftrntissuedwitro'tForrth incarceration petitionerbad filed a ardhority kause z,zorrand issud witho't jurisdiction or september rest wrrmt prior to the hearing ad issumce of the Fedral Removal Notics and Petition g, 20')' bas caused petitioner peter Bresko was arrested 6 days'ater on satember (wherein custody action. dghts to defe,lrd the divorce and child him to be deprived of his due process by defarlt Child custody was grantedto the formerwife

RESpoNDEIrtr JITDGE CRrrcuLEy COURT/STAR CHAIYIBER' MISCONDUCT AII{D IS ACTING I'S-I';ruXCMOO POLICIES AGAINST A*AINST PETITIoNER BY Us^IA'irlvcorvsrrnrnomr, NON4T]STODIAL PARENTS

conmfirrrED

Orrrcur,lruorcr'lt

13.Itisclearlyrypuenttr*nesporragrrt&itchleynmsa"KanggooCourt/Star
chambefalongwiththerestoftheMonisCormtyFamilycourtjudiciaryinwhatcanonlybe ststodialpatena' Respondent Critcbley' being "(Inconstitutionol Poltcye against nontermed

aformerdomesticviolenceprosecutorinMonisCountyandnowaFmilyCorrrtDomestio

viole'ce

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

from Petitioner Bresko's domestic violence violence and shorrld have removed himself j
application instead of denying

it'

peter Bresko getting out ofjail, Respondent continually "mises As for petitioner that to do. Respondent critchley has ordered the baro regarding what Petitioner is required his formrcr wife can have money to petitioner pay m arbitrary anno'nt of $20,0fi) in penalties so his Bresko cannot pay the monies bwuse make a life for herself md the childre,n- Petitioner

14.

ja'ing

recently reduced bnrsiness to be desfroyed. Rspondntiust on false allegations caused his

the penarlies to $7,500.00, The

amord is obviousry abitrry,

hf

petitioner Bresko still cmnot

pay it.

job by the former wife,s new

15.Furthermorc,RespondenthasallegedthdPetitionrwasofferedagoodpaying thd ther is any job offer, husband. The record does not indicate

aiob possibility' with no wife,s new husbmd to Petitioner for but only m e-mail from the former petitioner contends therc no offer, even on letterhea4 guaxantffi orbenefits. since there was wasnooffer.Petitionercannotmakeadetermindionbetweenajobofferandane-mail.This
on the part of Rsspondent' indicates incompete'lrcy and impropriety

16.SinceerlySeptember2lll,RespondentCritchleyhasbeenactingrmfairlyand on inthe case against Peter Brsko' SinCe his arrest uconstit'tionally as Judge and P'osecr*or
se,pte,mberS,20ll,PAerBreskohasbeenbeforeResponde'nton6occasions'onealhofthose peter Bresko and has remanded him back to jail' Respondeirt has rcfised to release occasions, to Show Cause' in Respondelrt entered his own Orders One three (3) se,parate instmcc the why his Bresko to come fonrrard and demonstrate violdion of Judicial cmons, directing lr{r.
and sanctions' the court should not impose penatties prior court filings were frivolous and why how to ansv/er on the issues because he didn't know Bresko assertd Fifr Amendment claims Fiffh Respondentby Respondent sayrngthe the orders to show cause and was denigrdedby

Amendmentdoesnotapplyinfamilycourtcivilmatters-when"indee4theUnitedStates that it does' Supreme Court has said over and over
Respondeirt crirchley has filmed his Nowthere rmains no court dates pending. peter Bresko. Respondent Judge critchley has expressed his atteirtion to other cases involving

17.

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

well. Judge critchley is reaching into the landlordinfluence the outcome of those ",*es as Renate petitionerJoanBresko against bothpeter Brcsko andhis fornrerwife
tenantactionby
rcnt, Bresko for failure to pay Joan Bresko
aS

ase4

forover 3 years. Respondent critchley has

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

WITH HAS I]NLAWTT]LLY INTERI|:ERED RESPONDENT JT]DGE CRITCHTHT PARENTAL TROTERI"Y RIGHTS AND PETTflONER'S I}UE PRNESS NTi#S' RIGHTS
18.

RespnentCritchley,inconcertwithMonisCormtyFamilycourtJudge

petitioner peter Bresko of aproper divonce defense and catherine Enright conspired to deprive no jail, not being able to access the courts properly' having case, by holding Peter B'sko in

counse|andbasicallyis$uingadefrultjudgnelrtag8instPetrBrgkoonflimsyandarbitrary filed on septembr 2' by the Federal Notice of Removal

decisions. This has been compormded
put Petitioner Peter rmlaurfirlty and unconstit'tionally zorr,which precedes a[ issues that have

Breskoinjait.Theirunlaqfirlactionsandillegal@ingstoissuevoidordersadarrest courf' The evidence corfirmsthatPetitioner rcprse,lrtufiat is known as a'tangarco

warrants
Jersey prcve,ntion ofDomestic peterBresko has been punishd by mis'se and abuse of theNew riaws, for exencising his parental rights' viorence Laws in a state that has women/mother-ce,ntered N'J'S'A' 2A:l549dand the New Jersey Respndent crirchley has also violated of L,2 and3. Respondent bas failed to uphold the integrity Code of Judicial conduct, Canons sidingwiththe former wife on everymotion and &e co'rtandhas not asted impartially by is no evidence against Petitionertoterminae argumentpresentedbefore her, wenthougbthere to read has not acted diligently, as he has failed his f'ndamentar prental rights. Respondent rights in orderto bc petitioneds pleadings, has denied Petitioner's frmdamentally secured

lg.

.ann'(Jnconstiturional Policy" againstnonpolitically conect against males, and in practicing

custodial Parents-

critchley has assumed a personal There is no question that Respondent Judge violence violence case. The co'rt's odsinar domestic intrst in the orrtcome of the domestic Judge critchley Now, more thanr 9 months ldcr, Respondent order dates baokso lvlargh to eirter his ourn orders, and refirses to release contin'es to modif his prior orders, continues incarceration for acivil disput'

20.

7,zlll.

petitionerpeterBresko fromrmlaufirl andrmconstit'tional

as being a supreme cornt md u's' courts of Ap'peals ufuich has been adjudicated by the u-s. probable cause to arbst exists in civil mattrs' vioration of the Fourth Amcndme,lrt bucause no has not been convicted of any crime' and despite the fact Petitioner Peter Bresko

OTTICHUJTTDICIAL MISCONDUCT RF,SPOI{DENT JTJDGE CRITCSLEIS'S

PRESENTSarrcnnnoFAIrtulrr-msvsrnrvrTHATHAsDAMAGEDTEE
NTTNCNTTV OF

Tffi

NEW JER,SEY JTIDICIARY

nentality

official de,privation of N.J.S.A. 2A:r54gd. Respondent Judge critchley violafes N'J'S'A' 2C:.30' petitionr Peter Bresko's civil righfs and pattern of official misconduct' pattern of conduct presNrts a pict're of an 6 and N.J.S .A.2C:30_7, respectively. Respondent's inedemabry damagedthe credibility and unfair system formale and pro se ritigants andhas
and vioraies

21.

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

integrty of the New Jersey Judiciary' 22.PetitionerPeterBreskohasthrcecriminalcbargespendinginMonisCountyand

initiatedby battened womens' services and sarem corurty, as part of the..piling on- doctine judges. h[r. Bresko's family, petitioners La'ra Bresko and domestic viorence proscutors and posted of $25,000 on the Monis cormty ohargc and Joan Bresko, have posted bail in the amo.nt 18,2011' Respondent Judge crirchley bail on the sale,m county charges as well. onNovember judges who were handling the criminar cases in Monis indicatd that he intended to speak with this revoke petitioner peter Bresko's bail. As of and salem counties and encourage them to been revokd, orthere is an atternptto uniting it seems thatthe bail in salem county has,

indd

revoke.

23.

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

is pelsonallybiasd againsthim andhis biased againstPetitionerPeterBresko, but

family'

crirchley has violated his oarh of ofEce' Laura and Joan Bresko. AS a result, Respondent aBias Intimidationcrime committed offEcial Misconduct, mdhas committed
N.J.S.A. 2Czl6-\.

inviolationof

RESPoNDENTJIIDGECRITCHI,EYHAsACTEDINTffiABSENCEoFALLEAI) ca"sn sINcE Tm sTArE cAsE JuRrftDrcrroN rN PpTttronnR'slrlm ns^spoNDENT rssrlrNc A BEEN REMo\rEo fo rEtERAr coui$imonro Ar{D STIBSEQT]ENTLY cwIL ARRDST Winnar,{T asnisfrn-rmounn IMPRISONED;
AND TALSELY HAVING fffmOffin rll,Sruv,ffn6rso sAs Nmffinous uNcoNsrrrurroNAl REspoNDENT JuDcE gnmcm'ri mr vIoLATtr{G PETm0NER'S C0}mLICTSOT-II.ITEREST rMVN^IWNTAITV SECI'RED RIGHTS

rglt

$uhqueNrt to Petitioner Peter Bteskoos

24.Frrrthermore'alloftheordersissuedbyResponde,lrtJrrdgeCritchleycafire 2:11+v45098-ccc Federal Reinoval Astion, Case No.

action 2:l r-cv-5346' presently pe'nding _JAD. Respondent critchley is arso a defendmt in civil petitione* Inuxa and Joan Bresko have also fild suit in Federal inthe District ofNew Jersey. civil astion 2:ll*rr46907-ccc-JAD BRESK' co'rt agaiost Respondent Judge critchley,nder Fedral crirchley is not only a defendmt in these et al v. CRITCHLEY, st al. Responde,nt
actions, has state case againstpetitionerpeterBresko b,oby Respondeirtcontinuingto sit ontbe

an unconstitrilional

conflict-of-intergt

25.InhisfedralsuitagainstRcspolrdentCritchley,PefitionerPetefBreskoalleges of of e*otional dishess' negligent infliction of 42 U.S.C. $lgg3, inteifional infliction violations abuse of legal process, official arrest, farse imprisonment, malicious
emotionar dishess, false

misconduct'andstatecon*itrrtionald$tsviolrations.PeterBreskoissuingRespondent Critcbtey for $1 0,000,000 for these violations'

interest in the

26.BecauseRespondentfudgeCritchleyisade,fe,ndantinthefederalactions'hehas filing suit (a) Punish Petitioner Peter Bresko for state domestic violencr action to:

againsthlm;o)punishPetitionerPeterBrcskoforalsobringingajudicialmiscondugtcomplaint though it against Rsspondfft critohtey<ven withthe Advisory committe on J'dicial coduct AcJc isnothing morethan a*nrbber stamp" is commontnowledge with&epublicthatthe
Peter Bresko than finds against them; (c) kee'Ping committee that srryports judges ratlrer nou' civil complaints orhis divorce complaing whichhas inoarcerdted so he cannot proscutehis subsrantiate and (d) this a[ows Respondent Judge critchley.to been defa'ltd against him; and

claims by manioulatehis oqm defenses ndwdeminePeterBresko's

uafmga self-serving

I
record.

2T.ResporrdentJrrdgeCrirchleyisalsoadefendantinafedemlac.tionpendinginthe NorthernDisfrictofFloridatbsthasbNltransfrldtotheNewJerseyDistrictfiledby peter Breskoos sister and Joan petitioners La'ra Bresko and Joan Bresko. La'ra Bresko is
allege violations of 42 U'S'C' $1983, 42 U's'c' Bresko is peter Bresko,s mother. The Bresko's negligent infliction of e,motional distness, intentional infliction of emotionar disrress, $1gg5, s*te constitutionat dghts violations, malicious use of legal p'ocess, official misconduct, violations. The plaintiffs are zuing liber, slander, invasion of privacn and RICo defamation" Respondent Critchley for more than $10'000f000'

2g.

Because Respondent

cdtcil+

oisaist is agpin a defendant in yet another Federal

of Flori<la and has been transferd to the court Action, that started in the Northem Dipnict has an interest-conflict-of-intrest- inthe state Disuict ofNew Jersen Responde,nt critchl+ family to fo"iru petitionerpeterBresko beca'se his domestic violence astionto (a) continue keep Pet'rBresko incarceratd so he cannot filed zuitagainstRespondent Judge Critcil+ &) his claims,lr"l *u Respondent is dmpting to s'bstmti*e assist his family in prosecrring their
I

own defenses to underrrine the Bresko"

29.

Respondent Judge critchley

for his actions as ajudge over this case. H{wwer, Advisory conmittee on Judicial

"r{tt *" rY *:rl** misconduct inquitry f^ "* b""ause of his self-serving statements to the
I

by creating a self-serving

reord'

conduct,1^*ot petitionerpeterBresko,

being incarcerated'

judicial could not timely respond the

*t"{tat"
I

judicial complaint nms dismissd- This

yet anotherconflict-of-interestwherebyhe is miscond'ct complaintagainst Respondent {*".a judicial misconduct complaint against hin0, (b) (a) punishing petitioner petsr Bresko f"r fi4"g a l-. and peter incarcsatd so ue cann{t prosrcrse his judicial miscond'ct complaint' he is keeping

his (c) is using the iricarceration of Peterto zulsantiate

30.

Given that trro (2) launuits fnd

judicial misconduct case have arisen against

Respondent Judge Critchley in the ,tutu

*{t,

Respondent has an interest' albeit a conflict-of-

incarcrated without Due proCess' henoe' interest, in the outcome of keping PetidoSr petitioner of his Liberties, his biased manner to deprive Respondent has pnesided in an uofair and

r0

mdhisRightsprnsumtto childrcn, his hopertyRights, his DueProcessRights'

kotectionUnder Law.

E$nl

31.

he was presiding over, Renate

that tb state case Aftsr the Respondent Judge Critcbley received official Notice to Bresko v. Peter Brcsko- FV-1+840-11, had been removed

critehley nevertheless e,ntered an federal court at gz02 um.on september 2,2011, Respondent peter Bresko based ullon an arleged violation ofNew Jersey rmlaufirl civil arrest warraot against

Co'rt Rule 5:3-7. peter Bresko was arrested six (O

days after

1fos

filing of the Fede'ral Notice of

Respondent Crirchley on six occasions Removal, on September 8, 2011, and brought before
sinoe his incarceration.

on

each occasion, Mr. Bresko enplainedthatthe case bas benrc'moved

jurisdiction as of se,ptember 2,2011'Nevertheless' to federal cornt and that the sta;te court lacked unlawfully rejected the argUment and on all six occasions, Respondent Critchley arbitarily and
formd cause to re,mand Mr. Bresko backto

jail'

was brougfut before Following his Septe,lnber 8, 2011 incarceration, Mr' Bresko g,z0rr.There, the court explained that IvIr. Bresko's arrest was Judge critchrey on se,pte,mber to N.J. Ct Rule R 5:3-7 ' Despite the fact the result of a violation of a parenting order, purnrant

32.

and pending for violations of a domestic that there were criminal contcmpt compraints filed rmder apeal in the appell*e division on grormds

violence resnaining ordero which in itselfwas

Critchley granted the it did not rise to the level of domestic viole,nce even thoug! Respondent
Judge continued bis FRO, and for \ryhich Mr. Bresl(o had posted bail, thc Respondent ..I intend that the incarceration should continue until she tRenate incarceratio4 ls6ssning,

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

jail onRespondentJudge Now, morethm 3 months later, Petr Bresko rcmains in Respondeirt crirchley firrther Critchley's unlartfirl and unconstitutional civil arrest warrant of certain property belonging explained that until !"1r. Bresko makes arrangements for the rehrn rmtil that time." The property in to Renate Bresko, it is likely he will remain incarcerated

3i'.

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 divorce Petitioner Peter Bbesko and make him "suffer for the rest of his life"; 3. Photo albums; 4. Handmade baskets;
5. 7,

A Cherry Wood bowl;

6. A

bicycle;

A kitchen-aid mixer; 8. Children's toys; and 9. Chil&en's clothes and otherpersonal iterhs. This list of nine commonplace items, nrhich should be the zubject of

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 difficulty

I

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 actionI

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.

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

intrrogated 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

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

jail.
*I intend to get to the ofthis grotesque fraud

36.

Respondent Critchley,strated

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

t2

isansweredhewillnotberereased-,,
against Petitioner Peter

Respondenthastrmedthecaseintoapersonalve'ndetta

Brc*o'

3T.PetitionerPetgBreskoappearedbeforeRespondentJudgeCritchleynexton
on his behalf. Again he explained to the 27,20Ll.Again he had no attomey to speak Septe,nber

Resp[ondentthathiscasehasbeenre,movedtofederalcour!andagainthestatecorrrtrejected
the argume,lrt.

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

38.

*stepped down offthe on septe,mber 27,zlll,Respondent critchley

be'lrch" and

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

petitioner's clross and show ca'se why cause requesting Mr. Bresko come forward to Show
orders and arrest warrant, shourd not be deemed motion fired in opposition to Respondent,s

on the the case had bee,n re,moved to Federal cornt. frivolous zubjecting him to sanc,tions, since
one case was removedto Federat court' han4 Respondent Judge critchley says that sincethe

meritless' Ye! on the other hand Respondent Petitioner Bresko's pleadings are frivolous and
Judge Critcbley ignores the Fede,ral removal

actioi and continues to act in the absence of all

of impartiality and lack of j'risdiction. This is evidence of Respondent Judge critchley's lack
petitioner while acting in the absence of all comlrtence in the matten he is bringing against

jurisdiction.

39.

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

silent. Respondent crirchley rejected that Bresko invoked his 5tr Ame'dment dght to remain
him back to jail. Even thoug! the Mr. Bresko had any 5th amendment protections and remanded
56 Amendment protmtions not only unitd states supreme courthas heldtime and againthat

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

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

Octobr 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 remanded Mr. Bresko back to

tivolous, imposed $20,000 in sanctions, and

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.

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

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'
a

M.

Now, more than 80 days since Mr. Bresko incarceration from

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 Stats Constitution, continues to issue fintherrmconstitutional andrmlaufirl orders,

and refirses to release Petitioner Peter Bresko fi'om

jail.
case that case,

47.
comes before

It is the Respondent Judge's obligation to see that justice is done in every

i

him. This includes not only reaching the correct legal result in the particular

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 Petitionr (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 known that he is

it

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%"
RrcErs
OF HIS

cRIMEsriiltiffiUrl'-:Woxnuqqrrrcnl "" AI{D PATTERN o'x tir

ffiEI.IcE or AtL

unpnrvafr -qd.rycgrs' ororrrciii'nd$qb'q{pu-cr'nrilEI1ryGPETrrrohtER

lrvfiffi*Ei@gfnffi lcTntc lN rm Jt RrsDrcrroN

53.PetitionerBreskoreallegesandreaversthezubstanceofparagaphsl-52,herein' as if fully stated herein' and incorporates the same by this reference 54.PetitionerBresko,andhisfamily,Petitionersl-auraandJoanBreskohavebeen cause' unalienable rights and liberties by Respondent without

deprived of firndane,ntal,

liberties by Respondent has now j'stification, zubstantiation or proofs. The deprivation of his
become punishment without any trial by

j'ry.

petitioner Peter The Responde,nt refuses to release

refirses to allowhim to speat humiliates Bresko from rmconstitutional, rmlaufirl incarceration, him, and deprives him ofhis Godhim in open cour! threatens him, intinidates him, admonishes cause' given parent-child relationship for no reasonable

55.

unalienable dghts of enjoying This is violation of petitionels nafirral and

pursuantto theNew Jersey life and liberty andpursuing safety and happiness
Constitution" Article I, Paragraph 1'

56.RespondentJudgeThomasCrirchley,asaSuperiorCourtJudgeofthestateof oppression anrd judicial tyranny' bas us'rped New Jersey (Monis co'nty), tluough government
violafed petitioner peter Bresko's fimdamental, his authority andhas s'.spended, chilled and
state the unlted states of America and New Je'mcy rurarienable rights under the constitution for

Constitrtion
and is continuingto perpefrate official Respondent Judge Thomas Ctitchley has

57,

t7

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

,,A public senrant is

.it:i*

or deprive mother of abe'nefit:

ufiq with stilty of ofrcial misconduct

purpose

to' '

a.Hecornmitsana6trelatirrgtohisofficebrrtconstitrrtingan act is that such

una'tnorireO

offiJral fimctions' knowing such act in an rmauthorized mannf," nnauthorized or he is committing

*r*i". ;hit

5S.RespondenthasdeprivedPetitionerofthefimdamentallysecure4constitutional without children" due process and property rights liberties, parent-child relationship with his
therefore depriving Petitioner justification" substantiation, evidence, proofs or any evidence, his fimdamental

of

rists without a compening state intere$t Respondent is therefore

liable to

Petitioner for harm and damages to his rights'

srate intrst, Respondent is in

59.BydeprivingPetitionerofhisfundamentallysecrrredristswithoutacompelling ofNJ.sA .2c2304(off6cial deprivation of civil rights):

violation

anofficial capacity A public servmt actingorpurportingto act in rights if' howing commis the crime Jim.,i.t a.ptiu"tiooof civil th"thir conduct is unlaufirl, and actingwiththepufposeto i"ti*iartr or discriminate "iptttt an inaiviOttat or group-of gender' l;an9icaP' individuals because of race,-color, religion' (2) denies or *,,r.1 orientation or etbnicity, the public servant or e4iolment of any dght' i"til tt"tntt

i-p"Oo -"tUo

privilege, Power or immunitY'

b.

"*.oite

(1) Except as provided in paragraphs Q) and(3) of this F provrsrons or *iUt""tiot" a public servant who violates the ][[,*.d;u- ortni, section is gtritty of a crime of the third degrce.
or any other law' Notwithstanding the provisionsgfN'{'S' 2C:1-8 orom"ili deprivarion of civil rights under ttis section other *TT"t offe'nse' Jfrutt oot merge with a *oui"ti* of any a conviction under this nor shall such other conviction m,fge with upon each ,."tioo, and the cornt shall impose separafe s ntnces offense' violation of this section and any other criminal

;;;;.dr"

d.

18

e.Forprrrposesofthissctioqanactisunlaurfrrlifitviolaresthe of this state,

consdfifi;;Jtn

unitd starfs orthe constindon

orifit*"''i*-'t''acriminaloffensermderthelawsofthisState.
60.Respondenth3sintimidatedandthreatenedPetitioner.Ropondentbasviolated
gender bias, discrimination and petitioney's Constit'tionally secured rights by perpetrating

intimiddion in violation

ofNJSA '2C:30'6'

61.

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

g0daysandisbeingdeniedafundamentallyprotectedrelationshipwithhischil4without
reason.

62.

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

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

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

misconduct if A person commits the crime of pattein of ofrcial he commits two or more acts that violate the provisions gfllJ's'

2C:3&i2orsection2ofP.L.2003,c-31(c'2c:30-o'Itshallnot plan or rc u a"i*r" tnut tn" violations were not part of a oorrmon *n...'*didnothavesimilarmethodsofcommission

b.

the second degree if Pdtern of official misconduct is acrime of is_a first or second oo" oiii" acts comnited by the defendant the third degree' provide4 a crime of Oegfee crime; othe^rrise, ofnonimprisonmeirt set forth in however,
been convictsd of an offense shall not apply' or any other l3w, NotwiCIianding the provisions of N.J.S. 2C:l-8

ptt"i;;lt

,ou,""tiooe.ofNJ.S.ZC: $tforpersonsuihohavenot

tnaiae

itl

a*""irti* or-ilt"* of official misconducf official depliv{ion such other Jgt t , * *y other criminal offense, nor shall srctioq md the "r"iii *"ni"tioi;."g" with a conviction rmder tbis

ofN.J'S' cotrt shall impose seerate senteirces upon eachviolation (c'2C:306 and c.3l 2C-3o:2and sestions 2 ald3 of P.L. 2W3, C.2C:30'7)

63.

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

19

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

former wife's and acting in concert with Petitioneds

dorney' vl&o wam't

eve'n a licnsd

attomeyuihenhetookonrepresentation'rmlavftlly,oftheformerwife.
COUNT tr

OT THE OBSIRUCTION OFJUSTICfE AI{D YIOLATION

NEWJERSEYconsrmmonANDcoNsTITUIToNFoRTffi
I]I\I TED STAIES OT AIVIERICA

he,reiq

6s.PetitionerPeterBreskoreallegesandreaversthesubstanceofparagraphsl.64' as if ftlly stated herein' and incorporates the same by this ref,re'lrce

66.

the Constitution for the Unitd States Respondent has violated his Oattr to srryport

by denying Due Process, Equal kotestion of the of America and New Jersey State Constitution sec,red librty interests, due process dghts' Laws, Depriving petitioner of his firndamentally him with forc,e to intimidate him in Court' equal protection dghts, parental rights, theatening
as mentally distrrbedwhen all mentalhealthexperts attempting to paintPetitioner in abadlight has violated petitioneds fimdamental' ,nalienable involved inthe case say he is not. Respondent I of theNew Jersey state constihrtion' Freedoms and Rights under Article I, Paragraph
67

crimes, in violation Respondent has cornrritted gender bias

ofN'J'S'A '2C:16-l

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

in violation against intimdatign and threats, and also

ofNew Jersey constihrtion' Article

I'

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

tLADl.

68.

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

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
69.
Under Canon

ftg#lff

rr'dicial

l,

Conduct by Respondent Critchley violated the Code of Judicial

which he is entitle4 while Respondent is viorating and denying petitioner an of his Rights to
and rmlaufirlly violate Petitioner's acting in the abse,nce of all jurisdiction to unconstitutionally

without any vestige of due Rights. Petitioner's parental rights were summarily trminatd
process or equal protectionunderthe law'

70.
by

as a Respondent Critchley has tstified on the record

litigat

and adversary

petitioner,s Federal re,moval action is frivolous and amotionfiled againstpetitionerby claiming and defend petitioner is also frivolousn which deprives Petitioner the right to access the courts petitioner that he wil not release Petitioner'1mtil he himserf. Respondent threatened Petitioner's Respondent "stpped down" offofthe bench as [RespondentJ feels like it". adversary, and therefore, lost all immunities'

71.

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

prohibitions, and clearly petitioneds dghts in usurping crearly estabtished lawand constitrtional
has a speciat intercst in
a former domestic violating Petitione'fs rights because Responde'n! being

judge in Monis Cormty, believes he is above violence prosec'tor and now the domestic violence
secured rights' the law and continues to violate Petitiorer's fundamenAlly Conducq and violated Uqder Canon 3, Responde,nt violated the Code of Judicial

72.

and denied

petitionerhis rights by usurping clearly established law and Constitutional

his male gender, and his prohibitions, by "discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of (bias hate cripes), and the New marital status (divorced father) in violation ofN.J.S.A .2C.16'l paragraph v [which prohibits disqimination on the basis of Jersey state constit'tior1 Article I, and rights of state inhabitants]' genderJ and Paragraphs )o(I and )oil tfights of victims

27

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

A.wtfl{Ess'mNcE,rAn|PgnuvcwrrgTffiSTATE&FEDERALCASE
73-RespondenthasfirtherviotatedPetitione'dsrights,inviolationofcanon3
prccess depriving petitioner his liberties and due of the Judicial conduct code, by denying and petition,fs rights to force him to take an improper psychological rights. Respondent is violating

is is not rerevant to the matte,r at hand. Respondent that is not required by any law and that test him to justif taking and find somefhing w*rng o'ft! forcing petitioner to take said test to try petitioneds former wife custody and all parental dghts to away his parental rights and giving sore
Jury 26,2009:"I who has stafed in her own penonar diary on

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

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

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

of is tampering with evidence in violation

trd

Respondent

N'J'S'A '2C.28-5 Campering with witnesses) and

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

74.
process of

Respondeirt has effectivety suspended

Petitioneds

rights to Due (14th)

Amendments

the Fifth (5th) and Fo'rtee'nth raw, both proced'rally and substantiveln 'nder America Respondent has deprived of the constifirtion forthe united states of

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

75.

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

and tben accuses Petitioner cagse or any other petitions to defend himself,

*frivolous" sf filing

applications to the

co'n

petitioleds fimdamentar s*bstantive and Respondent is hampling

procedrrraldueprocessdghtsinamaliciorrscampaigntodeprivehirnofhislibertiesandhis
Petitioner petitioner.s parent-child bond with his children by keeping children, and to break
22

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

thechildre,haveexpressedtheirdesiretobewiththeirfather.

76.

violations of the provisions Respondent Jqdge critchley is in firrther

ofNJ'S'A-

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

Federal since the state case has been re,moved to
remanded back to state court as of December

co,rt on September 2'2011and

has not been

g,z}lr,Respondent is also in violation ofthe

united States cdminal code, Title

18

citirens' and U.S.C. 24l-conspiracy Against Rights of

Title

18

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

77.

Title

f nlftwo

u-s-c- 241

""i
ffi

ten years, or bolh; and death results, $10,000 or imprisoned not more t" rirUi*t to impritonment for any term of years or for life"'

mw;:.n:mm;ruffi"JH*:ffi m'* if ' rr

;t*"t*
ii*t
oi*y

i1rr"n6i, Ao "*.oG

states: or more persons conspire to injure, opprcss'

t!rynteq or intimidate or e,njolment of any riglt orprivilege

*d;hdl

78.

Title

18 TJ-S.C-242 $ates:

ordinance' regUption' or custom' 'Whoeve,r, rmder color of my law, stahrte' Stde, Territory, or Disfiictto the willtully srfijects roitits securd or protec'ted by deprivation of any ti'gntt, prirrileges, oi imn oitna Unite4 States, or to differcnt prmishmrents' the Constitt1ion ot

p"l*,*p*uftio,o"**t-tofsuchinhabitantbeinganalien"orby for the prmishment of reason of his color, or racc' than are pmescribed ;d"*", shall be nr"a o"i *ot" than- $1'000 or imprisoned not more tban
dr"th results shalt be stfij@t to imprisoament one year, or both; any term of Years or for life."

;Jlf

for

Tg.RespoadentisfirrtherviolatingtheprcvisionsofTitlelsU'S'C'241atd242'
arong with N.J.S.

petitioner like chattel property A.2C:30-2,2C:304 and2cz30-7 by treating

is based on fraudulent pretenses, by with no rights and made liable to pay an alleged "debf'that prmishment dnd continud uncolstitutional' the use of trreats, coercion, duress, menace'

unlawful imPrisonment

S0.BydenyingPetitionerthepanoplyofrigltsthathewasandcontinrrestobe
23

fimdamental' unalienable figh8 under the entitled to, Respondent violated Petitioneds andNew Jersey state constitution' and also constitution for the utritod ststes of America Act of (3), and 1986 of the 1866 and 1871 Civil Rights violared 42 U.S.C. 1983, 19S5(2) and Judge the divorce judge' Monis County Family Colrt Congress, in a conspiracy contextwith pedtionr,s former wife and her attorney, and other u'rnamed co-conspirators, cafiherine E*ignq immrme from any kind of civil rights deprivation who continually insist that they are virtuany judicially created fictitious "immunity" doctrine' actions, zuits, or proceedings by the firndamenral, unalienable rights to be Respondent has furttrer violated Petitionet's

gl.

Free from deprivations of his

la% Libertis by Respondent obviously not knowing the

and not

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

couNT m

- RI-C.O.

hereiq and

S2.PetitionerPeterBreskoreallegesandreaversthesubstanceofpaagrryhsl.Sl, as if fully restated herein' incorporates the same by this reference

financiat fraud

33.RespondentisaidingandabettingPetitionedsformerwife,whohascommitted Division of raxatioru by depriving against the I.R.S. and state of New Jersey

petitioner fum his children's petitioner of his liberties and other rights, is trying to elimioate penalties' from Petitioner, in the form of rmlaurfirl lives, ufoile at the sasre time extort money to RI'C'O' constifirtes a criminar enterpise pursuant This is not only a travesty ofj'stice, but knows being ajudiciar officer and pubric serrrant raws (both Federal and state). Responden! in the absence of all jurisdiction constitutes full well that his continued presiding over the case and state protected rights. Furthermore, Respondent violations ofpetifioner,s federauy protected to get out of he can get petitioner to pay rmlaufirl fines has a financial motivation in the case. If in Petitioner's judicial pe'lrsion jail, this extortion is indirectly and directly related to increases have an of interest for judges sitting on casr uihere they and salary. Therein lies a m{or conflict
cases' intrest inthe financial outcome of such

24

g4.
has interfered

Respondent has steadfastly refirsed to

allow Petitioner

redress of grievances and

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

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

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

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

g5.

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

RI'C'O''

with no entitlementto immunity forher unlal"ful conduct.

g6.

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

,,enterprise,' as that term is defined

in rg u.s.c. 196l(4) of R.I.c.o., which was and is engaged

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

o),

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

ofNew Jersey, or in the alternative, an Adminishative Office of the Courts, the Supreme Cotrrt
and her attorneys, the Jersey association-in-fact of Respondent and Petitioneds formerwife

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

j'dge,

and others not yet

na*e4

some who are all licensed lawyers by

tlre New Jersey Judiciary and/or private fratfnal State Bar Associations and elements of

enjoying offices oftnrst, honor andprofit'

87.

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

income derived from apatternof received and conspiredto receive, directly or indirectly' contracts with the state Judiciary for the racketeering activity (through funding program

utavftr

o,be,aoivil deainee)forprofit and gain)' incarceration and housing of inmates (in this indirectly, such income, orthe orinveste4 or conspiredto use or invesf directly or

and has usrd

25

Jersey state proceeds of zuch income, in the operation of the New

co'rts or, alternatively an

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

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

in civil matters where there is no Fo'rth unlaufirlry arresting and incarceratingpeopre, especialry
parelrtal rights of male parents in New Jersey Amendment Probable Cause to arrest, terminating

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

of

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

Ilnconstitutional policy again* male parents'

gg.

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

of

pattern of racketeering 18 U.S.C. I g62(a),(b), (c), (d) of R.I.C.O. thrcugh a is defined in 18 u.s.c. 196r(1) (b) and rg

activity'

as tlrat

term

u.s.c 196r(5) of RI.c.o.

The racketeering acrivity

interstate commercewiththe in which Respondent engaged and continuesto engage ininvolves 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

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

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

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

g9.

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

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

by orderingP.etitionerthrouS scheme or artifice to expedite the proscribed unlaufirl conduct, to appear under th,eat of contemp! by the mail, tbat his rights are being denie4 and by a notice

civil arrest u/aniant' and for mailing/faxing/e+nailing a copy of the rmconstitutional, unlaufirl
26

petitioner, to get him into court to the rmlawful incarceration of

unlaufirlly gain in pefsonam

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

critchley was acting inthe

absence

of all jurisdiction'

g0.Theabove.referencedpredicateactsalloccurredaftertheeffectivedateofthe
(octobr implementation of the Federal R.I.C.O. stafi$e

l5,lg70)

and within ten (10) years

of of

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

fi'thering

"o*mon

equal access to justice scheme or artifice to deny unrepresented litigants

imprisonment for debt [violation (remedy-relief-recourse), obtaining proceeds tbrough unlawful 6'all" Article I, paragraph 13 prohibiting imprisonment for debt in ofNew Jersey constitgtion, invorrmtary servitude and actions; vioration of the r3s Amendment prohibition against
imprisonment for debt; and in violation of 18 U.S.C.

$$lssl (prohibition a$inst

peonage) and

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

Petitioner's life without any compelling state interests.

91.
sarne

purposes Each such act of racketeering activity has similar

'

involving the

or similar prtioipants

namely and has similar results impacting similar victims,

predecessors in intrest and her Respondent Judge Thomas Critchley and/or his colleagues are part of a

reclrring pattern of similar

sche'mes, and this constitgtes a pattem

of

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

Responde,nt

RI'C'O'

The

herei{ named and those

f*

unnaled have conspired with each other to

committhe above referenced predicare acts'

gZ.

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

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

injurd" damage4

oppressed, threafene4 coerced' menace4

intimidate4

27

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

Liberty'

suffered financial ruination through loss ofFreedom, loss of confidence, self-esteem and
and obstnrction ofJustice' Respondent's and othe,r Judicial Misconduct

co'Nr*-ffiJ
93. 94.
as hereirU and incorporates the same by this reference

s8$m*o
l-9'
if fully
stated

petitioner peter Bresko realleges and reavers the substance of paragraphs

herein

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

by violating Petitioner's by Respondenf Respondentcommitted genderbias hate crimes

gender and marital Constifirtionally protected parental rights on the basis of Petitioner's Status (divorced father)-

95.

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

gender in violation Respondent Judge Thomas critchley, Respondent committed

ofN'J'S'A'

2C:16-tas well

as

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

and marital status.

96.

petitionerBresko had areasonable expectationthat such acting appointed

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

/ forthose amotmts sought against not only seekteble damages andreasonable attorneys'fees
petitioneds firndamental, Respondent for the violations of

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

will

ualienable rigfuts, but also seeks an

Cdtcirley's salary, a lie'lr against all of his inmediafe suspension of Responde,nt Judge Thomas
an investigation erutue property, assets and holdings in said amount's, and firther demands

28

in Impeachmelrt' suspension and against Respondent and others, and each of the'm" resulting
shouldbe assignedto them' and removal from office, dudng which interim, no finlhercases
cases currently

onher docket" shouldbe reassigned as soon

as possible so as

notto admit of

delay.

97.

the Superior Court Given the nature of comrption and malfeasance that permeates
at this time, the General Asse'nbly has

ofNew Jersen specifically Morris cormty Family couG

no choice butto institute wlro is an appointd not

ImpeacbmentpMings

againstResponde,nt Judge Thomas critchley,

elde{

public servant'

9g. 99.
u.s. 196,

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

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' it' ft ao- a"nighot to the lowest, are creaturcs ofthe law md are bound to obey by and wery man wh9 is the only zupreme powr in orn system of govenrmen!
participates in its itmctionsis ontythe mol strcngly bormdto upon sgpremacv, andto obsenre the limitations v&ic'h it imposes submitto the exercise ofthe adhority ufuich it gives'"

o".ptlGomo

t*

WmREFORE, petitioner

Peter Brcsko, respectfrrlly demands an investigation

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

Miscondust inNew Jersey's State courts immediately;

a.

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

29

forever suspend without con&rct demonsnated herein, forthwith impeach" tremove and
pay and pension, the above named Responden&-Judge Thomas crirchley;

b.

During the interim, all cases presently assigned to the Respondelrt

holdhis/her office in Good be andthe same hereby re-assignedto another Judge who shall
him or her; Behaviour, and impartially discharge the business before

c.

If good

and sufficient cagse be found against the above named

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

all

including property, assets and holdings of or betonging to or in the possession of Respondent' resolution on the medts of this Respondent,s judicial pension and/or any salery, pending final
Petition, fs1 damages susained by the Petitioner'

Dated: Ilece,mber 8, 201

Ao 25 Chilhowielhive
Kinnelor, New JerseY 07405 l-352-219- 1 391 (sister's cell) (Petitioner currentlY in Morris County Correctional FacilitY, 43 John St.o Monis TownshiP, NJ 07860).

30

Cc:

AssemblY (80 members) Governor Chris Christie Adminisfrative Office of the Courts Peggy Wright (DailY Record)

31