Judge Stanley J. Goldberg
U.S. Tax Court
Under Article VI, clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution, every judge or government attorney takes an oath to support the U.S. Constitution. Whenever any judge or government attorney violates the Constitution in the course of performing his/her duties, then that judge or government attorney is acting without lawful authority, has defrauded not only the Defendant or the Plaintiff involved, but has also defrauded the government. The judge or the government attorney is paid to support the U.S. Constitution. By not supporting the Constitution, the judge or the government attorney is collecting monies for work not performed.

Judge Stanley J. Goldberg acted in violation of the Constitution, he warred against the Constitution and against the government which he had taken an oath to uphold and which paid him. Under the law, Judge Goldberg was not acting as a justice, but as a private person.

The law unequivocally states that all statutory courts, such as the Tax Court, are courts of limited jurisdiction. The law further states that no presumption of jurisdiction attaches automatically to any court of limited jurisdiction, but that the determination of jurisdiction of a court of limited jurisdiction must be found within the record of the case that is before the court. Whenever a government attorney files a void order with the court, the court has lost jurisdiction. When Judge Goldberg was informed the order filed is void, of no legal force or effect, he unlawfully ignores that the order was void, and acts as if the void order was valid. When Judge Stanley J. Goldberg cannot find evidence of jurisdiction of the trial court, he ignores the law and issues a void order.

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that a judge violates the U.S. Constitution whenever the judge issues an order without jurisdiction. The judge has committed a fraud upon the court and upon the Constitution.

Judge Stanley J. Goldberg has committed fraud upon the court and upon the Constitution.

CLR suggests, that whenever the judge or the government attorney has violated his/her oath to support the Constitution, all benefits received by the judge or the government attorney are based on fraud, and that all such benefits are "ill-gotten" gains. Also, all actions taken to benefit any party by the judge or the government attorney with these "ill-gotten" gains are also fraud upon the Defendant or the Plaintiff involved and/or the government. Those who may benefit from these "ill-gotten" gains, either directly or indirectly, may include the judge's and the government attorney's spouse, children, parents, in-laws, siblings, other relatives, friends, and associates.

Just as a person who is in possession of property which has been stolen is not the legal owner of the property, a person who is in possession of "ill-gotten" gains is not the legal owner of those "ill-gotten" gains. The stolen property must be returned to the legal owner; the "ill-gotten" gains should be returned to the legal owner.

The title to personal property requires a chain of proof as does the title to real property.

In criminal law the hardest case for a defense attorney is the one he must contend with is a case where his client, the defendant, is accused of being "in possession of stolen property". In such a case the only valid defense is proof of ownership of the goods in question. The burden is on the party who may have "ill-gotten gains" in their possession to prove that they have not received any "ill-gotten gains".

The following is a list of some of the persons who may have received some of the "ill-gotten" gains obtained from the defrauding of the government by Judge Stanley J. Goldberg:

Susan J. Coplin Goldberg
Rachel H. Goldberg
David M. Goldberg
Isadore Goldberg
Lillian F. Kravitz Goldberg

Copyright© 2001 by Citizens for Legal Responsibility®.
                   All rights reserved. 
    email: clr@clr.org
Created January 22, 2001