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