Manuel P. Asensio and RightABigWrong.org have conducted research into the societal risks that are created by the combination of judicial administrative power with the concepts of judicial jurisdiction, judicial immunity and judicial independence. This societal risk is directly related to the concerns of civil society that are fueling the market’s interest in Initial Coin Offering, BlockChain and Crypto currencies technologies. This risk of private (concealed) and unregulated government intervention occurs in private affairs based on political ideology.
Once a judicial official takes jurisdiction, both the subject matter and the individual or entity that are subjected to this jurisdiction are exposed to the invisible forces of judicial interpretation of facts and law. No individual or entity can expose the invisible force, which are the intentions and motives of taking jurisdiction. A judicial officers’ bare jurisdictional claim affords him immunity and independence.
Most importantly, the judicial officer taking jurisdiction is regulated and controlled by a private (concealed) administrative process operated without supervision or oversight by the state’s chief judge. This private (concealed) administrative process includes the training and education of judicial officers, supervising judges, and the trial judges and their court guards all under the direction of the state’s chief judge. In family law, this involves taking jurisdiction and making judgments without a codified system of laws.
The investigation and the area of the research that RightABigWrong.org focused on is the use of a state chief judge’s administrative power to create and promulgate impermissible rules in the state’s family courts that govern the adjudication of private characterological, moral and ethical disputes between parents. This heavily involves an area that in America is explicitly separated from government: religion.
In conducting this investigation in New York State, RightABigWrong.org discovered that the state chief judge sanctions judicial misconduct by Family Court judges which allows them to cooperate with one of the two parents against the other. Often this cooperation includes a collaboration between the county prosecutor and one of the parents based on fabricated charges and baseless evidence.
This impermissible rule making and co-action by the state chief judge and the Family Court judges requires an organization of judges within New York State to protect the cooperation between the state chief judge and Family Court judges’ from litigation by the parent who suffers the deliberate deprivations of their civil rights, parental rights, and religious rights.
This type of multi-layered prohibited government conduct by the state’s highest constitutional official is impermissible. Correcting this is central to the needs of civil society’s freedom, yet it has never been covered by the press, nor a state or federal legislative body.