Federal suit against Andrew Cuomo for racketeering criminal charges

United States District Court
Southern District of New York State
Civil Docket No.13 CV 5566 (VB)
________________________________

Mircea Veleanu AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff JURY DEMAND
Vs.

Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General of
the State of New York, individually and in his official capacity as Attorney General of New York State, Defendant
Nicholas G. Garin, AKA Nick Garin, Assistant Attorney General, in his individual and official capacity as assistant attorney general, Defendant
James Brands, individually and in his official capacity
as Justice of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County, Defendant
Thomas Dolan, individually and in his official capacity
as Acting Justice of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County, Defendant
James Pagones, in his individual and official capacity as acting justice of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County, Defendant
Peter M. Forman, in his individual and official capacity of Acting Justice of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County, Defendant
Reinaldo E. Rivera, PJ, in his individual and official capacity as Justice of the Supreme Court of NY, Appellate Court Second Department, Defendant
Daniel D. Angiolillo, in his individual and official capacity of justice of the Supreme Court of NY Appellate Court Second Department, Defendant
Ariel E. Belen, in his individual and official capacity of justice of the Supreme Court of NY Appellate Court Second Department, Defendant
Sherri S. Roman, in her individual and official capacity of justice of the Supreme Court of NY Appellate Court Second Department, Defendant
Randall T. Eng, PJ, in his individual and official capacity of justice of the Supreme Court of NY Appellate Court Second Department, Defendant
Cheryl E. Chambers, in her individual and official capacity of justice of the Supreme Court of NY Appellate Court Second Department, Defendant
Robert J Miller, JJ, in his individual and official capacity of justice of the Supreme Court of NY Appellate Court Second Department, Defendant
Aprilanne Agostino, in her individual and official capacity of Clerk of the Appellate Court Second Department, Defendant
________________________________________________________________________

JURISDICTIONAL BASIS AND VENUE
I. Plaintiff claims federal jurisdiction pursuant to Article III Sec. 2 which extends the jurisdiction to cases arising under U.S. Constitution; 28 USC Sec. 1331 involving US Constitution and federal laws or treaties, 28 USC Sec. 1343 which gives district courts jurisdiction over civil legal actions to recover damages for injuries to the person and property and redress the deprivation under color of the State law of the rights and privileges secured by US Constitution.
II. Plaintiff brings this suit pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C Sec. 1983 for plaintiff’s constitutional rights violation by the defendants under color of law in their official and personal capacity including Prosecutor/Petitioner Attorney General of the State of New York also the Counsel to the Attorney General, involved justices of the Supreme Court of New York Dutchess County, involved justices of the Supreme Court of NY Appellate Court Second Department and the Clerk of the Appellate Court Second Department, and deprivation of the rights and privileges guaranteed to him by the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution.
Venue is proper under 28 USC sec. 1391 (b) because the events that gave rise to the complaint occurred in this District.
III. Plaintiff also brings this suit against Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General of New York State , and his counsel, Nicholas G. Garin, pursuant to 15 USC 15, and specifically 15 USC 15c.
PARTIES
III. Plaintiff, Mircea Veleanu, is a natural person, citizen of US residing in this judicial district.
IV. The defendants are as follows:
1. Defendant, Andrew Cuomo, is the Attorney General of NY State, Prosecutor/Petitioner with office at 120 Broadway, New York, NY 10271
2. Defendant, Nicholas G. Garin, AKA Nick Garin, Assistant Attorney General of New York State, Counsel to Attorney General, is a Prosecutor at the Supreme Court of NY. Dutchess County with office at One Civic Center Plaza, Fourth Floor, Suite 401, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601-3157.
3. Defendant, Hon. James Brands, is a justice presiding at the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County, as well as defendants, Hon. Thomas Dolan, James Pagones and Peter Forman are acting justices presiding at the Supreme Court of New York Dutchess County, NY., all located at the Court House, 10 Market Street, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601.
4. Defendants, Hon. Reinaldo E. Rivera, PJ, Daniel D. Angiolillo, Ariel E. Belen, Sherri S. Roman are justices of the Supreme Court of NY Appellate Court Second Department presiding at the Appellate Court located at 45 Monroe place, Brooklyn, NY 11201.
5. Defendants, Hon. Randall T. Eng, Cheryl E Chambers, Sherri S. Roman and Robert J. Miller, are justices of the Supreme Court of NY Appellate Court Second Department presiding at the Appellate Court located at 45 Monroe Place, Brooklyn, NY 11201.
All of the above defendants stated under paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, are justices of the Supreme Court of New York acting under color of the State law.
6. Defendant, Aprilanne Agostino, is the clerk of the Supreme Court of NY Appellate Court Second Department with the office at the Appellate Court located at 45 Monroe
Place, Brooklyn, NY 11201.
STATEMENT OF CASE
8. Attorney General of New York, Andrew Cuomo (hereto AG), acting under the color of State Law, commenced in bad faith and continued a frivolous legal action against the plaintiff pursuant to GBL 349 and Executive Law 63.12 alleging statutory fraud in lack of probable cause, lack of standing to sue and lack of grounds to support the statutory fraud due to absence of injury. See Exhibit 1. Commercial contract providing refunds.
9. The conditions of sale of the contract allowed lifetime warranty with the privilege of full reefund within 60 days, and thereafter, a credit for an exchange with an item from the store inventory of the same or higher value. See Exhibit 1.
10. It appears from the evidence that Tim McClellan, a close friend jeweler, provided the sole complainant, Janet Spiridonakos, with a blank invoice of his firm, McTeigue & McClellan, located in Great Barrington, Massachussetts. See Exhibit 2.
11. The clear evidence is that Spiridonakos used the blank invoice provided by McClellan to forge the invoice by counterfeit. The invoice dated April 23, 2009, shows without any doubt, that the handwriting displayed on the invoice is identical to Spiridonakos’ handwriting on the edge of the invoice, as well as her handwriting on copies of her emails sent to Veleanu. Spiridonakos criminally violated 18 USC Chap. 25. 513 (See Exhibit 2).
12. The evidence as proof shows that Spiridonakos conspired with AG to charge Veleanu with concocted charges and defraud him, as revealed in Spiridonakos’ affidavit written by AAG Garin himself. Spiridonakos’ affidavit recites exhibits numbers from AG’s Petition with intimate knowledge of Petition’s content that would be impossible to know by the affiant, unless she wrote the AG’s petition herself, that is not plausible. The affidavit per se is illegal and fraudulent as a matter of law, due to the fact that the affiant has to recall factual evidence and events known to her as a personal witness. See Exhibit 3. Instead, Spiridonakos recites events and facts not from her memory as a factual witness, rather legal actions that are outside of her knowledge. As the affidavit represents the prima facie evidence used by AG in the prosecution of this case, it is an illegal and fraudulent document not written by the affiant, concocted by the prosecutor himself in clear representation of conspiracy to charge the plaintiff with fabricated false charges of fraud and violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights for depriving him of liberty and property under the color of the state law.
13. Spiridonakos committed perjury and impeached her affidavit by giving contradictory statements in two pre-litigation emails to the plaintiff in which she claimed that she paid $1000 for the gemological testing, contradicting the statement in her affidavit under oath that she paid $1540 for the gemological testing by AGTA Lab. See Exhibit 3, Page 5.
14. The evidence as proof shows that AG was knowledgeable of the premeditated criminal and illegal acts of Spiridonakos and willingly committed the criminal act of subornation of perjury.
15. On August 7, 2009, AG commenced the summary legal proceeding following a fraudulent complaint of a sole person named Janet Spiridonakos residing in Winsted, Connecticut. She alleged that she was defrauded by the plaintiff by selling her within a
period of about 2 years, starting in January 2007, of seven jadeite Sino-Tibetan rosaries mala, she alleged were not made of jadeite. Her allegations were fraudulent (as further on elaborated), nevertheless, the commercial transactions were governed by the conditions of sale of the commercial contract that provided lifetime warranty with the right to refunds according to the commercial contract. See Exhibit 1.
16. The case completely precludes an action pursuant to GBL 349 (General Business Law), (1) as it represents a rather commercial dispute that could be resolved without litigation according to the conditions of sale of the contract the complainant knew and willingly breached. Moreover, (2) the case was not addressed to the public at large, as being constituted of a series of private transactions related only to the complainant, and lacking any other complaint in this matter by any former client, and (3) finally lacked the materiality due to the fact that Spiridonakos was informed that the items sold as ornamental art carvings are not jewelry items. Thus the case did not conform with GBL 349 that require proof of injury that she could not claim due to her right to refund according to the commercial contract she breached.
COUNT 1
17. Violation of constitutional rights under 42 USC Sec. 1983 and violation of Title 15 Chapter 1, 15 USC Sec 15 Suits by persons injured, particularly, Title 15 Chapter 1 Sec. 15 c Paragraph 2A, 2B and 2 C and paragraph d (2), extrinsic fraud and fraud upon the court.
Plaintiff incorporates and restates each of the above paragraph as it fully sets forth herein.
18. AG subpoenaed ad testificandum the plaintiff on June 24, 2009 and at that time it was brought to the attention of the Assistant Attorney General Nicholas G. Garin (hereto
AAG), that the gemological testing done by AGTA Lab, a company that went out of business a few weeks thereafter, were mislabeled, tampered and forged with clear evidence that two different gemological reports were identified by the same photograph.
19. On July 16, 2009, the plaintiff received from AG’s office “Notice of Proposed Action pursuant to Article 22 A and 350 C of GBL with opportunity to show in writing within 5 days why such proceeding should not be instituted. The “Notice of Proposed action” made allegations not supported by any material grounds as: “falsely representing to the public and potential buyers of jade carvings and artifacts that they are ancient when, in fact, they are replica or recent fabrication”. AAG did not have any evidence to make such allegations that were false, malicious and libelous and the plaintiff vigorously denied such inflammatory unsupported allegations.
20. Another fraudulent allegation not supported by any evidence was: “ selling jade artifacts and carvings as of ancient origin when, in fact, they are not jade”. Obviously, the jadeite mala sold to Janet Spiridonakos could not be more than 1000 years old to be qualified as ancient artifacts and no former customer came forward to allege misrepresentation of any kind like that.
21. The plaintiff responded within 5 days and provided exculpatory evidence including but not limited to the existence of the forged forensic evidence of the gemological reports that were at least of no probative value. In addition, the reports labeled the jadeite mala as “carved head necklaces”, terminology never used for the jadeite mala and obviously could not be jewelry necklaces.
22. Recklessly, AG submitted to the court the forged and mislabeled evidence as prima facie of statutory fraud. Even by admitting to absurd that the fraudulently forged and mislabeled evidence would be valid, the identification of semi-precious jadeite carvings is done not by gemological testing, rather only by mineralogical testing consisting in examination under magnifying glass, Moh’s test for hardness and specific gravity. It is well accepted in the commerce that gemological laboratories perform gemological testing exclusively for jewelry grade jadeite, but not for ornamental jade art carvings that are rather metamorphic rocks composed of impure jadeite that contains several other minerals and rocks. Thus, the use of gemological testing for examination of non-jewelry grade semi-precious carvings was inappropriate and intentionally done with intend to criminally defraud and extort the seller.
COUNT 2. Attorney General of NY State actions under the color of the state law in this legal case are demonstrable representation of violation of federal Title 15 Chapter 1 Sec. 15, Suits by persons injured, in particular, violation of federal Title 15, Chapter 1, Sec. 15c, Actions by State attorney general, malicious prosecution and abuse of process, libel and defamation of character consequent to release of false information to media.
Plaintiff incorporates and restates each of the above paragraph as it fully sets forth herein.
23. On August 7, 2009, AAG Garin called the plaintiff on the telephone and told him that in a few hours he will request a judge from the Supreme Court of New York Dutchess County (hereto SCDC) to issue a TRO to prevent the plaintiff to sell any jade items and the plaintiff may attend the proceeding at the Court House in Poughkeepsie. Obviously, the plaintiff stopped any activity and traveled to Poughkeepsie that is about 2 hours driving time.
24. Upon his appearance and a few minutes prior justice James Brands entered the court
room, AAG Garin handed to plaintiff a large packet of documents that the plaintiff did
not have time to read even the first page. At that time, the plaintiff believed that the documents were solely related to TRO; however, upon his arrival home, the plaintiff realized that the documents consisted in an order to show cause and the petition. The plaintiff complained to justice Brands that he did not have time to read any of the documents handed to him a few minutes ago and was not prepared to answer to any allegations of the AAG.
25. Inter alia, the plaintiff asked the judge to make a ruling about the violation of due process and the right of an accused person to know in advance about the substance of the allegations. JSC James Brands never responded to Veleanu’s question.
26. Willingly and knowingly, AAG presented to the court the criminally mislabeled and forged gemological reports as bona fide evidence of statutory fraud. In addition, AAG presented as evidence, negative reviews from Amazon.com of plaintiff’s reference books for the collectors, Internet and chat rooms trolls, and a fraudulent and unsubstantiated claim of Spiridonakos that the plaintiff sold her two exquisite jadeite handles calligraphy Chinese scholar brushes, she claimed were made of glass, rather than jadeite. Nonetheless, her accusations were groundless as she did not consult with anybody else, she begged the seller to re-sell the brushes, even at a higher price the seller requested in order to prevent a sale to a person with unknown and possible altered state of mind to make such request. The brushes were returned and refunded several months prior the legal action and the return and refund was not a singular act of this person.
27. AAG committed perjury by stating in his Alternative Statement in lieu stenographic
transcripts pursuant to CPLR 5525 (d), that he was not aware that gemological testing
were forged and the forensic evidence was mislabeled by the complainant Spiridonakos, until Veleanu answered the Petition, and later on, argued this issue in his motion to reargument/renew. This Alternative statement of AAG Garin was a blatant lie, as this exculpatory evidence was brought by Veleanu in the pre-trial sworn testimony at the subpoena in AG’s office and again, in the response to Notice of Proposed Action pursuant to Article 22, weeks prior the TRO proceeding. From this irrefutable evidence, it appears that AG preferred to commit the criminal act of perjury, rather than admit that he commenced the legal action in absence of a probable cause.
28. Justice Brands disregarded the contention of plaintiff’s averment of violation of due process rights and failure of AG to serve the legal process in advance of TRO proceeding. 29. The appearance of the plaintiff in the court in what justice Brands ruled that was “ a calendar call”, rather than a hearing, was due to trickery by AG to lure Veleanu to the court under the pretense of a TRO. However, the CPLR 320 c provides that an unrelated appearance does not constitute the service of the action. AG’s legal action is irrefutable proof of his violation of respondent’s constitutional rights of due process.
30. AG committed the criminal act of subornation of perjury by willingly and knowingly submitting to the court of Spiridonakos affidavit with full knowledge of the falsity of affidavit’s statements he helped to fabricate and preserve them. As AG’s actions were to deceive the court, it clearly represent irrefutable proof of extrinsic fraud, fraud upon court and violation of respondent’s constitutional rights for a fair trial
31. AG as prosecutor and petitioner conspired with complainant Spiridonakos to defraud
and extort Veleanu by apparent promise of retroactive interest of 9 % starting years back
to the date of purchase of the jade items. Fraudulently, Spiridonakos claimed from plaintiff refunds of items she purchased at auctions where Veleanu was a consignor and not a seller, and in which she paid the auction company commissions of 27.5 %.
32. The illegal retroactive interest of 9 % to the date of purchase was fraudulently extended to any former customers who would request a refund from Veleanu. As such three former customers who did not claim misrepresentation, breached the commercial contract with Veleanu in order to achieve the unjust enrichment of their investment in jadeite carvings. The illegal punitive retroactive interest of 9 % was not supported by any statute and GBL 349 invoked by AG and sanctioned by justice James Pagones does not provide punitive damages and as a matter of fact, no statutory penalties. AG did not claim a cause of action under GBL 350 (d) that provides penalties for advertising in the business. However, Veleanu never advertised his business and AG could not make such false allegation as inexistent. Thus, AG action is irrefutable proof of extrinsic fraud and fraud upon court and acts of bribery of witnesses.
33. In addition, all the 3 customers who requested refunds at the solicitation of AG, purchased their jade items at auctions where Veleanu was a consignor, rather than a seller. Fraudulently, AG attributted the 27.5 % auction’s commission and other third parties charges to Veleanu as illegal restitutions. AG’s legal action is a clear representation of violation of constitutional rights of Veleanu under 8th. Amendment of US Constitution and extrinsic fraud.
34. AG commenced a vexatious and frivolous suit in absence of a probable cause,
lacking the standing in behalf of customers who were not aggrieved, did not allege
misrepresentation and willingly and knowingly breached the commercial contract with the seller to benefit from the 9 % retroactive interest, return of all auction costs that they conspired with AG in order to unjustly enrich themselves. Obviously, they did not consent for AG suing the seller in their name, as they lacked the standing due to lack of being aggrieved. Thus, AG violated the NY State CPLR 70 by commencing vexatious suits in behalf of people that did not consent to a suit in their behalf. Thus, AG committed extrinsic fraud, fraud upon court and criminal violations of State statute.
35. AG conspired with a former customer named Diana Norton to request a refund from Veleanu for a jade purchase. This customer committed criminal acts with full collaboration, support and active intervention of AG, including but not limited to theft of precious merchandise and substitution with a valueless fake, perjury by submitting false statements in a sworn affidavit, and breach of contract. AG facilitated and aided the commission of criminal acts and served as accessory to the crime. His action is irrefutable proof of extrinsic fraud and fraud upon court.
36. AG used his prosecutorial power to issue 4 subpoenas from which only one served the investigative purpose and the others were used for the collateral goal of abuse of process and malicious prosecution. The numerous subpoenas were not intended to serve the legitimate evidentiary role, rather used to oppress, intimidate and harass plaintiff in his exercise of his constitutional rights to defend himself facing fabricated and illegal charges. The illegal subpoenas were meant to force Veleanu not to seek justice in the
court and represent obstruction of justice and illegal use of the judicial system to obtain unqualified relief, causing emotional and physical stress upon plaintiff, loss of liberty and property secured by the US Constitution. AG’s legal action is a clear example of violation of respondent’s constitutional rights under 4th amendment of US Constitution. AG exceeded his power under Judiciary Law Section 43 (2) and $44 (4) and violated Section 42 of the Judiciary Law that prohibits the “fishing expeditions”
37. AG was grossly negligent by failing to secure the jurisdiction of the court upon person of Veleanu by failing to serve the process. Thus, SCDC lacked the in personam juridiction and subject matter jurisdiction to render orders and judgments that acting justices Thomas Dolan and James Pagones knowingly and willingly decreed, in absence of the power of the court to issue such orders and judgments. Thus, the subsequent orders and judgments decreed by acting justices Dolan and Pagones are void, invalid, null and unenforceable as a matter of law. AG’s legal action is clear representation of the violation of constitutional right of the plaintiff for due process.
38. In pursuit of his fishing expeditions, AG was grossly negligent by failing to docket an order and judgment of acting justice Thomas Dolan within 60 days in accordance with the rules and regulations of the court. Thus, the order and judgment with the permanent injunction imposed by acting justice Dolan became void, invalid and null. Accordingly, negligently AG defaulted by abandonment of the legal action by failure to prosecute.
39. AG had the opportunity to restart the legal process within 6 months since the void judgment of acting justice Dolan in accordance with the statute CPLR 205 by service of
the process upon respondent. Nonetheless, in his illegal fishing expeditions of trying to recruit more former customers to claim refunds, AG engaged in illegal laches and dilatory
techniques intended to increase the amount of illegal retroactive interest of 9 % promised to the customers who claimed refunds. The failure to restart the legal action within 6 months represents the second default of the AG for negligent abandonment of the legal process. Accordingly, AG violated 15 USC Sec 15 c 2 (C) that specifies: “Whether in the course of action involved… (e)ither party’s representative, engaged in conduct primarily for the purpose of delaying the litigation or increasing the cost thereof”.
40. AG maliciously released to media in 2 separate occasions during the active phase of the trial, false and inflammatory statements that were misrepresenting and deceiving the public and the court. The malicious and libelous statements had the collateral intention to physically, emotionally and pecuniary injure Veleanu and prevent him to seek justice in court. As such, AG non-advocating action deprived him of the prosecutorial immunity and caused tremendous injury upon Veleanu by collateral abuse of process and malicious prosecution intending that the fraudulent accusations brought through the media of the highest rank law enforcement official would appear credulous enough to frighten former customers and recruit more customers to request refunds.
41. AG committed malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The libel actions of AG were acts of assassination of moral character and caused irreparable damage to the immaculate professional and personal reputation of Veleanu. AG’s libelous actions were intended not only to harm Veleanu financially, physically and psychologically, but also
represent an attempt to prevent Veleanu to pursue his legal defense in court. AG’s actions are clear and un-rebuttable proof of extrinsic fraud and fraud upon court and unconscionable abuse of discretion as well as violation of constitutional rights of
respondent for a fair trial.
42. In a brazen contempt of court action, AG violated the court imposed gag on media regarding the TRO by releasing to the media of illegal information that AG was pursuing a permanent injunction to prevent the sale of jade items by respondent without a moronic requirement that the ornamental jade carving should be tested with gemological testing reserved for jewelry grade jadeite. The statement implied that at that time the AG obtained a temporary restraining order. AG’s action represent an irrational arbitrary and capricious legal action and unconscionable abuse of prosecutorial discretion.
43. AG illegally requested from the court and obtained an order permitting him to obtain the list of former customers for the preceding 6 years that is beyond the statute of limitation for statutory fraud that is 3 years. As such, one person requested a refund for a jade item purchased in February 2006 that is beyond the statutory limits.
44. AG committed the criminal act of forgery and concealment of exculpatory evidence by interposing a photograph over an exculpatory text evidence in 2 separate occasions. This criminal act of forgery of forensic evidence was intended and used for prosecution to obtain the judgment and the requested relief of his petition. AG’s illegal and criminal actions punishable under 18 USC Sec 1505 Antitrust Civil Process represent reprehensible obstruction of justice, extrinsic fraud and fraud upon court and violation of
constitutional rights of respondent for a fair litigation and trial.
45. AG requested and obtained illegal penalties and court fees based on GBL 350 (d). However, AG failed to invoke a cause of action under GBL 350 (d) upon which the penalties and court cost could be granted upon. Thus, the action of AG is clear evidence of extrinsic fraud and fraud upon court. AG’s action is a clear violation of Eight amendment ofUSConstitution. 46. AG solicited and bribed the former customers that purchased jade items to claim refunds with the implied incentive of retroactive interest of 9 % to the date of purchase and waiving of third party fees including the commission of 27.5 % auction commission. Bribery of witnesses is a federal criminal act under 18 USC Sec 201 (b) (3) that demands prosecution and clear representation of fraud and fraud upon court and violation of the constitutional rights of respondent of due process and equal protection.
47. AG solicited and personally contacted a blogger and known spammer and “flamer” or “troller“, resident of communist China, to publicize his libelous releases to media and attack and libel Veleanu. This conspiracy action violated 18 USC Sec 241 and represents a demonstrable malicious prosecution and abuse of process by the prosecutor in his non-advocative role that voids his prosecutorial immunity.
48. Willingly and knowingly, in conspiracy with complainant, Janet Spiridonakos, AG criminally uttered to the court, forged and mislabeled forensic evidence for charging and prosecuting Veleanu for concocted false charges. Misrepresentation of false evidence as bona fide evidence with full knowledge of its fraudulent basis and concealing of
exculpatory evidence denote acting contumaciously in bad faith. His criminal acts violate 18 USC Sec. 373 and are clear representation of deprivation of constitutional rights of Veleanu under color of state law, extrinsic fraud and fraud upon the court.
49. AG violated 18 USC Sec. 241 and conspired with the three acting justices of the SCDC further argued, to oppress and suppress the rights and privileges secured by US
Constitution to the plaintiff in preventing him to defend in the typical “kangaroo court”, devoid of jurisdiction and decreeing ex parte orders and judgment without any hearing whatsoever. The peremptory dictatorial power of the fore mentioned officers of the court precluded debate, right to defend and left no opportunity for the denial of the false and fabricated charges.
50. AG violated CPLR 3216 that prescribes that where a party unreasonably neglects to generally proceed in an action or otherwise delays in the prosecution thereof against any party may be liable to a separate judgment, or unreasonably fails to serve and file a notice of issue, the court on its own initiative, or upon motion, may dismiss the party’s pleading on term. AG defaulted twice, first time by failure to enter and docket the judgment of AJSC Thomas Dolan, and second time by failure to restatrt the judicial proceeding by serving the respondent within 6 months after the first default as provided by CPLR 205. The 2 defaults clearly represent the neglect to prosecute the action in order to use his dilatory practice for the fishing expeditions to acquire more customers requesting refunds, unnecessarily prolonging the proceedings, thus indirectly increasing the amount of accumulated retroactive interest promised as a bribe to customers that requested refunds. The court in bias and prejudice failed to take action and dismiss AG’s Petition.
COUNT 2. Justice James Brands acting under the color of state law granted a TRO based on fraudulent forged and mislabeled forensic evidence.
Plaintiff incorporates and restates each of the above paragraphs as it fully sets forth herein that in full accordance with 15 USC Sec. 15 c 2 (A), the AG made motions, or asserted claims so lacking in merit as to show that he acted intentionally for delay or otherwise acted in bad faith. As a result of the prosecutorial misconduct, illegal and criminal acts, violations of statutes, judicial laws, rules and regulations of the Unified Court System, Canons of Judicial Conduct, plaintiff Veleanu suffered irreparable pecuniary, physical and psychological injury. AG’s illegal acts violated the plaintiff’s due process and equal rights protection under laws secured by US Constitution under 5th and 14th amendment.
51. Justice James Brands decreed a TRO with full knowledge that the prima facie
forensic evidence was mislabeled and forged. With full knowledge of lack of probative value of the AG’s offered evidence and strong rebuttal of respondent Veleanu, justice Brands granted a TRO that substantially affected the rights of respondent for a fair adjudication and judicial equity. He suggested that a repeat gemological testing should be done using GIA gemological lab. Respondent objected to such proposal as unfair in consideration that the gemological testing done by AGTA was fraudulent and without a probative value. Thus, the TRO should not be granted for lack of probative evidence, Internet chat rooms negative comments, presentation of several pages of the respondent’s website without any allegation of wrongdoing, negative reviews from Amazon.com of the textbooks written by Veleanu for antiques collectors and frivolous and false allegations of Spiridonakos without substantiation of any violations, do not constitute grounds for granting of the drastic TRO in lack of any wrongdoing.
52. Justice Brands was aware of the violation of due process of respondent and lack of service of process by AG and despite of these, he decreed a TRO in absence of the court of personal jurisdiction. His judicial action represents a violation of respondent’s constitutional right of due process.
53. GIA gemological lab reports did not confirm AGTA Lab findings of “natural species quartz”, and identified “species quartzite”. Quartz is a single mineral that is a constituent of non-jewelry grade jadeite, and quartzite is a metamorphic rock constituted of multiple minerals and is generally found in association with jadeite that is also a metamorphic rock with multiple mineral constituents that include or may include single mineral quartz and quartzite rock, known as jadeite quartzite, or in another terminology, jadeitite. Pure jadeite is found generally in small quantities measured in carats for jewelry grade jadeite.
54. Justice Brands properly recused for conflict of interest due to his principal court attorney representation of the adverse party in a former legal action. As his principal court attorney prepared the documents for TRO, justice Brands should decree a nolle prosequi prior his recusal in view that his judicial action is an example of bias and prejudice toward respondent Veleanu and clear representation of violation of Veleanu’s due process.
COUNT 3.
AJSC Thomas Dolan acting under the color of the state law fraudulently denied the defense of the respondent and motions to dismiss as being “unsworn”.
Illeegally, AJSC Dolan decreed a permanent injunction without a statutory hearing.
Plaintiff incorporates and restates each of the above paragraphs as it fully sets forth herein
55. Acting justice of the Supreme Court (hereto AJSC) Thomas Dolan was assigned to this legal case after the recusal of justice Brands and on November 14, 2009 he decreed a decision, order and judgment with a permanent injunction preventing the plaintiff to sell any jade item without a gemological testing by a recognized gemology lab. This judgment represents an irrational arbitrary and capricious action due to the fact that the ornamental jade carvings are not authenticated by gemological testing, such moronic and intellectually defective was never used in the past by any seller of jade in the commerce
and represents an unconscionable abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious action.
56. The order and judgment of AJSC Dolan was an ex parte judicial action lacking any hearing or conference call and especially lacking the service of process by AG. Thus the
order and judgment was illegally decreed and void and null ab initio for lack of jurisdiction of subject matter of the court.
57. The permanent injunction was also decreed without a hearing in violation of statutory specification. As such, the permanent injunction is void and invalid from the beginning.
58. AJSC Dolan decreed the order and judgment with permanent injunction with full knowledge that the prima facie evidence of alleged statutory fraud based on mislabeled and forged forensic evidence, but irresponsibly he disregarded it in flagrant extrinsic fraud and fraud upon court.
59. AJSC Dolan advised Veleanu to retain legal representation with evil knowledge that the legal representation by a lawyer is futile despite the meritorious legal case. The abhorrent advise to retain a lawyer representation had the collateral objective to injure Veleanu with tremendous legal expenses and his action represents a clear abuse of process by an officer of the court supposed to be impartial. The retained lawyer could only negotiate plea bargaining repugnant to the moral character of the respondent.
60. AJSC Dolan denied the pleading and motions to dismiss of respondent by fraudulent holding that the pleadings and motions to dismiss were “unsworn”. Nonetheless, the pleadings and motions of dismiss of Veleanu were in form of declaration under penalty of
perjury that is legal under CPLR 105 U. In his pleading, plaintiff contested the lack of service and subsequent failure of the court to achieve jurisdiction., by raising an objection in the point of view and setting it forth in his pleadings, as well as in his motions to dismiss the petition. The order and judgment of acting justice Dolan is a clear representation of irrational arbitrary and capricious judicial action and unconscionable abuse of discretion. Acting justice Dolan committed extrinsic fraud and fraud upon court.
61. Willingly and knowingly, AJSC Dolan granted the relief to AG of a permanent injunction based on fraudulent and criminally mislabeled and forged evidence, and other evidence that was criminally forged by counterfeit, intentional elimination of exculpatory evidence, concealment of exculpatory evidence, uttering to the court of criminally forged and mislabeled forensic evidence and perjury. The permanent injunction clearly represents irrefutable evidence of conspiracy of AG with other officers of the court to charge the respondent with fabricated claims not supported by any factual grounds. AJSC Dolan judicial action represents extrinsic fraud and fraud upon court.
62. AJSC Dolan fraudulently disregarded the existence of the triable issues of material fact revealed in the pleadings sufficient to preclude the decree of summary judgment.
63. Following the advise of AJSC Dolan, on or about December 1, 2009, the plaintiff retained the legal services of attorney Clinton Calhoun who moved for vacatur of the order and judgment by reargument/renew motion that revealed numerous triable issues of material fact that precluded the summary judgment decreed by acting justice Dolan.
64. Judicial actions of AJSC Dolan consisting in permanent injunction, order and judgment were not only in excess of jurisdiction, but were in lack of any jurisdiction due to failure of the court to achieve personal and subject matter jurisdiction. In his order and judgment, AJSC Dolan held that AG has to show the existence of injury in order to
request relief under GBL 349. Despite that AG could not demonstrate the injury to his
sole witness, Janet Spiridonakos, AJSC Dolan illegally granted the relief to AG.
65. The order and judgment of AJSC Dolan was never entered and docketed by AG and pursuant to 22 NYCRR 292.48, became null and invalid after 60 days.
COUNT 5.
AJSC James Pagones decreed a summary judgment without service upon respondent and consequently the SCDC lacked the jurisdiction.
Plaintiff incorporates and restates each of the above paragraphs as it fully sets forth herein.
66. AJSC Thomas Dolan stepped down from the bench, apparently retired and justice Christine Sproat was assigned to this case. Apparently, justice Sproat refused the
assignment and AJSC James Pagones was assigned and replaced justice Sproat.
67. On September 29, 2010, AJSC James Pagones decreed a summary judgment in a proceeding that being a legal action de novo, lacked the service of the legal process by AG with consequent failure of the court to achieve personal and subject matter jurisdiction, AGAIN. Thus, the order and judgment of AJSC Pagones is void and null and any subsequent legal actions based on the invalid judgment are null and invalid as well.
68. In addition, the Decision, Order and Judgment (hereto DOJ) of AJSC Pagones was ex parte without a hearing, even when this time, the plaintiff had a retained lawyer for his defense representation and represents a clear demonstration of violation of constitutional rights of the plaintiff for equal rights protection and due process.
69. AJSC Pagones fraudulently invoked GBL 349 and Executive Law 63.12 in his DOJ despite that the evidence did not prove injury to the single complainant and did not have standing to bring a legal action. AJSC Pagones denied the motion for reargument/renew application of plaintiffs attorney Clinton Calhoun, by fraudulently ruling that the reargument was a rather renew in an irrational, bizarre and illogical arbitrary and capricious judicial action, conscience shaking abuse of discretion and typical travesty of justice. Obviously, a motion for reargument that brings evidence that AJSC Pagones misapprehended or overlooked (rather ignored), cannot be a renew. AJSC Pagones’ DOJ is irrefutable proof of extrinsic fraud and fraud upon court committed by AJSC Pagones.
70. AJSC Pagones fraudulently stated in his DOJ that Veleanu failed to provide triable issues of fact, when the reargument part of the attorney Calhoun motion, brought as
evidence to the court several triable issues of material fact that should preclude the summary judgment in a court that the presiding justice is not corrupt. These triable issues of material fact were not misapprehended or overlooked by AJSC Pagones, rather callously, irresponsibly and fraudulently, disregarded as inexistent by AJSC Pagones. Judicial actions of AJSC Pagones demonstrate extrinsic fraud and fraud upon court.
71. AJSC Pagones violated constitutional right of respondent under 8th. Amendment of USC by granting to AG the fraudulent requested relief of penalties and court cost in accordance with GBL 350 (d); however, AG failed to state a cause of action under GBL 350 that require proof by AG that respondent committed statutory fraud by advertising. In addition, AG fraudulently requested punitive damages that AJSC Pagones granted despite that such punitive damages are not provided by any statutory specification. AJSC judicial
action of granting illegal penalties, punitive damages and court cost were illegal and proof of extrinsic fraud and fraud upon court committed by AJSC Pagones.
72. AJSC Pagones fraudulently imposed punitive penalties prohibited by law against an individual who did not receive a fair opportunity to defend and has not received service of the process.
73. Defendant, AJSC James Pagones deprived the plaintiff of his inalienable constitutional rights, property and liberty interests of caring an independent living violating federal 42 USC Sec 1983.
74. Subsequently, plaintiff sustained injuries and damages including but not limited to loss of supplemental income to his federal and private retirement fund. As a direct and proximate result of defendant’s legal action, plaintiff was unable to sell his antiques collection and supplement his retirement income.
75. Due to lack of jurisdiction, AJSC Pagones is devoid of his absolute judicial immunity and is responsible for his irrefutable violations of respondent’s constitutional rights of due process and equal protection secured by 5th and 14th amendments of US Constitution. Accordingly, AJSC James pagones is responsible for the attorney fees and legal expenses of plaintiff Veleanu pursuant to 42 USC Sec, 1988.
COUNT 5. AJSC Peter Forman acting under the color of the state law violated the rights and privileges of the respondent secured by the US Constitution
Plaintiff incorporates and restates each of the above paragraphs as it fully sets forth herein.
76. AJSC Peter M. Forman was assigned to this legal case following the DOJ of AJSC James Pagones dated September 29, 2010. AJSC Forman acted in blatant, open bias and
prejudice toward the plaintiff by either failing to act upon motions submitted by the
plaintiff, or failed to act upon the applications within 60 days as per rules and regulations of the court’s prescription, until the applications became moot and then denying the application as moot. The first motion submitted to SCDC on November 12, 2010 was related to Veleanu’s request for a stay of judgment pending the results of the appeal with the Appellate Court Second Department and this motion was never acted upon by AJSC Forman giving the false impression to Veleanu that the motion approved the relief of stay due to failure of AG to oppose the motion. Fraudulently, AJSC Forman stated that this motion was filed with the Appellate Court and denied by that Court. Obviously, a motion submitted to SCDC cannot be denied by the Appellate Court. The evidentiary proof however revealed that the application was actually filed with SCDC.
77. In January 2012, AG proceeded to execution of property owned by Veleanu despite that he believed that the stay was in effect. To reinforce the original Stay, Veleanu submitted an Order to Show Cause to SCDC. On April 24, 2012, that is more than 90 days since the submission date, AJSC issued a decision and order that denied the discretionary relief invoking mootness. AJSC violated the mandatory statutory imposed by law to act upon a request for a writ. Delaying for more than 3 months for an emergency writ request represents a perfidious and egregious judicial action that violated the constitutional rights under 1st amendment of USC, Bill of Rights and civil rights law. AJSC Forman committed obstruction of justice and fraud upon court.
78. In view of the repeated acts of bias and prejudice against plaintiff manifested in denial of any application to SCDC, on or about August 9, 2012, the plaintiff submitted an Order to Show Cause to the Administrative Judge of SCDC to act upon CPLR 5015 C that was
based on the repeated defaults by abandonments of the AG and failure to prosecute. In addition, the plaintiff requested a TRO to prevent the distribution of the undertaking to former customers who committed criminal acts of theft, substitution of purchased merchandise with valueless fake, perjury, forgery by counterfeit, etc. Despite that the application was clearly addressed to the Administrative Judge, AJSC Forman intercepted the application and acted upon as he was the Administrative Judge and declined to sign the proposed Order to Show Cause. The AJSC Forman action represents a violation of 18 USC Chapter 43 Sec. 912. In an informal letter claiming that “the papers submitted in support of that application failed to demonstrate that a proper cause exists to grant an Order to Show Cause”m AJSC declined to sign the Order to Show Cause. This informal letter did not reach the plaintiff on time and the plaintiff appeared in the court. The Law Clerk of AJSC Forman informed the plaintiff that the letter of denial to sign the TRO and order to show cause was already mailed. Nonetheless, the adverse party defaulted by non appearance and failure to respond to the motion and controvert the averments of the plaintiff. As such, AG defaulted by failure to answer to the application and show in court.
79. To prevent the interference again by AJSC Forman, the Plaintiff then re-submitted the application to the Administrative Judge in White Plains. After some correspondence with the office of Administrative Judge, James Garfein, Counsel to the Administrative Judge ordered the Clerk of the SCDC to return the application to the plaintiff and advised that any application pertinent to annulment of judgments pursuant to CPLR 5015 excluding CPLR 5015 C , should be addressed to the SCDC.
80. On October 24, 2012, the plaintiff submitted to the SCDC a motion pursuant to CPLR
5015 (a), in which the plaintiff requested annulment of void judgments pursuant to 5015 (a) (4) based on lack of jurisdiction of personal and subject matter and on CPLR 5015 (a) (3) on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation and other illegalities of the adverse party, AG of NY. In consideration of the repeated acts of bias and prejudice toward the plaintiff, the plaintiff requested as one of the relieves the recusal of AJSC Forman. While the plaintiff thought that the request for disqualification was sufficient to prevent AJSC Forman to act AGAIN against the plaintiff, AJSC Forman did not recuse himself and acted upon the motion despite that legally and ethically he was disqualified to act upon as a matter of law due to the fact that he was a defendant in the application and the conflict of interest would prevent him to clear himself of the charges (many of the charges were criminal) due to obvious conflict of interest. Again as with all applications of the plaintiff in the past, AJSC Forman attempted to moot the application with the hope that the plaintiff would abandon the application, and then deny the application as moot. (regardless that his actions of breaking the statute and court rules and regulations prohibit the delay on acting upon a submitted motion within the limited time established by statute or Court rules.
81. After a delay to act upon the submitted motion for the annulment of judgments decreed by SCDC of more than 3 months, on January 28, 2013, the plaintiff submitted a motion to the Administrative Judge of SCDC in which the plaintiff requested several ministerial and administrative orders in regard to the violation of the SCDC of the court’s
rules and regulations of unreasonable delay to decide upon a motion within statutory 60
days time limitation, violation of Penal Law 195 (failure to perform a ministerial duty), violation of several codes and regulations, and violations of several canons of judicial
conduct. The administrative judge never responded to this motion, but on January 29, 2013, AJSC Forman denied the motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) as being moot). Obviously, the application was not moot and not abandoned, but illegally delayed by dilatory failure to act by AJSC Forman on a writ in violation of Bill of Rights and CVR. AJSC Forman actions clearly represent a deprivation of Veleanu’s constitutional rights by discriminatory legal actions under the color of state law. His resistance to do writs, process applications and act impartially upon timely and legally submitted applications, violated Veleanu’s civil rights of obtaining relief without unnecessary delay, upon payment of fees established by law.
AJSC Forman’s actions demonstrate abuse of discretion shaking the conscience, miscarriage of justice, extrinsic fraud and fraud upon court.
82. AJSC Peter Forman violated 2 criminal laws: NY Penal Law 195 regarding the failure to perform the mandated ministerial duty, Penal Law 190.25 (impersonation of the administrative judge and acting as such).
83. AJSC Forman violated judiciary law 14 that specifies that a judge cannot act in an action where he is a defendant, or has an interest; also, judiciary law 17 that prohibits a judge to take part in an action that was previously before him on his official character. Finally, AJSC Forman violated judiciary law 701 which prescribes that a judge shall not sit in a decision of an action or motion in which he has been interested. The legal action in which AJSC had been disqualified by law unquestionably represents a conflict of interest that by itself nullifies the decision and order that illegally he had decreed.
84. AJSC Peter M. Forman violated numerous NY State court’s rules and regulations.
COUNT 6.
The Appellate Court Second Department acting under the color of state law violated the constitutional rights of plaintiff Veleanu for a fair and impartial review of SCDC judicial proceedings, fair and impartial adjudication of the Article 78 trial and complete disregard of the irrefutable evidence of violation of constitutional rights of Veleanu of due process and equal protection under law, or at least, permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals for the adjudication of the violations of foresaid constitutional rights. The decisions and orders decreed by the Appellate Court justices are void ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction of the SCDC. The Appellate Court cannot confer jurisdiction nunc pro tunc to the trial court of SCDC when the SCDC lacks the jurisdiction in personam and subject matter. Thus, the void and invalid orders and judgments of SCDC cannot be affirmed by the Appellate Court justices. Plaintiff incorporates and restates each of the above paragraphs as it fully sets forth herein.
85. The DOJ of AJSC Pagones was appealed by Veleanu as a right in the Appellate Court on an Appeal that commenced on October 29, 2010. On November 15, 2011, the Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the DOJ decreed by AJSC Pagones on September 29, 2010. The following justices of the Appellate Court: Reinaldo
Rivera, JP, Daniel D. Angiolillo, Ariel E. Belen and Sherri S. Roman JJ, held that the appellant failed to raise a triable issue of fact and he “sold to a customer several items which he told her were made of high quality jade, but which laboratory testing proved were quartzite, a less expensive and more common stone”. The decision and order of the Appellate Court was fraudulent for misrepresentation of the facts, (1) disregarding
exculpatory evidence, (2) disregarding the lack of jurisdiction of the SCDC, (3) disregarding the misconduct of the prosecutor and his abhorrent criminal and illegal judicial and extra-judicial acts and (4) disregarding the extrinsic fraud and fraud upon court of judicial acts of the acting justices of the SCDC consisting in unconscionable abuse of discretion and irrational arbitrary and capricious judicial actions. The fore mentioned justices failed to perform their mandatory duty to review the SCDC’s acting justices judicial actions, make a determination based on the issues raised in the appeal ‘s Brief, respond to the questions posed to the Court by the Appellant and act with impartiality toward the litigants rather than decree pre-determined decisions and orders.
86. The fore mentioned Appellate Court justices completely ignored appellant’s Brief Point XIX regarding the presence of the triable issues of material fact. See Exhibit 4. The outrageous disregard and ignorance of the presence of numerous triable issues of material fact raised in the Brief that precluded summary judgment represents fraud upon court and arbitrary and capricious judicial action of the fore mentioned justices.
87.. The fore mentioned justices failed to review appellant’s averment of lack of jurisdiction of SCDC presided by AJSC James Pagones to decree the DOJ, averment
raised by appellant in Point XXI of the Brief and completely disregarded by the justices of the Appellate Court as inexistent. See Exhibit 5. Moreover and obviously, AG could not controvert the allegation by proving that service on respondent was done.
88. The fore mentioned justices of the Appellate Court failed to review and completely
disregarded as inexistent, the un-rebutted averments of Appellant in Point IX of the Brief in regard to the criminal and illegal actions of the prosecutor.
89. The fore mentioned justices of the Appellate Court failed to review the appellant’s Brief averments of the fraud upon court and unconscionable acts of abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious judicial actions committed by the 3 acting justices of SCDC. See Brief’s Point XX- Exhibit 6; Point XXIII and Point XXIV of the Brief-Exhibit 7.
The fore mentioned justices of the Appellate Court failed to review and make a determination of practically all Brief Points including, inter alia: Point I , Point II and Point VI, averments of false allegations of a single complainant and fraudulent gemological laboratory testing of AGTA, illegal and criminal acts of AG in Point VII. Point VIII, Point XII, Point XIII, Point XV, etc.
More relevant were Point I, II and III of the Brief that were ignored by the above mentioned justices of the Appellate Court that were rebutting the false holding that that the items sold to Spiridonakos were made of a common stone that is less expensive than jade. This fraudulent holding is based on fabricated charges by Spiridonakos that are not supported by any plausible scientific base. The Point II of the Brief is conclusive in this matter: “Gemological identification reports are exclusively used for jewelry grade jadeite
in jewelry industry and never used for identification of ornamental jadeite carvings. Ornamental jadeite art carvings are identified solely by mineralogical testing as such carvings are composed of multiple minerals with variable composition and the results could be different by examination of an item in different areas”. This citation in the Brief was followed with several scientific documentation of exhibits that grossly negligently in judicial misconduct, failed to be reviewed and taken in consideration by a fair review by the Appellate Court, especially when these documentation was not rebutted by science evidence to controvert.
90. Federal Trade Commission in 15 USC Sec 45 and 52 (from where GBL 349 and 350 were adopted inter alia states: “Courts may not make their own determination as to where a test (like in the present case, gemological testing for jadeite authentication) should be the standard authentication as they lack the specialized knowledge to do so and it is unfair to have liability turn on a judge’s personal subjective view without expert witness testimony”.
91. The violation of constitutional rights by the SCDC were brought by the appellant in the Brief under Point XVII: “The Court violated defendant’s constitutional rights under 14th amendment, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments of US Constitution, Point XXI, Point XXII, Point XXIII and Point XXIV. Recklessly, the fore mentioned justices of the Appellate Court failed to review the Brief’s Points and completely ignored the presence of the Brief’s exculpatory Points as inexistent in a typical “kangaroo court”.
92. The fore mentioned justices of the Appellate Court ignored the Appellant’s argument
that stressed the existence of the triable issues of material fact, frivolous judicial action for lack of standing and lack of probable cause and misfeasance in the office acts of AG. The Appellant’s argument in open court was completely disregarded as inexistent.
93. The fore mentioned justices of the Appellate Court failed to answer to any of the 4 questions posed to the Appellate Court and violated one of their mandatory ministerial duty, other than the review. The first question was related to the presence of the triable issues of the material fact consisting in the plethora of scientific evidence of scientific articles, mineralogical literature and textbook of mineralogy that preclude the summary judgment. The most important question posed to the Appellate Court was related to the violation of constitutional rights of the respondent and lack of jurisdiction of the SCDC that rendered the DOJ of AJSC Pagones to be void and null for lack of jurisdiction. The fourth question was in regard to the violation by the acting justices of the SCDC of the constitutional rights of respondent of equal protection by lack of setting up hearing by any involved acting justice of the SCDC, especially the decree of the permanent injunction without a hearing in a typical “kangaroo court”. The fore mentioned justices of the Appellate Court recklessly failed to answer any of the questions posed to the Court.
94. Appellate Court justices above mentioned, failed to review and take action upon appellant’s judicial notice request to act upon CPLR 5704 as raised in the Point XXI of the Brief and dismiss the legal suit based on the fact that the orders and judgments decreed by 2 acting justices of the SCDC were ex parte due to lack of service and consequent lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction of the SCDC. The failure to
review the Point XXI of the Brief and take action for lack of jurisdiction of the SCDC, represent extrinsic fraud, fraud upon court, unconscionable abuse of discretion and a travesty of justice propagated by the fore mentioned justices of the Appellate Court.
95. Following the dismissal of the appeal on a decision and order dated November 15, 2011 by the Appellate Court fore mentioned justices, on December 21, 2011, the appellant moved for a reargument and in alternative, the permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals. Prompted by the AG action to sell by the Sheriff at auction of a property owned by Veleanu ,despite the assumed stay of enforcement of judgment, on January 24, 2012, Veleanu submitted an application for an order to show cause for an order of protection and Stay with both the Appellate Court and SCDC to prevent the property execution. Fraudulently, the Appellate Court Clerk notified Veleanu of receiving the application on February 9, 2012 (this is about 2 weeks since the acknowledged date of receipt by USPS tracking). It appears that the Appellate Court Clerk intentionally held the application until the Appellate Court rendered the decision and order pertinent to the reargument motion. The Appellate Court in a decision and order dated February 2nd, 2012 denied the reargument motion and the leave to appeal at the Court of Appeals. The decision and order of the Appellate Court was fraudulent on 2 points: 1. The decision and order of the Appellate Court dated February 2, 2012 was decreed disregarding that a previously application for the Stay and order of protection was pending and preceded the order of denial of the reargument/renewal. This application was scheduled to be heard on February 24, 2012 that is more than 3 weeks past the order for denial of reargument. As
such the Appellate Court violated the statutory requirement that the order to show cause has to be decided within 20 days. Obviously, the mooting of the application made the relief to be unnecessary after the illegal delay of taking action by the court. The decision and order of the Appellate Court regarding the denial of the reargument and permission to appeal at the Court of appeals was fraudulent as misrepresenting the facts. The holding of the Appellate Court stated that the motion by the appellant for leave to reargue appeals from a judgment of the SCDC dated September 29, 2010, made the false impression that the appellant is attempting to appeal again orders and judgments of the SCDC that already were denied by the Appellate Court. In reality, the application was simply for the reargument of the Appellate Court decision and order dated November 15, 2011, and in alternative, the permission to appeal at the Court of Appeals.
96. The Appellate Court fore mentioned justices conspired to injure and oppress the appellant in face of exercising his constitutional rights and privileges secured by US Constitution. The following unconstitutional judicial actions of the acting justices of the SCDC were not reviewed or sanctioned by the Appellate Court as: failure of the AG to serve the legal process and consequent lack of jurisdiction of SCDC to decree orders and judgments, decreeing a permanent injunction without a prior hearing, denial of defense and the motions to dismiss the petition on fraudulent grounds of “not being sworn”.
97. The fore mentioned justices of the Appellate Court conspired to violate the constitutional rights of the appellant for a fair and equitable review by an unbiased and prejudiced tribunal. and cover up the judicial misconduct of the officers of the court of
the SCDC and as such committed obstruction of justice.
COUNT 7.
Appellate Court fore named justices acting under the color of the state law violated the constitutional rights for a fair and unbiased court litigation.
Plaintiff incorporates and restates each of the above paragraphs as it fully sets forth herein.
98. The plaintiff exhausted all judicial and administrative resources in order to obtain a relief and petitioned with the Appellate Court for an Article 78 against the officers of the SCDC who violated the constitutional rights of the petitioner. The petition commenced on April 9th,, 2013 included 5 causes of action against AG and the 4 acting justices and
justice of the SCDC that included but not limited to mandamus to compel AJSC Peter Forman to act upon the motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4), inter alia, for annulment
of void judgments decreed by AJSC Thomas Dolan and AJSC James Pagones due to lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, AJSC Forman judicial duty was ministerial and mandatory, non waiveable, and non discretionary. AG did not answer to the motion and moved for dismissal of petition on frivolous and groundless allegations. 99. On June 12, 2013, the petitioner moved for summary judgment based on the grounds that AG defaulted by failure to answer to the averments of the petitioner and could not provide any defense as lacking any evidence to rebut the petition’s allegations. AG did not request the court to be allowed to provide an answer to the Petition and did not contest the averments of the Petition. The justices of the SCDC opted not to appear in court and defend themselves.
100. The Appellate Court and the adverse party did not factually or procedurally contest the motion and the respondent, AG failed to submit to the court an opposition to the motion for summary judgment that thus was not contested and consequently defaulted.
101. On July 9th., 2013, pursuant to statutory entitlement of the respondent‘s default, the petitioner Veleanu requested the Appellate Court to enter the judgment obtained by the petitioner on grounds of respondent’s default.
COUNT 8. Appellate Court Clerk, Aprilanne Agostino acting under the color of the state law violated the constitutional rights of the petitioner.
Plaintiff incorporates and restates each of the above paragraphs as it fully sets forth herein.
102. On July 1st, 2013, the plaintiff Veleanu, received by regular mail an envelope from the Appellate Court containing the documents submitted to the court on June 12, 2013 of
the motion for summary judgment, minus the check of $45 that was previously attached to the application. See copy of the envelope with the USPS stamped date of June 27, 2013. Exhibit 8. An inquiry with the Bank of America revealed that the check that represented the motion fee was not cashed by the court. There was no explanatory document to substantiate the return of the motion’s documents. The plaintiff was shocked to find a copy of the Decision, Order and Judgment of the Appellate Court signed by the Appellate Court Clerk, Aprilanne Agostino. Ex 9. The date of the DOJ was June 19, 2013 that is 7 days later than the application for summary judgment that preceded the DOJ.
103. The DOJ of the Appellate Court did not provide with a decision pertinent to the application of the plaintiff that was properly served to the adverse party on June 12, 2013 (See Affidavit of service-Exhibit 10 ) and preceded the DOJ by 7 days. The DOJ of the Appellate Court is irregular and invalid as followed by several days a proper and legally submitted application that appears as not reviewed and legally acted upon by the Appellate Court. The frivolous return of the application that was not refused by a technical error and without any explanation, constitutes a clear and flagrant violation of the Bill of Rights and constitutional and civil rights of the plaintiff by the Clerk.
104. On July 6, 2013, the plaintiff pursuing CPLR 4511 and acting under Judicial Notice of Law, resubmitted the application by certified mail with return receipt with a courtesy copy mailed by priority mail to Aprilanne Agostino, Clerk of the Appellate Court. The application included a replacement of the check that was not cashed by the clerk.
105. The failure to act upon a legally submitted motion and frivolous return after about 3 weeks of holding the application without filing it, clearly represents willful misconduct and gross negligence, extrinsic fraud, fraud upon court and violation of civil and constitutional rights under 1st, 5th and 14th amendments of US Constitution by the Clerk of the Appellate Court.. This willful misconduct and gross negligence was not a single event, rather a repetition of fraudulent holding of an application with clear intention of mooting. A similar holding of an application for a Stay and protection submitted on January 24, 2012, was filed on February 9, 2012, after a decision and order denying the reargument and leave to appeal at the Court of Appeal was issued See paragraph 76.
106. The returned application bears the stamp of the Appellate Court “Received 13 June 17, AM 10.24 Appellate Division Second Department. The evidence as proof shows that the application sent by priority mail on June 12, 2013 (See Exhibit 11 representing a copy of the envelope with the stamped date of June 12, 2013. The proof of delivery on June 14, 2013 (See tracking by USPS-Exhibit 12 ) clearly shows that the clerk of the Appellate Court received the application on June 14, 2013 at 11.21 AM, rather than June 17 as per stamp of the Appellate Court. A copy of the application was served to the respondent on June 12, 2013 and received on June 14, 2013 at 10.43 AM.
107. In accordance with 22 NYCRR 670.5, the application was legally submitted and the Clerk of the Appellate Court did not have any reasons to reject the application for any technicality or error, or deem the motion to be abandoned or withdrawn.
108. On July 18, 2013, the plaintiff received by regular mail an envelope containing the returned motion for summary judgment, the motion for order and judgment pursuant to
CPLR 3215 following the default of the respondent AG, and the Judicial Notice of law pursuant to CPLR 4511 that appear as not being filed by the Clerk of the Appellate Court.
109. The clear evidence shows that the Clerk of the Appellate Court, Aprilanne Agostino, failed to perform her mandatory and ministerial duties including but not limited to: 1. Failure to promptly file the application on receipt that did not present any technical error; 2. Failure to cash the check representing the motion fee; 3. Irresponsible gross negligence of holding the application without filing it for about 3 weeks interval of time; 4. Failure to promptly hand the application to a justice of the Appellate Court after filing; 5. Frivolous and illegal return of the application to the applicant without any explanation.
The failure to perform the ministerial duty upon a requested writ represents a dereliction of the duty imposed by the statutory mandate, rules and regulations and
judiciary laws and clear demonstration of obstruction of justice by a public servant.
110. The following infractions of law, violation of civil rights, violation of US Constitution, violation of Bill of Rights, violation of NY Penal Law 195, CVR Article 2 (10), Federal Title 18 Sec 241, Title 18 Sec. 242, Title 18 Sec 1505, Title 18, 18 USC Sec 1509, Title 18 Sec. 401(3) were committed by the Clerk of the Appellate Court.
111. It appears from the course of the events that the Clerk of the Appellate Court, Aprilanne Agostino, in a biased and illegal acts of obstruction of justice, failed to perform her ministerial and mandatory duties in order to delay and allow the Appellate Court to decree a fraudulent and illegal DOJ that followed a legal application for summary judgment that preceded the DOJ by several days.
112. Appellate Court Clerk, Aprilanne Agostino, deprived the petitioner’s civil and
constitutional rights secured by 1st, 5th and 14th amendment of US Constitution under the color of the state law.
113. Appellate Court Clerk, Aprilanne Agostino committed contempt of the authority of the court by disobedience to do writs, resistance to perform the ministerial duties imposed by law and rules and regulation of the court, and committed obstruction of justice.
114. Appellate Court, Aprilanne Agostino, is liable of gross negligence and willful misconduct for dereliction of her ministerial and mandatory duties that are not discretionary and consisting in filing and recording the applications without delays, cashing the fees for the application and handing the application to the justices assigned to the case.
115. Consequent to the gross negligence and willful misconduct of the Appellate Court Aprilanne Agostino, the plaintiff sustained irreparable pecuniary, physical and psychological injuries she is liable to.
COUNT 11. The Appellate Court named below justices acting under the color of the law violated the constitutional rights of the petitioner by a fraudulent decreed DOJ.
Plaintiff incorporates and restates each of the above paragraphs as it fully sets forth herein.
116. In a demonstrable act of fraud upon the court, The Appellate Court decreed a DOJ on frivolous grounds, when a pre-existent motion for summary judgment preceding by one week precluded the court to make a final summary judgment decree sua sponte, in a genuine violation of due process and equal protection of the petitioner. The Appellate Court was required to make a determination on or after June 28, 2013 on a motion for summary judgment submitted by the plaintiff, when according to the Notice of Motion, the application was supposed to be heard by the Court. The DOJ appears to be illegal and
fraudulent due to the Court acting sua sponte prematurely and illegally terminating the judicial proceedings of Article 78 prior petitioner’s opportunity for continuance of the proceedings with further motions and affidavits for a fair, proper adjudication on merits entitled as a matter of law and illegal and fraudulent disregard of a pending motion for summary judgment of the petitioner.
117. It appears that the court’s DOJ determination was not brought by a motion of a party and the premature and frivolous termination of the Article 78 proceeding represents the court intervention as a litigant, or in behalf of a litigant that opted not to make an appearance in court, but benefited from the biased and prejudicial action of the Appellate Court against the petitioner. The judicial action of the following justices: Randall T. Eng, PJ, Cheryl E. Chambers, Sherri S. Roman and Robert J. Miller, JJ represents a clear acting as a lawyer in behalf of one party and in detriment of the other party and a violation of the substantial rights for a fair and unbiased trial of the petitioner pro se against the powerful party of the Attorney General Andrew Cuomo presently the governor.
118. The fore mentioned justices of the Appellate Court violated 22 NYCRR100.3 (B) (2) that provides that a judge shall not practice law in the court he serves or has served as a judge or in any other proceeding related thereto.
119. The fore mentioned justices violated 22 NYCRR 100.3 B (4) that provides that “a judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice against or in favor of any
person”.
120. The fore mentioned justices violated NY Judiciary Law Sec. 17 that prescribes: “A
judge… shall not act as attorney … in any action, claim, motion or proceeding which has been before him or her official character”.
121. The Judiciary law Sec 17 especially applies to justice Sherri S. Roman that ethically and legally was disqualified to sit in a court in which a prior action was decided by her. She was an active participant justice in the Appellate Court Appeal by Veleanu and she willingly and knowingly dismissed the Appeal when she ignored the numerous triable issues of material fact and especially the lack of jurisdiction of the SCDC to render the void and null judgments. Justice Roman violated the canons of judicial conduct, NY State judiciary law, thus unequivocally violated the constitutional rights of petitioner Veleanu. Justice Roman acted in abhorrent conflict of interest that exposed the former appellant and presently the plaintiff, to double jeopardy.
122. Justice Sherri S. Roman violated Judiciary Law 701 that prescribes: “A judge shall not sit, or take any part in the decision of an action, matter, claim, motion or proceeding to which she has been an attorney, or in which she has been interested, or which has been in her official character”.
123. Plaintiff avers and re-avers that justice Sherri S. Roman conspired with the other 3 forego justices to violate the constitutional rights of the plaintiff for an unbiased and fair adjudication in both the appeal and Article 78 proceeding and failed to perform the mandatory judicial duties imposed by laws including but not limited to: 1. Failure to perform the judicial review of all claims for adjudication in both judicial proceedings;
2.Failed to perform the mandatory duty to review the trial court proceedings and in the Article 78, failed to act impartially to the violation of judiciary laws, court’s
regulations and statutory prescription of the officers of the Court of SCDC and sanction the illegal, unconscionable abuse of discretion and illogical arbitrary and capricious actions of the acting justices of the SCDC. 3. Justice Roman and the other 3 justices of the Appellate Court fraudulently failed to render a memorandum of opinion regarding the egregious violations of constitutional rights of the appellant/Petitioner; 4. Failed to dismiss the case due to the existence of the triable issues of fact that precluded the issue of summary judgment of AG in the SCDC; 5. Failed to reverse the judgment of AJSC Pagones on base of CPLR 5704 based on unconstitutional ex parte orders and judgments that lacked notice of process and lacked any adjudication hearing; 6. Failed to perform the mandatory duty enjoined by law to reverse the SCDC order and judgment of AJSC Pagones based on lack of jurisdiction of the SCDC and remand the triable issues of material fact to SCDC for supposedly fair adjudication; 7. Willingly and knowingly, ignoring and disregarding all exculpatory issues brought by appellant/petitioner in the proceeding as inexistent, etc., etc.
124. Illegal participation of justice Sherri Roman in the Article 78 proceeding in which she was clearly disqualified by law, render the DOJ of the Appellate Court to be illegally decreed, illegal as ignoring factual and legal matters of law brought by the Petitioner in his Petition and illegal due to the fact that were not contradicted or rebutted by the respondent who defaulted; illegal and fraudulent due to the abrupt termination of legal proceeding by the court prior resolution of the legal actions, motions and proceeding pending, thus substantially affecting the legal and constitutional rights of the petitioner Veleanu.
125. The Appellate Court failed to take action as provided in the CPLR 4511 served to the adverse party and to the court and make a determination of the matter judicially noticed by the petitioner and such findings generally are subject to review on appeal as a finding or charge on a matter of law.
126. The DOJ of the Appellate Court properly denied the AG’s motion to dismiss the petition, however denied the petition “on the merits” when such decision is based on false interpretation of the law that is considered fraud upon the court. The DOJ inter alia, stated that “the extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only where there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear right to the relief sought”. While the first part of the statement is correct as a citation of law, the second part is fraudulent and clearly represents an illogical, irrational, arbitrary and capricious action. The mandamus writ was requested by petitioner based on the motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) for annulments of the void and null orders and judgments decreed by SCDC that lacked the personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Moreover, the petitioner has shown in the motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) that the adverse party committed fraudulent, illegal and criminal acts that entitled the petitioner to the relief sought as a matter of law. The writ of mandamus was to compel AJSC Peter Forman to act upon a motion that was not discretionary and could not be denied. In addition, AJSC Forman was disqualified by law to make a determination on a motion where he was named a defendant, as has been shown in an earlier part of this petition. The citation of law masquerading as evidence for denying the relief of mandamus is clearly an act of extrinsic fraud and fraud upon court by the Appellate Court’s fore mentioned justices; there cannot be more clear right to the relief sought other than the lack of jurisdiction of the trial court to render judgments.
127. The Appellate Court in support of its DOJ, cites as legal case precedent, the Matter of Legal Aid Society of Sullivan County v. Scheinman, 53 NY 2d 12, 16. That cited case where definitely the petitioner lacked the clear legal right to mandamus, has no comparison whatsoever with this legal case where the absolute lack of jurisdiction compelled the performance of the mandated ministerial act of AJSC Forman. It is illogical and absurd to compare this legal case of lack of court’s jurisdiction with a legal
case where the writ of mandamus was requested in a motion in limine where the petitioner did not exhaust all administrative and judicial alternatives. The cited case of Matter of Legal Aid does not satisfy the requirement of CPLR 7801 that specifies that a proceeding under the Article 78 shall not be used to challenge a determination that is not final, that could be adequately reviewed by appeal to a court, or to a body or officer to rehear the matter upon the petitioner’s application. The citation of the Matter of Legal Aid Society as a precedent case of common law is not only improper and non comparable, but as the entire DOJ and outcome of this petition was based on this non confirmatory, contradictory to the statute’s specification, the Appellate Court judicial action is un-disputably a factual evidence of extrinsic fraud, fraud upon court and absurd and irrational arbitrary and capricious action of unconscionable abuse of discretion.
128. The extrinsic fraud committed by the officers of any tribunal including the justices
of the Appellate Court of disregarding the evidence as proof of lack of jurisdiction and trying to confer jurisdiction upon a void judgment is clearly a fraud upon court. The
Appellate Court claimed a judgment “on the merits”, statement that is false and fraudulent. CPLR 5013 conclusively states that: “A judgment dismissing a cause of action before the close of the proponent’s evidence is not a dismissal on the merits“. Accordingly, based on CPLR 5013, the DOJ decreed by the Appellate Court was premature, improper and illegal as not preceding the motion for summary judgment. The petitioner established the right and absolute entitlement to the summary judgment based on the respondent failure to respond to the motion and rebut the averments brought by
petitioner’s motion for summary judgment submitted legally one week prior DOJ.
129. The final judgments on merits require the adjudication of all causes of action of the petition. The petition had 5 causes of action involving multiple respondents with different causes of action. Even by admitio ad absurdum that DOJ would be legally acceptable, the presence of multiple causes of action and multiple respondents in the petition, would resolve only one cause of action, but could not resolve all causes of action due to multiplicity of the respondents with different pleaded causes of action. CPLR 5012 specifies that in case that the court orders a severance, may direct judgment upon a part of a cause of action, upon one or more causes of action as to one or more parties. Federal Rule 54 is similar to CPLR 5012 setting it forth that a final judgment needs to adjudicate all causes of action. Accordingly, the DOJ of the Appellate Court is not a final judgment on merits as it fails the adjudication of all causes of action including the constitutional violations by the justices of the court, adjudication that fraudulently was avoided, disregarded as inexistent, despite that was brought in all court proceedings of the trial court, as well as in the proceedings in the Appellate Court. By law and legal definition, the fraudulent DOJ cannot be a final decision “on the merits” that supposedly ends the litigation and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.
130. On July 15, 2013, the plaintiff submitted to the Appellate Court a motion for reargument pursuant to CPLR 2221 (d) (See Exhibit 13), and the decision and order of the Appellate Court regarding the motion was not received. A research on the motions calendar of the Appellate Court shows that there is no decision on this motion.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF RELATED TO THE ILLEGAL AND CRIMINAL ACTS PERPETRATED UPON VELEANU BY THE AG OF NY STATE ANDREW CUOMO AND RELIEF PURSUANT TO 15 USC SEC. 15C
Wherefore, AG Andrew Cuomo and his counsel, Nicholas G. Garin committed illegal, frivolous, vexatious and criminal acts perpetrated upon Mircea Veleanu leading to injury to the plaintiff.
Wherefore the respondent AG, Andrew Cuomo, violated the following: Canons of judicial conduct, NYS Civil Rights laws, NY Courts rules and regulations, federal statutes and codes, reckless violation of several NY State disciplinary and ethical rules, misfeasance in the office, etc.
Wherefore, AG of NY State, Andrew Cuomo, committed the following but not limited illegal and egregious prosecutorial misconduct that most of them are criminal under the laws of NY State and US of America: commission of perjury and subornation of perjury, uttering to the court of fraudulent evidence with full knowledge of the falsity of evidence. AG committed the following: malicious prosecution and abuse of process, release of false, malicious and libelous false information to media, making false statements of law or facts and representing them as valid, legitimate and true, violation of court gag order with subsequent contempt of court, concealing exculpatory evidence, fabrication of false evidence, conspiracy to violate the constitutional rights of Veleanu, interference and conspiracy to violate the civil rights of Veleanu as guaranteed by the NY State Constitution and US Constitution, conspiracy to defraud Veleanu, participation in the creation and preservation of evidence known to him to be fraudulent or illegal, counseling, supporting aiding and assisting the sole complainant in a conduct that the lawyer knew or should have known is illegal and fraudulent, failing to exercise due diligence in his investigative activity, witness tampering, all of the above in his quasi judicial non advocatory investigative function and as such devoid of his absolute prosecutorial immunity. Even the qualified immunity is not granted to government officers when they knowingly and willingly broke the law. AG committed the following torts: malicious prosecution and abuse of process, release of false, malicious and libelous information to media, making false statements of law or facts and representing them as valid, legitimate and true, violation of court gag order with subsequent contempt of court, all of the above in his individual capacity, devoid of prosecutorial immunity. The extreme and outrageous prosecutorial conduct constitutes the tort of outrage.
Wherefore AG Andrwew Cuomo violated the following federal codes and statutes: Title 18 USC Sec. 1623, Chapter 79; Title 18 Sec. 371; Title 18 Chapter 25 Sec. 514, violation of Rule 26 (b) (1) of FRCP; Title 18 Sec. 241, Title 18 sec. 242; Title 18 Sec. 1505; Title 18, Sec. 20; Title 18 Sec. 19, 15 USC Sec. 45, 15 USC Sec. 52, Title 18 Chapter 73 Sec. 1512, Title 18 Sec. 373, 18 USC Sec.1503, Title 18 Sec.1509, 18 USC Sec. 201, Chapter 63 18 USC Sec.1341, 18 USC Sec 1506, etc.
Wherefore, AG Andrew Cuomo violated constitutional rights of Veleanu under 4th., 5th, 6th., 7th., 8th., and 14th. Amendments of US Constitution.
Wherefore, plaintiff, Mircea Veleanu pursuant to USC Title 15 Chapter 1 Sec. 15(a) and 15 USC Sec 15c (2) (A), 15 USC Sec. 15c (2) (B) and 15 USC Sec 15c (2) C, is asking the court the recovery of threefold the damages sustained by the plaintiff that was injured in his business and additionally, the cost of the suit including the attorney fee. Moreover, the plaintiff requests the award of the interest on actual damages starting on the day of service of the pleading and ending on the date of judgment.
1. AG Andrew Cuomo, commenced and continued a legal action in bad faith when the prosecutor knew or it was obvious that the charges were not supported by a probable cause, lack of standing to sue and absolute lack of grounds to charge for statutory fraud in the absence of injury. (See 15 USC Sec.15c (2) (A)).
2. AG, Andrew Cuomo, conspired with the complainant, Janet Spiridonakos, to charge the plaintiff with fabricated charges. In such illegal action, specifically, AG conspired with Spiridonakos to perform racketeering acts including but not limited to bribery of witnesses and soliciting them to ask for refunds and encouraging and aiding them to breach the commercial contract with the incentive of retroactive interest of 9 % to the date of purchase. AG’s illegal acts included but not limited to forgery, mislabeling (misbranding), theft, fraud, obstruction of justice, forgery by counterfeit of forensic evidence, all proven acts of racketeering under violation of RICO (influenced and corrupt organization act). As such the plaintiff is entitled to treble compensatory damages for the injuries caused by the illegal acts committed by the prosecutor, AG. The racketeering activities and their specifications are clearly shown in the federal law 15 USC Sec 15 – Suits by persons injured, and specifically in Title 15 Sec. 15c – Actions by State Attorney General.
3. AG as a prosecutor made motions, and in bad faith asserted claims lacking in merit showing that AG acted intentionally to delay the legal process in order to increase the amount of illegal punitive penalties granted by AJSC James Pagones as a conspirator in the racketeering scheme.
4. In the special proceeding, AG violated any applicable statute, rule and regulations providing for sanctions for dilatory behavior, or other wise providing for expeditious proceeding (See 15 USC Sec. 15c (2) (B) illustrated in thereto paragraph 23, 30, 32, 33.
5. In his prosecutorial acts, AG engaged in conduct primarily for the purpose of delaying the litigation and or increasing the cost thereof (See 15 USC Sec. 15c (2) © and well illustrated in paragraph 23 thereto.
Wherefore, in recognition that AG acted under the color of State law, violating the constitutional rights of the plaintiff for a fair and unbiased litigation and opportunity to defend himself against fraudulent charges and pursuant to anti trust 15 USC Sec. 15, the plaintiff requests the award of treble damages in the amount of $ 109,902.51 representing the amount of the undertaking of $36,634.17 paid by the plaintiff multiplied by 3.
Pursuant to provisions of 15 USC Sec. 15c (d) (2) based on the irrefutable fact that AG has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, and oppressive reasons, the plaintiff requests the court to grant the attorney fees in the amount of $16.765.
Wherefore, plaintiff requests the grant of injunction to prohibit the continuation of the illegal and criminal acts perpetrated upon plaintiff, and granting of a declaratory relief to rehabilitate the damaged professional and moral character of the plaintiff and the award of any other relief as this court may deem appropriate and equitable.
RELIEF PURSUANT TO VIOLATION OF 42 USC SEC. 1983
The following defendants acting under color of law in their official capacity included justices of the Supreme Court of New York Dutchess County, involved justices of the Supreme Court of NY Appellate Court Second Department and the Clerk of the Appellate Court Second Department, violated the due process and equal protection as secured by 5th and 14th. Amendment of US Constitution and the rights and protections guaranteed to the plaintiff by the First, Sixth and Eighth Amendments of the Federal Constitution.
1. The acting justices of the SCDC acted not only in excess of jurisdiction, but their judicial actions were in complete lack of any jurisdiction due to the court’s lack of jurisdiction in personam and lack of jurisdiction of subject matter. Thus, the defense of judicial immunity does not afford any protection to the justices of the Supreme Court of NY that acted in clear absence of jurisdiction..
2. The justices of the Supreme Court of NY involved in this legal case committed several fraud upon the court actions that precluded the availability of the qualified immunity.
Wherefore, the plaintiff requests the court the grant of the attorney fees in the amount of $16,765 according to 42 USC Sec. 1988 and legal expenses incurred by plaintiff since April 2009 till present time in the amount of $85,000.
Wherefore, the plaintiff requests the court the grant of declaratory relief in order to repair the damage on the professional and moral character of the plaintiff and injunctive relief against unconstitutional injuries and bring the legal status to the pre trial state, annulments of all previous orders, judgments and injunctions imposed upon the plaintiff and the award of any other relief as this court may deem appropriate and equitable.
RELIEF PURSUANT TO VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY THE CLERK OF THE APPELLATE COURT APRILANNE AGOSTINO
The Clerk of the Appellate Court, Aprilanne Agostino acting under the color of the State laws with gross disregard to the rights of the petitioner and in clear violation of statutory directives and constitutional rights of the petitioner is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity granted for the discretionary acts. The common law precedent established as a matter of law that the Clerk of the Court who performs ministerial and mandatory functions is not entitled to quasi judicial immunity that is granted only in performance of discretionary judicial duties.
Wherefore, the plaintiff request compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $500,000 for the damages sustained by the plaintiff due to gross negligence and willful official misconduct of failure to perform the ministerial statutory duties imposed by law and the award of any other relief as this court may deem appropriate and equitable.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Signed this 14th day of August 2013
Mircea Veleanu

Petition pursuant to Article 78 (CPLR 7801-7806)

Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appellate Division : Second Judicial Department
____________________________________

In the Matter of Application of:
Dr. Mircea Veleanu d/b/d Objets D’Art Uniques
Petitioner MEMORANDUM
OF LAW
Pursuant to CPLR Article 78
For a judgment under Article 78 of the CPLR

Against Index No. 2013/3947

Hon. Thomas Dolan, AJSC, Hon. James Pagones
AJSC, Hon. Peter M. Forman, AJSC, and
Hon. James Brands, JSC, in their official capacity
of Justices of the Supreme Court of New York
Dutchess County, and, Andrew Cuomo, Attorney
General of the State of New York, Nicholas G.
Garin AKA Nick Garin, Assistant Attorney General
of the State of New York, in their official capacity.
Respondents
__________________________________________

MOTTO.

Public integrity was my top priority as New York Attorney General and it is as governor…Those who hold public office must safeguard that trust and those that violate their oath must incur punishment, It is a new day in Albany and the old day of doing business will not be tolerated.

Excerpt from the speech at the inauguration of Andrew Cuomo as governor of New York State.
1

1. The above dictum was pronounced at the inauguration of Andrew Cuomo as a governor of New York State and as such as is a commendable example of what is required from a public officer, it needs to apply to everybody including the governor himself who is the role model for foresaid public officers, other ways represents a pure political and demagogical hypocrisy.
2. The lawsuit that hereto is challenged pursuing the Article 78 of NY State CPLR 7801-7806 is the proper place for such challenge, if the challenge is effectuated under fairness, equal human rights granted by United States Constitution and presided in legal proceeding by an impartial, unbiased and unprejudiced referee who grants hearings in which the parties have the opportunity to debate, dispute and controvert the allegations of the parties involved.
3. In the former judicial proceedings, the undersigned did not have the opportunity to defend, argue and controvert the allegations of the powerful adversary party in a hearing.
4. The false allegations were upheld by biased and prejudicial officers of law who disregarded the evidence provided in the form of proof and either ruled that the contentions of the pro se litigant are “without merit” or completely ignored and/or not litigated at all on base of merit, thus protecting the interest of the powerful litigant.
5. No country is a democratic country when the civil rights of a person are totally repressed and the trials are in form of “kangaroo court” which is conducted without the opportunity to defend, without hearings and in which a defendant is allowed only to accept guilt in form of unethical “bargaining plea”, when defendant is innocent of all fraudulent charges against him”.
6. In the legal case that hereto is legally challenged by the undersigned, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (AG) and his counsel, Assistant Attorney General Nicholas G. Garin, AKA Nick Garin (AAG), commenced a legal proceeding under GBL 349 and Executive Law 63.12, alleging that the respondent Dr. Mircea Veleanu violated the fore mentioned laws by selling in his hobby minimal volume business, carved ornamental art Sino-Tibetan Buddhist rosaries that allegedly were misrepresented as made of jadeite when improvident and wrongful used gemological testing identified the presence of quartz in examination done by AGTA laboratory (went out of business in July 2009, a few weeks after performing the gemological testing), and gemological testing done by GIA that identified quartzite, a
2

rock that contains several minerals including quartz and jadeite, and such rock identified as jadeite/quartzite. It is well known and world wide accepted by jade merchants, that the identification of jadeite is done by mineralogical testing that includes examination under microscope, Moh’s test that determines the hardness of the stone and specific gravity. The gemological testing is exclusively reserved to jewelry grade jadeite of minute quantity of a stone measured in carat (200 mg), and never done in the ornamental art carvings that are large, measured in grams and obviously containing other minerals than jadeite as are not pure single mineral. Without getting in a more detailed scientific explanation, the finding of single mineral quartz, or poly mineral quartzite does not preclude the presence of jadeite that in pure form is a pyroxene with chemical composition of a silicate of sodium and aluminum.
7. A single person from Winsted, Connecticut named Janet Spiridonakos, purchased from the undersigned over a period of about 2 years, 7 Sino-Tibetan jadeite rosaries mala in shape of carved human faces of Tibetan monks used for meditation in Buddhist prayers. She was ecstatic about the quality of carvings and purchased 2 mala at auctions were the undersigned was a consignor, rather than a seller, and additional 5 mala directly from the Internet business of the undersigned. Ultimately, she purchased a pair of Chinese calligraphy brushes with jadeite handles. Upon receipt of the brushes, wrongly she believed that were made of glass, rather than jadeite. She did not consult with anybody else and returned the brushes and was refunded in full. She was not sure about her belief and as a matter of fact, she implored the undersigned for re-purchase, that providently did not happen. According to her allegations, she submitted the 7 rosaries mala for an examination with AGTA Lab through a jeweler friend or accomplice in fraud that had his store in Great Barrington, Massachussetts. Rather than shipping the mala by registered mail as is customary, she used the services of her jeweler friend as a courier. The evidence shows that fraudulently, this person mislabeled the mala as “head carved necklaces” that are jewelry type of merchandise, in order to qualify the mala for a gemological testing. Nevertheless, there was no such nomenclature in the description and title of the items when were sold to her. AGTA Lab identified the mala as “Natural species quartz”. This woman complained with NY State AG, Connecticut AG, Winsted police, Chamber of Commerce, etc., alleging that she was “defrauded” by the undersigned. Obviously, all the agencies she
3

complained, realized that her complaint is frivolous and ignored her complaint, except AG Andrew Cuomo and his counsel AAG Nicholas G. Garin, AKA Nick Garin, who started a legal proceeding against the undersigned under GBL 349 and Executive Law 63.12. An examination of the identification reports of AGTA revealed that 2 identification reports were tampered and forged as representing the same mala.
8. AAG Garin summoned the undersigned for a subpoena at the AG office in Poughkeepsie for a deposition under oath. At the deposition, the undersigned brought the attention of AAG that the evidence was forged and as such has no probative value. In addition, the undersigned mentioned that the complainant is a habitual returning of purchased items, and in the past she returned and was refunded in 2 separate occasions. Thus, there was no reason that she would not be refunded again if requested. Fraudulently, she claimed that she was refused a refund by the undersigned. In addition, she made another fraudulent allegation that one mala described as fei tsui jadeite, was “imperial jade” that is valued in hundreds of thousands dollars on weight in carats. However, fei tsui is actually the name attributed to ordinary jadeite and not to imperial jade. The undersigned was given the opportunity to contest AG allegations in defense to a Notice of Proposed Action by AG within 5 days, that undersigned did and was certain that he was exculpated.
9. On August 7, 2009, AAG Garin told the undersigned that he intends to appear in court within a few hours and request from a judge a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent the undersigned to sell jade. Upon appearance in the Court, AAG Garin handed to the undersigned a large stack of papers that it could not be read within a few minutes, even one page. Upon returning home, I realized that the papers actually represented a petition and an order to show cause, rather than papers related to the grant of TRO. On this appearance that was labeled by the Judge James Brands as a calendar call, I protested about the handing of the papers a few minutes before the calendar call and did not have the opportunity to learn about charges. The appearance in court related to TRO is not considered to be service upon respondent as is considered trickery used by petitioner to illegally try to achieve personal jurisdiction upon the person of respondent. According to CPLR 320 C, a limited appearance in court not related to service of process is not considered service at all. Accordingly, the lack of personal service at the commencement of judicial action, precludes the court to obtain
4

jurisdiction upon respondent and consequent lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, all subsequent orders and judgments decreed in absence of jurisdiction are null and invalid based on void judicial process.
In People v Patterson, 39 NY2d, 288, 295 , 383 NYS 2d 573, 577 (1976), the court stated: “Where the court has no jurisdiction, or where there was a fundamental non-waivable defect in the mode of procedure, an Appellate Court must reverse, even though the question was not formally raised below“. See also People v Ahmed, 66 NY 2d 307, 310, 496 NYS 2d 984, 985 (1985). In this legal case, the undersigned requested the dismissal of petition based on CPLR 3211 (a) (8). See Exhibit 1 consisting in excerpts from the following documents: pleadings of the respondent, Brief to the Appellate Court Second Division, motion to Appellate Court for reargument and permission to appeal at the Court of Appeals, motion to Court of Appeals for permission to appeal and motion to SCDC pursuant to CPLR 5015 for annulment of orders and judgments decreed by SCDC. The documentation provided in Exhibit 1 demonstrates that the undersigned made all efforts to plead the righteousness of the judicial action and was prevented to obtain relief in clearly biased and prejudiced tribunals who refused to adjudicate respondent’s contentions on merit. (4). Egregiously and prejudicially, all the applications for relief due to lack of jurisdiction were disregarded in unconscionable abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious action, and never were adjudicated on merit in all above mentioned tribunals. The Court of Appeals determined that that only the fair and full opportunity to litigate any issue satisfies the safeguards that all judgments be decided on merits and litigated for all issues involved in order that res judicata is precluded to be invoked. A valid final judgment on merits prevent re-litigation. The Court of Appeals ruled that issue preclusion in collateral estoppel cannot be invoked , if a forum in the second action afforded a party against whom preclusion is invoked, new procedural opportunities. The issue of jurisdictional power of the court cannot be waived, until adjudicated in full with opportunities of the litigating parties to prove their position and substantiate with evidence of the proof of service in order to achieve the subject matter jurisdiction.
10. From common law of precedent similar cases, I present 2 judicial cases that are similar to the present case.
A. Tickle v Barton, 142 W. Va. 185, 95 se 2d 427 W, Va. (1956). Service of process accomplished by fraud is not valid as held by the Supreme Court of
5

Appeals of West Virginia. Tickle’s lawyer lured Barton into West Virginia with the false pretense of a party in order to serve process upon Barton in a suit for personal injury. The court held that a person may not be induced by false representation to enter the jurisdiction of the court for the purpose of service of papers.
B. Wyman v. Newhouse, 93 F2d 313 (2nd Cir. 1937). Wyman lured Newhouse to Florida in order to serve him with process for recovery of loaned money and seduction under the promise of marriage. The court held that a judgment against a party based on fraudulent service of process is invalid.
11. In the evidence as irrefutable proof, AAG concedes that he did not serve the respondent with the petition in the fashion prescribed by law. In his “Alternative proposed Statement in lieu of Stenographic Transcripts submitted to the Appellate Court pursuing CPLR 5525 (d), AAG stated: “Dr. Veleanu stated that the fax had failed to come through and his first notice of the contents of the State’s petition was a few minutes prior to the hearing when he was served with the order to show cause and petition. He objected to going (sic) forward since the documents were so voluminous he had not had time to absorb them. I responded that the matter had been under investigation for months and that Dr. Veleanu knew essentially what the State’s case was about since he had been deposed recently”. See Exhibit 11, A29. AAG Garin knew or should have known that a prior deposition is not a proof of service. Petitioner AAG failed to present proof of a valid service of petition by any form as required by CPLR 306 (B), 308 (1) and 308 (2). Accordingly, in the absence of proper service of process, no personal jurisdiction was acquired over the defendant and also no jurisdiction on subject matter. See Bennett v. Acosta 68 AD 3d 910; Horseman Antiques, Inc. v. Huch, 50AD 3d 963. 964; Dominguez v. Sampson Mfg., Corp. 207 AD 2d 375. It is well settled that the failure to serve process in a legal proceeding leaves the court without personal jurisdiction over respondent and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, all subsequent proceedings resulting in orders and judgments are thereby rendered null, invalid and void (McMullen v. Arnone, 79 AD 2d, 496, 499; see also, Khanai v. Sheldon, 55 AD 3d, 684. Notice received by means other than those authorized by statute cannot bring a respondent within the jurisdiction of the court. (Feinstein v. Bergner, 48 NY 2d , 234, 241).
12. The law clearly shows that the burden of proof of proving jurisdiction
6

is upon the party who asserts it, and that party must show by supporting evidence the essential requirement of the personal jurisdiction statute. See Saratoga Harness Racing Ass’n v. Moss, 26 AD, 486, 490 (1966). Furthermore, “the court will not find personal jurisdiction based on conclusory and unsubstantiated assertions” (Brown v. Blum, 1999, WL 10429 o 04, 21 NY Supp) citing Spectra Products , Inc. V. Indian River citrus Specialties, Inc., 144 AD 2d2d, 832 , 833 (1988); Lamarr v. Klein, 35 AD 2d , 248, 250(970). As relevant, CPLR 3211 (e)requires that the papers in opposition to a motion based on improper service, shall contain a copy of the proof of service in form of an affidavit, or a proof of a signed acknowledgement of receipt of the petition and order to show cause that was serviced properly according to CPLR 306 B. Petitioner (AG) could not prove any requirements of the burden of proof of service of process due to lack of service, or an improper service in accordance with CPLR 306 (b). As was proved in all the motions to dismiss, pleadings, appeal to the Appellate Court and the Court of Appeals, the petitioner failed to properly serve the respondent and delivery of the petition by trickery of claiming an appearance for a TRO, rather than service of process, precludes the petitioner to claim effectuation of service. CPLR 320 C clearly defines in limited appearance that “when the court ’s jurisdiction is not based upon personal service on the defendant, an appearance is not equivalent to personal service upon the defendant”.
13. AAG commenced this legal proceeding in bad faith for lack of standing, lack of a cause of action to justify the commencement and irrefutable proof of extrinsic fraud. The single complainant had no standing to sue as was not aggrieved. Under conditions of sale, she was entitled to lifetime warranty and refund. See Exhibit 3- Conditions of sale of the commercial contract. Furthermore, the evidence provided by the undersigned in form of the undersigned’s email to the complainant, clearly shows that complainant received reassurance that she will be refunded and thus, contradicting petitioner’s fraudulent lie that “respondent refused to refund the complainant” See Exhibit 4
14. Further on, petitioner started this summary proceeding under GBL 349 and Executive Law 63.12 in complete failure to prove a cause of action under GBL 349 of statutory fraud, that will be eligible for an entitlement of relief. The case does not satisfy by any reasonable and logical basis to support such summary judicial action and clearly represents an
7
unconscionable abuse of prosecutorial discretion and irrational arbitrary and capricious judicial action. This legal case represents a commercial dispute between a criminal complainant named Janet Spiridonakos engaged in perjury, fraud by mislabeling forensic evidence, extortion, forgery by counterfeit of document submitted to the court for charging the seller with alleged statutory fraud and in absence of substantiation of her allegations by evidence in form of proof, and on the other side, the undersigned seller that acted conform with the conditions of sale of contract. The case does not meet the requirements of GBL 349: 1. It was not addressed to the consumers at large, rather represented a private commercial dispute that had to be resolved according to the conditions of the commercial contract. 2. The dispute was particular and exclusively related to this case and did not involve any other customer with similar complaints. 3. The case lacks materiality, as complainant collected only jewelry type of items, and the complainant was advised that the undersigned sells mainly art carvings that are not jewelry items per se and do not satisfy the strict requirements of jewelry grade items. The evidence of prosecutor consisted, inter alia, in form of several emails between the complainant and the undersigned as seller, saved over a period of time of more than 2 years. The saving and collection of trivial emails concerning the sale of jadeite mala, by itself, represents a deliberate and premeditated intention to defraud the seller. Her emails show that she used the services of a friend jeweler with a store in Great Barrington, Masssacchussets, to improperly authenticate carved jadeite art carvings that are not prone to be examined by gemological testing, as not being of jewelry grade jadeite and as such, containing a variation of different minerals and chemical elements that render the gemological testing not only to be inappropriate, but clearly fraudulent. While there is evidence of faking jewelry grade jadeite with inexpensive non jewelry grade jadeite or simulants of jade, there is no probative evidence whatsoever, in the commerce or legal suits, that a non jewelry grade jadeite carving had be tested by gemological testing, as forego mentioned. Petitioner had the obligation to research if ever a legal case involving such absurd moronic and irrational allegations ever occurred, of course, excluding the simulants of jadeite in expensive jewelry grade jewelry that is rather common. Nonetheless, the mala jadeite art carvings were not misrepresented as jewelry grade imperial jade, as fraudulently the complainant alleged. Nonetheless, the mala sold to complainant was
8

exquisite in carving of the stone that is extremely hard, and the quality of the stone was excellent by itself, lacking inclusions. She produced as burden of proof of alleged “fraud”, gemological testing by AGTA Lab that showed the presence of “natural species quartz“. A repeat gemological testing by GIA Lab did not confirm the findings of AGTA Lab and identified mala as being “species quartzite“. While quartzite that is a poly mineral rock contains quartz (that is a mono mineral), the GIA examination did not confirm AGTA Lab testing, as species quartz is not the same as species quartzite. The research of mineralogical literature by the undersigned revealed that quartzite and jadeite are both poly mineral metamorphic rocks that contain, or may contain quartz. It is scientifically defective and moronic to do gemological testing in a rock that contains several minerals. So, by absurd , if a low intellect customer, or intentionally done by a researcher that would submit the poly mineral rock to the examination of the rock by gemological examination, it may yield to different results depending on the examination of the rock in a specific site, in comparison with examination of the same rock in a different site that could obtain different results of the mineral firstly discovered. Exhibit 1 shows in a sagittal section of a jadeite rock, the close proximity of the mineral quartz to the core of jadeite and the likely possibility that if the gemological examination is done in close proximity, the results of the testing could yield to different results. As a matter of fact, such analysis was done in an experiment by the Friends of Jade, an association of jade collectors enthusiasts. This long scientific explanation is provided due to the fact that both SCDC and the Appellate Court made legal decisions based on the faulty, moronic and scientifically low intellect determination that the identification of jadeite or nephrite art carvings of non jewelry grade stones has to be done by gemological examination and ignoring scientifically correct averments of the undersigned that non jewelry grade jade art carving has to be identified only by mineralogical testing (that was not done by AGTA or GIA lab). Such absurdity and moronic determination was decreed in a prestigious court of justice in New York State by decreeing a permanent injunction imposed on the undersigned that any sales of jade items has to be supported by a gemological identification report. The stupidity and absurdity of such decree makes the NY State Supreme Court (SCDC) to appear in front of the whole world as ignorant, lacking the rational and intellect for a such prestigious
tribunal unless the arbitrary and capricious is or was its MO.
9

The question that remains to be resolved by Article 78 proceeding is if that such requirement is due to ignorance and lack of intellectual capacity of the officers of the court of the Supreme Court of NY, or represents arbitrary and capricious judicial action that defies the rational of a reasonable fact finder, and represents an unconscionable abuse of discretion by the fore mentioned officers of the court and an arbitrary and capricious judicial act lacking the logic and rational. The undersigned contacted 3 prestigious gemological laboratories in New York City inquiring if they perform such gemological testing in non jewelry grade art carvings of jade. Not only that the answer was negative, but I was told that the maximum size of the stone to be examined should not be more than 40 carats ( about 4 grams). Further on, I was told that if an examination would be done in a bigger stone, the results could be inaccurate, as being proven in this case. AG lacked the due diligence prior commencement of the legal action, to investigate if the allegations of the single complainant are supported by any plausible and intelligent basis. Furthermore, AG was authorized by judge Thomas Dolan to contact all the former customers that purchased jade from the undersigned and urged to request refunds alleging that the undersigned committed fraud by selling quartz or glass instead of jade. The malicious and libelous attacks in media by the AG and the contact to all the customers by the prosecutor did not yield to any claim of misrepresentation by any former customer. It proves that the jade collectors are not stupid and know how to identify jade. Nevertheless, in a perfidious, malicious and fraudulent misrepresentation and example of extrinsic fraud committed by AG, petitioner promised to all persons involved in jade purchases from the undersigned (that did not allege misrepresentation), a gratifying illegal interest of 9 %, retroactive, years back to the date of purchase of jade, waiving the auction company’s commission of 27.5 % , Paypal fee of 3 % and shipping fee). As all the customers who requested refunds purchased the art jade carvings at auction, the refund of the auction house commission assessed to the undersigned (I was a consignor, rather than the seller), and other refunds, almost doubled their investments. However, their action was illegal in the fact that they breached the contract of sale that provide lifetime warranty with refunds in accordance to the conditions of sale of the contract. The illegal punitive action against the respondent Veleanu, represents an abuse of process and malicious prosecution by AG. AG solicited, provided, supported and aided
10

the illegal act of breach of contract by the complainant (2 of the jade items purchased were at auctions where the undersigned was the consignor, rather than the seller).
15. The sole complainant committed criminal acts aided, encouraged and supported by the prosecutor. 1. The complainant committed perjury by making contradictory statements in her affidavit in regard to the cost of gemological testing done by AGTA. The statement in the affidavit contradicted a previous statement she made in an email. See Exhibit 6.
2. Subsequently, her legal deposition became invalid due to her impeachment as a witness according to CPLR 4514. See Exhibit 17.
3. The complainant forged the evidence by mislabeling of the 7 jadeite mala as “head carved necklaces” in order that she could submit the mala as jewelry items, as such, misrepresenting the 7 jadeite mala as jewelry items, rather than ornamental jade mala as labeled and sold to her by the undersigned. 4. In a criminal act, the complainant forged by counterfeit, an invoice provided to her by her partner in fraud, a jeweler friend with store in Massachussetts. The graphological examination reveals that complainant Spiridonakos wrote the invoice herself. The handwriting of the invoice is identical to handwriting of Spiridonakos adjacent to the invoice and other legal documents exhibiting her handwriting. See Exhibit 18.
5. Complainant conspired with AAG Garin to charge the undersigned with false allegations. In support of this contention, I submit as evidence in form of proof, complainant’s affidavit that irrefutably proves that AAG Garin wrote complainant’s affidavit, or edited the evidence to appear more plausible. The affidavit contains intimate details of the legal process as Exhibit numbers in AAG’s Petition, content of the fore mentioned Exhibits that would be impossible to complainant named Janet Spiridonakos to know, in absence of the conspiracy with the prosecutor to charge the undersigned with concocted false charges.
Spiridonakos’ affidavit was not written by her as a witness of facts she knew from personal experience, rather was imposed illegally and fraudulently by Attorney General that Spiridonakos wrote like she was the prosecutor of the legal process. Federal law Title 18, Sec. 19 makes a crime to “conspire to injure” or oppress any citizen in the face of exercise of any right or privilege secured to him by Constitution. AAG Garin contemplated an ulterior malicious motive in using the legal legitimate process of an affidavit. He committed a willful act in the use of process not proper with regular conduct of proceedings. See Brown v. Kennard 94 Cal App 4th 40,
11

44 (2001). “(T)he essence of the tort of abuse of process lies in the misuse of the power of the court; it is an act done in the name of the court and under its authority for the purpose of perpetrating an injustice”. See Meadows v Bakersfield Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 250 Cal App 2d 749, 753 (1967); Spellen v Spellen 49 Cal 2d 210, 232-33 (1957). The court stated: “The improper (use) takes the form of coercion to obtain a collateral advantage not properly involved with the proceeding itself, such as the surrender of property, or the payment of money, by the use of process as a threat or a club, a form of extortion, and it is what is done in the course of the negotiation, rather than the issuance of any formal of the process, itself which constitutes the tort”.
16. Prosecutor AAG Garin committed illegal and criminal acts in achieving the relieves granted by the court in lack of any cause of action to substantiate the grant of such relieves. 1. AAG Garin willingly commenced a legal action when knowingly he was aware that he had no standing to initiate a legal action when the clear evidence showed that the single complainant was not aggrieved in any way by the undersigned. She was entitled to lifetime warranty that provided refund based on the conditions of sale of the contract. See Exhibit 3.
2. Fraudulently, she breached the commercial contract in order to defraud and extort the respondent by conspiring with AAG Garin to receive illegal award of punitive retroactive interest of 9 % years back to the date of purchase of jade items. As such she fraudulently and criminally enriched on total amount of her investment in purchasing jade items from the undersigned.
17. The conspiracy of AAG with complainant Spiridonakos to defraud and extort the undersigned represents an unconscionable abuse of discretion, extrinsic fraud and fraud upon court. The illegal retroactive interest of 9 % was also promised by AAG to 3 customers who did not claim misrepresentation of the seller, but breached the commercial contract in order to achieve illegal enrichment of their investment by defrauding the respondent. The punitive retroactive interest of 9 % was illegal as GBL 349 does not provide punitive fines. Such act represents extrinsic fraud, fraud upon court and unconscionable abuse of discretion.
18. AAG Garin did not provide with any evidence for the entitlement to GBL 349 and as such a failure to state a cause of action and unconscionable abuse of discretion. 5. In his petition, AAG Garin submitted false and
12

deceiving allegations that Veleanu “refused to take any malas (sic) back and refund to this consumer the thousands of dollars she paid him”. Such abhorrent lies were submitted under penalty of perjury and represent the criminal act of perjury, unconscionable abuse of discretion and capricious and arbitrary statements made without rational. The substantial evidence clearly shows that the complainant and the prosecutor acted in unison to defraud and extort the respondent. 6. Willingly and knowingly, AAG Garin uttered to the court documentary evidence he knew was false and fraudulent. 20. AAG uttered to the court criminally forged and mislabeled evidence as prima facie of alleged fraud with full knowledge of the falsity of the evidence he presented to the court. Using fake court documents constitutes a violation of federal statute Title 18 Sec 371. The penalty for using fake court documents is up to 5 years imprisonment. Title 18, Sec 514 of federal law provides that it is a crime to use a fraudulent document. Federal law Title 18 Chapter 25 Sec 514 counterfeiting and forgery, provides: “whoever with the intent to defraud: 1. Draws, prints, processes, publishes, or otherwise makes, or attempts or causes the same, within the US; 2. Passes within the US, or (3) utilizes interstate or foreign commerce…any false or fictitious instrument, document, or other item appearing, representing, purporting or contriving through a scheme or artifice… shall be guilty of class B felony. New York State similarly, under Penal Law 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree specifies: “A person is guilty of falsifying business records when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when by intend to defraud. AAG Garin committed perjury by stating in his Alternative Statement in lieu of Stenographic transcripts pursuant to CPLR 5525 (d), that he was not aware that gemological identification reports were forged and the evidence was fraudulently mislabeled by complainant Spiridonakos until respondent answered to Petition in his pleadings and later, on the motion to reargument and renew. This statement of AAG Garin is a blatant lie as the evidence showed that respondent brought to the attention of AAG Garin that AGTA gemological reports were forged and mislabeled, firstly in respondent’s pre-trial response to the Notice of Proposed Action pursuant to Article 22, weeks prior trial. The findings of forgery and mislabel were brought again in the defense by the undersigned at the calendar call of judge Brands. It appears from this irrefutable evidence that AAG Garin preferred to commit the criminal act of
13

perjury, rather than acknowledge that he commenced a legal action against the undersigned in absence of a reasonable cause of action. 7. AG is liable under the laws of the State of New York of committing the crime of subornation of perjury. Willingly, AG submitted Spiridonakos‘ affidavit with full knowledge of the falsity of affidavit’s declarations, and deliberately, he helped to fabricate and preserve them. As AG’s legal action was intended to deceive the court, it clearly represents extrinsic fraud, Fraud Upon the Court and unconscionable abuse of discretion.
19. The solicitation, aiding and supporting violation and breach of the commercial contract by all former customers involved in this case was possible only through the egregious intervention by AAG Garin. Other than the criminal black mail and extortion by complainant, another former customer committed the crime of substitution of a precious jade carving (she returned it through AAG Garin intermediary) with a valueless contemporary fake made of a marble type of material. Both, the complainant and this mentioned person named Diana Norton, submitted affidavits in which stated false statements, thus committed the criminal act of perjury by swearing under oath of false statements with full knowledge of the falsity of the their falsity. These criminal acts were made possible only through the intervention of AAG Garin who facilitated the commission of the criminal acts. As the intention of AAG was to prosecute the undersigned for alleged wrongdoings, his legal acts were Fraud upon Court based on deceit used to keep the undersigned devoid of exercising his right for a fair trial. AG initiated this frivolous and vexatious legal action in absence of any reasonable cause of action, in the name of other individuals, but without the
consent of involved individuals in an action of special proceeding in a court before a judge. According to CPLR R70, the person who initiates a
frivolous vexatious suit is guilty of misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment. In this legal case, AG initiated the legal action in behalf of 3 customers that did not claim misrepresentation, rather were tricked by AG to request refunds with the incentive of benefit of retroactive interest of 9 % starting years back to the date of purchase. These 3 customers did not consent for suing in their name as they did not have a legal standing to sue in the lack of aggrieving. Nevertheless, these 3 customers breached the commercial contract of sale and are liable for the damage incurred by Veleanu subsequent to their action. The legal action commenced and continued with the collateral intention to cause pecuniary harm and
14

psychological trauma to Veleanu and represents abuse of process, malicious prosecution and Fraud Upon the Court by intentional use of deceit and more importantly, unconscionable abuse of discretion. .
20. AG willingly and knowingly committed the criminal act of submitting to the court documents that concealed exculpatory evidence by interposing a photograph over a text that was exculpatory to respondent Veleanu in 2 separate occasions. See Exhibit 19. This criminal act implying forgery of a legal document was intended to be used for prosecution of an innocent individual. Such misconduct of the prosecutor is defined in the Federal law Title 18, Chapter 73, Section 1513 (a) (3) as misleading conduct and is punishable with imprisonment and penalties under Section 1512: “whoever knowingly uses…or engages in misleading conduct toward another person with intent to: (B). ( alter, destroy, mutilate or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding…“. This AG illegal action of concealment of exculpatory evidence clearly and concisely represents intrinsic and extrinsic fraud and Fraud Upon the Court.
21. AG used his prosecutorial power to issue several subpoenas with collateral objective of abuse of process in order to intimidate, harass and retaliate for the exercise of Veleanu’s constitutional rights to defend himself. 3 of 4 subpoenas were not directed to serve the legitimate evidentiary role and as such impermissible under Rule 26 (b) (1) of FRCP which allow subpoenas only to those matters that are relevant to the subject of action. As the subpoenas issued by AG were with the sole purpose to force Veleanu not to seek justice in the court, these illegal subpoenas of the AG clearly represent Fraud Upon the Court and unconscionable abuse of discretion.
22. AG released to media in 2 separate occasions false, inflammatory and misrepresenting, malicious, deceiving and libelous statements intended to harm Veleanu physically, psychologically and pecuniary. The statements
were outrageous lies not substantiated by substantive evidence to base upon. The malicious and deceiving statements had secondary collateral of abuse of process and malicious prosecution into hope that the fraudulent accusations by the highest rank law enforcement official would frighten the former customers and recruit more people that would request refunds with the incentive of being awarded retroactive interest of 9 % back to the date of purchase. AG committed outrageous libel by stating false and damaging statements that irreversibly damaged the immaculate personal and
15

professional reputation by using character assassination. See Exhibit 8. As the malicious prosecution with release to media of false information was meant to prevent Veleanu to pursue his legal defense in court, AG action is clearly a Fraud Upon the Court, unconscionable abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious action that defies the rationale of any prosecutor .
23. In a brazen and contempt of court action, AG violated the court imposed gag on media regarding information pertinent to TRO. The malicious action with secondary collateral of abuse of process had as purpose, the intention to prevent the defense of the undersigned in the court and as such represents Fraud Upon the Court and unconscionable abuse of discretion. AG commenced a legal action against respondent Veleanu based on GBL 349 and Executive Law 63 (12) without a reasonable cause of action. GBL 349 implies that customers affected by misrepresentation of deceit should show injury as a result of such “misrepresentation” or “deceit”. In the present legal case initiated as a result of a single complainant with doubtful moral character, there was no injury in any form and as such there was no standing to sue in lack of aggrievement. Even more, AG failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. This represents a clear Fraud Upon the Court, unconscionable abuse of discretion and absurd and illogical arbitrary and capricious judicial action. .
24. AG alleged and requested fines and court fees based on GBL 350 (d). Nevertheless, AG in his two causes of action did not allege any violations of GBL 350 that is based on fraudulent acts of advertising and did not state in his petition a cause of action under GBL 350. AG’s request for relief based on violations of GBL 350 failed to state a cause of action upon which a relief could be granted. Thus, AG prosecutorial actions were fraudulent and clearly represent Fraud Upon the Court, unconscionable abuse of discretion and an arbitrary and capricious judicial act defying the logic and rational of any reasonable factor and issue finder.
25. AG solicited former customers to request refunds for the past 6 years prior legal action that is beyond the statue of limitations. One person who requested a refund, purchased the jade carving in February 2006 that is beyond the statute of limitations for statutory fraud that is 3 years only. This represents obvious Fraud Upon the Court, abuse of discretion and an arbitrary and capricious prosecutorial action defying the logic of any
16

honest prosecutor. AG violated Penal Law 215-Article 215. Bribing a witness.
“A person is guilty of bribing a witness when he confers, or offers, or agrees to confer , any benefit upon a witness or a person about to be called as a
witness in any action or proceeding upon an agreement or understanding that (a) the testimony of such witness will thereby be influenced, or, (b) such witness will absent herself from, or otherwise avoid or seek to avoid appearing to testify at such action or proceeding“. Bribing a witness is a class D felony.
26. New York State Penal Law Sec. 100.05. Criminal solicitation of 4th degree. A person is guilty of solicitation in 4th degree when (1) with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes or otherwise attempts to cause such other person to engage in such conduct.
27. AG requested and obtained from the court punitive damages consisting
in interest of 9 % starting from the date of the purchase. The punitive damage was requested consequently to the motion for reargument/renew of
Veleanu and represents Fraud Upon the Court as is not based, endorsed and legal by any statute, law or rule. Of course, AG is not entitled to request punitive damages under GBL 349 or Executive Law 63 (12). Such prosecutorial judicial action clearly represents unconscionable abuse of discretion and rational defying arbitrary and capricious action.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Petitioner repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the forego paragraphs 1 to 27 and as a result, the prosecutor/petitioner Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General’s judicial actions demonstrated in the paragraphs 1 to 27 of the present petition to represent repeated acts of unconscionable abuse of discretion and or, arbitrary and capricious judicial actions defying logic and rational and as such are absurd and violated the constitutional rights of the petitioner for a just and fair adjudication of the allegations. In consideration of the violation of the prosecutor of Article 78, CPLR 7803(2): “whether the body or officer(s) above listed, proceeded without and in excess of jurisdiction that was clearly demonstrated in the foregoing paragraph 1 to 29, petitioner, Dr. Mircea Veleanu seeks review of the respondent(s), Attorney General of State of New York, Andrew Como
17

and Assistant Attorney General, Nick Garin’s judicial actions. that unequivocally demonstrate violation of CPLR 7803 (2).
28. Judge James Brands properly recused from legal case invoking personal conflict of interest based on prior involvement of his Chief Court Attorney as representing the adversary party in the undersigned’s divorce proceedings. A. Judge Brands granted a TRO with full knowledge that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor was forged and mislabeled and had no probative value, at least. B. Judge Brands signed an order to show cause that violated respondent’s constitutional rights of learning the substance of allegations prior onset of judicial proceeding and not being allowed to have sufficient time to be informed about charges and prepare a defense. Thus, the undersigned was deprived of constitutional right of due process. The most egregious part was the failure of petitioner to perform the personal service upon respondent and consequently, failure of the court to achieve personal jurisdiction upon respondent and subsequent lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the decree of TRO was illegal due to the fact that the court lacked the personal jurisdiction upon respondent and the TRO was invalid and null ab initio. While judge Brands properly recused, he failed to decree a nolle prosequi after his recusal in view of his conflict of interest consisting in the preparation of TRO papers and legal involvement of his Principal Court Attorney. Judge Brands granted a TRO with full knowledge of the forgery and mislabeling of burden of proof evidence on which basis he granted the relief of TRO. As the fraudulent evidence lacked a probative value, or scientifically plausible basis, such faulty evidence would prevent any reasonable person acting in the capacity of the fact finder to grant such drastic relief. Judge Brands judicial action represents extrinsic fraud, fraud upon court and unconscionable abuse of discretion.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Petitioner repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the forego paragraph 28 and as a result, judge James Brands’ judicial actions demonstrated in the paragraph 30 of the present petition that represent acts of unconscionable abuse of discretion and or, arbitrary and capricious judicial actions defying logic and rational and as such are absurd and
violated the constitutional rights of the petitioner for a just and fair adjudication of the allegations. In consideration of the violation of judge
18

James Brands of Article 78, CPLR 7803(2): “whether the body or officer(s) above listed, proceeded without and in excess of jurisdiction, and in consideration of violation of judge James Brands of Article 78 CPLR 7803 (3): “whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or an abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed”, petitioner, Dr. Mircea Veleanu seeks review of the judicial actions of respondent(s) Hon. James Brands, judge of the Supreme Court Dutchess County that unequivocally demonstrate violation of CPLR 7803 (2) and CPLR 7803 (3).

29. Following the recusal of judge Brands, judge Thomas Dolan was assigned to this case and decreed an order and judgment with a permanent injunction preventing the undersigned to sell jade without a gemological examination by a gemological lab. Such permanent injunction was based on irrational and logic defying that ornamental jade carvings ought to be examined by gemological testing prior placing them for sale. Accordingly, the decree of judge Dolan represents an unconscionable abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious exercise of judicial act missing the rational and sound mind.
30. Judge Dolan willingly and knowingly, granted a summary judgment and a permanent injunction without instituting any hearing, or conference and without seeing the undersigned, in a typical “kangaroo court” that violated the constitutional rights of the undersigned. As such, judge Dolan’s order and judgment was ex parte, illegal and void ab initio, for lack of jurisdiction of the court and unconscionable abuse of discretion and irrational arbitrary and capricious judicial action.
31. Judge Thomas Dolan violated Veleanu’s due process constitutional rights by decreeing a Decision/Order/Judgment in which a permanent injunction was granted to AG, without any hearings, conference calls or even calendar calls. Veleanu never saw judge Dolan and never had an opportunity to defend himself. Judge Dolan judgment is a typical ex parte judgment granted to one party in absence of representation of the opposite party. Such judgment is void ab initio and cannot be enforced. Any attempt
to enforce it is considered to be trespassing and an act of treason. Judge Dolan’s act of granting a permanent injunction is a violation of several CPLR‘s, is an illegal act and clear FRAUD UPON THE COURT and
19

unconscionable abuse of discretion.
31. Judge Dolan decreed a judgment with granting of a permanent injunction based on forged and mislabeled fraudulent evidence that he had full knowledge of and willingly disregarded it in flagrant FRAUD UPON THE COURT. Clearly, his judicial actions represent an unconscionable abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious judicial action defying the logic. Judge Dolan advised Veleanu to retain legal representation with full knowledge that such legal representation would not have any chance of succeeding despite the meritorious legal case. The advise had a collateral objective to injure Veleanu with tremendous legal expenses and as such, represents abuse of process by the judiciary. The attorney retained by Veleanu as an officer of the court could only negotiate terms that AG would impose with irreconcilable clauses repugnant to the moral and conscience of an innocent individual. Plea bargaining is unconscionable to an innocent individual and an ethical violation of a judge to impose and as such judge Dolan’s judicial action represents extrinsic fraud and FRAUD UPON THE COURT as well as unconscionable abuse of discretion.
32. In his pleadings, Veleanu contested the lack of service and subsequent failure of the court to achieve personal jurisdiction upon Veleanu in his pleadings by raising an objection in the point of law and setting it forth in his pleadings pursuing CPLR 404 (a) and also in the submittal of motions for dismissal of the petition.
33. In accordance with CPLR 320 (c) Veleanu objected to the personal jurisdiction as court’s jurisdiction was not based upon personal service of the defendant and an appearance was not equivalent to personal service upon the defendant. Judge Dolan judicial actions represent an unconscionable abuse of discretion.
34. In an egregious, arbitrary and unconscionable abuse of discretion and illogical arbitrary and capricious action, judge Dolan denied the defense of the pleadings and the motions to dismiss the petition on fraudulent ruling that the pleadings and the motions to dismiss were “unsworn”. However, the pleadings and the motions to dismiss of respondent Veleanu were in the form of declaration under penalty of perjury instead of being notarized. The ruling was fraudulent due to the fact that CPLR 105 (u) allows the declaration under penalty of perjury to be legally used instead of notarized oath in any judicial proceedings.
The above stated judicial action of judge Dolan represents not only fraud
20

upon the court, but an unconscionable abuse of discretion and clear an arbitrary and capricious legal action void of any logic and rational. His legal determination was a miscarriage of justice.
37. The judgment decreed by judge Dolan imposed a permanent injunction based on illegal, fraudulent and inadmissible evidence. The failure to achieve personal jurisdiction upon Veleanu makes the order of permanent injunction and judgment of judge Dolan void ab initio. Judge Dolan’s judicial action is clearly an unconscionable abuse of discretion.
38. In addition, judge Dolan’s judgment is void ab initio as in his decree judge Dolan ruled that AG has to show the existence of injury in order to allege relief under GBL 349. AG could not demonstrate any injury and as such, AG was not entitled to any relief as he failed to state a cause of action. Judge Dolan’s judicial action demonstrates a clear act of arbitrary and capricious judicial action void of rational and logic and unconscionable abuse of discretion.
39. Judge Dolan decreed an order and judgment with imposition of a permanent injunction in a “kangaroo court” not only that violated the due process and constitutional right of equal protection of Veleanu, but the special proceedings were identical to summary judgment that preclude the issuance of summary judgment due to the presence in this legal case of numerous issues of material fact. Judge Thomas Dolan committed fraud upon the court in an unconscionable abuse of discretion and irrational arbitrary and capricious action by decreeing a summary judgment despite that the presence of the numerous issues of material fact precluded the issue of summary judgment and the decree of a permanent injunction. Judge Dolan, violated CPLR R3212 regarding the petition of AG that specifies: “The motion shall be granted if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense, shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party. Except as provided in subdivision c of this rule the motion shall be denied if any party shall show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact”.
40. The judgment decreed by judge Dolan was never entered and docketed and according to 22 NYCRR 202.48 after 60 days became null and invalid. CPLR R2220 (a) specifies that “…(I)f a party fails to file any papers
required to be filed under this subdivision, the order may be vacated as irregular, with costs”. Analyzing the script of CPLR R3212, it appears as objectively evident that the summary judgment against the undersigned
21

was granted on faulty, fraudulent judicial interpretation, or failure to interpret, but reflects extreme bias against the respondent and obvious violation of CPLR 3212. Wherefore, judge Thomas Dolan decreed a summary judgment decision in an irrational capricious, arbitrary action as well as unconscionable abuse of discretion, when numerous issues of material fact were submitted by defendant in his responsive pleadings, issues that would make the summary judgment inappropriate and void. Their judicial action is not only a clearly unconscionable, abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious, but also fraud upon court.
41. SCDC violated CPLR 3216 that where a party unreasonably neglects to proceed generally in an action or otherwise delays in the prosecution thereof against any party who may be liable to a separate judgment, or unreasonably fails to serve and file a note of issue, the court, on its own initiative or upon motion, may dismiss the party’s pleading on terms. Unless the order specifies otherwise, the dismissal is not on merits.
42. Apparently judge Dolan stepped down the bench for one reason or another and the order and judgment of the judge became void by failure to enter and docket the judgment within 60 days. Accordingly, AG defaulted by failure to prosecute the action within the time prescribed by law.
43. SCDC violated again CPLR 3216 that where a party unreasonably neglects to proceed generally in an action or otherwise delays in the prosecution thereof against any party who may be liable to a separate judgment, or unreasonably fails to serve and file a note of issue, the court, on its own initiative or upon motion, may dismiss the party’s pleading on terms. In an egregious judicial action, SCDC violated CPLR 205 AND CPLR 3404 by not VOIDING THE ORDER AND JUDGMENT DECREED BY JUDGE DOLAN that failed to be entered and docketed in the clerk office of SCDC as default judgment due to abandonment in 2 separate occasions. CPLR 205 that was violated by SCDC prescribes that where a dismissal is one for neglect to prosecute the action made pursuant to CPLR 3216, the judge shall set forth on the record the specific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation.
This rule made evident the egregious and fraudulent conduct of AG in
delaying (laches) of the legal proceedings with the obvious goal of increasing the amount of illegal punitive fine with interest of 9 % for delays of more than 2 years of the judicial proceedings. AG judicial action clearly
22

demonstrate an unconscionable abuse of discretion that legally would be punished by any non corrupt court by dismissal of action for failure of the petitioner to prosecute in 2 separate occasion by engaging in laches. The delays to prosecute had the purpose to increase the amount of punitive penalty of retroactive interest of 9 % in an irrefutable demonstration of abuse of process and malicious prosecution.
44. CPLR 205 specifies that if an action timely commenced is terminated in any other manner than by a voluntary discontinuance, a failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant, a dismissal of the complaint for neglect to prosecute the action, or a final judgment upon the merits, the plaintiff or the successor in legal action, may commence a new action upon the same transaction or occurrences within six months after the termination provided that service upon defendant is effected within such six months period.
45. AG defaulted again by failing to prosecute and failing to start a new judicial proceeding within 6 months as made available to him according to CPLR 205.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Petitioner repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the paragraph 29 to paragraph 45 and as a result, judge Thomas Dolan’s judicial actions demonstrated in the fore mentioned paragraphs of this petition that represent repeated acts of unconscionable abuse of discretion and or, arbitrary and capricious judicial actions defying logic and rational and as such are absurd, that violated the constitutional rights of the petitioner for a just and fair adjudication of the allegations. In consideration of the violation of judge Thomas Dolan of Article 78, CPLR 7803 (2): “whether the body or officer(s) above listed, proceeded without and in excess of jurisdiction, and in consideration of violation of judge Thomas Dolan of Article 78 CPLR 7803 (3): “whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or an abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed”, petitioner, Dr. Mircea Veleanu seeks review of the
judicial actions of respondent(s) Hon. Thomas Dolan, acting judge of the Supreme Court Dutchess County that unequivocally demonstrate violation of CPLR 7803 (2) and CPLR 7803 (3).
23

.

46. After judge Thomas Dolan retirement, the newly assigned judge, Hon. James Pagones, started a new judicial proceeding (de novo) AGAIN WITHOUT service of the new proceeding upon respondent Veleanu in clear violation of CPLR 403. Thus, the failure of the petitioner to serve the judicial process resulted in consequent failure to achieve personal jurisdiction upon respondent Veleanu AND THIS REPRESENTS THE SECOND INSTANCE AND OPPORTUNITY TO EXECUTE PERSONAL SERVICE UPON RESPONDENT..
Accordingly, the judgment of judge Pagones is void ab initio for failure to achieve personal jurisdiction upon Veleanu.
47. Judge Pagones acted in his judicial actions inconsistently and contradicting in cases where he was assigned to render judgment and inconsistent with a fair and uniform decision. A. For example, in Galasso v. Calder, 201 NY Slip Op. 50755 (U) (31 Misc. 3d 1220 A) decided on 4/29/11 in SCDC, judge Pagones decreed a judgment pursuant to CPLR 3126 dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to prosecute. This decision and judgment is in complete opposition to the undersigned’s legal case where judge Pagones failed to dismiss the case due to failure to prosecute and AG petitioner’s default by abandonment in 2 separate occasions. The dilatory actions of AG resulted in failure to docket judge Dolan decision within 60 days, and thereafter defaulted again by failure to act according to CPLR 205 and reinstitute the judicial action within 6 months. The plaintiff in fore mentioned legal case moved for recusal of judge Forman that was denied by judge Pagones. While the legislation allows a county judge (as judge Forman), or a surrogate court judge (as judge Pagones) to act as acting judges of the Supreme Court, the legislation specifically defines this function as temporary). As judge Pagones is acting since 1999 as acting judge of SCDC, hardly could be arguable that the position is temporary and substituting the capacity of an elected Supreme Court Judge. B. In another legal case, Village Dr. Assoc. LLC v. Schiavo, 2013 NY Slip Op 50166 (U) decided on February 7, 2013, judge Pagones
made a decision and order similarly, in which judge Pagones ruled against the plaintiff who moved for summary judgment against the defendant. The defendant opposed the summary judgment, but no opposition was submitted to plaintiff’s application for an order pursuant to CPLR 3126 and CPLR
24

3124. This order again is completely different than the order and judgment of judge Pagones against the undersigned. C. In another legal case, BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP v. Musa, 2012 NY Slip Op 51099 (U) decided on June 18, 2012 in SCDC, defendant was in a home foreclosure in default. The plaintiff failed to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default. The court presided by judge Pagones sua sponte dismissed the complaint as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215 C. This case again demonstrates not only the failure of judge Pagones to act fairly and consistently in his decisions, but also a proof of his bias and prejudice against the undersigned by decreeing a judgment against the undersigned in complete reverse action to other legal cases decided by him. D. Most representative case of judge Pagones bias and prejudice against the undersigned is Dooley v. Woods, 2011 NY SLIP Op. 50408 (U) decided on March 22, 2011. Judge Pagones dismissed the plaintiff’s action due to the failure to serve the process by the Plaintiff. Judge Pagones stated in the decision: “ In this case, no summons and complaint, or summons with notice (CPLR 304), was served upon the respondent. Thus the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this case as the existence of an action is an indispensable prerequisite to the granting of the requested relief”. While judge Pagones is correct in rendering this order, the fairness and ethical judicial acts of judge Pagones make his judicial actions to be inconsistent, unfair and prejudicial to one party. In the present legal case, judge Pagones made completely opposite judgment. While petitioner AG failed to serve the respondent, judge Pagones did not dismiss the legal case of the undersigned for AG failure to serve the process and subsequent failure to achieve personal jurisdiction by the court. Rather in the most blatant bias and prejudice, judge Pagones did not dismiss the case where the undersigned was involved, despite that the cases are similar and according to the common law represent a ground for failure to act in the same circumstances of law. E. Final case to demonstrate judge Pagones lack of impartiality and genuine bias and prejudice against the undersigned is the legal case US Bank Nat’l Assoc. v. Alessandra Padilla et al, defendants, 2011 NY Slip Op 50535 (U) SCDC, decided on April 8, 2011. In this case resembling
particularly the present legal case in regard to the assessment by the plaintiff of interest accrued on a loan occurred from the date of default and additional legal fees and expenses. Judge Pagones acted in a completely opposite decision to the present case. He ordered that the interest should be
25

not more than the principal balance of the loan. and awarded the respondent the exemplary damage in the exorbitant amount of $ 100,000. Judge Pagones stated that: “The bank conduct was ’shockingly inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious”. On claiming bad faith, the Court presided by judge Pagones, barred the Bank for collecting interest accrued on the loan from the date of default, legal fees and other expenses. Amazingly, decision of judge Pagones is exactly the opposite of the decision in which judge Pagones granted to AG retroactive interest of 9 % (that probably is several times higher than the interest the bank charged the defendant). If judge Pagones would act uniformly and consistently in his judicial actions, the undersigned would be entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of $ 100,000, and forever barring the plaintiff to assess retroactive interest to the date of the occurrence. Judge Pagones stated that the plaintiff’s delays allowed racking up interest, fees and penalties to plaintiff’s benefit and the respondent’s detriment. Nonetheless, laches and dilatory scheme of AG allowed the accumulation of large amount of due money that would make the restitution close to impossible. The judicial action in the above case, that is exactly the opposite of judge Pagones judicial action in the present legal case, is uncontrovertible proof of judge Pagones abhorrent bias and prejudice against the undersigned respondent in the action, or an action that serves judge’s political views that in any situation, is unethical, illegal and demands forever removal of the judge from the bench. Judge James Pagones acted in abuse of discretion that is shaking the conscience of any fact finder, and irrational arbitrary and capricious judicial action.
48. The irrefutable evidence of lack of jurisdiction, based on failure to achieve personal jurisdiction upon the undersigned and subsequent failure of subject matter jurisdiction is sufficient proof substantiating that judge James Pagones acted in complete lack of jurisdiction to render decision and decree order and judgment, and thus violated the laws and statutes of the State of New York.
49. While the paragraph 48 is absolutely relevant that judge Pagones acted without jurisdiction to entitle the court with power to enforce any order and
judgment, the petitioner brings another example of judicial action of judge Pagones in this case that demonstrate unambiguously the irrational and logic defying. This consists in judicial act of judge Pagones of decreeing an order and judgment in which he denied the motion for reargument and
26

renew by falsely decreeing that the motion for reargument was rather a motion to renew, and without denying the reargument portion of the motion. In an unconscionable abuse of discretion and irrational arbitrary and capricious judicial action, judge Pagones ruled that the reargument was rather a renew in fraudulent disregard of the law in which CPLR 2221 defines what is a renew motion. Obviously, court’s overlooked or misapprehended matters of law cannot be renew. The misinterpretation of law by judge Pagones is not an error, rather irrefutable proof of irrational arbitrary and capricious judicial action of judge Pagones.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Petitioner repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the paragraph 46 to paragraph 49 and SUBSEQUENTLY, judge James Pagones’ judicial actions demonstrated in the paragraph 46 to paragraph 49 of this petition that represent repeated acts of unconscionable abuse of discretion and or, arbitrary and capricious judicial actions defying logic and rational and as such are absurd, that violated the constitutional rights of the petitioner for a just and fair adjudication of the allegations. In consideration of the violation of judge James Pagones of Article 78, CPLR 7803(2): “whether the body or officer(s) above listed, proceeded without and in excess of jurisdiction, and in consideration of violation of judge James Pagones of Article 78 CPLR 7803 (3): “whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or an abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed”, petitioner, Dr. Mircea Veleanu seeks review of the judicial actions of respondent(s) Hon. Thomas Dolan, acting judge of the Supreme Court that unequivocally demonstrate violation of CPLR 7803 (2) and CPLR 7803 (3).
51. The last judge involved in this legal case was judge Peter M. Forman that was apparently assigned to this case following the judgment decree of judge Pagones in November 2010. Judge Peter Forman persistently and
consistently, neglected to act upon motions brought to SCDC by respondent Veleanu, or denied the relief after the action on the motion became moot. ACCORDINGLY, judge Forman acted in bias and prejudice favoring the petitioner/respondent in any legal action he decided.
52. The first judicial action by judge Forman in which he demonstrated
27

prejudice and bias toward the undersigned, was his failure to act upon an Order to Show Cause submitted to SCDC on November 12, 2010, in which the undersigned requested leave as Stay of judgment pending the resolution of an appeal to Appellate Court Second Division. The undersigned was confident that the leave was granted in absence of a motion to oppose by AG. Petitioner was shocked to learn that the relief was not applicable due to failure of judge Forman to sign it, at the time when AG proceeded to execute the petitioner’s property by the Sheriff in a public auction. Judge Forman failure to act upon a motion represents an undeniable proof of an unconscionable abuse of discretion.
53. The undersigned submitted to the Supreme Court of New York Dutchess County (SCDC) an Order to Show Cause entered in the Clerk of Dutchess County Office on January 23, 2012 with request for a leave to relief and enforce, the already granted by default Stay of Judgment by SCDC of November 12, 2010 in accordance with CPLR 5519. Judge Peter M. Forman failed to make a decision regarding defendant’s motion to obtain relief and prevent the sale of property owned by Veleanu at a public auction by the Sheriff. As such, judge Forman violated CPLR R2219 by not making a determination within 20 days for this provisional remedy order. On April 24, 2012 (that is more than 90 days since the submission of the application), judge Forman issued a decision and order that denied the discretionary relief requested by Veleanu pursuant to CPLR 5519 C as moot. Of course that an emergency relief requested in an Order to Show Cause became moot after more than 3 months since the application was submitted. Judge Forman action, or rather lack of action, represents unconscionable abuse of discretion and frivolous, arbitrary and capricious action and FRAUD UPON THE COURT. Accordingly, the judicial action of judge Forman was perverse, biased, timely improper and irregular. In his Decision and Order dated April 24, 2012, judge Forman made a false statement that defendant filed an application for an Order to Show Cause with the Appellate Court-Second Division on November 12, 2010. The evidentiary proof however, shows that the application for relief in the Order to Show
Cause of November 12, 2010 was actually filed, and deemed as entered by the SCDC while the unperfected appeal was pending before the Appellate Court and apparently the judge acting upon the motion was judge Peter Forman. See paragraph 52. As such, the application to the SCDC could not be denied by the Appellate Court and is clear misrepresentation and
28

evidence of FRAUD UPON THE COURT by judge Peter Forman, as well as unconscionable abuse of discretion.
54. One of the most egregious judicial act committed by judge Peter Forman was the refusal to sign an Order to Show Cause submitted by respondent Veleanu in August 2012, in which Veleanu requested leave for a TRO to prevent distribution of the undertaking funds cashed by the AG, due to the fact that all customers who requested refunds, including the complainant Spiridonakos, are out-of-state residents and a premature distribution of the funds would make difficult if not impossible to retrieve the proceeds in case of granted relief by the court. Judge Forman refused to sign the Order to Show Cause invoking his discretionary power. See Exhibit 20.
55. However, this application was addressed to the Administrative Judge of the Supreme Court in which the undersigned pursuant to CPLR R5015 (a) (3), requested relief from judgments and orders based upon the ground of fraud, misrepresentation and other misconduct of the adverse party. Also, the applicant requested relief from judgment according to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) upon the ground of lack of jurisdiction to render the judgments and orders and CPLR 5015 C that is the prerogative of the administrative judge of SCDC. The order to Show Cause and accompanied papers were clearly marked and addressed to the Administrative Judge. The line 3 of the Order to Show cause: is probative: “Let People of the State of NY/Petitioner SHOW CAUSE BEFORE THIS COURT before the administrative judge of the Supreme Court of the State of NY”. Further on, the application shows below the signature place of the magistrate marked in majuscule letters: ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT.
Prior sending the application to the court, the respondent inquired with the chief clerk of the court to whom to send the application and was told that the administrative justice is Hon. Alan Sheinkman. The clerk of the court instructed to send the application to the attention of judge Forman that will forward the motion to the Administrative Judge. Judge Forman intercepted the motion addressed to the administrative judge and acted as he was the
administrative judge despite that it was clear that the application was not to be decided by him and he was not assigned as the administrative judge of the Supreme Court and thus, he did not have the authority to act as the administrative judge of SCDC.
56. Judge Peter Forman repeatedly and consistently violated CPLR 2219
29

(a) in a biased, pro-prosecutorial, unconscionable, arbitrary and frivolous abuse of discretion. While abuse of discretion is a civil infraction that could lead to severe judicial penalties, the repeated acts of disregard to the professional responsibility as a judge in the Supreme Court of New York makes the judge liable to criminal violation of law in New York State under Penal Law 195.
New York State Penal Law 195.00 OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT
Penal Law 195.00 specifies: “A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit: PL 195.2: He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.
The TRO requested by the undersigned and presented in the attached affidavit to the application was based on objective incontrovertible evidence beyond the reasonable doubt that criminal acts of theft of property, forgery, uttering, forgery by counterfeit , mislabeling, perjury were perpetrated upon the applicant and for the reason that all the persons involved in the criminal acts are not citizens of New York State, the premature distribution of the undertaking would unjustly enrich criminal persons and make the recovery of distributed funds difficult or impossible. CPLR 2214 c clearly specifies: “Issues of fact. Providing that the elements required for the issuance of a preliminary inquiry are demonstrated in the plaintiff’s papers, the presentation by the defendant of evidence sufficient to raise an issue of facts as to any of such elements shall not in itself be grounds for denial of the motion. In such event, the court shall make a determination by hearing or otherwise whether each of the elements required for the issuance of a preliminary injunction exists”. Accordingly CPLR 6312 c allows the adversary party to present evidence necessary to controvert the movant’s averments. Judge Forman denied to grant a hearing as requested in the applicant’s motion and his action is arbitrary and capricious logic defying act and unconscionable abuse of discretion.
57. On August 21, 2012 at the time specified in the motion as 10 am, the
undersigned appeared in the Court and upon the appearance, Mr. Michael G. Hayes, Principal Law Clerk advised me that judge Forman declined to sign the application and a copy of an explanatory letter that allegedly was mailed the precedent day was handed to the undersigned. I left the court one hour later at 11 am and the adversary party did not show up despite that was
30
notified by certified letter with return receipt. Also, Mr. Nick Garin did not submit any papers in opposition to refute the undersigned’s averments. According to NY State Unified Court System and Appellate Court Second Department Rule 8.2 : “The signing of an order to show cause is discretionary, and if is not signed, the movant may proceed by notice of motion”.
Judge Forman’s biased actions represented an unconscionable abuse of discretion and a miscarriage of justice. First of all, he was ethically prevented to act in this legal document due to his previous involvement in this legal case where he acted biased and partial against respondent Veleanu, thus he acted in conflict of interest when ethically and legally should recuse himself from this legal case. Fed. R. Civ. P 26 c(1) provides: “Evidence is essential if the court is to fulfill its fact finding function”. Judge Forman committed obstruction of justice by suppression and preventing evidence to be submitted and committed fraud upon the court. Judge Forman committed extrinsic fraud defined as occurring when intentional deceit is employed to keep someone from exercising a right, such as a fair trial by misleading a party, or preventing a party to exercise his rights to defend in a trial. Judge Forman violated several Codes of Judicial Conduct and NY State law. Judge Forman violated 22 NYCRR 100.3 (e) (1): “A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which the impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Judge Forman violated 22 NYCRR 100.2: “Substantial misconduct rose to such an egregious level that the conduct implicates the attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer when a judge is accused of being biased and pro-prosecutorial. A judge must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all judge’s activities.
Judge Forman violated the Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7. Conflict of Interest. Judge Forman violated Federal Law Sec 455:Recusal of judges.
58. Finally, the undersigned requested relief from judgments and orders in accordance with CPLR 5015 c: An administrative judge upon a showing that judgments and orders were obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, illegality, unconscionableness, lack of due service, violations of law, or other illegalities, or where such judgments were obtained in cases which the defendant would be uniformly entitled to interpose a defense predicated upon but not limited to the foregoing defense, may bring a proceeding to
relieve the party of such position with objective proof of evidence rather than subjective inference based on poor understanding of scientific evidence, conjecture, conclusionary statements not based on objective
31

evidence, etc. The Unified Court System provides that the failure to appear in court for the Order to Show Cause and failure to submit evidentiary response constitutes default and subsequently, the affiant is entitled to the relief requested in the application. The second default of the petitioner occurred when he failed to prosecute within the time prescribed by the CPLR 3216 and CPLR 205 after the judgment of judge Thomas Dolan by failure to enter and docket within 6 months and subsequently the judgment was considered abandoned.
The remainder of the issues could not be evaluated and decided by judge Forman that was already proved to be a biased party in the prior judicial proceedings and played a significant part in the injustice perpetrated upon the undersigned in a “kangaroo” trial without service, without hearings and denial of pleadings and motions to dismiss by invocation of “unsworn” declarations. Judge Forman conclusion that the application failed to demonstrate that a “proper case” exists is undeniable pro-prosecutorial in face of un-refutable issues of material fact presented in the affidavit. This represented a major conflict of interest that prevented the adjudication in a fair and impartial fashion. Judge Forman’s biased actions represent an unconscionable, capricious and arbitrary abuse of discretion and a miscarriage of justice. Further on, this represented a major conflict of interest that prevented the adjudication in a fair and impartial fashion.
Judge Peter Forman judicial action represented not only an egregious abuse of discretion, but also a criminal violation of Penal Law 190.25.
Penal Law 190.25. Criminal impersonation in the second degree.
A person is guilty of impersonation in second degree when he : 3 (a) pretends to be a public servant or falsely expresses by his words or actions that he is a public servant or is acting with approval or authority of a public agency or department and (b) so acts with intent to induce another to submit to such pretended official authority…(o)r otherwise cause another to act in reliance upon the pretense”. Criminal impersonation in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
Veleanu decided to re-submit the application directly to the SCDC judge Alan Sheinkman in White Plains, NY due to interference and acting upon by judge Forman. to 202.7(f) notice. On a letter dated October 5, 2012, James
Garfein, counsel to administrative judge advised the respondent to submit the application to the Supreme Court of Dutchess County and instructed Mr.
Michael Thompson, the Chief Clerk of SCDC to return the application to the undersigned. 32

59. On October 24, 2012, petitioner submitted a motion with attached Memorandum of law in which it was requested a leave in accordance with CPLR 5015 (a) (4), CPLR 5015 (a) (3), and CPLR 5015 (a)(2) In consideration of former biased and prejudicial judicial action against the undersigned, the petition requested as a relief the voluntary recusal of judge Forman. In view that judge Forman was named in the motion as a defendant in the judicial action, the undersigned was confident that another judge would be assigned in view that disqualification of a judge to act in a judicial proceeding is required due to conflict of interest. The application cited 2 cases of demonstrated abuse of discretion as has been shown in the present petition under paragraph 52 and 53 reasons for requested recusal of judge Forman from further actions.
60. In an irrefutable unconscionable abuse of discretion, judge Forman failed to make a decision upon the motion within 60 days, thus, violating again CPLR 2219 and 22 NYCRR 202.8 (h). The obvious conflict of interest demonstrated in his previous biased and lack of impartiality, ethically, would prevent judge Forman to act upon the motion where his recusal was requested as a relief. The Canon 3 B (5) provides: “Judges shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. When a judge demonstrate bias or prejudice, it is a violation of Canon 3 B (5). Judges should recuse themselves when they have a bias or prejudice. Recklessly, judge Forman ignored the request for his recusal and did not provide any reason about his failure to resign or ask a fellow judge to replace him on the bench because of obvious conflict of interest. The failure to act upon a motion, is considered an unconscionable abuse of discretion.
61. As the refusal to act upon a motion or a delay used as a dilatory technicality to make the motion moot is considered an unconscionable abuse of discretion, the judicial action, or rather judicial act of inaction of judge Forman, represents an unconscionable abuse of discretion.
62. The unethical and illegal judicial actions of judge Forman does not represent only one episode of illegal and unethical action, rather a pattern of
repeated acts of denials of motions submitted by the undersigned based on motions delayed by judge Forman until became moot, or failing to act upon a motion at all. These acts of illegal and unethical judicial actions of judge Forman unequivocally represent unconscionable abuse of discretion. The averments of the respondent were not controverted by the AG in his Reply to the Motion and as such, the judge was obligated to grant the relief
33

requested by the respondent in his motion.
63. On January 28, 2013, the undersigned submitted a motion with attached Memorandum of Law to the administrative judge in which the undersigned requested the following administrative and ministerial determination orders: 1. A ministerial administrative order in regard to violation of CPLR 2219(a) and 22 NYCRR 202.8 (h) by SCDC presided by judge Forman as failure to decree a decision and order upon a motion of relief from a void judgment submitted to the court on October 24, 2012 (representing more than 90 days). 2. Ministerial administrative order for violation of Penal Law section 195.00 by judge Forman. 3. Ministerial administrative order for SCDC presided by judge Forman of the violation of several codes, regulations under 22 NYCRR in this legal action 4. Ministerial administrative measure regarding the violation of the court presided by judge Forman of Penal Law 175.00. 5, Ministerial administrative measure in regard to the court presided by judge Forman violation of the New York CVR Article 2 Civil Rights. Till present time (more than 90 days), the undersigned did not receive a response to the motion addressed to the administrative judge of SCDC.
64. On January 29, 2013, judge Forman decreed an order in which he denied the motion for annulment of a void judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 submitted by the undersigned on October 24, 2012, as being “moot”. Judge Forman violated NY State Judicial Law 14: Disqualification of judges by reason of interest that prescribes: A judge shall not sit, as such in, or take any part in the decision of an action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding to which HE IS A PARTY, or in which he has been attorney or counsel, or in which he is interested. Despite that judge Forman was prevented legally and ethically to act on a motion where he was named as defendant and where one of the requested relief was his voluntary recusal, judge Forman denied the motion by ruling that it was “moot”. The decision and order of judge Forman represents a conscience shaking abuse of discretion and an irrational and illogical arbitrary and capricious judicial
act. See Pell, 34 NY2d 222; Matter of Kreisler v. NY City Transit Authority, 2 NY 3d 775 (2004); Matter of Pearl v. Bd. of Prof’l Med. Conduct, 295 AD 764 (3rd Dept , 99 NY 2d 501 (2002). The motion for relief cannot be moot as the undersigned is proceeding in action against the illegal and unconscionable abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious judicial acts of judge Forman and has to exhaust all judicial and administrative
34

procedures prior instituting Article 78 proceeding. While administrative actions of the undersigned are futile, nevertheless, are required as a required “exhaustion” of all administrative actions.
65. In sequence of the paragraph 64, the undersigned submitted on February 25, 2013, a motion addressed to the administrative judge in which it was requested ministerial administrative leave of assignment of another judge in the legal case, pursuing 22 NYCRR 202.6-Judicial intervention, and in undeniable judicial actions of judge Forman showing bias and prejudice against the undersigned. This motion was denied by the administrative judge of SCDC. As the administrative judge decisions and orders are not prone to be addressed in Article 78, this issue is to be considered only as a futile measure required for satisfaction of “exhaustion” of all judicial and administrative action instituted by petitioner prior commencing Article 78 proceeding.
66. In support of the violations of the rules and regulations of the administrative judge of the State of New York, The Code of Judicial Conduct by Judges, Canons and several CPLR, the undersigned submit’s the following more significant violations of the rules requiring recusal of judges. Canon 3 E (1) provides :
1. “Judges shall disqualify themselves in any proceedings in which the impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Judges refuse to recuse themselves when their impartiality would be questioned by reasonable people”.
67. The Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge 22 NYCRR Part 100 reinforces the above Canon stating in Sec.100 (E): “A judge shall disqualify himself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned”.
68. 22 NYCRR C. Disqualification. A judge shall disqualify himself in a
procedure in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned including but not limited to instances in which (a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge or disputed
evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.
69. In accordance with the above Rules, on February 11, 2013, the undersigned submitted to SCDC a motion requesting the voluntary recusal of judge Forman and implementation of hearings in accordance with CPLR (d) for a void judgment and restitution of undertaking, a declaratory judgment and other relieves mentioned in original motion for annulment of
35

orders and judgments dated October 24, 2012. On a decision and order dated February 15, 2013, Judge Forman denied the motion without any substantiation of his decision not to resign. Judge Forman violated NY State Judiciary Law Sec. 17 that states: “A judge or surrogate, or former judge or surrogate shall not act as attorney or counselor in any action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding which has been before him in his official character. The above violation arose from judicial actions of judge Forman as acting as counselor to AAG Garin demonstrated in judge Forman decisions and orders.
70. Judge Peter Forman violated judicial Canon 2: Violation of The Rules of Court’s Civil Procedures demonstrates impropriety and the appearance of the impropriety.
71. Judge Peter Forman violated Canon 3 B (5) Judges shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. When a judge demonstrates bias or prejudice it is a violation of Canon 3 B (5). Judges should recuse themselves
when they have bias or a prejudice.
72. Judge Peter Forman violated Canon 3 (A) (5): In disposing of matters promptly. efficiently and fairly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the promptly, efficiently and fairly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of the parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without dilatory practice, avoidable delays and unnecessary costs.
73. Judge Peter Forman violated Canon 3 B (8): Judges shall dispose of all judicial matters fairly, promptly and efficiently. When the judges failed to do so, they ignore the facts, ignore and violate the law, ignore and violate the Rules and commit criminal acts.
74. Subsequent to violation of Canon 3 B (8), judge Forman violated Penal Law 195.00“ “Official Misconduct. A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit: 195.1. He commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized. 195.2. He knowingly refrains
from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly
inherent in the nature of his office. Judge Peter Forman violated Canon 3 B (7): Judges shall accord to any person the right to be heard according to law. Judges shall not initiate ex parte communications. Judges violate this Canon when parties are denied the right to have hearings, testify under oath, examine witnesses, cross examine witnesses.
36
Judge Peter Forman violated Penal Law 190.25. Criminal impersonation in the second degree. A person is guilty of impersonation in the second degree when he: 1. impersonates another and does an act in such assumed character with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another, or, 3. Pretends to be a public servant …or falsely expresses by words or actions that he is a public servant, or is acting with approval of authority of a public agency or department, and (b) so acts with intent to induce another to submit to such pretended official authority to…or otherwise cause another to act in reliance upon that pretense.
75. Judge Forman violated Federal Law 18 USC Sec. 401. Power of courts. A court of the US shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority as: 1. Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions. 3. Disobedience or resistance to do writs, process, order, rule, decree or command”.
76. Judge Forman violated Federal law Title 18 Sec. 912: “Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under of the US or any department, agency, or officer thereof, and acts as such or in such pretended character, demands or obtains any…paper, document… (s)hall be
assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under of the US or any department, agency, or officer thereof, and acts as such or in such pretended character, demands or obtains any…paper, document… (s)hall be
fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 3 years or both.
77. Judge Forman violated Federal Law Title 18. Sec. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law. Penalty is fines or imprisonment not more than one year or both.
78. Judge Forman violated Federal Law 28 USC Sec. 144 and 28 USC Sec. 455 (1989) statutory basis for the recusal or disqualification of judges. Section 144 provides a procedure for a party to recuse a judge based that the judge has a personal bias or prejudice against him or in favor of the adverse
party, such judge shall not proceed further, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.
79. Judge Forman violated New York Bill of Rights, CVR Article 2 (10) provides that “writs and process ought to be granted freely and without delay”.
80. Judge Forman violated the following Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge in Part 100: Judicial conduct:. 22 NYCRR 100.2
37

states: “Substantial misconduct rose to such an egregious level that the conduct implicates the attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer when a judge is accused of being biased and pro-prosecutorial. A judge must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all judge’s activities”
82. 22 NYCRR 100.B(4). A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice against or in favor of any person. A judge in the performance of the judicial duties shall not by words or conduct violate manifest bias or prejudice.
83. 22 NYCRR 100.B(6). A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding or that person’s lawyer the right to be heard according to law. A judge shall not initiate, permit or consider ex parte communications.
84. 22 NYCRR 100.B(7). A judge shall dispose of all matters promptly, efficiently and fairly.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Petitioner repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth in the paragraph 51 to paragraph 84 and SUBSEQUENTLY, judge Peter M. Forman’s judicial actions demonstrated in the paragraph 51 to paragraph 84 of this petition that represent repeated acts of unconscionable abuse of discretion and or, arbitrary and capricious judicial actions defying logic and rational and as such are absurd, that violated the constitutional rights of the petitioner for a just and fair adjudication of the allegations. In consideration of the violation of judge Peter M. Forman of Article 78, CPLR 7803(1): “whether the body or officer above listed, failed to perform a duty enjoined upon him by law and in consideration of violation of judge Peter M. Forman of Article 78 CPLR 7803 (3): “whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or an abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed”, petitioner, Dr. Mircea Veleanu seeks review of the judicial actions of respondent(s) Hon. Peter M. Forman, acting judge of the Supreme Court that unequivocally demonstrate violation of CPLR 7803 (1) and CPLR 7803 (3).
Respondent, Dr. Mircea Veleanu, seeking relief in accordance with CPLR 5015 (a) 4 and CPLR 5015 (a)(3), as well as CPLR 5015 (a) (2) clearly
38

demonstrated to the court the legal right to the entitlement to relief that is mandatory and not prone to a discretionary decree. The respondent established by evidentiary proof that the court is lacking the personal jurisdiction upon the respondent and the authority and power to enforce the legality of the proceedings. See Matter of Rush v Mordue 68 NY 2d at 352; Matter of Neal v White 46 AD 3d at 159. Constitutional violations were not reviewed or remedied by Appeal.
It appears that the only impediment to carrying on the justice and justiciary remedy is the purely ministerial act of entering a decision conforming to the relief pursuing CPLR 5015 (a) (4) and CPLR 5015 (a) (3). In disposing of matters promptly, efficiently and fairly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of the parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without dilatory practice, avoidable delays and unnecessary costs, proved to be violated by judge Forman. Petitioner’s factual findings are conclusive supported by substantial evidence defined as “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact. “ See People ex rel Vega v. Smith, 66 NY 2d, 130, 139 (1985); 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY 2d 176, 180-81 (1978). In addition there is irrefutable proof that respondent failed to controvert the contentions of petitioner Veleanu. Finally, petitioner requests judicial review of the Appellate Court of judicial actions of judge Peter Forman who failed to perform a duty enjoined by law to enter the annulment of a void judgment where the right to relief is clear and the performance of the required judicial act is not discretionary. Judge Forman acted in unconscionable abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious judicial acts not supported by substantial evidence that a reasonable person would accept as enough to support the claim. Klosterman V.Cuomo, 61 NY 2d 525, (1984); Matter of DiBiasio v. Novello, 28 AD 3d 339, (1st Dept. 2006).
In support of CPLR 5015 (a) (3), petitioner submits the following list of
alleged fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of the adversary party.
The adverse party is liable to the following NY State Penal Laws violations by the prosecutor in this legal case:
1. NY Penal Law 175.25. Tampering with public records in the first degree. Tampering with public records in the first degree is a class D Felony.
2. NY Penal Law Sec. 210.14. Perjury in the first degree. Perjury in the first degree is a class D Felony.
3. NY Penal Law Sec. 100.05. Criminal solicitation in fourth degree.
39
4. NY Penal Law Sec. 215.50. Criminal contempt in the second degree. Criminal contempt in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
5. NY Penal Law Sec. 170.10. Forgery in the second degree.
In addition, petitioner violated the following NY State codes, rules or regulations: 1. 22 NYCRR Sec 130.1.1: Initiating a frivolous suit. His action of fraud upon court in the investigative function voided his prosecutorial immunity. In addition, violation of CPLR Article 7 R70. Initiating a frivolous and vexatious suit.
2. 22 NYCRR 3.3.202. Prohibition of counsel to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation.
Petitioner violated the following Federal laws:
1. Title 18 Sec. 19. Conspiracy to injure and oppress a citizen in the face of exercise of any right or privilege secured to him by Constitution.
2. Title 18. Chapter 25 Sec. 514. Counterfeiting and forgery represents a class B felony.
3. Title 18 Sec 371. Use of fake documents, penalty is 5 years imprisonment.
4. Title 18 Sec. 201 (b) (3): Influence a witness. Penalty is 15 years imprisonment and disqualification from holding any office or trust under the
US.
5. Title 18. Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights. Penalty is imprisonment up to 10 years, fines or both.
6. Title 18 Sec. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law. Penalty is imprisonment up to one year, fines or both.
7. Title 18. Sec. 1349. Attempt and conspiracy. Penalty is the same as for the conspirator-offender of the perpetrated crime.
Title 18. Sec. 1505. Obstruction of justice. Penalty is imprisonment up to 5 years, fines or both.
8. Title 18. Sec. 1506. Alteration of records. Penalty is imprisonment up to 5
years, fines or both.
9. Title 18. Sec. 1512. Influencing the testimony, mutilation of records. Penalty is imprisonment up to 20 years, fines or both.
10. Title 18. Sec. 1621. Perjury. Penalty is up to 5 years imprisonment, fines or both.
11. Title 18. Sec. 1622. Subornation of perjury. Penalty is imprisonment up to 5 years, fines or both.
12. Title 18. Sec. 1623. False declaration before court. Penalty is up to 5 years imprisonment, fines or both.
40
13. Title 18. Sec. 2071. Concealment or mutilation of documents. Penalty is imprisonment up to 3 years, fines or both.
14. Title 18 Sec. 3173, Sixth amendment rights violation.
Request for initial determination by the Appellate Court.
Petitioner, Dr. Mircea Veleanu requests the Appellate Court Second Division to disqualify the Attorney General to represents and defend the judges of the Supreme Court of Dutchess County forego accused in this petition of violations of Article 78 of CPLR. The reason for the disqualification of AG to represent and defend the accused judges of alleged violations of Article 78 is based on the obvious conflict of interest. In this legal proceeding, Attorney General is a defending party with prior knowledge about the case and prior involvement in the case, thus ethically and legally cannot represent defendants that are also defendants in the same legal case. The Canons of Judicial Conduct prohibit such legal representation that is unquestionably a conflict of interest. Judiciary Law Sec. 17 provides that “ a judge, or a surrogate, or former judge or surrogate shall not act as attorney or counselor in any action, claim, matter , motion or proceeding which as been before him (or her) in his (her) official character”. In addition Judicial law Sec. 701 prescribes that District Attorney is disqualified from fulfilling the duty because of actual prejudice arising from a demonstrated conflict of interest. See Schumer v. Holtzman, 60 NY 2d 46, 55 (1983). Finally, Judicial Law Sec. 14 prescribes that a judge shall not sit, or take any part in the decision of an action, matter, claim, motion or proceeding to which he is a party, or in which he has been an attorney or counsel, or in which he is interested…
Conclusion. The Adversary party did not controvert the allegations of petitioner by any evidence that is not conclusionary, thus, the judgment should be granted to petitioner, Dr. Mircea Veleanu in accordance with
CPLR 7806 that specifies: “any restitution or damages granted to the petitioner must be incidental to the primary relief sought by the petitioner, and must be such as he might otherwise recover on the same set of facts in a separate action or proceeding suable in the Supreme Court against the same body or officer in its or his official capacity”. Accordingly, petitioner requests the refund of the undertaking paid by petitioner and the legal expenses involved in defending this frivolous suit, including the lawyer’s fees.
In addition, petitioner requests a declaratory judgment in accordance to CPLR 3001, necessary to repair the damaged moral character and
42

professional reputation in this legal suit. Pursuant to the court decision in Gobel v. Maricopa County, 867 F2d 1201 at 1203 where Appellant demanded a public apology, petitioner requests a public apology from the parties involved in this legal case.

Dated April 8, 2013 ________________________

Mircea Veleanu, acting pro se.
CC: Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and
Assistant Attorney General Nick Garin
CC. Hon. James Brands, JSC, Hon. Thomas Dolan, AJSC,
Hon. James Pagones, AJSC, Hon. Peter M. Forman, AJSC
As per personal service prescribed in Article 78

 

 

 

 

 

43

RELEASE OF INFORMATION TO MEDIA-Re: ANTIQUE DEALER GETS DEATH PENALTY.

Dr. Mircea Veleanu, life fellow of American College of Surgeons and life fellow of American College of Ob-Gyn, announces to the citizens of NY State and US of America and entire world, the commencement of a legal suit against Attorney General of NY State (AG) Andrew Cuomo (presently, the governor of NY State), Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Nicholas G. Garin, AKA Nick Garin, and four justices of the Supreme Court of New York pursuing the statute CPLR 7800-7806, Article 78.
Under the name of The People of New York State, AG who is supposed to safeguard the integrity of the State, on August 7, 2009, in bad faith commenced a legal action against Dr. Mircea Veleanu, invoking General Business Law 349 and Executive Law 63.12. This legal action proved to be a sham and a chain of criminal acts and wrongdoings committed by AG Andrew Cuomo and his counsel Nick Garin, following a single complaint from a resident of Winsted, Connecticut named Janet Spiridonakos. She alleged that she was defrauded by Dr. Veleanu who sold her 7 Tibetan jadeite Buddhist rosary mala she alleged were made of quartz, rather than jadeite. After retirement from the field of medicine, Dr. Veleanu started a hobby business selling on the Internet some of his extensive collection of antiques and antiquities accumulated in the past 40 years. The irrefutable evidence proved that even if the complainant allegations were true, she was entitled to a refund according to the conditions of sale of the commercial contract that provided lifetime warranty and refunds in accordance with the commercial contract (it was offered by Dr. Veleanu and declined by the complainant). Nevertheless, this former customer premeditated the crime of defrauding and extorting the seller. Indirectly, she submitted the 7 rosary mala through a jeweler friend from Massachussetts, to a gemological laboratory named AGTA. This lab ceased its existence a few weeks after issuing fraudulent gemological reports in April 2009. Obviously, it is well established in commerce that ornamental jadeite carvings are not prone to be examined by gemological testing due to the presence of multiple minerals in the stone constituency. The gemological testing is and was always exclusively reserved to the jewelry grade jadeite. In contrast, art jade carvings are routinely tested by mineralogical testing consisting in determining hardness by Moh’s test, specific gravity and examination under microscope. The evidence as proof showed that the complainant Spiridonakos mislabeled the rosary mala as “carved head necklaces” in order to submit the mala to a gemological testing as bona fide jewelry items. The irrefutable evidence as proof consisting in Spiridonakos’ affidavit revealed that she conspired with AG to charge Veleanu with fabricated charges. The complainant’s affidavit revealed intimate detailed information of AG’s Petition as exhibit numbers, exhibits’ content and represented almost a duplication of AG’s charges of his Petition to the Court. This knowledge would be impossible by complainant to know and represents proof of conspiracy with AG to charge Veleanu with concocted charges in order to extort and defraud him. This evidence is unrebuttable proof that AG composed and edited Spiridonakos’ affidavit. In her affidavit, Spiridonakos made absurd allegations that under the mask of ignorance are illogical allegations to make belief that Dr. Veleanu committed fraud. She alleged that the term fei tsui used as a term for one of mala sold to her indicated that is synonymous with “imperial jade”, the most precious and pure jadeite, present in minute amounts measured in carat weight, in the highest quality of jadeite jewelry. However, fei tsui is used in Mandarin Chinese to describe ordinary jadeite colors, rather than “imperial jade”. Another absurd and fraudulent allegation made by Spiridonakos was that Dr. Veleanu sold her 2 Chinese scholar’s calligraphy brushes with jadeite handles, she alleged were made of glass, rather than jadeite. Other than her mind’s confabulation, she did not prove her absurd allegations with any evidence whatsoever. Nonetheless, the brushes were returned, refunded to her several months prior her complaint and she was so unsure about her allegations that she begged to have the brushes resold to her. Spriridonakos won her first purchases of mala at auction where Veleanu was a consignor, rather than the seller, and she paid the auction’s commission of 27.5 %. The criminal activity of Spiridonakos was not limited to false accusations about the materiality of her complaint. As proof of her “injury”, she submitted an invoice provided by her close jeweler friend that was probably part of her criminal act of extortion, blackmail and fraud. A graphological examination of the unsigned jewelry firm invoice revealed that the invoice’s handwriting is identical to complainant’s handwriting on the edge of the invoice and other documents submitted by her and in which she used her handwriting. In the unsigned invoice she claimed the amount of $1540 for the cost of identification reports that was about 3 times higher than the customary charge of GIA Lab. Under the conditions of sale of the contract, she was not
required to provide a proof of her claim to be eligible for refund. Spiridonakos contradicted the invoice’s amount by former statements she made to the seller in which she claimed in 2 separate emails that she paid $1000. Hiking up the amount she alleged she paid for the gemological testing is proof of her criminal intent to defraud the seller and the prior contradictory statements impeached her testimony under oath and is clear proof of the criminal act of perjury. The evidence submitted by Dr. Veleanu to the Court, clearly showed that she was promised a refund according to conditions of the sale of the commercial contract that she turned down in order to extort the merchant. It appears that AG promised complainant, as well as to any customer solicited to request a refund, the incentive award of a 9 % retroactive interest to the date of purchase. The gemological reports of AGTA Lab revealed the presence of “natural species quartz”, that is a single mineral. A consecutive gemological testing by GIA Lab did not confirm AGTA findings, rather identified the presence of “species quartzite”. Nonetheless, quartzite is a metamorphic rock containing several minerals and is not the same as quartz that is a single mineral. Quartzite and jadeite are both metamorphic rocks that frequently are intermingled in the nature as having a common origin and known as jadeite/quartzite. A plethora of scientific articles supporting the mineralogical genesis was provided by Dr. Veleanu in his pleadings, as well as in the motion for reargument/renew and other papers supporting the scientific base, contesting the irrational allegations of low intellect of the petitioner and his single complainant’s allegations. Evidently, gemological testing is inappropriate for identifying jadeite in non-jewelry grade ornamental art carvings and the gemological reports are irrelevant due to the fact that the findings could be different when examined by different gemological labs, as in the present case, or even by the same gemological lab that would test the stone in a different area. In this legal case, criminal fabrication of charges was not limited to the criminal complainant. The evidence as proof clearly revealed that the prosecutor (petitioner) was deeply involved in illegal and criminal activity in support of his fabricated charges. It was inconceivable to Dr. Veleanu that the highest prosecutor in the state, AG, could be involved in illegal and criminal activity to prosecute an innocent person with immaculate past. With extensive legal research and personal investigation, it was revealed that AG Andrew Cuomo commenced a legal action without standing to sue, not only by lacking of aggrieving of the single complainant, rather a case based on criminal fabrication of charges, forgery by counterfeit, perjury, impeachment of evidence consisting of single complainant’s affidavit, mislabeling with intention to extort and defraud, libel, forged forensic evidence, etc., etc. As the complainant was offered a refund in accordance with the conditions of sale of the commercial contract in an email addressed to her by Dr. Veleanu, she was not defrauded by the seller, rather she defrauded the seller with full cooperation, aid and illegal and criminal conspiracy of AG to defraud the respondent in the legal action. AG commenced a legal action in absence of a cognizable cause of action (in his 2 causes of action, AG failed to state a cause of action upon which judicial relief could be granted). AG’s legal action demonstrates the initiation and continuing of a frivolous suit that is an illegal and criminal act in NY State. More egregious and proof of criminal act of uttering, is the submission to the Court by AG of forged and mislabeled legal evidence with full knowledge of the falsity and inadmissibility of altered, forged and mislabeled forensic evidence. AG subpoenaed Dr. Veleanu in the pre-trial phase and at that time, Dr. Veleanu brought the attention of AAG Garin that the gemological reports of AGTA were forged to the extent that 2 identification reports of rosary mala were forged by using the same photograph for 2 different mala. This contention was brought again by Dr. Veleanu in his response to the Notice of Intent to start a legal action by AG. AAG Garin committed perjury in 2 separate occasions in relationship to the uttering to the Court. First instance of perjury consisted in AAG Garin deposition under oath in the Alternative Statement in lieu of stenographic transcripts pursuant to statute CPLR 5525 (d). In this deposition under oath, AAG Garin denied his knowledge that gemological identification reports were forged and the evidence was fraudulently mislabeled by the complainant until Dr. Veleanu answered to the Petition in his pleadings to the Court. This statement of AAG was a blatant lie as the evidence clearly has shown that Dr. Veleanu brought the attention of AG that AGTA gemological reports were mislabeled and forged, firstly, at the pre-trial subpoena session, and again in the pre-trial response to the Notice of Proposed Action pursuant to Article 22, weeks prior trial. The irrefutable evidence shows that AAG Garin preferred to commit the crime of perjury rather than acknowledge that he commenced a legal action against Dr. Veleanu in complete absence of a reasonable cause of action. As the legal action of AG was to deceive the Court, it clearly represents extrinsic fraud, fraud upon Court and unconscionable prosecutorial abuse of discretion.
The fact that the forged evidence had no probative value, did not prevent AG to utter to Court forged and mislabeled evidence with full knowledge of the falsity of the evidence. This forged evidence was the only evidence that he could bring to the Court to support his false allegations. Other allegations in AG’s petition as negative reviews of the book written by Dr. Veleanu, flaming on the Internet and bringing several pages of the Internet website without specifying any wrongdoings, were malicious, non-probative and non relevant, lacking any kind of evidence to allege statutory fraud. The uttering of false and forged evidence was not the only single criminal act of AG; more egregious and criminally incriminating act was the submission to the Court of forensic evidence that was mutilated, obstructed and impaired in order to conceal the exculpatory evidence. AG submitted a scientific article regarding jadeite in which exculpatory text was blocked from view by overlapping a photo over the exculpatory text in at least 2 occasions. The concealment of evidence by mutilating and obstruction from view of exculpatory text was done in 2 separate portions of this article offered as evidence by AG. Under a Court order, AG obtained a list of all customers who purchased jade items from Dr. Veleanu starting in 2003. AG contacted all customers soliciting them to request refunds. As all customers were bound by the commercial contract of sale, it appears that as an incentive for breaching the contract, AG promised a reward of an illegal retroactive interest of 9 % years back to the date of purchase. No customer alleged misrepresentation, but 3 customers, as well as 2 purchases of complainant Spiridonakos were at auctions where Dr. Veleanu was a consignor, rather than the seller. Subsequently, the auction commission of 27.5 %, Paypal fees of 3 % and shipping charges were fraudulently assessed by AG to Dr. Veleanu. The illegal acts of AG of granting non-statutory punitive fines to customers that breached the commercial contract and assessing auction commission to a consignor are unheard prosecutorial acts of misconduct that allowed almost doubling the initial investment of the unscrupulous customers who requested refunds through AG, rather than applying directly to the seller for refund in accordance with the conditions of sale of the commercial contract. One of the persons who requested a refund, criminally substituted the item returned for refund with a valueless fake made from a marble-type of material, rather than the original jade item. Both, the complainant and the above mentioned person committed the crime of perjury by swearing under oath of false statements with full knowledge of the falsity, made with the purpose of defrauding the merchant. These criminal acts were made possible only through the intervention of AG who facilitated and aided the commission of the criminal acts. AG initiated a frivolous and vexatious suit in absence of any reasonable cause of action in the name of other individuals, but without the consent of involved individuals, in an action of special proceeding, in court before a judge. According to statute CPLR 70, the person who initiates a frivolous and vexatious suit is guilty of misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment and fines. The 3 customers who requested a refund did not have a legal standing to sue as were not aggrieved and did not allege misrepresentation of purchased merchandise, rather were tricked by AG to request refunds with the incentive of retroactive interest of 9 % benefit starting years back to the date of purchase. The legal action commenced by AG had a collateral intention to cause pecuniary harm and psychological trauma to Dr. Veleanu, representing abuse of process and malicious prosecution.
AG released to media libelous, false statements intended to harm psychologically and pecuniary. The libelous statements were outrageous lies not substantiated by any evidence to base upon. In addition, the false and malicious statements were meant to frighten former customers and request refunds with secondary collateral aim of abuse of process and malicious prosecution. AG committed outrageous libel by stating false and damaging statements that irreversibly damaged the immaculate personal and professional reputation by using character assassination. In a brazen and contempt of court action, AG violated the court imposed gag on media regarding information pertinent to TRO.
AG alleged, requested and obtained fines and court fees based on GBL 350 (d). Nevertheless, AG in his 2 causes of action did not allege any violation of GBL 350 that is based on fraudulent acts of advertising. As such, AG failed to state a cause of action upon which a relief could be granted.
AG used his prosecutorial power to issue 4 subpoenas, 3 subpoenas fraudulently were not directed to serve the legitimate evidentiary role and as such were impermissible under Rule 26 (b) (1) of Federal statute which allow subpoenas only related to matters relevant to the subject of action. As the subpoenas issued by AG were with only purpose to force Veleanu not to seek justice in court, these illegal subpoenas of the AG clearly represent fraud upon the court and extrinsic fraud. The multitude of subpoenas issued by AG indicate the collateral objective of abuse of process and malicious prosecution in order to harass, intimidate and retaliate for the exercise of the constitutional rights to defend himself against the dictatorial and oppressive prosecutorial power of AG.
AG solicited all former customers to request refunds beyond the statute of limitation that is 3 years for statutory fraud and even up to 6 years.
AG violated the Penal Law 215: Bribing a witness: “A person is guilty of bribing a witness when he confers, or offers, or agrees to confer, any benefit upon a witness or a person about to be called as a witness in any action or proceeding…”. Bribing a witness is a Class D felony.
AG is guilty of violating NY Penal Law Sec. 100.5 Criminal solicitation in 4th degree. “A person is guilty of solicitation in 4th degree when (1) with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes or otherwise attempts to cause such other person to engage in such conduct“.
AG requested and obtained from Court punitive damages consisting in interest of 9 % starting from the date of purchase. The punitive damages were instituted and requested consequent to the motion for reargument/renew submitted by Veleanu’s lawyer, Clinton Calhoun. The punitive fines are illegal, not based or endorsed by any statute, law or rule. GBL 349 and Executive Law 63.12 do not provide for any punitive fines. Such prosecutorial misconduct of illegal judicial action clearly represents fraud upon court, extrinsic fraud and irrational arbitrary and capricious action. As much as egregious and damaging were the illegal and criminal actions of prosecutorial misconduct, such damages and grant of the requested relief could not be possible without cooperation and conspiracy of the Court presided by corrupt judges of the Supreme Court of New York. The corruption consisted in lack of a fair, unbiased and impartial court to adjudicate the material issues on merit, rather on technicalities favoring the powerful party and prejudicial to the pro se party. The high corruption of the judges of the Supreme Court is following the infamous legal dictum of “quid pro quo” (in fair folkloric translation from Latin signifying “scratch my back and will scratch your back in return). Quid pro quo is the main way the politics are governed in the State of New York regardless of the political party belonging of the persons elected to represent the people of the State of New York. Justices of the Supreme Court of NY have absolute immunity from suits regardless of their level of egregious adjudication, when they are acting in their judicial duty secured by personal jurisdiction upon defendant and jurisdiction of subject matter. In this legal suit, 4 justices of the Supreme Court were involved and in which only one judge was an elected justice of the Supreme Court, and this justice recused invoking the conflict of interest. Another justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Christine Sproat, apparently and ethically refused the assignment in this case (the 5th judge assigned to this case). The other 3 judges were acting justices of Supreme Court (non elected), representing county judges or surrogate county
judge. All the judicial proceedings were ex parte proceedings, without hearings, conference calls and lacking the possibility of representation of the person accused of a wrongdoing, typical for due process violations in the true “kangaroo court proceedings”. In this case the failure of the petitioner (AG) to serve the judicial process made all the court orders and judgments to be void, null and invalid due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In any non-corrupt tribunal in NY State and US, such legal suit would be declared void ab initio (from the beginning), but not in the Supreme Court of NY State, favoring the AG supreme fascist/Soviet type judicial dictatorial based on dogma of infallibility. This dogma was once present under British Royal colonial regime in USA that ruled that the “King cannot be wrong”. Similarly, AG cannot be wrong in New York State!!!
The first judge, justice James Brands granted a TRO in favor of AG with full knowledge that the evidence submitted by AG was mislabeled and forged and at least, had no probative value. Justice Brands signed an order to show cause that violated respondent’s constitutional rights of learning the substance of allegations prior onset of judicial proceeding. Dr. Veleanu was deprived of the right of an accused person of a wrongdoing, to be allowed sufficient time to be informed about charges and prepare a defense. The constitutional rights of due process were brutally violated even more by the failure of the petitioner (AG) to serve the respondent with the judicial process, procedure that is at the fundament of the American justice. Consequently, the Court failed to achieve the personal jurisdiction upon respondent with lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As such, the grant of TRO by justice Brands was void and null from the beginning. While justice Brands properly recused, he failed to decree a nolle prosequi (invalidating the improper decree ) after his recusal, in view of his irrefutable conflict of interest consisting in preparation of TRO papers and legal representation of his Principal Court Attorney in a previous suit where he represented the adversary party. Obviously, NY State has a Constitution that made it illegal of such judicial act. NY State belongs to US of America that also has a Constitution that proclaims freedom and due process constitutional rights to all the citizens. Soviet Union had also a Constitution that granted on paper to its oppressed citizens elementary human rights that in reality never were respected.
The biggest demagogue in NY State is Andrew Cuomo; here is an excerpt from his declaration to the citizens of NY State in his official duty as Attorney General of NY State at the legal suit against Cohen & Slomowitz
firm in Woodbury, LI, firm named ALP: “Our legal system is defined by due process and the guarantee that every New Yorker will get the chance to defend himself in court”.
Andrew Cuomo proves in this excerpt his corrupt hypocrite politician way of acting in diametric opposition to what he is declaring in a pompous way. Dr. Veleanu in the “kangaroo court” of the Supreme Court of NY State was deprived of the elementary rights of due process of a citizen as secured by US Constitution. AG was outraged that Dr. Veleanu did not acknowledge to be guilty of the criminally concocted charges Andrew Cuomo and his counsel manufactured. The failure to acknowledge guilt was defined by AG Cuomo and his counsel as a crime in an identical way of action the fascist Third Reich Courts and Soviet communist Courts acted against the opponents of their oppressive regime.
Following the recusal of justice Brands, acting justice Thomas Dolan was assigned to this legal case and decreed an order and judgment with a permanent injunction without seeing Dr. Veleanu and without any hearing or conference, in a typical kangaroo court that violated the due process under 14th amendment of US Constitution. As such, acting justice justice Dolan’s summary judgment was ex parte, illegal, void ab initio (from the onset), for lack of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to render a judgment. The kangaroo court never allows a defendant the chance to defend himself, the decision is made in advance based on prosecutor’s accusations in absence of representation of the accused party, without hearings and without the presence of the accuser in the court for an available cross-examination. Justice Dolan’s egregious judicial action had a collateral of abuse of judicial process by advising Dr. Veleanu to retain legal representation of a lawyer “to learn about his rights“. This advise was perverse and malicious!. Acting justice Dolan knew that Dr. Veleanu had no legal rights whatsoever in his court. The advise had the collateral objective to injure Veleanu with tremendous legal expenses and as such, clearly represents the abuse of judiciary process by the judge himself. As an officer of the court, the attorney retained by Veleanu could only negotiate terms that AG would impose with irreconcilable clauses repugnant to the moral and conscience of an innocent individual. Plea bargaining is unconscionable to an innocent individual and an ethical violation of a judge to impose, as such, active justice Dolan’s action represents extrinsic fraud, fraud upon court and unconscionable abuse of discretion.
More egregious was justice Dolan denial of the pleadings to the Court of Dr. Veleanu, invoking that the answer to the Petition and Reply to AG were “unsworn”. Nonetheless, the pleadings were in a legal form as declaration
under penalty of perjury that under statute CPLR 105 (U) is legal and replaces the notarized form. As such, judge Dolan decision was fraudulent, illegal and represented unconscionable abuse of discretion and irrational arbitrary and capricious judicial action. In an identical way, justice Dolan denied the motions of dismissal of Petition not because lacked merit, but rather again, fraudulently ruled as “unsworn”, deliberately ignoring the statute CPLR 105 (U) that legally authorizes and replaces the outdated notarized form, with the declaration under penalty of perjury.
Justice Dolan decreed a summary judgment with granting of a permanent injunction based on fraudulent and criminal mislabeled and forged forensic evidence he was aware of, and knowingly disregarded in egregious and flagrant fraud upon Court and extrinsic fraud.
Justice Dolan fraudulently granted a summary judgment while being aware that the defendant raised numerous issues of material fact that preclude the grant of summary judgment. Justice Dolan violated CPLR R3212 regarding the AG’s petition: “The motion shall be granted if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party. Except as provided in subdivision c of this rule the motion shall be denied if any party shall show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact”.
Justice Dolan as a graduate of law school knew or should have known that Veleanu contested the legal suit in his pleadings and motions to dismiss, due to lack of service, and subsequent failure of court to acquire personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. In accordance with statute CPLR 320 C, the court lacked the jurisdiction due to absence of personal service, or rather, improper service. Nevertheless, the denial of defense and denial of the motions to dismiss were not due to lack of knowledge of the law, rather extrinsic fraud, fraud upon court and unconscionable abuse of discretion and irrational, illogical, arbitrary and frivolous judicial action. Extrinsic fraud in contrast to intrinsic fraud is fraud committed by the officers of the court and judge Dolan’s act constitutes fraud upon court.
The judgment decreed by judge Dolan was never entered and docketed by the AG and according to 22 NYCRR 202.48, after 60 days became null and invalid. CPLR R2220 specifies: “.. (I)f a party fails to file any papers required to be filed under this subdivision, the order may be vacated as irregular, with costs”.
AG in his dilatory actions meant to increase the amount of penalties of retroactive interest of 9 %, neglected to prosecute the legal action. The Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County violated the statute CPLR 3216 that where a party unreasonable neglects to proceed generally in an action or otherwise delays in the prosecution thereof against any party who may be liable to a separate judgment, or unreasonably fails to serve and file a note of issue, the court, in its own initiative or upon motion, may dismiss the party’s pleading on term. Unless the order specifies otherwise, the dismissal is not on merits.
Apparently judge Dolan stepped down the bench for one reason or another, and his order and judgment became void by failure to be docketed within 60 days.
Accordingly, AG defaulted by failure to prosecute the action within the time prescribed by law.
AG had the second chance to re-institute the charges by personal service to defendant within 6 months in accordance with CPLR 205. In his egregious and despicable laches (delays) made to increase the amount of illegal punitive action, AG failed to act within 6 months and re-institute the legal action. AG failed to re-institute the legal suit by serving the process to respondent within 6 months and consequently defaulted second time.
The Supreme Court of NY in a protective and covering up the illegal judicial actions of AG, violated again CPLR 3216 that clearly specifies that where a party unreasonably neglects to generally proceed in an action or otherwise delays in prosecution thereof against any party, the court may dismiss the legal action for failure to prosecute. As the legal case was considered abandoned according to CPLR 205 and CPLR 3404, the Supreme Court violated the above mentioned statutes by failure to censor the inadmissible judicial actions of laches by AG. This represents an egregious and biased legal action of the Court, (or rather lack of legal action), due to AG’s dilatory actions, by not voiding the order and judgment of justice Dolan that failed to be entered and docketed in the clerk’s office of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County. CPLR 205 that was violated by the Court clearly prescribes that where a dismissal is one for neglect to prosecute the action made pursuant to CPLR 3216, the judge shall set forth on the record the specific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation.
This statute specification obviously violated by the court in its cover up of
wrongdoings of AG, made evident the egregious and fraudulent conduct of AG in delaying the legal proceedings with the obvious goal of increasing the amount of illegal punitive fines with interest of 9 % for laches of more than 2 years of judicial proceedings. This represented an un-rebuttable demonstration of abuse of process and malicious prosecution. AG dilatory actions clearly demonstrate an unconscionable and illegal action that would be prosecuted and punished by any non-corrupt court, by acting for dismissal of action for failure of the prosecutor to prosecute in 2 separate occasions, by engaging in laches and consequent 2 defaults.
Justice Christine Sproat assigned to this legal case, apparently, ethically and commandably refused the assignment.
After more than 10 months since the decree of the original judgment of justice Dolan, a newly assigned judge, acting justice James Pagones, decreed a judgment, again, without the service of judicial process. The failure of AG to serve the judicial process resulted in failure of the court to achieve personal jurisdiction upon respondent Veleanu and represented another failed opportunity to execute personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the judgment of justice Pagones is null, invalid and void ab initio (from onset) for failure of the Supreme Court to achieve personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction.
While the legislation allows a county judge (as judge Dolan, or another assigned judge, Peter Forman), or a surrogate court judge (as judge Pagones) to act as Supreme Court justices, the legislation specifically defines this function as temporary. As judge James Pagones is acting as unelected Supreme Court justice since 1999, hardly could be arguable that the position of Supreme Court justice is temporary by substituting the capacity of an elected Supreme Court Justice. Judge Pagones acted in his judicial actions inconsistently and contradicting the present judicial case, where he was assigned to render judgment, and inconsistent with a fair and uniform decision. As American justice follows the common law precedent, in almost identical legal cases, acting justice Pagones rendered judgments in complete reversal of judgment’s rational to Dr. Veleanu‘s legal case. For example, in Galasso v. Calder, 201 NY Slip Op. 50755 (U) (31 Misc. 3d 1220 A) decided on 04/29/11, justice Pagones decreed a judgment pursuant to CPLR 3126 dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to prosecute. In another legal case, Village Dr. Assoc. LLC v. Schiavo, 2013 NY Slip Op.
50166 (U) decided on 2/7/13, judge Pagones made a similar decision in which he ruled in a manner completely opposed to the present legal case. In another legal case, BAC Home Loan Servicing LP v. Musa , 2012 NY Slip Op 51099 (U) decided on 06/18/12, defendant was in default in a home foreclosure. The plaintiff failed to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after default. The court presided by judge Pagones sua sponte dismissed the complaint as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215 C. The above case is another demonstration of the failure of judge Pagones to act fairly and consistently in his decisions, and a clear representation of his bias and prejudice against Dr. Veleanu that is in complete reverse judicial action to other legal cases decided by him. The most representative of bias and prejudice against Dr. Veleanu is another legal case in which judge Pagones presided the court, in Dooley v. Woods, 2011 NY Slip Op 50408 (U) decided on 03/22/11. In this case, acting justice Pagones dismissed the plaintiff’s action due to the failure to serve the process. Acting justice Pagones stated in the decision: “In this case, no summons and complaint, or summons with notice (CPLR 304) was served upon respondent. Thus the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this case as the existence of an action is an indispensable prerequisite to the granting of the requested relief”. While judge Pagones was correct in rendering this order and judgment, the fairness and ethical judicial acts of judge Pagones make his judicial actions to be inconsistent, a mockery of justice, and rather adjudication based on his political philosophy, rather than fairness and lack of bias and prejudice to one party, and bias and partiality toward the other party. In Dr. Veleanu case, acting justice Pagones made a completely opposite decision and judgment in the same circumstances. While petitioner (AG) failed to serve the respondent (Dr. Veleanu), acting justice Pagones did not dismiss the legal case for failure of AG to serve the process and subsequent failure to achieve the personal jurisdiction by the court. Rather, in the most blatant bias and prejudice, acting justice Pagones did not dismiss Veleanu’s legal case, despite that the cases are quite similar and according to common law represent a ground for failure to act in the same circumstances of law, by the same judge. The final case to demonstrate acting justice Pagones lack of impartiality and genuine bias and prejudice against Dr. Veleanu is the legal case US Bank Nat’l Assoc v. Alessandra Padilla et al., defendants, 2011 NY Slip Op 50535 (U) decided on 04/08/11. In this case, amazingly similar to the legal case against Dr. Veleanu, particularly in regard to the assessment by the plaintiff of interest accrued on a loan occurring from the date of default and additional legal fees and expenses. Judge Pagones acted in a completely opposite decision by ordering that the interest (that was a legal interest accumulated on a mortgage) should be not more than the principal balance of the loan and awarded the respondent the exemplary damage penalty in the exorbitant amount of $100,000. Judge Pagones stated: “The bank conduct was ’shockingly inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious”. On claiming bad faith, judge Pagones barred the bank for collecting interest accrued on the loan from the date of default, legal fees and other expenses. Absolutely amazing is the fact that the decision of judge Pagones in this case is exactly the opposite of the decision in which judge Pagones granted to AG retroactive interest of 9 % (that is probably several folds times higher than the interest the bank charged the defendant who defaulted). If judge Pagones would act uniformly and consistently in his judicial actions, Dr. Veleanu would be entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of $100,000, and forever barring the plaintiff (AG) to assess retroactive interest to the date of the occurrence. Judge Pagones stated that the plaintiff’s delays allowed racking up interest, fees and penalties to plaintiff’s benefit and the respondent’s detriment. Nonetheless, in an identical fashion, the dilatory scheme of AG allowed accumulation of large amount of due money, interest on interest that would make the restitution close to impossible. In a reprehensible and truly oprobrious fashion, judge Pagones did not find AG’s conduct to be “shockingly inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious” as found and determined in the above described case. The judicial frivolous actions of judge Pagones are illustration of corruption at the highest level of NY State Supreme Court assigned judges. Acting justice Pagones’ judicial action in the above described case is exactly the opposite of judge Pagones judicial action in Dr. Veleanu’s case and un-controvertible proof of judge Pagones abhorrent bias and prejudice against Dr. Veleanu. While a justice of the Supreme Court is supposed to be unbiased, not prejudiced and not favoring a party in accordance with political views of the judge, the judicial actions of acting justice Pagones in Dr. Veleanu’s case is unethical, illegal and demands forever removal of this judge from the bench and disbarring.
The judicial action of acting justice Pagones in Dr. Veleanu’s case, unambiguously demonstrates the irrational and logic defying arbitrary and frivolous action and opprobrious, human conscience shaking abuse of discretion of this judge. Judge Pagones ruled in his decision and judgment
that the motion of reargument/renew brought by Dr. Veleanu’s lawyer was instead of reargument, rather a renew motion. Obviously, overlooked or misapprehended matters of law by the court presided by acting justice Pagones could not be renew as would defy the statutory definition. The misinterpretation of law by judge Pagones is not an error due to judge’s lack of knowledge of law, rather irrefutable proof of logic defying and irrational arbitrary and capricious judicial action of acting justice Pagones.
The last judge involved in Dr. Veleanu’s legal case was judge Peter M. Forman that was assigned to the legal case following the judgment decree of judge Pagones in November 2010. Judge Forman consistently neglected to act upon every motion brought to the court by respondent Veleanu, or denied the relief after the action on the motion became moot, due to his failure to timely act upon motion. Judge Forman repeatedly and consistently violated CPLR 2219 (a) in biased, pro-prosecutorial, unconscionable, arbitrary and frivolous abuse of discretion. As such, judge Forman acted in bias and prejudice favoring the petitioner AG in any legal action he decided. On April 24, 2012 (that is more than 90 days since the submission of an application pursuing CPLR 5519). acting justice Forman denied the discretionary relief pursuant to CPLR 5519 as moot. Obviously, an emergency order to show cause that needs to be decided within 20 days, became moot and irrelevant after more than 3 months past submission date by unconscionable delay of the judge to make a decision upon motion. The repeated acts of disregard to the professional responsibility of a Justice in the Supreme Court to act upon motions, made acting justice Forman liable to the criminal violation of law in NY State under Penal Law 195 Official misconduct. Penal Law 195 specifies: A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when with intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit: PL 195.2: He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office“. One of the most egregious judicial act committed by acting justice Forman was his refusal to sign an order to show cause submitted by Veleanu in August 2012. The leave requested was a TRO to prevent distribution of undertaking funds cashed by AG to criminal individuals including the complainant Janet Spiridonakos, and Diana Norton, a resident of Texas who substituted a valuable nephrite carving with a valueless fake. As all the persons involved were out-of-state residents, distribution of funds would make it impossible to retrieve the funds without additional litigation. In recognition of judge Forman’s lack of impartiality and bias against the respondent, Dr. Veleanu addressed the motion to the administrative judge of the court, rather than to judge Forman. Judge Forman intercepted the application and acted as he was the administrative judge of the court, despite that the motion was clearly addressed in caption content and signature to the administrative judge. The acts of impersonation of another public servant constitutes a criminal violation of Penal Law 190. Penal Law 190.25 CRIMINAL IMPERSONATION IN THE SECOND DEGREE specifies: “A person is guilty of impersonation in second degree when he: 3(a): pretends to be a public servant or falsely expresses by his words or actions that he is a public servant or is acting with approval or authority of a public agency or department and (b) so acts with intent to induce another to submit to such pretended official authority… (or) otherwise cause another to act in reliance upon the pretense”. Subsequently, Dr. Veleanu sent the application directly to the office of the administrative judge Alan Sheinkman in White Plains, NY. The application, inter alia, requested relief in accordance with CPLR 5015 C that is in the exclusive prerogative of the administrative judge, based on the previous 2 defaults of the AG. The administrative judge office denied the application fraudulently stating that there was no evidence of defaults despite that such evidence was irrefutable and advised that any relief according to CPLR 5015 should be addressed to the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County. The administrative judge, Alan Sheinkman, ordered the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County to remove the application from Court’s records and return it to Dr. Veleanu, at which order, the Chief Clerk of Court, Mr. Thompson, complied. As judge Forman was named as a defendant in the motion for annulment of void judgments pursuing CPLR 5015 (a) (3) and CPLR 5015 (a) (4), Dr Veleanu was confident that another judge would be assigned, in view of justice Pagones obvious conflict of interest. To assure that judge Forman would not act upon this motion, Dr. Veleanu requested as one of the relieves of this motion, the voluntary recusal of judge Forman based on the undeniable conflict of interest; a judge can not sit and decide in a case where he is a defendant. On October 24, 2012, Dr. Veleanu submitted a motion with attached Memorandum of Law in which the requested leave was annulment of the void orders and judgments of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County pursuing CPLR 5015 (a) (3) and CPLR (a) (4). To the shock of Dr. Veleanu, acting justice Forman refused to recuse himself and continued to act in a biased and prejudiced manner toward Veleanu. In an irrefutable and unconscionable abuse of discretion, judge Forman failed to make a decision upon the motion within 60 days, thus, violating again CPLR 2219 and 22 NYCRR 202.8 (h). Judge Forman acted in disregard of the motion where one of the relieves was his recusal and in flagrant personal conflict of interest. The motion cited 2 cases of judge Forman’s demonstrated abuse of discretion as reasons for his disqualification to act as a judge where he is a defendant. The averments of the motion pursuing CPLR 5015 were not controverted by AG in his Reply to the motion as the averments were irrefutable. As such, the acting justice was obligated to grant the relief requested in the motion for annulment of orders and judgments. In addition, the relieves under CPLR 5015 (a) (3) and CPLR 5015 (a) (4) are not discretionary and cannot be denied by the acting justice in the absence of rebuttal by AG.
On January 28, 2013, Dr. Veleanu submitted a motion with attached Memorandum of Law to the administrative judge of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County, Alan Sheinkman in which Dr. Veleanu requested the following administrative and ministerial determination orders: 1. A ministerial order in regard to violation of CPLR 2219 (a) and 22 NYCRR 202.8(h) by the Supreme Court of NY presided by judge Forman, consisting in the failure of the court to decree a decision and order upon a motion of relief from a void judgment submitted to the court on October 24, 2012 (representing more than 90 days). 2. A ministerial order for violation of Penal Law Section 195 by acting justice Peter Forman. 3. A ministerial order for the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County presided by acting justice Forman in regard to the violations of several codes, regulations under 22NYCRR. 4. A ministerial administrative order regarding the violation by acting justice Forman of Penal Law 175. 5. An administrative order in regard to violation by the court presided by acting justice Forman of NY CVR Article 2 Civil Rights. Administrative judge Alan Sheinkman never responded to this motion. A motion addressed by Dr. Veleanu to administrative judge Alan Sheinkman, on February 25, 2013, requesting the administrative leave of assignment of another judge pursuing 22NYCRR 202.6 Judicial Intervention, was denied by judge Alan Sheinkman without any explanation.
In accordance with 22NYCRR C-DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES: “A judge shall disqualify himself in a procedure in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned including but not limited to instances in which (a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge or disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding”. On February 11, 2013, Dr. Veleanu submitted to the Supreme Court a motion requesting the voluntary recusal of acting justice Forman and implementation of hearings in accordance with CPLR
5015 (d) for a void judgment and restitution of undertaking, a declaratory judgment and other relieves mentioned in the original motion for annulment of orders and judgments dated October 24, 2012. On a decision and order (this time very prompt), dated February 15, 2013, acting justice Forman denied the motion without any reasoning of his decision not to resign. Judge Forman violated Judiciary Law Sec. 17 that states: “A judge or surrogate, or former judge or surrogate shall not act as attorney or counselor in any action, claim, matter, motion or procedure which has been before him in his official character”. The above violation arose from judicial action of acting justice Forman as counselor to AAG Garin as demonstrated in his decisions and orders where he did not act as an impartial judge, rather as defending counselor to the prosecutor in the typical quid pro quo. Judiciary law Sec.17 prevents in reverse, that AG could represents the involved judge(s) in Article 78 proceedings.
On January 29, 2013, acting justice Peter Forman fraudulently decreed an order in which he denied the motion for annulment of a void judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) and CPLR 5015 (a (4), submitted by Dr. Veleanu on October 24, 2012, as being “moot”. Acting justice Peter Forman violated NY State Judicial law 14: DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES that states: “A judge shall not sit, as such in, or take any part in the decision of an action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding to which HE IS A PARTY, or in which he has been attorney or counsel, or in which HE IS INTERESTED”.
The decision and order of acting justice Peter Forman is illegal and represents a conscience shaking abuse of discretion and illogical arbitrary and capricious judicial action. Firstly, the motion under CPLR 5015 (a) (4) is not discretionary and cannot be denied by a judge using his discretion.
Is acting justices of the Supreme Court of New York the norm of what a judge should be: impartial, unbiased, adjudicate the legal controversies of the litigants in a fair and equitable way, or rather, favoring the strong party, cover up the wrongdoings of the powerful party in the typical corrupt QUID PRO QUO and infusing the personal political, personal, gender, moral pre-determined presumption of guilt of one party, rather than the other in the court decisions???.
Hereto is a list of the violations of NY State laws, canons of judicial conduct, NY Codes and Regulations, etc., by acting justice of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County Hon. Peter M. Forman:
1. Violation of Penal Law 195.00. Official misconduct. “A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit: 195.1. He commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized. PL 195.2. He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.
2. Acting justice Peter Forman violated Canon 3 B (8): “Judges shall dispose of all judicial matters fairly, promptly and efficiently. When the judges failed to do so, they ignore the facts, ignore and violate the Rules and commit criminal acts“.
3. Acting justice Forman violated judicial Canon 2: Violation of the Rules of Court’s Civil Procedures demonstrate impropriety and the appearance of the impropriety.
4. Acting justice Forman violated Canon 3 A (5): “In disposing of matters promptly, efficiently and fairly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of the parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without dilatory practice, avoidable delays and unnecessary costs“.
5. Acting justice Forman violated Canon 3 B (5): Judges shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. When a judge demonstrates bias or prejudice it is a violation of Canon 3 B (5). Judges should recuse themselves when they have bias or a prejudice.
6. Acting justice Forman violated Canon 3 B (7): Judges shall accord to any person the right to be heard according to law. Judges shall not initiate ex parte communications. Judges violate this Canon when parties are denied the right to have hearings, testify under oath, examine witnesses, cross examine witnesses.
7. Acting justice Forman violated Penal Law 190.25. Criminal impersonation in the second degree: A person is guilty of impersonation in the second degree when he: 1. Impersonates another and does an act in such assumed character with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another, or 3. Pretends to be a public servant…or falsely expresses by words or actions that he is a public servant, or is acting with approval of authority of a public agency or department, and (b) so acts with intent to induce another to submit to such pretended official authority… or otherwise cause another to act in reliance upon that pretense.
8. Acting justice Forman violated NY State Judicial Law 14. Disqualification of judges by reason of interest that prescribes: A judge
shall not sit, as such in, or take any part in the decision of an action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding to which he is a party, or in which he has been an attorney or counsel, or in which he is interested.
9. Acting justice Forman violated Canon 3 E (1): Judges shall disqualify themselves in any proceedings in which the impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Judges refuse to recuse themselves when their impartiality would be questioned by reasonable people.
10. Acting justice Forman violated NY State Judiciary Law Sec.17: A judge or surrogate, or former judge or surrogate shall not act as attorney or counselor in any action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding which has been before him in his official character.
11. Acting justice Forman violated NY State statute CPLR 2219 (a).
12. Acting justice Forman violated NY State code and regulation 22NYCRR 202.8(h).
13. Acting justice Forman violated NY State Code and Regulation 22NYCRR 100 (E): A judge shall disqualify himself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
14. Acting justice Forman violated NY State Code and Regulation 22NYCRR C: A judge shall disqualify himself in a procedure in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned including but not limited to instances in which (a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge or disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.
15. Acting justice Forman violated the Rule of Chief administrative Judge 22NYCRR 100 B (4): A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice against or in favor of any person. A judge in the performance of the judicial duties shall not by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice.
16. Acting justice Forman violated the Rule of Chief Administrative Judge 22NYCRR 100 B (6): a judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding or that person’s lawyer the right to be heard according to law. A judge shall not initiate, permit or consider ex parte communications.
17. Acting justice Forman violated the Rule of Chief Administrative Judge 22NYCRR 100 B (7): A judge shall dispose of all matters promptly, efficiently and fairly.
18. Acting justice Forman violated the Chief Administrative Judge Rule 22NYCRR 100.2: Substantial misconduct rose to such an egregious level
that the conduct implicates the attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer when a judge is accused of being biased and pro-prosecutorial. A judge must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all judge’s activities.
19. Acting justice Forman violated NY State Bill of Rights and CVR Article 2 (10) regarding the right to freely obtain writs upon payment of the fee.
20. Acting justice Forman violated Federal law 18 USC Sec. 401. Power of Courts. A Court of the US shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority as: 1. Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions. 3. Disobedience or resistance to do writs process, order, rule, decree or command.
21. Acting justice Forman violated Federal law 28 USC Sec. 144 and 28 USC Sec 455 (1989) statutory basis for the recusal or disqualification of judges. Section 144 provides a procedure for a party to recuse a judge based that the judge has a personal bias or prejudice against the party or in favor of the adverse party, such judge shall not proceed further, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.
22. Acting justice Forman violated Federal Law Title 18 Sec 912: “Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under of the US or any department, agency, or officer thereof, and act as such or in such pretended character, demands or obtains any…paper, document…(s)hall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 3 years or both.
23. Acting justice Forman violated Federal Law Title 18 Sec. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law. Penalty is fine or imprisonment not more than one year or both.
This long list of violations of law by the acting justice Peter M. Forman unequivocally demonstrates the highest degree of judicial corruption in the Supreme Court of New York State and the impermissible lawlessness in New York State highest court of justice. Who is suppose to oversee, discipline and demand justice in the name of the People of New York State ???.
On August 12, 2012, Dr. Mircea Veleanu addressed a complaint with NY State Commission on Judicial Conduct against 4 judges of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County. In a letter dated February 15, 2013, the Commission notified Dr. Veleanu that “Upon careful consideration, the Commission concluded that there was insufficient indication of judicial
misconduct to justify judicial discipline”.
In a reply letter dated February 27, 2013, Dr. Veleanu requested a reconsideration of the decision dismissing the complaint and complained that the Commission did not enclose an explanation for the dismissal of the complainant. The failure of the Commission to state the reasons for the dismissal of the case is violating the new legislation amendment to the judiciary law known as Bill # S249-2013 enacted on January 9, 2013. The amendment of Section 44 (1) of the judiciary law brought by Senator Sampson requires that “(I)f the complaint is dismissed, the Commission shall PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR THE DETERMINATION FOR THE DISMISSAL TO the complainant”. The capital letters are actually in the written ACT of the amendment Section 2. As Senator Sampson stated: “this Bill will allow the Commission on Judicial Conduct to provide the basis for dismissing complaints rather than simply stating “there was insufficient indication of misconduct”. Senator Sampson also stated: “This legislation will open the judiciary disciplinary process; judges are public officials whose actions on the Bench should be subject to public scrutiny”. Despite 2 requests, till June 13, 2013, NY State Commission on Judicial Conduct did not provide the reason for dismissal of the complaint!!!
Again, quid pro quo is the ruling dogma (an old Romanian proverb states that one hand washes the other and both hands wash the face!!!).
Is this United States of America, the beloved land, bastion of freedom, liberty, or the land where dictatorial power oppresses the people and deprives the persons of life, liberty, or property without due process???.
Dr. Veleanu is a Holocaust survivor and lived behind Iron Curtain a good portion of his life; as such, he is well accustomed with fascist/communist oppression of the dictatorial regimes. He escaped the communist hell to encounter in US the same dictatorial tyranny of judicial, elected legislative and executive corruption of cover up of officials: QUID PRO QUO!!!
NY State Governor Andrew Cuomo stated on his speech at his inauguration as Governor of NY State:
“PUBLIC INTEGRITY WAS MY TOP PRIORITY AS NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL AND IT IS AS GOVERNOR…THOSE WHO HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE MUST SAFEGUARD THAT TRUST AND THOSE THAT VIOLATE THEIR OATH MUST INCUR PUNISHMENT. IT IS A NEW DAY IN ALBANY AND THE OLD DAY OF DOING BUSINESS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED”.
This pure demagoguery of a corrupt politician is a reflection of the way Washington politicians rule our beloved country that soon will become Zimbabwe (former Rhodesia, one of the past most prosperous African country)!
The most hypocrite politician in NY State, Andrew Cuomo, in his megalomaniacal ambition desires to be the next elected president of USA in 2016!!!.
God save United States of America!
Dr. Mircea Veleanu challenged the judgment of acting justice Pagones in the Appellate Court, Second Department of the Supreme Court of New York. The Appellate Court failed to perform its judicial function of review of the trial court proceedings and failed to render opinions in controversial matters of law, opinion about violation by the trial court of the due process of the defendant Veleanu and forbid the fraudulent unconscionable abuse of discretion and illogical and irrational arbitrary and frivolous judgment of acting justice Pagones. The Appellate Division failed to answer the questions posed to the court in the legal fraudulent way typical of kangaroo court where the contentions of the appellant are completely ignored as inexistent. The appellant raised the most important issue that requires reversal of the trial court judgment, consisting in lack of jurisdiction of the court to render a judgment due to failure to achieve in personam jurisdiction and lack of court jurisdiction of subject matter. The law in any state of US as well as federal courts require proof of jurisdiction to appear in the record and all court proceedings. The lack of jurisdiction renders the court without any authority to decree any order and judgment as in Dr. Veleanu’s legal case. A court as Appellate Court cannot affirm a void judgment of trial court as no court can confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid.
However, fraudulently, the Appellate Court did in Dr. Veleanu.s appeal!. The Appellate Division failed to answer any of the questions raised by the appellant Veleanu and failed to give an opinion to the posed questions as:
1. Was the evidence presented by appellant consisting in plethora of scientific and mineralogical textbooks, etc., not rebutted by any scientific literature showing the contrary, a sufficient ground upon which to deny the summary judgment, due to the presence of numerous triable issues of material fact?.
The Appellate Court did not respond to this question, but in an egregious and fraudulent Decision and Order dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County on base that
appellant/defendant “failed to raise a triable issue of fact” in a genuine and reprehensible, opprobrious, human conscience shaking abuse of discretion, and irrational and illogical arbitrary and frivolous judicial action. In other words, all documentary evidence in form of proof, un-rebutted by the adversary party, was arbitrarily and capriciously discarded by the Appellate Court as non-existent. Obviously, the presence of the triable issues of fact were clearly submitted in the Brief to the Appellate Court by appellant Veleanu under Point XIX : “The plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment due to the fact that are numerous triable issues of fact. The Court erred by granting summary judgment to the plaintiff and this represents a miscarriage of justice”. were sufficient to preclude the grant of summary judgment.
The Appellate Court did not respond to the most important question posed by the Appellant: “Was the constitutional right of the defendant violated by failure of the plaintiff to serve the petition and order to show cause in sufficient time to allow knowledge of the charges and prepare the defense?.
The Appellate Court never rendered an opinion regarding this question. The service of the judicial process was never done and consequently the court did not have any jurisdiction upon the person of defendant. Luring the defendant to court for a calendar call of issuing a TRO is not considered by CPLR 320 C as service of the process. Accordingly, the court lack of subject matter jurisdiction made the judgment(s) null, invalid and void ab initio. The final judgment of acting justice Pagones completely lacked the service on respondent as it started de novo of a legal action after 2 defaults of the petitioner AG. The contentions of lack of court jurisdiction was raised in the Brief under Point XXI: “The Court did not have personal jurisdiction upon defendant due to the fact that the Notice of Petition was never served to defendant” (Order to show cause).
The next question addressed to the Appellate Court was: “Was the failure of the trial court to set up a hearing after granting the TRO and prior decreeing a permanent injunction a violation of the constitutional right of the defendant?.
The Appellate Court did not give an opinion regarding this question, as well. The Appellate Court failed to review the decisions, orders and judgments of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County and the suppression of constitutional rights of due process by lack of any hearings or conference calls during all proceedings in the trial court. The most egregious violation of appellant constitutional rights in the trial court was denial of defense by fraudulently ruling that the pleadings were “unsworn”, when actually the pleadings were submitted legally under declaration of perjury pursuant to CPLR 105 U. The violations of Appellant’s constitutional rights under 14th amendment, 6th , 7th and 8th amendment were brought in the Brief’s Point XVII with detailed exemplification in support. The contentions of Appellant of the violations of the civil rights were brought in the Brief under Point XXIV: “AG violated civil rights of the defendant”.
The only opinion rendered by the Appellate Court was the moronic, senseless and illogical, intellectually defective inference that appellant “Veleanu sold a customer several items which he told her were made of high quality jade, but which laboratory testing proved were quartzite, a less expensive and more common stone”. This statement upon which the Appellate Court based its decision was fraudulent and deceiving as the items sold were not of jewelry grade jadeite that is prone to be examined by gemological testing, rather ornamental art carvings that are constituted of a stone that contains several minerals other than jadeite. Even if this allegation would be true, the complainant was entitled to lifetime warranty for a refund in accordance with conditions of sale of the commercial contract. This determination statement is typical for an unconscionable abuse of discretion and irrational and illogical arbitrary and capricious judicial action unsuitable to a higher court of justice supposed to make the final determination of a legal case. The petitioner AG, never gave an example where an ornamental art carving was ever examined by gemological testing that is exclusively used for jewelry grade stone. Such examination was never done by any merchant of jadeite art carvings that exclusively use mineralogical testing for the identification. The Appellant’s contentions were brought to the Appellate Court in the Point II of the Brief: “Gemological laboratory testing is not the proper method of identification of ornamental art jadeite carvings” with detailed scientific support of the contentions. In abhorrent, fraudulent disregard of the exculpatory evidence, violation of constitutional and civil rights, irrefutable evidence of misconduct of the officers of trial court, criminal activity of the prosecutor, fraud upon court in numerous occasions, the Appellate Court failed to perform its legal duty to review and render an opinion in all issues raised by Appellant, fundamental in affecting the rights for a fair review.
The Appellate Court did not perform its legal responsibility to reverse the
trial court judgment based on CPLR 5704, based on ex parte legal proceedings without hearings, conference calls, based on orders and judgments that were void. CPLR 5704 that is the exclusive responsibility of Appellate Court was fraudulently ignored despite that this contention was brought in the Brief under Point XXI: “CPLR R5704 review of ex parte orders (a) by appellate division specifies that the appellate division or a justice thereof may vacate or modify any order granted without notice to the adverse party by any court or a judge from which an appeal would lie to such appellate division”.
The 4 judges of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of NY: Reinaldo Rivera, JP, Daniel D. Angiolillo, Ariel E. Belen, Sherri S. Roman, JJ, acted in blatant bias and prejudice against appellant Veleanu by failing to take in consideration all Brief Points contents as they did not exist whatsoever. The decision and order of the Appellate Court is clearly representation of conscience shocking abuse of discretion and illogical aberration of mind and arbitrary and frivolous action of 4 justices covering up the fraud upon court of the involved judges of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County. In a conference related to a subpoena intended to be followed by execution of home property of respondent, appellant Veleanu referred to the trial court as the “court below”. Associate justice of the Appellate Court, Hon. Priscilla Hall, candidly asked appellant why he believes the Dutchess County Supreme Court of NY is “ the court below” as both SCDC and Appellate Court represent the Supreme Court of NY. At such statement, appellant Veleanu realized that the Appeal’s chances in that the decision of Appellate Court would be different than the trial court in Dutchess County were nil, however Veleanu was committed by submitting the appeal papers that demanded enormous effort for more than 6 months of gathering legal research. The Appellate Court violated the Bill of Rights and CVR Article 2(10) of NY State by denial of Veleanu’s motion for reargument of the order of denial of the Appeal by the Appellate Court of November 2, 2011, or in alternative, the permission to appeal the order of denial of the Appeal with the Court of Appeals (the highest Court in NY State). The appeal denial by the Appellate Court was pre-determined, as well as the denial of reargument and permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals. The proof of pre-determination of the decision and order consisted in issuing the order prior deciding a motion for reargument/permission to appeal at the Court of Appeals. This decision and order was fraudulent in 2
points. 1. The order of denial of leave to reargument and pemission to appeal to the Court of Appeals was dated 11/02/12 at the time that a prior motion for protection and stay of enforcement was pending and placed on the motion calendar for 02/24/12 (that represents more than 3 weeks past the Appellate Court already decreed decision and order of the Appellate Court!!!. The Appellate Court violated CPLR 2219 that specifies that an order to show cause is to be decided within 20 days. 2. Fraudulently and recklessly, the Appellate Court tried to confuse the issue by stating that “motion by the appellant for leave to reargue appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated September 29, 2010 and an order of the same court, also dated September 29, 2010”, appears as the Appellate Court was fraudulently accusing the appellant to appeal decisions and judgments of the trial court that were already denied by the Appellate Court,
action that if would be real, would not only be redundant, but would represent a frivolous action and genuine res judicata. In reality, appellant Veleanu’s leave was for reargument of the Appellate Court’s decision and order of denial of the appeal, rather than reviving trial court’s orders and judgment!. The Appellate Court’s decisions and orders demonstrates pre-determination without deliberation and also, cover up of judicial misconduct of the officers of the trial court by the 4 justices of the Appellate Court already mentioned. The justices of the Appellate Court conspired to violate the constitutional rights of the appellant in violation of Title 18 Section 19 of ”making a crime to conspire, to injure or oppress any citizen in the face of exercise of any right or privilege secured to him by Constitution”. The Appellate Court violated Federal Law Title 18 Section 20 that involves the deprivation of the right to equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th amendment of USC.
In absence of the permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals, Dr. Veleanu asked the leave of permission to appeal directly to the Court of Appeals, but was turned down by the Court of Appeals without any explanation. After exhausting any possibility to obtain relief from grievances, Dr. Veleanu sued the officers of the NY State Supreme Court of NY pursuing Article 78. All 4 justices of NY State Supreme Court of NY declined to appear in the Court and defend themselves in a clear act of invoking the 5th amendment of USC. They were prevented by Dr. Veleanu petition to be defended by the Attorney General due to the conflict of interest of being parties of the suit against them by Dr. Veleanu. AG cannot raise the collateral estoppel (issue determination) similar to res judicata (claim preclusion determination due to the following facts: 1. The issue preclusion requires an actual full and fair litigation of the issues, fact that did not take place. The first litigation in the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County was a typical “kangaroo court”, without hearings and even when Dr. Veleanu was represented by legal counsel, the court did not set forth a hearing for a fair and actual adjudication. In the litigation of the trial court, the 2 causes of action were related to statutory fraud. Res judicata cannot apply to the second litigation as the causes of action are completely different, dealing in lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction due to failure to serve the process by the prosecutor, according to CPLR 5015 (a) (4). The second cause of action in the second litigation is also different claim dealing to fraud and criminal wrongdoing by the prosecutor pursuing CPLR 5015 (a) (3). The issues while were raised by Dr. Veleanu in the first litigation, but were completely ignored by the Court. The issue of lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of subject matter jurisdiction was raised at every step of the litigation, including the Appellate Court Appeal, nevertheless, the issue was ignored by the trial court and also by the Appellate Court and not adjudicated whatsoever. The third requirement for the res judicata/collateral estoppel is that a final judgment on merits must have been rendered, ultimately deciding the action (claim) and issues in litigation, fact that did not take place. If an issue was raised in the previous litigation (the lack of court jurisdiction) but the issue was not decided or adjudicated, the issue cannot be the target of the collateral estoppel. Res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply when the judgment is based on technicality, rather than the merits as in this fraudulent legal case. A court’s lack of jurisdiction need not be plead and can be raised at any time and is not subject to a justice of the court discretion; the court cannot confer jurisdiction by decrees of orders and judgment, as is illegal.
The defense raised by Dr. Veleanu in the first litigation in the trial court of the Supreme Court of NY, as well as the motions to dismiss, were fraudulently denied by extrinsic fraud, by the acting justice of the Supreme Court, acting fraudulently in the name of the Court. The fraud upon court and extrinsic fraud by denying the defense of respondent ruling that the pleadings and motions to dismiss were unsworn, was committed by acting justice Thomas Dolan ignoring that the declaration under penalty of perjury according to CPLR 105 U allows the pleadings and motions to dismiss to be
legal and binding to the Court. Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and the judgment from a Court that lacks subject matter jurisdiction is a nullity and forever void. Accordingly, all orders and judgments decreed by the Supreme Court of NY are void, null and unenforceable. Due process grants every litigant entitlement to have “his day in court”. US Supreme Court in Cromwell v County of Sac, 94 US 351, 352, 353 (1876) determined that when the second action between the parties is upon a different claim, the judgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel only to the matters actually litigated on merits. 1. Res judicata and collateral estoppel apply only when based on the same claim (cause of action) that evidently do not apply to this case. 2. The former judgment had to be rendered on merit (Did not happen in the litigation of the first instance) and is not conclusive as to issues or questions which have been, but were not litigated in the original action. The opportunity to be heard is the essential pre-requisite of due process in the judicial proceedings. According to 14th amendment of USC, the State cannot enforce a judgment against a party named in the proceeding without hearing or an opportunity to be heard. 1. In Dr. Veleanu’s legal case, the issues were presented to various tribunals but were not adjudicated at all. 2. Res judicata does not apply due to lack of identities of the parties, nor were in privity. 3. In addition, the factual issues were essentially not the same in the prior proceeding. 4. Factual issues sought to be litigated must have been litigated in the previous legal action. Neither of the above issues of the collateral estoppel apply to Dr. Veleanu petition according to Article 78 of CPLR.
Finally, Dr. Veleanu invoked CPLR 5015 (a) (3) consisting in fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of the adverse party. The criminal acts of NY State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and his counsel Nicholas G. Garin, AKA Nick Garin need to be presented to the people of the State of New York, as the above claim to represent and act in the name of the People, The factual representation hereto presented to all citizens of United States of America supposed to be the bastion of freedom and liberty, and the people of the entire world, eager to learn about the violation of civil rights and human rights by the corrupt leaders who oppress, prosecute and persecute innocent people of the nation they lead.
The illegal and (or) criminal acts committed by prosecutorial misconduct of AG Andrew Cuomo and his counsel Nick Garin, inter alia are as follows:
1. Motto. No country is a democratic country when the civil rights of a person are totally repressed and the trials are in form of “kangaroo court” which is conducted without the opportunity to defend, without hearings and in which a defendant is allowed only to accept guilt in form of unethical “bargaining plea”, when defendant is innocent of all fraudulent charges against him”.
2. AG Andrew Cuomo commenced a contumacious legal proceeding against Dr. Mircea Veleanu in bad faith for lack of standing, lack of a cause of action to justify the commencement of legal action, and irrefutable proof of extrinsic fraud. The single complainant had no standing to sue as was not aggrieved. Under conditions of sale of the commercial contract, she was entitled to lifetime warranty and refund. The evidence, clearly has shown that complainant received reassurance that she will be refunded and thus, contradicting Attorney General (AG) as petitioner, the fraudulent lie that “respondent refused to refund the complainant”.
3. AG as petitioner started a summary proceeding under GBL 349 and Executive Law 63.12 in complete failure to prove a cause of action under GBL 349 of statutory fraud, that will be eligible for an entitlement of relief. The case does not satisfy by any reasonable and logical basis to support a summary judicial action and clearly represents an unconscionable abuse of officers of Court’s discretion, fraud upon court, and irrational and illogical arbitrary and capricious judicial action.
4.This legal case represents a commercial dispute between a single criminal complainant engaged in perjury, fraud by mislabeling forensic evidence, extortion, forgery by counterfeit of document submitted to the court for charging the seller with alleged statutory fraud, absence of substantiation of her allegations by evidence in form of proof, and on the other side, a seller that ethically acted conform with the conditions of sale of the contract.
The case does not meet the requirements of GBL 349: 1. It was not addressed to the consumers at large, rather represented a private commercial dispute that had to be resolved according to the conditions of sale of the commercial contract. 2. The dispute was particular and exclusively related to this case and did not involve any other customer with similar complaints. 3. The legal case lacks materiality, as complainant collected only jewelry type of items, and the complainant was advised that the seller sells mainly art carvings that are not jewelry items per se, and do not satisfy the strict requirements of jewelry grade items.
4. The sole complainant committed criminal acts aided, encouraged and supported by the Attorney General. 1. The complainant committed perjury by making contradictory statements in her affidavit in regard to the cost of
gemological testing done by AGTA Lab. The statement in her affidavit contradicted 2 previous statements she previously made in regard to the cost of the gemological testing by AGTA. Subsequently, her legal deposition became invalid due to her impeachment as a witness according to CPLR 4514. The complainant forged the evidence by mislabeling of the 7 jadeite mala as “carved head necklaces” in order that she could submit the mala as jewelry items, as such, misrepresenting the 7 jadeite mala as jewelry items, rather than ornamental jade mala as labeled and sold to her by Dr. Veleanu. In a criminal act, the complainant forged by counterfeit, an invoice provided to her by her partner in fraud, a jeweler friend with store in Massachussetts. The graphological examination reveals that complainant wrote the invoice herself. The handwriting of the invoice is identical to her handwriting adjacent to the invoice and other legal documents exhibiting her handwriting.
5. Complainant conspired with Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Garin to charge Dr. Mircea Veleanu with false allegations. The evidence in form of proof revealed that complainant’s affidavit was composed, edited or written by AAG Garin. The affidavit contained intimate details of the legal process as Exhibit numbers in AG’s Petition, content of the fore-mentioned Exhibits that would be impossible to complainant named Janet Spiridonakos to know, in absence of the conspiracy with the prosecutor to charge Dr. Mircea Veleanu with concocted false charges.
Spiridonakos’ affidavit was not written by her as a witness of facts she knew from personal experience, rather was imposed illegally and fraudulently by Attorney General in the fact that Spiridonakos wrote like she was the prosecutor of the legal process. Federal law Title 18, Sec. 19 makes a crime to “conspire to injure” or oppress any citizen in the face of exercise of any right or privilege secured to him by Constitution.
6. AG committed acts of malicious prosecution and abuse of legal process by contemplating an ulterior malicious motive in using the legal legitimate process of an affidavit. He committed a willful act in the use of process not proper with regular conduct of proceedings in malicious prosecution.
The essence of the tort of abuse of process lies in the misuse of the power of the court; it is an act done in the name of the court and under its authority for the purpose of perpetrating an injustice. The improper use of the abuse of process and malicious prosecution takes the form of coercion to obtain a collateral advantage not properly involved with the proceeding itself, such as the surrender of property, or the payment of money, by the use of process as a threat or a club, a true form of illegal prosecutorial extortion.
7. Prosecutor Attorney General, committed illegal and criminal acts in achieving the relieves granted by the court in lack of any cause of action to substantiate the grant of such relieves. 1. Attorney General willingly commenced a legal action when knowingly he was aware that he had no standing to initiate a legal action, when the clear evidence showed that the single complainant was not aggrieved in any way by Dr. Mircea Veleanu. She was entitled to lifetime warranty that provided refund based on the conditions of sale of the contract. 2. Fraudulently, she breached the commercial contract in order to defraud and extort the respondent by conspiring with AAG Garin to receive illegal award of punitive retroactive interest of 9 % years back to the date of purchase of jade items. As such, she fraudulently and criminally enriched herself on total amount of her investment in purchasing jade items from Dr. Veleanu.
8. The conspiracy of AAG with complainant Spiridonakos to defraud and extort Dr. Veleanu represents an unconscionable abuse of discretion, extrinsic fraud and fraud upon court. The illegal retroactive interest of 9 % was also promised by AG to 3 customers who did not claim misrepresentation of the seller, but breached the commercial contract in order to achieve illegal enrichment of their investment by defrauding the respondent. The punitive retroactive interest of 9 % was illegal, as GBL 349 does not provide punitive fines. Such act represents extrinsic fraud, fraud upon court and unconscionable abuse of discretion.
9. Attorney General did not provide with any evidence for the entitlement to GBL 349 and as such, his legal action by failure to state a cause of action and unconscionable abuse of discretion was fraudulently pre-conceived.
10. In his petition, AG submitted false and deceiving allegations that Veleanu “refused to take any malas (sic) back and refund to this consumer the thousands of dollars she paid him”. Such abhorrent lies were submitted under penalty of perjury and represent the criminal act of perjury, unconscionable abuse of discretion and capricious and arbitrary statements made without rational. The substantial evidence clearly shows that the complainant and the prosecutor acted in unison to defraud and extort the respondent.
11. Willingly and knowingly, AAG Garin uttered to the court documentary evidence he knew was false and fraudulent. AAG uttered to the court criminally forged and mislabeled evidence as prima facie of alleged fraud
with full knowledge of the falsity of the evidence he presented to the court. Using fake court documents constitutes a violation of federal statute Title 18 Sec 371. The penalty for using fake court documents is up to 5 years imprisonment. Title 18, Sec 514 of Federal Law provides that it is a crime to use a fraudulent document.
AG is guilty of Federal law Title 18 Chapter 25 Sec 514 counterfeiting and forgery, provides: “whoever with the intent to defraud: 1. Draws, prints, processes, publishes, or otherwise makes, or attempts or causes the same, within the US; 2. Passes within the US, or (3) utilizes interstate or foreign commerce…any false or fictitious instrument, document, or other item appearing, representing, purporting or contriving through a scheme or artifice… shall be guilty of class B felony.
12. New York State similarly, under Penal Law 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree specifies: “A person is guilty of falsifying business records when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when by intend to defraud.
13. AAG Garin committed the criminal act of perjury by stating in his Alternative Statement in lieu of Stenographic transcripts pursuant to CPLR 5525 (d), that he was not aware that gemological identification reports were forged and the evidence was fraudulently mislabeled by complainant Spiridonakos until respondent answered to Petition in his pleadings and later, on the motion to reargument and renew. This statement of AAG Garin is a blatant lie as the evidence showed that respondent brought to the attention of AAG Garin that AGTA gemological reports were forged and mislabeled, firstly at the pre-trial subpoena and then in respondent’s pre-trial response to the Notice of Proposed Action pursuant to Article 22, weeks prior trial. The findings of forgery and mislabel were brought again in the defense by the respondent Veleanu at the calendar call of judge Brands. It appears from this irrefutable evidence that AAG Garin preferred to commit the criminal act of perjury, rather than acknowledge that he commenced a legal action against Dr. Mircea Veleanu in absence of a reasonable cause of action.
14. AG is liable under the laws of the State of New York of committing the crime of subornation of perjury. Willingly, AG submitted Spiridonakos‘ affidavit with full knowledge of the falsity of affidavit’s declarations, and deliberately, he helped to fabricate and preserve them. As AG’s legal action was intended to deceive the court, it clearly represents extrinsic fraud, Fraud Upon Court and unconscionable abuse of discretion.
15. The solicitation, aiding and supporting the violation and breach of the commercial contract by all former customers involved in this case was possible only through the egregious intervention of AAG Garin. Other than the criminal blackmail and extortion by complainant, another former customer, Diana Norton, committed the crime of substitution of a precious jade carving (she returned it through AAG Garin intermediary) with a valueless contemporary fake made of a marble type of material. Both, the complainant and this mentioned person named Diana Norton, submitted affidavits in which stated false statements, thus committed the criminal act of perjury by swearing under oath of false statements with full knowledge of the falsity of the their testimony under oath. These criminal acts were made possible only through the intervention of AAG Garin who facilitated the commission of the criminal acts. As the intention of AAG was to prosecute the undersigned for alleged wrongdoings, his legal acts were Fraud upon Court based on deceit used to keep Dr. Veleanu devoid of exercising his rights for a fair trial.
16. AG initiated this frivolous and vexatious legal action in absence of any reasonable cause of action, in the name of other individuals, but without the consent of involved individuals, in an action of special proceeding, in a court, before a judge. According to CPLR R70, the person who initiates a frivolous vexatious suit is guilty of misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment. In this legal case, AG initiated the legal action in behalf of 3 customers that did not claim misrepresentation, rather were tricked by AG to request refunds with the incentive of benefit of retroactive interest of 9 % starting years back to the date of purchase. These 3 customers did not consent for suing in their name as they did not have a legal standing to sue in the lack of aggrieving. Nevertheless, these 3 customers breached the commercial contract of sale and are liable for the damage incurred by Veleanu subsequent to their action. The legal action commenced and continued with the collateral intention to cause pecuniary harm and psychological trauma to Veleanu and represents abuse of process, malicious prosecution and Fraud Upon Court by intentional use of deceit and more importantly, unconscionable abuse of discretion.
17. AG willingly and knowingly committed the criminal act of submitting to the court (uttering) documents that concealed exculpatory evidence to respondent, by interposing a photograph over a text that was exculpatory to respondent Veleanu in 2 separate occasions. This criminal act implying forgery of a legal document was intended to be used for prosecution of an
innocent individual. Such misconduct of the prosecutor is defined in the Federal Law Title 18, Chapter 73, Section 1513 (a) (3) as misleading conduct and is punishable with imprisonment and penalties under Section 1512: “whoever knowingly uses…or engages in misleading conduct toward another person with intent to: (B). ( alter, destroy, mutilate or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding…“. This AG illegal action of concealment of exculpatory evidence clearly and concisely represents intrinsic and extrinsic fraud and Fraud Upon the Court.
18. AG used his prosecutorial power to issue several subpoenas with collateral objective of abuse of process in order to intimidate, harass and retaliate for the exercise of Veleanu’s constitutional rights to defend himself. 3 of 4 subpoenas were not directed to serve the legitimate evidentiary role and as such impermissible under Rule 26 (b) (1) of FRCP which allow subpoenas only to those matters that are relevant to the subject of action. As the subpoenas issued by AG were with the sole purpose to force Veleanu not to seek justice in the court, these illegal subpoenas of the AG clearly represent extrinsic fraud, Fraud Upon Court and unconscionable abuse of discretion.
19. AG released to media in 2 separate occasions false, inflammatory and misrepresenting, malicious, deceiving and libelous statements intended to harm Veleanu physically, psychologically and pecuniary. The statements
were outrageous lies not supported by substantive evidence to be based upon. The malicious and deceiving statements had secondary collateral of abuse of process and malicious prosecution into hope that the fraudulent accusations by the highest rank law enforcement official would frighten the former customers and recruit more people that would request refunds with the incentive of being awarded retroactive interest of 9 % back to the date of purchase. AG committed outrageous libel by stating false and damaging statements that irreversibly damaged the immaculate personal and professional reputation by using character assassination. As the malicious prosecution with release to media of false information was meant to prevent Veleanu to pursue his legal defense in court, AG action is clearly an extrinsic fraud, Fraud Upon Court, unconscionable abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious action that defies the rational of any honest prosecutor. For similar, but less egregious, prosecutor Michael Nifong involved in Duke University prosecution, was disbarred and jailed.
20. In a brazen and contempt of court action, AG violated the court imposed
gag on media regarding information pertinent to TRO. The malicious action with secondary collateral of abuse of process had as purpose, the intention to prevent the defense of Dr. Veleanu in the court and as such represents extrinsic fraud, Fraud Upon Court and unconscionable abuse of discretion. AG commenced a legal action against respondent Veleanu based on GBL 349 and Executive Law 63 (12) without a reasonable cause of action. GBL 349 implies that customers affected by misrepresentation of deceit should show injury as a result of such “misrepresentation” or “deceit”. In the present legal case initiated as a result of a single complainant with doubtful moral character, there was no injury in any form and as such there was no standing to sue in lack of aggrieving. Even more, AG failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. This represents a clear Fraud Upon Court, unconscionable abuse of discretion and absurd and illogical arbitrary and capricious judicial action.
21. AG alleged and requested fines and court fees based on GBL 350 (d). Nevertheless, AG in his two causes of action did not allege any violations of GBL 350 that is based on fraudulent acts of advertising and did not state in his petition a cause of action under GBL 350. AG’s request for relief based on violations of GBL 350 failed to state a cause of action upon which a relief could be granted. Thus, AG prosecutorial actions were fraudulent and clearly represent extrinsic fraud, Fraud Upon Court, unconscionable abuse of discretion and an arbitrary and capricious judicial act defying the logic and rational of any reasonable prosecutor.
22. AG solicited former customers to request refunds for the past 6 years prior legal action that is beyond the statute of limitations. One person who requested a refund, purchased the jade carving in February 2006 that is beyond the statute of limitations for statutory fraud that is 3 years only. This represents obvious Fraud Upon Court, abuse of discretion and an arbitrary and capricious prosecutorial action defying the logic of any
honest prosecutor.
23. AG violated NY State Penal Law 215-Article 215. Bribing a witness.
“A person is guilty of bribing a witness when he confers, or offers, or agrees to confer , any benefit upon a witness or a person about to be called as a
witness in any action or proceeding upon an agreement or understanding that (a) the testimony of such witness will thereby be influenced, or, (b) such witness will absent herself from, or otherwise avoid or seek to avoid appearing to testify at such action or proceeding“. Bribing a witness is a
class D felony.
24. NY State Attorney General is guilty of New York State Penal Law Sec. 100.05. Criminal solicitation of 4th degree. A person is guilty of solicitation in 4th degree when (1) with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes or otherwise attempts to cause such other person to engage in such conduct.
25. AG requested and obtained from the court punitive damages consisting
in interest of 9 % starting from the date of the purchase. The punitive damage was requested by Attorney General consequently to the motion for reargument/renew of Veleanu’s legal counselor and represents Fraud Upon Court as is not based, endorsed and legal by any statute, law or rule. Of course, AG is not entitled to request punitive damages under GBL 349 or Executive Law 63 (12). Such prosecutorial judicial action clearly represents unconscionable abuse of discretion and rational defying arbitrary and capricious action.
26. The adverse party, Attorney General of NY State is liable to the following NY State Penal Laws violations by the prosecutor in this legal case:
1. NY Penal Law 175.25. Tampering with public records in the first degree. Tampering with public records in the first degree is a class D Felony.
2. NY Penal Law Sec. 210.14. Perjury in the first degree. Perjury in the first degree is a class D Felony.
3. NY Penal Law Sec. 100.05. Criminal solicitation in fourth degree.
4. NY Penal Law Sec. 215.50. Criminal contempt in the second degree. Criminal contempt in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
5. NY Penal Law Sec. 170.10. Forgery in the second degree.
In addition, petitioner violated the following NY State codes, rules or regulations: 1. 22 NYCRR Sec 130.1.1: Initiating a frivolous suit. His action of fraud upon court in his ministerial and administrative function voided his prosecutorial absolute and qualified immunity.
2. 22 NYCRR 3.3.202. Prohibition of counsel to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation.
Attorney General of NY State violated the following Federal Laws:
1. Title 18 Sec. 19. Conspiracy to injure and oppress a citizen in the face of exercise of any right or privilege secured to him by Constitution.
2. Title 18. Chapter 25 Sec. 514. Attorney General of NY State is liable of counterfeiting and forgery that represents a class B felony.
3. Title 18 Sec 371. Use of fake documents, penalty is 5 years imprisonment.
4. Title 18 Sec. 201 (b) (3): Influence a witness. Penalty is 15 years imprisonment and disqualification from holding any office or trust under the
US.
5. Title 18. Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights. Penalty is imprisonment up to 10 years, fines or both.
6. Title 18 Sec. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law. Penalty is imprisonment up to one year, fines or both.
7. Title 18. Sec. 1349. Attempt and conspiracy. Penalty is the same as for the conspirator-offender of the perpetrated crime.
Title 18. Sec. 1505. Obstruction of justice. Penalty is imprisonment up to 5 years, fines or both.
8. Title 18. Sec. 1506. Alteration of records. Penalty is imprisonment up to 5
years, fines or both.
9. Title 18. Sec. 1512. Influencing the testimony, mutilation of records. Penalty is imprisonment up to 20 years, fines or both.
10. Title 18. Sec. 1621. Perjury. Penalty is up to 5 years imprisonment, fines or both.
11. Title 18. Sec. 1622. Subornation of perjury. Penalty is imprisonment up to 5 years, fines or both.
12. Title 18. Sec. 1623. False declaration before court. Penalty is up to 5 years imprisonment, fines or both.
13. Title 18. Sec. 2071. Concealment or mutilation of documents. Penalty is imprisonment up to 3 years, fines or both.
14. Title 18 Sec. 3173, Sixth amendment rights violation.
In his megalomaniacal and arrogant attributes, Andrew Cuomo most probably intends to be a candidate for the Presidency of US!!!
GOD SAVE AMERICA!