SAMPLE IMPEACHMENT APPLICATION FROM ROBERT MUCHNICK IN COLORADO

Pursuant to our State Constitution, Judicial Canons, the Oath of Office, and ethical duties incumbent upon ALL members of the Judiciary and of the Bar, impeachment is petitioned in the [State's name] House of Representatives to investigate the charges made and brought hereunder by the undersigned Petitioner against [Insert Judge's Name], [Insert County Name] County District Court Judge, in the State of [Insert State Name] and offers the following in support of this Petition;

1. An Affidavit and Legal Authority in support of this Petition is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth, implicating [Insert Judge's Name] of willful misconduct in office, willful and persistent neglect of duty, habitual intemperance, malfeasance, misfeasance, moral turpitude, acting in bad faith (as opposed to Good Faith) and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute and;

2. For abridging and violating the oath of office to uphold sworn duties as protector of the Constitution of the United States of America, the Constitution of the State of [Insert State Name], and the laws of the State--; for violations of Judicial Cannons and state laws as set forth in Petitioner's Affidavit thereby committing malfeasance and willful neglect of duty in office and;

3. To implicate this judge for acts that may be criminal, for failure to uphold and enforce the public policy of the State of [Insert State Name] for frequent and continuing contact between a child and both parents; and implicating this judge's numerous decisions to the contrary of said public policy in an official capacity as State District Court Judge as violative of statutory and constitutional protections and liberties, and;

4. The lengthy legal authority incorporated into this Notice is set forth to impress upon the reviewer(s) of this petition their heavy responsibility, and their affirmative DUTY to immediately remove this judge from the bench pending a full and impartial investigation, and to bring special prosecution of this judge to restore the appearance of the integrity of the judiciary, and;

5. To indict [Insert Judge's Name] for charges and claims, and to bind her over for trial on impeachment from office in the Senate of the State of North Carolina at the earliest possible time, and;

DATED this __________ day of ________________________, 2001.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

PETITIONER

________________________________________

[Insert Your Name]

[Insert Your Address]

[Insert Your City and State]

American Citizens are sovereign citizens, and while many of them may not be aware of the full extent of that sovereignty, our Founding Fathers were well aware of it. This ideology was alive and well when "...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 DALL 1793 pp471-472 " Early New York Courts, as well as other early states also recognized individual sovereignty declaring "[t]he people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Through the medium of their Legislature they may exercise all the powers which previous to the Revolution could have been exercised either by the King alone, or by him in conjunction with his Parliament; subject only to those restrictions which have been imposed by the Constitution of this State or of the U.S." Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York) ["D." = Decennial Digest]; Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 8910C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 1`67; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7. [Am.Dec.=American Decision, Wend. = Wendell (N.Y.)] ...While sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the People, by whom and for whom, all government exists and acts" Yick Wo vs. Hopkins and Woo Lee vs. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356; "The process of a State court or judge has no authority beyond the limits of the sovereignty which confers the judicial power." Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506; "There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. (emphasis added). No legislative [or judicial] act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principle; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of power may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804), Signer of the Constitution, Author of 51 of the 85 Federalist Papers, Known as the "Ratifier of the Constitution." Sovereign subjects "[have not] abandoned [their] sovereign powers simply because [they have] not expressly reserved them through a contract. To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head." MERRION ET AL., DBA MERRION & BAYLESS, ET AL. v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE ET AL. 1982.SCT.394 , 455 U.S. 130, 102 S. Ct. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 U.S.L.W. 4169 pp. 144-148.

The early Judiciary, recognized fully the intent of the framers of the Constitution for citizen sovereignty in a number decisions. "The people are the fountain of sovereignty. The whole [of America] was originally with them as their own. The Governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original fountain might take away what they have delegated and intrust to whom they please. The have the whole title and as absolute proprietors have the right of using or abusing… "The sovereignty in every state resides in the people of the state and they may alter and change their government at their own pleasure." Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1, 12 L Ed. 581. Even the Constitution declares that it is a construct of the sovereign people (US Citizen) when its opening statement declares "We, the People... ordain and establish this Constitution." "… The government of the state had only delegated power (from the People) and even if they had an inclination, they had no authority to transfer the authority of the Sovereign People. The people in their capacity as Sovereigns made and adopted the Constitution; and it binds the state governments without the state's consent. The United States, as a whole, therefore, emanates from the People and not from the states, and the Constitution and the laws of the states, whether made before or since the adoption of that Constitution of the United States, are subordinate to the United States Constitution and the laws made in pursuance of it. The People are the fountain of Sovereignty." Bouvier's 14th Edition Law Dictionary (from 4 Wheat. 402) as quoted from Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1, 12 L Ed. 581.

"[W]hen a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States." Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974). Also, "[w]henever a judge acts where [he/she] does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821). If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), [he/she] is without jurisdiction, and [he/she] has engaged in an act or acts of treason.

To impose a burden upon an average citizen that ignorance of the law is no excuse, who is not versed or skilled in matters of the law, and then to afford a judge immunity for improper actions gives rise to tyranny and a usurpation of the power and authority of the Supreme Law of the Land. For a judge by nature and virtue of the oath, responsibility, training, and obligation of their position are assumed to know the law. Director, OWCP v. Perini North River Associates , 459 U.S. 297, 103 S.Ct. 634, 74 L.Ed. 2d 465 (1985); Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S., at 562. Conferring immunity on the judiciary, or ignoring complaints as so many judicial review boards do, gives rise to so many little tyrannical dictatorships under color of law. The "Necessity [of Judicial Immunity] is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in a speech to the British House of Commons, 1783. "If the government, police and prosecutors could always be trusted to do the right thing, there would have never been a need for the Bill of Rights." U.S. v. Court of the Central District of California, 858 F2d 534 (9th Cir. 1988).

When a judge exceeds their authority, or defies the Constitution or the law, they are no longer acting within the bounds of their jurisdiction, they are committing a criminal fraud against the sovereignty, life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness guaranteed by the Constitution and "[c]rimes in which fraud is an ingredient have always been regarded as involving moral turpitude." Jordan v. De George 341 U.S. 223, 227-229, 232.

The Doctrine of [Judicial or Absolute] Immunity is a cunningly devised fable foisted on an unknowing public "[b]ecause of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens because of respect for the law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance." UNITED STATES v. MINKLER, 350 U.S. 179, 187. Even the same courts, now practicing the façade that usurps the sovereignty of the citizen has declared as well that "[w]aivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences." BRADY v. UNITED STATES, 397 U.S. 742 at 748. As Thomas Jefferson said in 1821 "The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary..." Even the birthplace of the seditious idea of Judicial immunity, England, where the US Courts borrowed the idea and have noted its origin in many case citations, has recently abandoned the practice for at least part of the legal profession in favor of PUNISHING WRONG-DOING (rather than excusing it);

The self-legislated (by the Judiciary) doctrine of Judicial Immunity is at war with the Sovereignty of the People guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. "No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid… The Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as a fundamental law." Federalist Papers #48 – Alexander Hamilton. "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it." Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). And that oath, for the Federal Judiciary specifically states "I, ___________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." 5 USC § 3331.

Any judge violating constitutional protection has abrogated a duly executed and sworn contract with a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" which is the same contract conferring upon that judge his office, his authority and his jurisdiction. In violating that oath, and abandoning that sworn obligation to uphold the Constitution, that judge no longer serves as a judge except to usurp the power of the Constitution and of the people governed which is by its definition tyranny. "The Bill of Rights was provided as a barrier, to protect the individual against arbitrary exactions of...legislatures, [and] courts...it is the primary distinction between democratic and totalitarian way." Re Stoller, 36 So.2d 443, 445 (Fla. S.Ct. en banc 1948). "Judicial definition that misuse of power possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrong-doer is clothed with the authority of state law within this section is applicable to Judge." Duke v. The State of Texas, 327 F Supp 1218 (1971).

Domestic Relations Courts, and "Family" Courts have followed a general trend in the law of defying the Constitution and the guaranteed protections and liberties clearly understood and interpreted by the early courts when it was stated "[t]he individual may stand upon his Constitutional rights as a citizen. His Power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or his neighbors to divulge his business or to open his doors to investigation… He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by law and land, long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law and in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkle, 201 US 43 at 74. In the Courts citizens are routinely "[forced] … to surrender one constitutional right in order to assert another [which] is intolerable." MILLER v. SMITH, 99 F3d 120 (4th. Cir. 1996) see also U.S. v. DENT, 984 F2d 1453 (7th. Cir. 1993). Regardless of the stated "noble" intent of constitutional usurpations, "…constitutional rights have their consequences, and one is that efforts to maximize the public welfare, no matter how well intentioned, must always be pursued within constitutional boundaries." SKINNER v. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSN., 489 U.S. 602 (1989).

"Defense of qualified immunity does not protect those officials who are plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law." WEYANT v. OKST, 101 F3d 845, (2nd Cir. 1996); BAGBY v. BRONDHAVER, 98 F3d 1096 (8th Cir. 1996); 18 USC § 241 et seq.; 18 USC § 1961 et seq.; 42 USC § 1981 et seq.; 42 USC § 2000a et seq.; 31 USC § 3730 et seq. Do judges in courthouses all across this great nation now mock the Constitution and the sovereignty of the people by raising themselves above the law through "Absolute Judicial Immunity?"

Other Citations:

Good Faith - "… An honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through technicalities of law, together with the absence of all information, notice, or benefit or belief of facts which render transaction unconscientious. In common usage this term is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind denoting honesty of purpose, freedom from intention to defraud, and generally speaking, means being faithful to one’s duty or obligation." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th. Edition, p. 477.

Moral Turpitude - Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Rawles Third Revision, defines "moral turpitude" as "An act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men or to society in general..." Black's Law Dictionary defines turpitude as: "Inherent baseness or vileness of principle or action…"

"Impeachment is a bridle in the hands of the legislature." Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804), Signer of the Constitution, Author of 51 of the 85 Federalist Papers, Known as the "Ratifier of the Constitution"

"...[J]udges should be withdrawn from the bench whose erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution. It may, indeed, injure them in fame or fortune; but it saves the Republic..." Thomas Jefferson

"... [T]he discretion of the judge is the first engine of tyranny." Edward Gibbon, `The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

"There is something bad happening to our children in family courts today that is causing them more harm than drugs, more harm than crime and even more harm than child molestation." Judge Watson L. White, Superior Court Judge, Cobb County, Georgia.

"There is no system ever devised by mankind that is guaranteed to rip husband and wife or father, mother and child apart so bitterly than our present Family Court System." Judge Brian Lindsay, Retired Supreme Court Judge, New York, New York.

"... judicial verbicide is calculated to convert the Constitution into a worthless scrap of paper and to replace our government of laws with a judicial oligarchy." Senator Sam Ervin

If you had started this in the beginning of your ordeal, this would have been ended LONG ago!!! Also, start networking with EVERY father's rights group to brand the dirty judges and lawyers as the crooked family butchers that they are!!

++++++++++++++++++++