Yes, according to published articles Lillie Coley was subject to laws of the state, in this case personal jurisdiction through property ownership, and contrary to the rule of law, the other party, a male, not subject to these same laws when he has property and thus personal jurisdiction as well. This concealment caused Coley caused monetary damages but court has ignored it but she's still fighting.
Here, the Court abandons good sense with respect to the equal protections in that, the female and less monetarily situated person is held to a higher standard of jurisdiction as compared to the male who is held to a lessor standard of jurisdiction, which amounted to no personal jurisdiction being attached.
Coley has brought a suit pursuant to 18 USC § 1512 against the courts for concealment of records in official proceedings, and evading the legal process by allowing the withholding court records and pursuant to 18 USC § 1952 for use of the United States Postal Service to communicate, promote, and establish acts of concealment of evidence. Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et sec, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701,act as the male party(public performer) with his false actions causing denials with fraud on the court thereafter. In Merck & Co. v. Biorganic Laboratories, Inc., the New Jersey Appellate Division stated defendants who engaged in a "deliberate course of conduct" that "frustrate[d] plaintiff's discovery of facts” should not be award sanction for attorney fees. However, New Jersey did not follow their own law and New Jersey Supreme Court allowed when they denied the Review of Civil Rights Violations.
See Details in Article with a Sample Compliant Filed https://www.thecowboychannel.com/story/43119895/new-jersey-appellant-court-appears-to-abandon-the-rule-of-law-when-it-gives-full-faith-and-credit-to-a-void-order-in-high-profile-case-involving
Comments