STATEMENT OF SUBJECT MATTER AND

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
This appeal raises federal questions jurisdiction under 28 USC Sec. 1331; federal
jurisdiction under Titles 42 USC Sec. 1983, 42 USC Sec. 198, 42 USC Sec. 1988,
under 28 USC Sec 1343, and Title 1 USC. Sec. 1 c, under 18 USC Sec 19!4 "c#. This
action represents an $ppeal fro% the &e%orandu% and 'rder rendered () jud*e +elson
S. ,o%an in -istrict Court Southern -istrict of +., dated +o/e%(er 12, 2013
dis%issin* 1laintiff2s a%ended co%plaint 3ith prejudice, and 4ud*%ent decreed ()
Cler5 of Court, ,u() 6rajic5, dated +o/e%(er 13, 2013.
1laintiff $ppellant contends that as a result of these actions, inter alia, he has (een
depri/ed of his constitutional ri*hts. This $ppeal 3as ti%el) filed on -ece%(er 11
th
2013, pursuant to 7,$1 ,ule 3 "a# 3ithin 30 da)s after district court2s entr) of its 'rder
and jud*%ent dated +o/e%(er 13, 2013. Therefore, this Court has appellate jurisdiction
under 28 USC Sec. 1291.
STATEMENT OF STANDARD OF REVIEW
The appropriate standard of re/ie3 o/er a district court2s dis%issal of co%plaint under
,ule 12 "(# "!# is de no/o or plenar). 8artanian / &onsanto Co., 14 7 3d !99, 900 "1
st
Cir. 1994#. This standard applies also to district court2s denial to *rant lea/e to a%end
the co%plaint and re/ie3 de no/o of -istrict Court denial of co%plaint on 11
th
$%end%ent i%%unit) *rounds. See State :%plo)ees ;ar*ainin* $*ent Coalition /
,o3land, 494 7 3d 94 "2d Cir 2009#
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1. <hether -istrict Court not erred, rather co%%itted fraud on the court () jud*e
+elson S. ,o%an 3ho dis%issed the $%ended Co%plaint, () 3illin*l) and 5no3in*l)
disconsiderin* as ine=istent the prior default of all defendants in this le*al action.
2. <hether -istrict Court presided () jud*e ,o%an, a(used discretion in denial of a
lea/e to a%end the co%plaint, thus /iolatin* the constitutional ri*hts of 1laintiff for due
process.
3. <hether jud*e ,o%an, acted in unconsciona(le a(use of discretion and irrational
ar(itrar) decree of a &e%orandu% > 'rder dis%issin* the action 3ith prejudice, 3hen
the Court did not ha/e the jurisdiction due to prior default of defendants () failure to
ti%el) su(%it an ans3er or %otion to dis%iss.
4. <hether jud*e ,o%an acted in unconsciona(le a(use of discretion and irrational
ar(itrar) action () *rantin* the dis%issal of the $%ended Co%plaint 3ith prejudice to
co%plainant 4anet Spiridona5os 3ho requested a %ooted dis%issal of co%plaint () her
prior default, not onl) in her le*al case of (reach of contract 3here she defaulted ()
failure to ti%el) su(%it an ans3er or %otion, (ut also, in the present case 3here she 3as
not na%ed as a defendant, 3as not ser/ed 3ith the $%ended Co%plaint, Su%%ons or
<ai/er of ser/ice, and there 3ere no causes of action for her to defend.
. <hether -istrict Court jud*e +elson S. ,o%an co%%itted fraud on the court ()
actin* as a la3)er in his court and consequentl) /iolated 28 USC Sec. 4 ";# "#"ii#
that requires his recusal.
!. <hether -istrict Court jud*e ,o%an acted in conte%pt of court () /iolatin*
&e%orandu% and 'rder of pre/ious jud*e, 8incent ;riccetti, 3ho denied the
co%plainant 4anet Spiridona5os2 %otion for consolidation of cases 13 C8 !93 3ith 13
C8 !!. 4ud*e ,o%an in conspirac) 3ith Cler5 of Court /iolated the order of jud*e
;riccetti () consolidatin* afore%entioned cases, thus, decreein* a sin*le order (earin*
(oth captions and dis%issin* (oth cases 3ith prejudice () fraud on the court.
9. <hether jud*e ,o%an2s actions as a la3)er in his court () supportin* for%er $?
Cuo%o2s representation of all defendants, represents an act of quid pro quo (ri(er)
solicited () the defendants and accepted () Cuo%o.
8. <hether -istrict Court jud*e ,o%an co%%itted a(use of discretion and fraud on the
court fa/orin* 1laintiff2s opponent part), () decreein* 'rder and directin* jud*%ent
usin* false and decei/in* citations of la3 not applica(le to this case, and 3here the
e/idence did not sho3 an) endorse%ent of the conclusions of la3 %asqueradin* as
e/idence, rather false docu%entar) posin* as e/idence.
9. <hether jud*e ,o%an co%%itted fraud on the court, () den)in* 3ithout reasonin* or
dictu%, plaintiff2s %otion to stri5e $ttorne) ?eneral2s counsel2s &otion to dis%iss, and
request for a conference to settle the -efendants2 -efault2s stipulations.
10. <hether 5no3in*l) and 3illin*l), -istrict Court2s jud*e ,o%an2s dis%issal of the
$%ended Co%plaint at the irrational request of a non defendant in this case represents
an illo*ical ar(itrar) action, unconsciona(le a(use of discretion and fraud on the court.
11. <hether dis%issal 3ith prejudice of this case () jud*e ,o%an, 3ith 5no3led*e of
jud*%ent (ein* /oid () prior default of all defendants, represents fraud on the court.
12. <hether 3illin* and 5no3in* falsification of (ac5*round rendition of this case ()
jud*e ,o%an2s &e%orandu% > 'rder dis%issin* the action, represents fraud on the
court.
13. <hether jud*e +elson ,o%an /iolated the constitutional ri*hts under 7ourteenth
$%end%ent of USC of 1laintiff2s due process, () pre%aturel) ter%inatin* 1laintiff2s
su(%ission of e/idence and le*al proceedin*s in a sua sponte inter/ention in (ehalf of
defendants, 3ith reiteration of the sa%e ar*u%ents of $?2s counsel, alread) re(utted ()
plaintiff.
14. <hether jud*e +elson S. ,o%an2s afore%entioned actions de%onstrate (ias and
prejudice requirin* recusal, (ut he failed to do so.
1. <hether jud*e +elson ,o%an continuation of le*al proceedin* 3ithout standin* ()
i*norin* defendants2 default and *rantin* of a %ooted %otion to dis%iss represents
unconsciona(le a(use of discretion, irrational ar(itrar) action and fraud on the court.
1!. <hether ru((er sta%p pla*iaris% of &e%orandu% and 'rder of le*al case 2@ 12 C8
03484 "$-S# "8-<#, -r. &ariaABucia $n*hel, 1laintiff /. +. State -ept. of Cealth et
al"doc5eted on 0D29.2013 in US :aster -istrict +. Bon* Esland 'ffice# to the
&e%orandu% and 'rder of jud*e +elson ,o%an of present le*al case represents fraud
on the court () jud*e ,o%an.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. This le*al case has roots in Supre%e Court of +. -utchess Count) "SC-C#, initiated
() for%er $? $ndre3 Cuo%o2s suit a*ainst the plaintiff in $u*ust 2009, in/o5in* ?;B
349 and :=ecuti/e Ba3 !3.12, co%%enced 3ithout pro(a(le cause and 3ithout standin*
in lac5 of injur) of the sin*le co%plainant, 4anet Spiridona5os, 3ho falsel) clai%ed
%isrepresentation of 9 jadeite art car/in*s, sold () 1laintiff as Ti(etan rosaries %ala.
2. Spiridona5os in conspirac) 3ith +. State for%er $?, $ndre3 Cuo%o, de/ised a
sche%e to defraud and e=tort the plaintiff () %is(randin* the %ala as Fcar/ed head
nec5lacesG, ter%inolo*) ne/er used () 1laintiff in the sale of the ite%s. The %is(randin*
3as done fraudulentl), to qualif) the %ala to (e e=a%ined () *e%olo*ical testin*, done
e=clusi/el) on je3elr) ite%s "jadeite art car/in*s are authenticated onl) ()
%ineralo*ical testin*#. Spiridona5os fraudulentl) clai%ed that ter% Ffei tsui used in the
description of a jadeite %ala is s)non)%ous 3ith Fi%perial 4adeG. $ctuall), Ffei tsuiG in
Chinese is s)non)%ous 3ith ordinar) jadeite and not Fi%perial jadeG.
3. Spiridona5os in rac5eteerin* action, su(%itted to $$? +icholas ?arin a co%plaint
that had attached a for*ed *e%olo*ical testin* done () $?T$ co%pan), that 3ent out of
(usiness a fe3 3ee5s later. The for*ed testin* had identical photo*raph of 2 different
%ala.
4. Spiridona5os in rac5eteerin* acti/it), for*ed () counterfeit. an unsi*ned in/oice of a
je3elr) co%pan) in &assachusetts, in 3hich Spiridona5os inflated the cost of the
*e%olo*ical testin* to a(out 3 ti%es hi*her than a/era*e price of testin*.
. Spiridona5os su(%itted a fraudulent affida/it actuall) 3ritten () $$? ?arin, 3hich
disclosed le*al details 5no3n onl) to ?arin, as :=hi(it nu%(ers and content of his
petition, i%possi(le for Spiridona5os to 5no3.
!. 1laintiff i%peached Spiridona5os2 $ffida/it () pro/in* that affida/it contained
contradictor) state%ents dispro/in* for%er state%ents.
9. Spiridona5os in rac5eteerin* action, co%%itted perjur) () declarin* contradictor)
state%ents under oath and s3earin* affida/it as her o3n.
8. 7or%er $?, $ndre3 Cuo%o, %ade infla%%ator) false and decei/in* state%ents to
%edia in 2 separate occasions, assassinatin* 1laintiff2s i%%aculate personal and
professional reputation. Such li(elous declarations to %edia inflicted irrepara(le
pecuniar), ph)sical and ps)cholo*ical da%a*e to plaintiff 5no3n internationall) as a
scholar in oriental arts and author of 4 reference (oo5s to collectors. Cuo%o and ?arin,
in (raHen conte%pt of court, /iolated the *a* order on %edia, decreed () 4SC 4a%es
;rands.
9. En (ad faith, Cuo%o contu%aciousl) co%%enced and continued a /e=atious le*al
action in/o5in* ?;B 349 and :=ecuti/e Ba3 !3.12, () lac5 of standin* in a(sence of
injur) to co%plainant Spiridona5os and lac5 of pro(a(le cause. ?arin failed to ser/e
1laintiff 3ith ser/ice of process, thus, denied Court2s personal jurisdiction and su(ject
%atter jurisdiction. The prosecutor 5ne3 and it 3as o(/ious that the char*es 3ere not
supported () a pro(a(le cause and lac5 of standin* to sue, in lac5 of *rounds to char*e
the statutor) fraud due to a(sence of injur) to the sin*le co%plainant. See ,EC' antiA
rac5eteerin* federal la31 USC Sec 1 c "2# "$#.
$. ?arin in rac5eteerin* actions, conspired 3ith the sole co%plainant, 4anet
Spiridona5os, to char*e 1laintiff 3ith fa(ricated char*es, (lac5%ail, defraud and e=tort
the plaintiff. $? $ndre3 Cuo%o conspired 3ith Spiridona5os to perfor% rac5eteerin*
acts includin* (ut not li%ited to acceptin* (ri(er), solicitation, aidin* and encoura*in*
Spiridona5os to (reach the co%%ercial contract 3ith the seller "1laintiff#, () offerin*
ille*al puniti/e to 1laintiff (ri(e of incenti/e retroacti/e interest of 9 I, to purchase
%one) )ears (ac5 to the date of purchase. The (ri(er) e=tended to solicitin* for%er
custo%ers that did not clai% %isrepresentation of purchased ite%s, 3ere not a**rie/ed,
(ut 3ere attracted () hi*h retroacti/e interest. $s such, $? con/inced 3 for%er
custo%ers to request refunds 3hen the) could le*all) request the refunds accordin* to
the co%%ercial contract the) (reached in order to unjustl) enrich. These custo%ers 3ere
not a**rie/ed, did not alle*e %isrepresentation, (ut 3illin*l) and 5no3in*l) (reached
the contract in order to (enefit fro% the lar*e re3ard of (ri(er) that allo3ed in addition
to 9 I retroacti/e interest, a full refund includin* the auction2s co%%issions and all
third parties char*es. $s all these persons purchased the ite%s at auctions held () ?o
$ntiques Co%pan) in 'hio 3here the 1laintiff 3as a consi*nor rather than the seller, the
(ri(e offered () $? 3as su(stantial, not onl) includin* the refund, (ut also the refund
of all e=penses that 3ere all, not the responsi(ilit) of the consi*nor. 2 of the ite%s
purchased () Spiridona5os 3ere also o(tained at the auctions 3here 1laintiff 3as not
the seller. 7or%er $? Cuo%o /iolated C1B, 90 () co%%encin* a /e=atious suit in
(ehalf of persons that did not consent to a suit in their (ehalf and had no standin*.
;. $? uttered to the court for*ed and %isla(eled forensic e/idence 3ith full 5no3led*e
that the e/idence 3as false and %isrepresentin*.
C. ?arin in rac5eteerin* acts, co%%itted su(ornation of perjur) () su(%ittin* to the
court the i%peached and perjured affida/it of Spiridona5os.
-. En rac5eteerin* act, ?arin co%%itted perjur) () statin* in his $lternati/e State%ent
in lieu of steno*raphic transcripts pursuant to C1B, 2 "d#, that he 3as not a3are that
*e%olo*ical reports 3ere for*ed and %isla(eled until 1laintiff ans3ered the petition.
:. En rac5eteerin* acti/it), Cuo%o and his le*al counsel, ?arin, co%%itted the cri%inal
acts of for*er) and conceal%ent of e=culpator) e/idence () alterin* forensic e/idence
interposin* a photo*raph o/er an e=culpator) te=t in 2 separate occasions. Such cri%inal
act is lia(le under 18 USC Sec. 10 $ntitrust Ci/il act and clear de%onstration of
rac5eteerin* o(struction of justice, fraud on the court and /iolation of constitutional
ri*hts of 8eleanu for a fair and equita(le liti*ation.
7. En quid pro quo rac5eteerin* acts, $? requested and o(tained fro% $4SC 4a%es
1a*ones the a3ard of ille*al penalties and court fees (ased on ?;B 30 "d#.
+onetheless, $? did not in/o5e a cause of action under ?;B 30 "d# upon 3hich such
penalties could (e a3arded, in lac5 of ad/ertisin*. Thus, $? Cuo%o /iolated 1laintiff2s
constitutional ri*hts under 8
th
. a%end%ent of USC and co%%itted fraud on the court.
?. En rac5eteerin* quid pro quo, $? requested and o(tained fro% $4SC 1a*ones
puniti/e ille*al retroacti/e interest of 9 I, not endorsed () an) statute, a3arded as
(ri(er) incenti/e, not onl) to coAconspirator Spiridona5os, (ut also to 3 for%er
custo%ers that did not alle*e %isrepresentation and 3ere not a**rie/ed. $? co%%itted
rac5eteerin* acts of (ri(er) of 3itnesses, cri%e punisha(le under 18 USC Sec. 201 "(#
"3#.
C. En rac5eteerin* acti/it), $? issued 4 su(poenas, of 3hich onl) one 3as directed to
o(tainin* e/idence. The su(poenas 3ere used as a tool for %alicious prosecution and
a(use of process and attest to /iolation of constitutional ri*hts of 1laintiff under 4
th
$%end%ent of USC. $? e=ceeded his po3er under +. 4udiciar) Ba3 Sec. 43 "2# and
Sec. 44 "4# and /iolated Section 42 of the 4udiciar) Ba3 that prohi(its the Ffishin*
e=peditionsG.
E. Cuo%o requested and o(tained relief fro% the court of a list of for%er custo%ers for
the precedin* ! )ears that is (e)ond the statute of li%itation for statutor) fraud. $s such,
$? ille*all) e=tended the list of custo%ers to request refund.
4. Cuo%o in his nonAad/ocator) role and de/oid of i%%unit), %aliciousl) released to
%edia false and decei/in* state%ents, in 2 separate occasions durin* the acti/e phase of
trial. The li(elous state%ents had a dou(le intention@ 1. ,ecruit %ore for%er custo%ers
to request refunds and (reach the contract () fraudulentl) fri*htenin* the%, and "2#
Cause tre%endous injur) () collateral a(use of process and %alicious prosecution
pre/entin* 1laintiff to further see5 justice in an o(/ious prejudiced and (iased court.
6. Cuo%o in clear conte%pt of court, /iolated the *a* order on %edia rendered ()
justice 4a%es ;rands, () releasin* infor%ation a(out T,' and i%pendin* per%anent
injunction.
B. ?arin threatened $4SC -olan not to dis%iss the petition, on the false ar*u%ent
that 1laintiff2s pleadin*s and %otions to dis%iss 3ere not Fs3ornG, i*norin* that
the pleadin*s and %otions to dis%iss 3ere in for% of declaration under penalt) of
perjur) le*al under C1B, 10 "u#.
&. En rac5eteerin* acti/it), ?arin conspired 3ith a for%er custo%er, -iana
+orton to request a refund 3ith a (ri(e 3ell e=ceedin* the contractJs refund. <ith
full support and $?Js a(ettin*, she co%%itted theft of %erchandise su(stitutin*
the purchased nephrite jade car/in* 3ith a /alueless fa5e. En addition, she
co%%itted perjur) in her affida/it and (reached the contract 3ith the 1laintiff. $?
in rac5eteerin* act, co%%itted %isprision, e=trinsic fraud and fraud on the court
in his in/esti*ati/e function, () ser/in* as an accessor) to the cri%e, aidin* and
facilitatin* the co%%ission of cri%inal acts of this person.
+. En pursuit of his Ffishin* e=peditionsG $? en*a*ed in dilator) tactics and defaulted
() failin* to su(%it and doc5et the order and jud*%ent of $4SC -olan, 3ithin !0 da)s.
$? en*a*ed in i%per%issi(le laches, 3as *rossl) ne*li*ent to restart the le*al action
3ithin ! %onths since the /oid jud*%ent of $4SC -olan, and defaulted a*ain.
$ccordin*l), $? in co%%ission of rac5eteerin* acts, /iolated federal la3 1 USC Sec
1 c "2# c that specifies@ F<hether in the course of action in/ol/edK"e#ither part)2s
representati/e, en*a*ed in conduct pri%aril) for the purpose of dela)in* the liti*ation or
increasin* the cost thereofG. The $? reprehensi(le dilator) (eha/ior
13
e=plains the dela) of liti*ation in the state courts for al%ost 4 )ears.
10. 4SC 4a%es ;rands decreed a T,' in a(sence of personal jurisdiction upon 1laintiff
and thereafter recused for conflict of interest.
11. $4SC Tho%as -olan 3ho 3as assi*ned to this case, decreed a su%%ar) jud*%ent
lac5in* the jurisdiction and decreed a per%anent injunction /iolatin* the statutor)
require%ent for a hearin* prior decreein* a per%anent injunction.
12. $? failed to su(%it and enter the per%anent injunction and jud*%ent of $4SC
-olan and after !0 da)s, the jud*%ent (eca%e null as $? defaulted. En accordance 3ith
+. State C1B, 20, Cuo%o could restart the le*al action 3ithin ! %onths, (ut failed to
do so () en*a*e%ent in laches in order to increase the cost of liti*ation. Thus, $?
Cuo%o defaulted second ti%e.
13. En +o/e%(er 2010, $4SC 4a%es 1a*ones 3as assi*ned, and a*ain, 3ithout ser/ice
of process required as a le*al action de no/o, $4SC 1a*ones decreed a /oid 'rder and
4ud*%ent a*ainst 1laintiff due to co%plete lac5 of jurisdiction. -espite that 1laintiff 3as
represented () le*al counsel ar*uin* for rear*u%entDrene3, $4SC 1a*ones ()
co%%ittin* fraud on the court, denied the rear*u%ent %otion for /acatur "in /ie3 of
presence of issue of %aterial fact that precludes su%%ar) jud*%ent#.
14. 1laintiff appealed the order and jud*%ent to the $ppellate Court Second -epart%ent
"hereto $C#, 3ithin 30 da)s.
1. $C2s justices@ ,i/era, ;elen, $n*iolillo and Sherri ,o%an affir%ed the trial court
jud*%ent () rulin* that there 3as no tria(le issue of %aterial fact, despite the clear and
con/incin* e/idence to the opposite, precludin* the court2s jud*%ent. 1laintiff %o/ed
for rear*u%ent and in alternati/e per%ission to appeal to the Court of $ppeals that 3ere
denied () the $C. The ar*u%ent raised () 1laintiff, that the trial court a(solutel) had no
jurisdiction, 3as disre*arded as ine=istent () the afore%entioned panel of justices. $C
could not confer jurisdiction to the Supre%e Court of +. in a nunc pro tunc decision (ut
() fraud on the court, in facto did.
1!. 1laintiff pursuant to C1B, 01 "a#"4# and 01 "a#"3#, %o/ed for /acatur of the
order and jud*%ent of $4SC 1a*ones (ased on /oid order and jud*%ent for lac5 of
jurisdiction and %ultiple acts of fraud co%%itted () the opposin* part). $4SC 1eter
7or%an 3ho 3as assi*ned to case, tried to %oot the %otion, () dela)in* to act upon for
%ore than 9! da)s, and finall), denied the %otion as %oot, in clear fraud on the court,
unconsciona(le a(use of discretion and irrational ar(itrar) action, despite that the
application 3as acti/e and not %ooted () a(andon%ent or appeal.
19. Su(sequentl), 1laintiff %o/ed to $C pursuant to $rticle 98, for a 3rit of %anda%us
and prohi(ition a*ainst $4SC 7or%an, as 3ell as to the other actin* justices of the trial
court, also includin* for%er $? Cuo%o and his counsel, ?arin. The counsel of $?,
$$? 4oshua 1epper, su(%itted a &e%orandu% of Ba3 that solel) consisted in all the
orders and jud*%ents decreed () jud*es of the Supre%e Court of +., 3ith false and
decei/in* alle*ations that the $C, e/en so (iased to3ard plaintiff, denied it. En support
of his &e%orandu% of Ba3, counsel $$? 1epper, su(%itted the $ffir%ation of $$?
+icholas ?arin. +onetheless, under +. State la3, an $ffir%ation of an attorne) does not
ha/e an) pro(ati/e action unless the attorne) is an actual 3itness to the disputed facts.
$s ?arin 3as not an actual 3itness of the e/ents, he 3as prohi(ited to render an
$ffir%ation or $ffida/it. '(/iousl), '$?2s counsel could su(poena co%plainant 4anet
Spiridona5os, that 3as the onl) actual 3itness to the disputed facts, or an) of the justices
of the Supre%e Court 3ho rendered orders andDor jud*%ents. +e/ertheless, the in/ol/ed
justices opted not to appear in court and Spiridona5os 3as not a relia(le person (ein*
accused of co%%ittin* cri%inal acts of rac5eteerin* in conspirac) 3ith for%er $?
Cuo%o.
18. 'n 4une 12, 2013, 1laintiff su(%itted to the $ppellate Court "$C# a %otion for
su%%ar) jud*%ent (ased on $?2s counsel2s default () failure to ans3er the a/er%ents
of 1laintiff and failure to re(ut the contentions of the %otion, () not opposin* the
%otion. 'n 4ul) 9
th
, 2013, pursuant to C1B, 321, 1laintiff requested $C to enter the
jud*%ent (ased on defendants2 default, () resu(%ittin* the application to*ether 3ith
4udicial +otice of Ba3 pursuant to C1B, 411, that ne/er 3as responded () court. Et is
unAre(utta(le the fact that, $prilanne $*ostino, cler5 of court, held the application for
su%%ar) jud*%ent for 3 3ee5s allo3in* interi%, the justices of the $C to decree a
fraudulent jud*%ent in fa/or of defendants, lac5in* standin*, /oid a( initio and %ooted
() prior defendants2 default. Thus, the decision and order of $C 3as ille*al as had no
standin* (ein* %ooted () uncontested defendants2 default.
19. The decree of the order and jud*%ent 3as dated 4une 19, 2013 that is 8 da)s past
1laintiff2s application for su%%ar) jud*%ent that preceded the jud*%ent. En an act of
fraud on the court, cler5 of court $prilanne $*ostino, held 1laintiff2s application for
su%%ar) jud*%ent, failed to act upon the %otion, and fri/olousl) returned the
application to 1laintiff 3ithout an) e=planation. Cler5 of court is sued in the present
action for rac5eteerin* actions of o(struction of justice and failure to perfor% her nonA
discretionar) %inisterial and %andator) functions.
20. +onetheless, $C denied 1laintiff2s %otion () dictu% that the 1laintiff lac5ed the
clear ri*ht of %anda%us. This decision represents o(/ious fraud on the court, as the
request for %anda%us 3as (ased on C1B, 01 "a# "4#, that is unA3ai/ea(le, (ased on
irrefuta(le co%plete lac5 of jurisdiction of the court. $C2s justices :n*, &iller,
Cha%(ers, and ,o%an co%%ited fraud on the court and decreed an order and jud*%ent
displa)in* unconsciona(le a(use of discretion and ar(itrar) irrational action (ased on
fraudulent citation of a sin*le le*al case of F&atter of Be*al $id Societ) of Sulli/an
Count) / Schein%an, 3 +.2d 12, 1!; case that lac5ed the clear ri*ht to %anda%us, as
not qualif)in* under C1B, 9801 "that specifies that a proceedin* under $rticle 98 shall
not (e used to challen*e a deter%ination that is not final and that could (e adequatel)
re/ie3ed () appeal to a (od), or officer to re/ie3 the %atter upon %otion of the
applicant#. En contrast, 1laintiff2s request for 3rit of %anda%us, 3as to co%pel $4SC
7or%an to perfor% his %andator) and %inisterial dut) of actin* upon a non
discretionar) %otion pursuant to C1B, 01 "a# "4#, si%ilar to al%ost identical to ,ule
!0 "(# "4#, 3here he had no discretion to den) it. En addition, $4SC 1eter 7or%an 3as
disqualified () la3 to act upon a %otion 3here he was named as defendant . $s the
citation of case of &atter of Be*al $id Societ) 3as false and decei/in*, the 'rder and
4ud*%ent of the $C in $rticle 98 represent clear and conclusi/e de%onstration of
e=trinsic fraud, unconsciona(le a(use of discretion, irrational ar(itrar) action and fraud
on the court co%%itted () $C2s justices :n*, Cha%(ers, &iller and ,o%an. The
afore%entioned justices of the $C rendered a jud*%ent Fon the %eritsG, decree that is
false and %isleadin* in opposition to C1B, 013 that states@ F$ jud*%ent dis%issin* a
cause of action (efore the close of the proponent e/idence is not a dis%issal on the
%eritsG. $ccordin*l), $C2s order and 4ud*%ent in the $rticle 98 proceedin*, had no
standin* as %ooted () prior defendants2 default, 3as i%proper and ille*al, as did not
precede the %otion for su%%ar) jud*%ent of the 1laintiff. En addition, the jud*%ent on
%erits, requires the adjudication of all causes of action of the petition.
1laintiff2s petition in $rticle 98 had pleaded causes of action 3ith %ultiple
respondents. Errefuta(l), the order and jud*%ent of the $C could not resol/e all causes
of action. C1B, 012 "si%ilar if not identical to ,ule 4# is conclusi/e in prescri(in*
that in case that the court orders a se/erance, %a) direct jud*%ent upon one or t3o
causes of action, (ut not of all and a final jud*%ent requires the adjudication of all
causes of action and lea/es the court 3ith onl) e=ecution of jud*%ent.
21. 4ustice Sherri ,o%an 3as precluded () la3 and prohi(ited () Canons of judicial
conduct to sit in a panel decidin* a le*al case in 3hich she pre/iousl) sit "she
participated in 1laintiff2s appeal and decided a*ainst the sa%e 1laintiff appearin* no3 in
article 98 proceedin*#. 4ustice ,o%an v!"ated ABA Can!n #$%% &'( &d() *P+ev!,s"-
.+esded !+ .a+t/.ated as a 0,d1e !ve+ t2e matte+ n an!t2e+ /!,+t3$ &oreo/er, the
presidin* justice in $rticle 98 proceedin*, ,andall T. :n*, 3as appointed as a justice to
the $C () for%er $?, no3 *o/ernor $ndre3 Cuo%o. The conflict of interests 3ould
o(li*e justice :n* to disqualif) in a case 3here $ndre3 Cuo%o is a defendant,
nonetheless, justice :n* did not disqualif) hi%self and the 'rder and 4ud*%ent decreed
() hi% and justice Sherri ,o%an represents a TRAVEST4 OF JUSTICE. W2en t2e
212est /!,+t n N4 State &C!,+t !f A..ea"s s +ese+ved f!+ e5/e.t!na" /ases( s a
6an1a+!! /!,+t wt2 # ds7,a"fed 8- "aw 0,st/es +ende+n1 fa"se d/ta9 t s1nfes
t2e deat2 !f a nat!n 8ased !n /!nstt,t!na" +12ts and dem!/+a/-::: $ S2am:::
Statement !f t2e /ase n t2e Fede+a" S!,t2e+n Dst+/t New 4!+6 C!,+t$
22. 'n $u*ust 9, 2013, 1laintiff filed a co%plaint 3ith S-+., a%ended on $u*ust 14,
2013, 3hen the defendant 4anet Spiridona5os 3as re%o/ed fro% the Co%plaint and
correctl) sued under federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC Sec. 1332, (ased on
citiHenship di/ersit). ;) fraud on the court, cler5 of court ,u() 6rajic5, did not re%o/e
Spiridona5os fro% the -oc5et of the $%ended Co%plaint 3here she still appeared as
defendant.
23. $fter a fault) assi*n%ent of this case to &anhattan court, this le*al case 3as
assi*ned to jud*e 8incent ;riccetti in <hite 1lains Court. $ll the defendants 3ere
ser/ed 3ith 3ai/er of ser/ice (et3een $u*ust 1, 2013 to $u*ust 18, 2013 3ith the
e=ception of jud*e Tho%as -olan, 3ho instructed Supre%e Court of +. -utchess
Count) "SC-C# to return to sender an) papers addressed to hi%. 4ud*e -olan 3as
ser/ed 3ith Su%%ons and Co%plaint on 'cto(er 4, 2013, responded on 'cto(er 24,
2013 and recei/ed () 1laintiff on 'cto(er 29. $ll the other defendants sent the 3ai/ers
of ser/ice throu*h $$? 1epper, on Septe%(er 9
th
, 2013 that is 3ithin 30 da)s as
prescri(ed () la3.
24. 'n 'cto(er 11, 2013 "recei/ed () 1laintiff on 'cto(er 19, 2013#, $$? 4oshua
1epper sent a letter to jud*e 8incent ;riccetti notif)in* that he represents all the
-efendants in case 13 C8 !! and the letter 3as acco%panied () a &otion to -is%iss
(ased () %atters outside the 1leadin*s, &e%orandu% of Ba3 in support of &otion and
+otice to 1ro Se Biti*ant 3ho opposes a ,ule 12 &otion. -5t. L 22A23A2!. Co3e/er, the
&otion to -is%iss in accordance 3ith ,ule 12 of 7,C1 3as unti%el) and late.
Su(sequentl), for%er $? Cuo%o and his Counsel, ?arin defaulted, as 3ell as all the
other defendants 3ho si*ned the <ai/ers on Septe%(er 9, 2013. En accordance 3ith the
&anual for 1ro Se liti*ants of the Southern -istrict +e3 .or5, dated 4anuar) 2011,
pu(lished and cop)ri*hted () the -istrict :=ecuti/e 'ffice US -istrict Court of +., the
Chapter $ns3er on pa*e !9 entitled TIME LIMITATIONS TO RESPOND TO A
COMPLAINT9 COUNTERCLAIM OR CROSS;CLAIM , inter alia, specifies@ F $
defendant "other than the United States# that has 3ai/ed ser/ice under the procedure in
7ederal ,ule of Ci/il 1rocedure 4 "d# "discussed on pa*e 9# has thirt) "30# da)s after
sendin* the 3ai/er to file an ans3er or %otion to dis%iss. Ef no response to co%plaint is
filed 3ithin the required ti%e period, the plaintiff should file a %otion for default
jud*%entG
$ccordin* to the prescription of the &anual, the &otion to -is%iss 3as due on or prior
'cto(er 9, 2013. Thus, the default of the defendants in case 13 C8 !! is irrefuta(le,
as a %atter of la3 and factual e/idence.
2. En accordance 3ith 7,C1 ,ule ! "(# "1# ";#, the counsel to the defendants failed to
as5 for an e=tension of ti%e to respond to the Co%plaint, and ac5no3led*ed that he
ne*li*entl) failed to su(%it the %otion to dis%iss at an earlier date. Counsel 4oshua
1epper en*a*ed in si%ilar dilator) tactics he used in the state court of $rticle 98
proceedin*, 3here he defaulted as 3ell, () failure to re(ut 1laintiff2s contentions of the
1etition and su%%ar) jud*%ent %otion.
2!. 'n Septe%(er 2, 2013, 1laintiff su(%itted to the court an application requestin* the
disqualification of the $? to represent the other defendants. -5t. L 9. The ar*u%ents
raised () 1laintiff "-5t. L 8# 3ere as follo3s@ 1. En the prior le*al action in the +. State
$C Second -epart%ent pursuant to $rticle 98, $? appeared as 1ro Se defendant,
adjudicated () justices that in this le*al case appear as coAdefendants. The justices of the
trial court "SC-C# atte%pted to request their defense () $? and 1laintiff ar*ued
successfull) a*ainst the representation () $?2s 'ffice of the actin* justices on (asis of
the conflict of interest. 'n a +otice pursuant to C1B, 9804 "E#, 4ohn &cConnell,
attorne) for justices of trial court, stated that the defendants elected not to appear in the
proceedin* and refer the Court to the -ecisions and 'rders. See :=hi(its. $lthou*h it
appeared that the actin* justices of SC-C lac5ed the defense, the justices of $C2s panel ,
inter/ened in a sua sponte order and jud*%ent that pre%aturel) ter%inated 1etitioner2s
su(%ittal of e/idence, and the chance for a fair opportunit) to liti*ate.
2. The 'rder and 4ud*%ent decreed () the $C na%ed $? and his counsel as defendants
prose. '(/iousl), a defendant prose cannot represent and defend another prose
defendant, as the ter%inolo*) indicates the personal defense. $s the $C denied $?2s
counsel the %otion to dis%iss and the justices of SC-C declined to appear in the case
a*ainst the%, the) 3ere depri/ed of representation () $?2 s counsel consequent to
1laintiff2s request for disqualification, it appeared ine/ita(le that 1laintiff 3as entitled to
jud*%ent as a %atter of la3. +e/ertheless, () sua sponte inter/ention in (ehalf of the
justices of the trial court, the $C2s justices fraudulentl) a/ted as defense "aw-e+s n
t2e+ /!,+t and ter%inated the le*al procedure () in/o5in* the case of F&atter of Be*al
$id Societ) of Sulli/an Count) / Schein%an, that as a %otion in li%ine, e/en dd n!t
satsf- fna" 0,d1ment +e7,+ement !f CPLR <=>%. $C2s justices /iolated Canon
2.11"2#"(#@ Factin* as la3)ers in the proceedin*G. $ppellate Court "$C# of +. State
/iolated the due process and hu%an ri*hts constitution *uaranteed ri*hts of equal
protection under 14
th
$%end%ent of USC. En the present le*al case, identicall), $? 3as
precluded to defend justices that pre/iousl) decided the case in 3hich the $? appeared
in their Court as defendant prose.
29. 1laintiff2s %otion for disqualification of $? 3as (ased on irrefuta(le conflict of
interest of /iolation of the Canons of judicial conduct, as 3ell as federal la3s. Et is
o(/ious that the solicitation of the jud*es to a for%er defendant 3ho appeared in their
court, to ha/e *ratis le*al representation, clearl) represents a request for (ri(e and proof
of rac5eteerin* acts. $n) order and jud*%ent that affected the outco%e of the
proceedin* decreed () such justices is null and in/alid and su(ject to i%peach%ent fro%
office for solicitin*, or acceptin* (ri(er) fro% a for%er defendant that appeared in their
court. Secondl), 28 USC Sec. 4 "(# "# is pertinent to this le*al case in the follo3in*
su(sections@ "i# Es a part) to the proceedin*; "ii# Es actin* as a la3)er in the proceedin*;
"iii#Es 5no3n () the jud*e to ha/e an interest that could (e su(stantiall) affected () the
outco%e of the proceedin*; "i/# Es to the jud*e2s 5no3led*e li5el) to (e a %aterial
3itness in the proceedin*G.
+. State judiciar) la3s prohi(it a jud*e actin* as an attorne) or counselor in an) action,
clai%, %atter, %otion or proceedin* 3hich has (een (efore hi% in his official character.
See 4udiciar) Ba3 Sec. 19. En addition, 4udiciar) Ba3 Sec 901 prescri(es that the
prosecutor is disqualified fro% fulfillin* the dut) (ecause of actual prejudice arisin*
fro% a de%onstrated conflict of interest. See Schu%er / ColtH%an, !0 +. 2d 4!,
"1983#. The %ost specific +. State la3 is 4udiciar) Ba3 Sec. 14 that states that a jud*e
shall not sit or ta5e an) part in the decision of an action, %atter, clai%, %otion or
proceedin* to 3hich he is a part), or in 3hich he has (een an attorne) or counsel, or in
3hich he is interested.G. This la3 applies to actin* justice 1eter 7or%an 3ho 3as a
defendant in 1laintiff2s %otion pursuant to C1B, 01 for annul%ent of /oid jud*%ent
of actin* justice 1a*ones. $4SC 7or%an refused to recuse 3hen he denied 1laintiff2s
%otion pursuant to C1B, 01"a#"4# and 01"a#"3#. En e*re*ious and clear fraud on the
court, $C denied the 3rit of %anda%us to co%pel $4SC 7or%an, (ased on fraudulent
in/ocation of case F&atter of Be*al $idG . 4udiciar) Ba3 14 also applies to justice Sherri
S. ,o%an 3ho sat on the $C2s (ench on 1laintiff2s $ppeal and sat a*ain in the $rticle
98 proceedin*. En addition, $? 3as precluded as a %atter of la3 to appear and defend
the justices of the $C in 3hich $? had a dou(le appearance, one as a defendin* part) in
1laintiff2s $ppeal, and a*ain as a defendant in $rticle 98 proceedin*. 1residin* justice in
$rticle 98 proceedin* "4ustice ,andall :n*# 3as appointed () *o/ernor $ndre3 Cuo%o
as a Chief $d%inistrati/e 4ud*e. $s $ndre3 Cuo%o appeared as a defendant in justice
:n*2s court "he 3as the presidin* of the panel#, justice :n* 3as precluded as a %atter of
la3 to preside or participate in the panel of 4 jud*es. En addition, justice Sherri ,o%an,
3as precluded () conflict of interest to sit in a panel of justices, 3hen she pre/iousl) sat
and decided a*ainst 1laintiff in $rticle 98 proceedin* as 3ell as 1laintiffJs $ppeal.
4ustice :n* 5ne3 or should ha/e 5no3n, that the Canons of judicial conduct sanction
i%propriet), nepotis% and fa/oritis%, should disqualif) hi% as a %atter of la3, to act in
a judicial action 3here Cuo%o appeared as a defendant, (ut justice :n* failed to do so in
a sha% judicial action to the dis*race of $%erican justice in +. StateM.
28. 'n +o/e%(er 14, 2013, 1laintiff su(%itted a %otion to stri5e defendants2 pleadin*
of %otion to -is%iss su(%itted () $?2s counsel and requested a conference to settle
defendants2 default stipulations. -5t. L 49A0. 1laintiff contended that the %otion 3as
insufficient for defense and consisted in false, decei/in* and distortin* factual e/idence,
as 3ell as redundant and i%%aterial alle*ations 3ithout (asis of facts. &ost i%portant
and constitutin* t2e 8ass !f +e7,est f!+ st+6n1 t2e m!t!n t! Dsmss9 s t2e
de"8e+ate ds+e1a+d !f t2e fa/t t2at a"" t2e defendants n t2s "e1a" /ase defa,"ted as
a matte+ !f "aw 8- fa",+e t! answe+ !+ s,8mt a m!t!n t! dsmss wt2n t2e "mts
!f tme .+!vded 8- "aw. 'n +o/e%(er 20, 2013, jud*e ,o%an denied the %otion to
stri5e and request for conference 3ithout a reasonin* or dicta. -5t. L 1. Counsel 1epper
did not oppose the %otion, and accordin* to the la3, the %otion 3as dee%ed to (e
rendered in fa/or of 1laintiff.
Counsel 4oshua 1epper2s default 3as not the first one. En 4une 2013, $$? 1epper failed
to respond and oppose 1laintiff2s su%%ar) jud*%ent %otion in the $rticle 98 state
proceedin*. $s the default of all defendants is (ased on a le*al endorse%ent () the
official %anual for the liti*ants pu(lished () the Southern -istrict Court, counsel 1epper
had no other choice than to %iti*ate the default () statin* that F-efault jud*%ents are
*enerall) disfa/ored, and case doctrine stron*l) prefers resol/in* disputes on the
%eritsG, 3ith the ine/ita(le citation of a co%%on la3 case that %a) illustrate an)thin*
i%plausi(le as a real fact endorse%ent. See F-efendants2 &e%orandu% of Ba3 in
opposition to 1laintiff2s %otion for default jud*%entG dated 'cto(er 29, 2013 "-5t. L
39A40#. $lthou*h counsel 1epper tried to persuade the court that the parties should
resol/e the dispute on F%eritsG, he rather su(%itted a &otion to -is%iss that contains
Faffir%ati/e defensesG that ac5no3led*e the acceptance of the $%ended Co%plaint as
true and correct, (ut tried to dis%iss the co%plaint on confa(ulated, false and decei/in*
alle*ations of i%a*inar) and incorrect &atters outside of pleadin*s. $?2s counsel 3as
honest enou*h to state that he does not represent 4anet Spiridona5os and 7ree(oard
Enternational, Enc. appearin* as defendants in the doc5et sheet, as the) are not na%ed
defendants in the $%ended Co%plaint. See 1a*e 9 of $$? 1epper2s &otion to -is%iss.
The sa%e docu%ent on pa*e !, counsel 1epper %a5es the lauda(le state%ent that
Falthou*h defendants are ser/in* K the +otice to 1ro Se liti*ants as required () Bocal
Ci/il ,ule 12.1, this Court need not con/ert the instant %otion to one for su%%ar)
jud*%entG.
Counsel 4oshua 1epper, %ade redundant, i%%aterial, false and distortin* the e/idence,
or purposel) i*norin* 1laintiff2s re(uttal and in/itin* another redundant re(uttal in his
%e%orandu% of la3, pro%ptin* 1laintiff to su(%it the %otion to stri5e. $s 1laintiff2s
%otion for default jud*%ent did not ha/e an) plausi(le opposition and default could not
(e contested () ne*ations 3ithout supportin* e/idence, it appeared that there is not
necessar) to re(ut an) other %otion lac5in* standin* su(%itted () $$? 1epper,
pendin* the court decision pertinent to default. +e/ertheless, despite that the le*al case
ter%inated in fa/or of 1laintiff and 3as not necessar) to re(ut an) of the defendants2
applications after the default, 1laintiff thou*ht that 3as necessar) to request the court to
stri5e the pleadin* for dis%issal of action as fri/olous, %ade 3ith the purpose to harass
and cause unnecessar) dela) and increase the cost of liti*ation. The counsel, used the
i%per%issi(le tactic of raisin* an) defense, re*ardless 3hether an) factual (asis e=ists.
Such dilator) actions are prone to (e sanctioned () an) court, de%andin* i%positions of
penalties a*ainst -efendants and their counsel for filin* defenses 3ithout factual or le*al
(asis. Counsel 1epper %ade false and decei/in* alle*ations in each of his
F&e%orandu% of Ba3G, () false citations of $%ended Co%plaint 3hich 3ere
ine=istent, or co%pletel) distortin* the para*raphs2 te=t. Such irrational confa(ulation is
fraudulent inducin* an un(iased re/ie3er to (elie/e that the $%ended Co%plaint %i*ht
contain such fa(ricated state%ents posin* as real. En other alle*ations, counsel 1epper
Fdu%(s hi% do3nG () clai%in* i*norance of clear e/idence in 1laintiff2s $%ended
Co%plaint that requires in return redundant re(uttal. Such dilator) acts create
unnecessar) re(uttals and dela)s 3ith increase of le*al cost.
29. The doc5et of case 13 C8 !! contains also applications and responses pertinent to
case 13 C8 !93. -ue to fraudulent consolidation of these le*al cases, this Court needs
to %a5e also a decision pertinent to case 13C8 !93.
30. 'n +o/e%(er 9, 2013, jud*e ,o%an denied 1laintiff2s %otion to disqualif) $? to
represent the coAdefendants, and he co%pletel) disre*arded as ine=istent, 1laintiff2s
contentions that such representation is a conflict of interest. -5t. L 4.
31. 'n 'cto(er 23, 2013, 1laintiff su(%itted an $ffir%ation in opposition to &otion for
dis%issal of 1laintiff2s Co%plaint and ,epl) to $?2s %otion that opposes 1laintiff2s
%otion to disqualif) counsel. This application 3as fraudulentl) returned to 1laintiff ()
the 1ro Se 'ffice of Cler5 on +o/e%(er , 2013, 3ithout an) plausi(le e=planation for
the fri/olous and ille*al return, %ost li5el) done 3ith the intention to pre/ent 1laintiff to
oppose the defendants2 %otion for dis%issal of co%plaint and facilitate the court to order
su%%ar) jud*%ent for failure to respond and oppose the defendants2 %otion. This
%otion 3as doc5eted on +o/e%(er 9, 2013, %ore than 2 3ee5s past the initial su(%ittal
of the application. -5t. L 4!. -ue to the default of all defendants, defendants2 %otion to
dis%iss the co%plaint, 3as %ooted and "a/6ed t2e standn1. +onetheless, (ased on
prior e=perience 3ith the (iased and prejudicial state courts2 for%er actions and in
consideration of jud*e +elson ,o%an2s fri/olous and (iased order den)in* 1laintiff2s
%otion for disqualification of $? to represent the defendants, in ar*uendo, 1laintiff
responded () re(uttal of counsel 1epper2s false and decei/in* alle*ations. $lthou*h the
present liti*ation has roots in the prior proceedin*s in the state courts, this le*al action is
not a re/i/al of the state liti*ation and the clai%s and issues and %ost of the defendants
are different than the state liti*ation. The liti*ation in the state courts 3as ille*al, (ased
on e= parte orders and jud*%ents, lac5in* an) hearin* or conference, in t)pical
5an*aroo courts, lac5in* personal and su(ject %atter jurisdiction, and ulti%atel), endin*
in /oid orders and jud*%ents that are null a( initio. 32. 'n +o/e%(er 4, 2013, $?2s
counsel, su(%itted -efendants2 ,epl) &e%orandu% of Ba3 in further support of their
%otion to -is%iss. -5t. L 43A44. En this %ooted &e%orandu% of Ba3 and lac5in*
standin*, $?2s counsel did not pro/ide an) ne3 supportin* alle*ations, rather the sa%e
conclusor) and self ser/in* alle*ations he %ade in the %otion for dis%issal of
co%plaint, alread) re(utted () the 1laintiff. The %ost e*re*ious, false and %isleadin*
confa(ulation of the $%ended Co%plaint2s contentions, is counsel2s 1epper state%ent
that@ F1laintiff see5s annul%ent of all pre/ious orders, jud*%ents and injunctions
i%posed upon the plaintiff2. $%. Co%pl. $t p.49. Thus, in his o3n 3ords, F1laintiff
see5s to reliti*ate issues and clai%s that the state court decidedG. +onetheless, as all the
other citations () Counsel 1epper of the Co%plaint, there is no such contention of
Fannul%ents of pre/ious orders, jud*%ents and injunctionsG, neither on pa*e 49 or N 49
3ith such specification. Thus, $$? 1epper co%%itted e*re*ious lie and e*re*ious fraud
on the court () an officer of the court. &oreo/er, /!,nse" Pe..e+ 1n!+ed t2at 2s
a""e1at!ns !f +es 0,d/ata and /!""ate+a" est!..e" 2e a"+ead- +ased n t2e state?s
A+t/"e <= .+!/eedn19 .+e/",ded 2m t! +ase t2ese a""e1at!ns a1an n t2e fede+a"
/!,+t$ A"s! 2e 1n!+ed t2at t2e state AC dsmssed 2s Mem!+and,m !f Law 8ased
!n t2e same d!/t+nes. Ce (rushes a3a) 1laintiff2s contention as FThis is of no
%o%entG as has no plausi(le ar*u%ent. Counsel 1epper a*ain, unsuccessfull) raises
irrational and i%plausi(le ar*u%ents. The &anual for pro se liti*ants pu(lished and
cop)ri*hted () the S-+., clearl) states the ti%e li%itations to respond to a co%plaint in
Chapter $ns3er pa*e !9 of this &anual 3ith the instruction to the plaintiff to file a
%otion for default jud*%ent, if no response to the co%plaint is filed 3ithin the required
ti%e period. See E528t$ '(/iousl), counsel 1epper cannot alle*e that S-+.2s &anual
is 3ron*, intended to decei/e the pro se plaintiff.
33. 'n +o/e%(er 12, 2013, jud*e +elson ,o%an, in a &e%orandu% > 'rder *ranted
the %ooted %otion to dis%iss of the defendants 3ith prejudice, () 3illin*l) and
5no3in*l) disre*ardin* the e=istence of the prior default of all -efendants. This 'rder
and directed 4ud*%ent decreed () cler5 of court, ,u() 6rajic5, are appealed in this
Court.
34. The citations of the $%ended Co%plaint in chapter 8a/61+!,nd of jud*e ,o%an2s
&e%orandu% is a sha%, jud*e ,o%an confa(ulated ine=istent para*raphs contentions,
or distorted the contentions to ridicule. En his Mem!+and,m?s Ds/,ss!n, he reiterates
counsel 1epper2s alle*ations 3ithout an) plausi(le (asis to sustain his false alle*ations
and 3ithout addin* an) supple%ental alle*ations. 4ud*e ,o%an2s alle*ations of
:le/enth $%end%ent and a(solute i%%unit) 3ere alread) re(utted () 1laintiff. :/en
3ithout prior factual re(uttal of identical alle*ations (rou*ht () counsel 1epper, the 11
th
$%end%ent and a(solute i%%unit) are not applica(le due to the fact that for%er $?
Cuo%o is sued in his official capacit) under 1 USC Sec. 1c, and also in his personal
capacit) lac5in* a(solute i%%unit) and 11
th
$%end%ent preclusion. Cis final state%ent
Fthat the 1laintiff failed to properl) plead an) cause of actionG represents a TRAVEST4
OF JUSTICE9 and /"ea+ .+!!f !f f+a,d !n t2e /!,+t9 ,n/!ns/!na8"e a8,se !f
ds/+et!n /2""n1 t2e e7,ta8"e 0,st/e9 and ++at!na" a+8t+a+- a/t!n . 7urther on,
the dis%issal of the present le*al case as 3ell as 13 C8 !93 on irrational request (asis
of 4anet Spiridona5os, 3ho is not a defendant, 3as not ser/ed 3ith su%%ons, 3ai/er of
ser/ice and Co%plaint in present case, ma6es a m!/6e+- !f t2e 0,st/e n fede+a"
/!,+t, unconsciona(le a(use of discretion, illo*ical ar(itrar) and capricious action and
fraud on the court. 3. 'n +o/e%(er 2, 2013, 1laintiff su(%itted a %otion 3ith
attached &e%orandu% of Ba3 and $ffida/it, requestin* recusal of jud*e +elson
,o%an, (ased on %anifest actions denotin* (ias and prejudice to3ard 8eleanu,
unconsciona(le a(use of discretion > illo*ical ar(itrar) and capricious actions, as 3ell
as nu%erous acts of fraud on the court. -5ts. L 2A3. The %otion also requested the
reconsideration of the order of jud*e ,o%an and jud*%ent decreed () cler5 of court
6rajic5. The 1laintiff2s affida/it, despite that 3as sta%ped as recei/ed on +o/e%(er 2,
2013 3as ne*li*entl) ne/er doc5eted. 'n 4anuar) 1!, 2014, 1laintiff chec5ed the open
and closed records of <hite 1lains courthouse and disco/ered that this docu%ent 3as
not doc5eted. The docu%ent 3as handed to the cler5 of court for doc5etin* and this
e=plains the date of enterin* of 4anuar) 1!, 2014 "-5t. L !0#, "3ell (e)ond the date of
recusal of jud*e ,o%an#. 4ud*e ,o%an in conspirac) 3ith cler5 of court, consolidated
cases 13 C8 !! 3ith 13 C8 !93 in conte%pt of jud*e ;riccetti &e%orandu% >
'rder that denied the consolidation of cases. 'n +o/e%(er 2, 2013, 1laintiff 3ent to
1ro Se 'ffice in &anhattan to su(%it directl) the &e%orandu% of Ba3 for
reconsideration and recusal of jud*e ,o%an. $t that ti%e, 1laintiff (rou*ht the attention
to the cler5 of court that there 3as a F(lac5outG of case 13 C8 !! in 1acer. The search
of case 13 C8 !! in 1acer, (et3een +o/e%(er
th
to +o/e%(er 30, 2013 sho3ed the
case as ine=istent. 'n +o/e%(er 30, 2013, 13 C8 !! reAappeared on 1acer 3ith onl)
the doc5et L 2 and 3 e=istent. $t the inquest of ine=istent case 13 C8!!, a cler5 of
the 1ro Se 'ffice, na%ed &s. +orie*a, ad/ised 1laintiff that as case 13C8!! is
closed, to su(%it an) applications to case 13 C8!93 that 3as open and 3rite (oth
captions of cases on the application. Et appears as a deli(erate action of cler5 of court to
support the consolidation of (oth cases and fraudulent resolution of (oth le*al cases in a
final jud*%ent. The 1ro Se 'ffice cler5s 3ere inquired () 1laintiff 3ithout an) clue
a(out the 3herea(outs of %otion for default jud*%ent of defendant Spiridona5os under
,ule "a# and "(#"1# to (e acted upon () cler5 of court, ,u() 6rajic5. 4ud*e ,o%an
in his order dis%issed not onl) her case, 13 C8!93, (ut also dis%issed at Spiridona5os
request, case 13 C8!!, 3ith prejudice. Therefore, jud*e ,o%an directed the cler5 of
the court to close the doc5et +o.! and 8 in C8!93. 1laintiff2s 1acer account sho3ed
that -oc5et L 29 in present case re%ained unAacted upon and descri(ed as &otion for
-efault jud*%ent as to 4anet Spiridona5os and 7ree(oard Enternational, Enc. The
e=a%ination of closed and open records re/ealed that -oc5et L 29 in 13 C8 !!
actuall) represents the %otion for default jud*%ent supposed to (e acted () jud*e
,o%an. The intri*ue 3as resol/ed () identif)in* doc5et L ! in case 13 C8!93 as the
%otion for default jud*%ent su(%itted () 1laintiff on 'cto(er 18, 2013 pursuant to ,ule
"(# "1# to (e acted upon () cler5 of court, 6rajic5, that she ne/er did. The records
clearl) sho3 that after %ore than 4 3ee5s of failure to act upon the %otion () 6rajic5,
jud*e ,o%an 3illin*l) and 5no3in*l), () fraud on the court, acted upon this %otion,
not addressed to (e acted () hi%. +onetheless, () doin* so, jud*e ,o%an failed to act
upon 1laintiff2s %otion pursuant to ,ule "(#"2# specificall) addressed to his action
and doc5eted in 13 C8!! under -5t. 29. The records sho3 that jud*e +elson ,o%an
recused in case 13 C8!93, (ut did not recuse in the present case. $s the %otions 3ere
su(%itted under the caption of (oth consolidated cases, the %otion for jud*e ,o%an2s
recusal dated +o/e%(er 2, 2013 and doc5eted under -5t. L 2, as 3ell as the %otion
for annul%ent of order and jud*%ent of jud*e +elson S. ,o%an in this le*al action,
doc5eted under -5t. L re%ained unAacted upon, for se/eral 3ee5s, 3ith the o(/ious
intention to %oot the %otions () dela) past the li%its of ti%e that plaintiff could appeal
at the Court of $ppeals, and then den) the%. En &e%orandu% and 'rder of jud*e
,o%an dated -ece%(er 31, 2013, jud*e ,o%an denied the afore%entioned %otions as
%oot despite that the applications (rou*ht contro/ersial facts that he ti%el) failed to act
upon, and re%ained acti/e (ased on his prior /oid order and jud*%ent. Cis
disqualification in this case is %andator) as he did in the parallel case 13 C8!93,
(ecause in/ol/ed the conflict of interest as jud*e ,o%an cannot e=culpate hi%self. The
a(use of discretion and illo*ical ar(itrar) action is chillin* effectual reasona(le and
equita(le adjudication. ;) his prejudicial actions to3ard 1ro Se 1laintiff, jud*e ,o%an
/iolated se/eral Canons of judicial conduct as @ Canon 2.11."!#"2#@ F$ jud*e2s o(li*ation
to hear or decide %otions in 3hich disqualification required applies, re*ardless of
3hether a %otion to disqualif) is filed. 4ud*e ,o%an /iolated Canon 2.9 C@ FA 0,d1e
s2a"" n!t nvest1ate fa/ts n a matte+ nde.endent"- and s2a"" /!nsde+ !n"- t2e
evden/e .+esented and an- fa/ts t2at we+e .+!.e+"- n!t/edG. 4ud*e ,o%an /iolated
Canon 2.11"2# "(#@ FA/tn1 as a "aw-e+ n t2e .+!/eedn1G. 4ud*e ,o%an /iolated
Canon 2."4#@ F$ jud*e shall %onitor cases in 3a)s that reduce or eli%inate dilator)
practices, a/oid dela)s and unnecessar) costsG.
3!. 'n -ece%(er !, 2013, 1laintiff su(%itted under caption of (oth consolidated le*al
cases, a &e%orandu% of Ba3 for further support of pre/ious &e%orandu% of Ba3 for
reconsideration of order and jud*%ent of jud*e +elson S. ,o%an and recusal of jud*e
,o%an fro% this le*al action, (ased on %anifest le*al actions denotin* (ias and
prejudice to3ard pro se 1laintiff &ircea 8eleanu, unconsciona(le a(use of discretion
and illo*ical ar(itrar) and capricious actions, as 3ell as nu%erous acts of fraud on the
court. See -5t. L 4. This application requested oral ar*u%ent, $s to the pre/ious 2
applications, oral ar*u%ent request 3as i*nored as ine=istent, as 3ell as the default of all
-efendants. This application, in /ie3 of the default of the defendants in (oth le*al cases,
requested the Court the transfer of these 2 le*al cases to :astern -istrict Court, to (e
adjudicated () a %a*istrate jud*e, 3ith a fair and reasona(le opportunit) to liti*ate and
e=chan*e infor%ation in the disco/er) for a rapid disposal of these 2 ci/il le*al cases.
4ud*e ,o%an /iolated Canon 2. ";# and Canon 2. !@ F,i*ht to (e heard. $. $ jud*e
shall accord to e/er) person 3ho has a le*al interest in a proceedin*. The ri*ht to (e
heard is an essential co%ponent of a fair and i%partial s)ste% of justice. Su(stanti/e
ri*hts of liti*ants can (e protected onl) if procedures protected the ri*ht to (e heard are
o(ser/ed. Canon 2. ";#@ FGdisposin* of %atters pro%ptl) and efficientl), a jud*e %ust
de%onstrate due re*ard for the ri*hts of parties to (e heard and to ha/e issues resol/ed
3ithout unnecessar) cost or dela)G. 4ud*e ,o%an unreasona(l) dela)ed to act upon
1laintiff2s applications to court for relief, 3hile pro%ptl) actin* in applications
(enefitin* the opposite part). 7or e=a%ple, 1laintiff2s %otion for disqualification of $?
to represent the other defendants, su(%itted on Septe%(er 2, 2013, 3as denied 3ithin
13 da)s follo3in* reassi*n%ent of jud*e ,o%an, 3hile the %otion su(%itted on
+o/e%(er 2, 2013, requestin* jud*e2s recusal, 3as not denied until -ece%(er 30,
2013.
39. The sua sponte order and jud*%ent of jud*e ,o%an, pre%aturel) ter%inated
1laintiff2s ri*ht to fairl) liti*ate and pre/ented 1laintiff to plead his contentions, thus a
/iolation of due process and /iolation of constitutional ri*hts. 4ud*e ,o%an
intentionall) dela)ed all 1laintiff2s applications for relief in dilator) %ootin* tactics to
pre/ent the appeal.
38. 'n -ece%(er 11, 2013, 1laintiff ti%el) filed a +otice of $ppeal in the Southern
-istrict Court, appealin* the &e%orandu% and 'rder dated +o/e%(er 12 and directed
4ud*%ent of jud*e +elson S. ,o%an, dated +o/e%(er 13, 2013, 3hich dis%issed the
$%ended Co%plaint in this case, as 3ell as the Co%plaint in case 13 C8 !93 usin* the
caption of (oth le*al cases in a definite unconsciona(le fraud on the court.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
FORMER ATTORNE4 @ENERAL ANDREW CUOMO9 IN BAD FAITH9
CONTUMACIOUSL4 COMMENCED A LE@AL ACTION LACAIN@
STANDIN@ AND PROBABLE CAUSE$
39. 'n $u*ust 9, 2009, for%er $? of +. State, $ndre3 Cuo%o, actin* under color of
state la3, co%%enced and continued in (ad faith, a fri/olous and /e=atious le*al action
pursuant to ?;B 349 and :=ecuti/e Ba3 !3.12 that did not satisf) the :=ec Ba3 !3.12.
The alle*ed action 3as not directed to consu%ers at lar*e and represented a rather
particular and indi/idualiHed co%%ercial dispute that could (e resol/ed (ased on the
e=istent conditions of the co%%ercial contract. Et lac5ed the %aterialit) as co%plainant
3as ad/ised that an art car/in* is not a je3elr) ite%. The Second Circuit has interpreted
that the Flac5 of pro(a(le cause *enerall) raises an inference of %alice sufficient to
3ithstand su%%ar) jud*%entG See ,icciutti / +. Cit) Transit $uthorit), 124 73d 123,
131 "2d Cir. 1999#. $? Cuo%o falsel) in/o5ed the 1arens 1atriae doctrine, (ased on
fraudulent and decei/in* alle*ations of a sin*le co%plainant na%ed 4anet Spiridona5os,
in lac5 of standin* to support the statutor) fraud due to lac5 of injur). The co%plainant
3as protected () the conditions of sale of co%%ercial contract that pro/ided lifeti%e
3arrant) and refund. The clear and con/incin* e/idence has sho3n that $? in
rac5eteerin* actions, conspired 3ith Spiridona5os to char*e 1laintiff 3ith fa(ricated
char*es, (lac5%ail, e=tort and defraud hi%. $? (ri(ed Spiridona5os not onl) 3ith
refund includin* the auction co%pan)2s co%%issions of 29. I, 3here the 1laintiff 3as
the consi*nor, rather than the seller, (ut also 3ith ille*al retroacti/e interest of 9 I )ears
(ac5 and other third parties cost.
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT B4
DISTRICT COURT?S JUD@E NELSON S$ ROMAN IS A VOID ORDER AND
JUD@MENT DUE TO LACA OF STANDIN@ AS A MOOT LE@AL ACTION
DUE TO PRIOR DEFAULT OF THE DEFENDANTS$
40. The district federal court case had constitutional authorit) to resol/e actual dispute,
ho3e/er cannot continue after the %atter at issue has (een resol/ed lea/in* no li/e
dispute for the court to resol/e. T2e matte+ was m!!t as f,+t2e+ "e1a" .+!/eedn1
afte+ t2e defendants? defa,"t s nva"d$ 7or%er $? Cuo%o and all the defendants
defaulted as a %atter of fact and %atter of la3. The continuation of the proceedin* ()
jud*e ,o%an after defendants2 default is null and in/alid, m!!t a8 nt!, %oreo/er, ()
a /oid order and jud*%ent.
41. -efendants defaulted as a %atter of la3 3ithout re(uttal () the defendants2 counsel
of the o(jecti/e le*al e/idence su(%itted () 1laintiff sho3in* (e)ond an) reasona(le
dou(t that the defendants failed to su(%it an ans3er or %otion to dis%iss 3ithin the
ti%e li%its esta(lished () Southern -istrict of +e3 .or5. Thus, h)pothetical ar*u%ents
cannot (e entertained as $rticle EEE of US Constitution li%its jurisdiction of all federal
courts to li/e contro/ersies. This le*al case should ter%inate in fa/or of 1laintiff and an)
atte%pts to continue the liti*ations are %oot as a %atter of la3MMM.
42. 4ud*e ,o%an presidin* the court, did not le*all) pro/ide an) reasonin* that
defendants did not default, did not pro/ide an) reasonin* that Southern -istrict2s
&anual for 1ro se liti*ants is ille*al, thus, the default of all defendants stands and can
not (e cured () a nunc pro tunc order nullif)in* the default as ine=istent. -efendants2
counsel did not as5 the Court for an e=tension of ti%e to su(%it an ans3er, or resu(%it
the %otion to dis%iss. Thus, *ross ne*li*ence of counsel cannot (e o/erloo5ed as
ine=istent. 7urther%ore, jud*e ,o%an () actin* as a la3)er in his court, did not reason
that the default did not occur, or the default %iraculousl) could (e cured () his
inter/ention in (ehalf of the defendants. Cis State%ent@ F;ecause -efendants ti%el)
%o/ed to dis%iss, the Court -:+E:S "jud*e2s %ajuscules# default jud*%ent a*ainst an)
of the defendants. ;) nunc pro tunc decision, jud*e ,o%an cannot den) factual e/ent.
The 5no3in* and 3illin* disre*ard of defendants2 default () jud*e ,o%an clearl) and
con/incin*l) represents an irrational ar(itrar) action, unconsciona(le a(use of discretion
and e*re*ious fraud on the court. The 'rder and 4ud*%ent of jud*e ,o%an dis%issin*
the Co%plaint is a sha% and denotes TRAVEST4 OF JUSTICEMMM.
43. 4ud*e +elson ,o%an /iolated the follo3in* $;$ ,ules of 1rofessional Conduct@
,UB: 1.1@ FCo%pliance 3ith the la3. $ jud*e shall co%pl) 3ith the la3, includin* the
code of judicial conductG. ,UB: 1.2@ F1ro%otin* confidence in the judiciar). $ jud*e
shall act at all ti%es in a %anner that pro%otes pu(lic confidence in the independence,
inte*rit) and i%partialit) of the judiciar) and shall a/oid i%propriet) and the appearance
of the i%propriet). $ctual i%proprieties include /iolations of la3, court rules, or
pro/isions of the Code. The test of i%propriet) is 3hether the conduct 3ould create in
reasona(le %ind a perception that the jud*e /iolated this code or en*a*ed in other
conduct that affect ad/ersel) the jud*e2s honest), i%partialit) or fitness to ser/e as a
jud*eG. 7urther on, Canon 2, ,ule 2.2 states@ F$ jud*e shall uphold and appl) the la3,
and shall perfor% all duties of judicial office fairl) and i%partiall)G. ,ule 2.2 "4#@ Fit is
not a /iolation of this ,ule for a jud*e to %a5e reasona(le acco%%odations to ensure
1ro Se liti*ants the opportunit) to ha/e their %otion fairl) heardG. 4ud*e ,o%an
repeatedl) denied the request for a conference in 1laintiff2s %otions. -5t. L 49A0, 4.
T3o other %otions requestin* oral ar*u%ents 3ere i*nored as ine=istent () jud*e
,o%an.
DEFENDANTS SOLICITED AS BRIBE9 THE FREE LE@AL
REPRESENTATION B4 FORMER A@ CUOMO AND HIS OFFICE IN CLEAR
BUID PRO BUO ACT$
44. $ll 11 jud*es sued () 1laintiff, adjudicated le*al cases 3here $? appeared as a
liti*ant "1rosecutor 1laintiff in state trial courts and defendant prose, in state appellate
courts#. T2e f+ee "e1a" +e.+esentat!n 8- a f!+me+ "t1ant /"ea+"- +e.+esents n fa/t!
8+8e t! a 0,d1e. Et is inconcei/a(le that a jud*e 3ho solicits the le*al representation
fro% a for%er prose defendant in his court, %i*ht e/er render a ne*ati/e decision a*ainst
that liti*ant. T2e 7,d .+! 7,! d!/t+ne ns.+es and 1ene+ates /!++,.t!n and
.+events an ,n8ased and m.a+ta" a+8te+ !f "aw t! a/t n .+ese+vn1 ne,t+a"t- !f
0,d/a+-$
DISTRICT COURT JUD@E ROMAN ACTED IN CONTEMPT OF COURT B4
CONSOLIDATIN@ # DIFFERENT LE@AL CASES IN VIOLATION OF
PREVIOUS JUD@E?S ORDER$
4. 'n Septe%(er 4
th
, 2013, the assi*ned jud*e, 8incent ;riccetti, rendered a
&e%orandu% of Ba3 and 'rder, den)in* a for%er defendant in the co%plaint, 4anet
Spiridona5os2 %otion to consolidate the le*al case a*ainst her for (reach of contract and
fraud, 3ith present case. The a%ended co%plaint ter%inated her status of defendant. ;)
fraud on the court, cler5 of court, ,u() 6rajic5, %aintained on the doc5et Spiridona5os2
listin* as defendant, despite that the a%ended co%plaint did not list Spiridona5os as a
defendant. She falsel) clai%ed to (e a 3itness 3ho pro/ided testi%on) a*ainst 1laintiff
in trial state court. This alle*ation 3as false, as she did not pro/ide an) testi%on) in an)
court. $ preAtrial affida/it she pro/ided, 3as i%peached () 1laintiff sho3in*
contro/ersial state%ents contradictin* prior state%ent she %ade, thus, she co%%itted
perjur). En addition, her affida/it 3as 3ritten () $?2s counsel, +icholas ?arin 3ho
included inti%ate petition details, Spiridona5os 3as una(le to 5no3. 4ud*e ,o%an in
conte%pt of court order, conspired 3ith cler5 of the -istrict Court, /iolated jud*e
;riccetti2s order and consolidated (oth cases in order to decree a sin*le order and
jud*%ent dis%issin* (oth cases.
DISTRICT COURT JUD@E ROMAN ABUSED HIS DISCRETION AND
RENDERED AT SPIRIDONAAOS? REBUEST9 AN IRRATIONAL ARBITRAR4
ORDER DISMISSIN@ NOT ONL4 SPIRIDONAAOS? CASE BASED ON
BREACH OF CONTRACT AND FRAUD9 BUT ALSO PRESENT CASE$ HIS
ACTIONS CLEARL4 REPRESENT E@RE@IOUS FRAUD ON THE COURT$
C'$ Spiridona5os 3as ser/ed 3ith 3ai/er of ser/ice on $u*ust 1, 2013 and did not
su(%it a %otion to dis%iss or ans3er till 'cto(er 22, 2013 3hen she irrationall)
su(%itted a %otion requestin* to dis%iss (oth le*al cases 3ithout an) RATIONAL
(asis. S2e defa,"ted as a matte+ !f "aw 8- fa",+e t! tme"- +es.!nd t! t2e
/!m."ant$ Cer default %ooted an) further applications she %ade to the court that
"a/6ed t2e "ve /!nt+!ve+s- and a+e m!!t. 'n 'cto(er 30, 2013, Spiridona5os
su(%itted a &e%orandu% of Ba3 in 3hich irrationall) and senseless, clai%ed res
judicata, collateral estoppel, ,oo5er 7eld%an preclusion doctrine, and 3itness i%%unit)
for pro/idin* testi%on) in court. +onetheless, she ne/er 3as sued () 1laintiff "res
judicata, collateral estoppel and ,oo5er 7eld%an doctrine do not appl)#, and ne/er
pro/ided an) testi%on) in court. Thus, in ar*uendo () ad%itio ad a(surdu% that she did
not default, her illo*ical and irrational alle*ations 3ould pre/ent an) un(iased jud*e, or
an) %e%(er of a jur), to consider such irrational and (iHarre alle*ations.
JUD@E NELSON ROMAN ACTED AS A LAW4ER IN BEHALF OF
DEFENDANTS IN A SUA SPONTE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DISMISSIN@ PLAINTIFF?S COMPLAINT9 IN CLEAR AND CONVINCIN@
VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF?S DUE PROCESS
49. En an irrational ar(itrar) action and a(use of discretion, jud*e ,o%an used the
fraudulent consolidation of (oth le*al cases to render a sin*le order dis%issin* <ETC
1,:4U-EC: not onl) the co%plaint a*ainst Spiridona5os, (ut at her illo*ical request,
dis%issed the a%ended co%plaint, despite that she 3as not a defendant in the case.
4ud*e ,o%an /iolated 1laintiff2s constitutional ri*ht of due process, () pre%aturel)
ter%inatin* le*al proceedin*s and pre/ented 1laintiff to liti*ate his %eritorious case.
-is%issal 3ith prejudice is reser/ed onl) to the %ost reprehensi(le cases, in present
le*al case proof of jud*e2s prejudice and (ias to3ard the 1laintiff.
JUD@E NELSON ROMAN IN E@RE@IOUS ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND
FRAUD ON THE COURT9 DECREED AN ORDER AND INSTRUCTED
COURT?S CLERA TO DECREE A JUD@MENT VOID AB INITIO DUE TO
PRIOR DEFAULT OF THE DEFENDANTS HE I@NORED AS EDISTENT$
48. 4ud*e ,o%an decreed an in/alid order and directed a jud*%ent, lac5in* the standin*,
disre*ardin* that all the defendants alread) defaulted as a %atter of fact and la3.
JUD@E ROMAN COMMITED FRAUD ON THE COURT B4 FAILIN@ TO ACT
UPON PLAINTIFF?S MOTION PURSUANT TO FRCP EE &8( &#( AND
FRAUDULENTL4 DENIED PLAINTIFF?S MOTION PURSUANT TO FRCP EE
&8( &%( THAT CLERA OF COURT FAILED TO ACT$
49. 4ud*e ,o%an co/ered up cler5 of court2s *ross ne*li*ence to act upon a ti%el) and
correctl) su(%itted application pursuant to 7,C1 "(# "1# and denied this application
3ithout a reasonin*. Cler5 of court failed to perfor% the %andator) function to act upon
application of liti*ants. The co/er up continued () jud*e ,o%an2s failure to act upon a
ti%el) application of 1laintiff pursuant to 7,C1 "(# "2# concealed () cler5 of court.
SUMMAR4 OF THE AR@UMENT
49. This is a le*al case co%%enced in (ad faith, and contu%aciousl) continued ()
for%er $?, $ndre3 Cuo%o, in lac5 of pro(a(le cause and lac5 of standin*. Cuo%o
in/o5ed his authorit) as parens patriae, to fraudulentl) prosecute a respected %e%(er of
co%%unit) 3ell 5no3n for his research and pu(lications in oriental arts. Cuo%o2s
in/ocation of parens patriae 3as false, lac5ed standin*, not (ased on an) le*al (asis and
certainl) lac5in* the understandin* of scientific truth. Cis prosecutorial %isconduct is
(ased on %isrepresentation and deceit, in le*al actions de%onstratin* rac5eteerin*
acti/ities of cri%inal acts of felonies, %ost of the% co%%itted in his in/esti*ati/e
functions 3here is not protected () the a(solute prosecutorial i%%unit). 6no3in*l) and
3illin*l), Cuo%o and his counsel, ?arin, conspired 3ith cri%inal person Spiridona5os
to co%%it, inter alia, cri%inal acts of (lac5%ail, e=tortion and fraud on the 1laintiff ()
5no3in*l) and 3illin*l) usin* %isla(eled "%is(randed# and for*ed forensic e/idence,
for*ed e/idence () counterfeit of hand 3ritin*, perjur) and su(ornation of perjur), etc.
<ith full 5no3led*e of the lac5 of pro(ati/e /alue, Cuo%o and ?arin, in rac5eteerin*
acts, co%%itted o(struction of justice, uttered to the court for*ed, concealed and
fa(ricated e/idence, in conspirac) 3ith Spiridona5os, char*in* 1laintiff 3ith concocted
and confa(ulated char*es. Cuo%o and ?arin in the nonAad/ocator) function /iolated
federal penal la3 18 USC Sec. 1349@ F$n) person 3ho atte%pts or conspires to co%%it
an) offense in this chapter, shall (e su(ject to the sa%e penalties as those prescri(ed for
the offense, the co%%ission of 3hich 3as the su(ject of the atte%pt or conspirac)F. En
accordance 3ith penal la3 18 USC 1349, Cuo%o and ?arin are lia(le to i%prison%ent
of up to 20 )ears, fines or (oth. En addition, %alfeasance in the office de%ands their
dis(ar%ent and i%peach%ent fro% the office. $lthou*h in/esti*ati/e acti/it) entitles to
*ood faith qualified i%%unit), the cri%inal acts co%%itted in the a(sence of a(solute
i%%unit), do not a(sol/e the perpetrators of cri%es fro% cri%inal prosecution. En this
process of in/esti*ati/e function, Cuo%o and ?arin, cri%inall) for*ed e/idence ()
o(struction fro% /ie3 and concealed e=culpator) e/idence, a(ettin*, supportin* and
encoura*in* the co%%ittal of felonious acts, (lac5%ailin* and defraudin* the 1laintiff,
a(ettin* the theft of precious %erchandise () su(stitution of the purchased ite% 3ith
/alueless fa5e, (ri(in* potential 3itnesses () solicitin* the% to request refunds and
(reach the contract to3ard the offerin* of an ille*al retroacti/e interest of 9 I to the
date of purchase 3ithout clai%in* %isrepresentation of the purchased ite%s, e/en
request refund of the auction co%%issions 3here 1laintiff 3as not responsi(le as (ein* a
consi*nor. En his non ad/ocator) function and de/oid of a(solute i%%unit), the
prosecutor li(eled 1laintiff in 2 releases to %edia () false and decei/in* state%ents, 3ith
full 5no3led*e that the state%ents 3ere false and intended to de*rade, assassinate the
i%%aculate personal character of 1laintiff and atte%pt to attract for%er custo%ers into
as5in* for refunds 3ith the opportunit) to enrich the%sel/es fro% the considera(le
offered (ri(e. En a conte%pt of court, ?arin and Cuo%o, /iolated the *a* order i%posed
() court re*ardin* the T,'. En %ost e*re*ious action in the in/esti*ati/e function
de/oid of i%%unit), Cuo%o co%%itted %alicious prosecution and a(use of process
/iolatin* due process ri*hts under USC 14
th
a%end%ent and USC Sec 1983. Cuo%o
proceeded to3ard e=ecution of 1laintiff2s ho%e and thereafter, e=ecution of the propert)
(ased on a /oid a( initio and unenforcea(le order and jud*%ent of $4SC 1a*ones that
lac5ed an) jurisdiction. Cuo%o and ?arin solicited an international Ffla%erG to attac5
1laintiff on the Enternet and solicit for%er custo%ers to request refunds. Cuo%o2s
felonies co%%itted in the non judicial and non in/esti*ati/e of %edia2s li(el acti/ities
depri/ed the prosecutor of his qualified i%%unit).
0. Cuo%o co%%enced the le*al action 3ithout ser/ice of le*al action and su(sequentl),
the orders and jud*%ents decreed in a(sence of jurisdiction, 3ere /oid as a %atter of la3
due to lac5 of personal and su(ject %atter jurisdiction. 4SC 4a%es ;rands decreed a
T,' in a(sence of jurisdiction. Si%ilarl), $4SC Tho%as -olan decreed a jud*%ent
3ithout jurisdiction and ille*all) decreed a per%anent injunction 3ithout a hearin*.
Cuo%o en*a*ed in dilator) actions in order to dela) the proceedin*s, accu%%ulate %ore
ille*al retroacti/e interest and harass 1laintiff. Cuo%o failed to enter the jud*%ent of
$4SC -olan 3ithin !0 da)s and su(sequentl) defaulted. Ce did not restart the le*al
action 3ithin ! %onths, and defaulted a*ain. $4SC 4a%es 1a*ones 3as assi*ned %ore
than 10 %onths after the jud*%ent decreed () jud*e -olan and a*ain, failed to o(tain
jurisdiction of the court () failure of $? to ser/e 1laintiff 3ith de no/o le*al action.
Su(sequentl), the decree and jud*%ent of jud*e 1a*ones 3as /oid a( initio for lac5 of
jurisdiction. +either of the jud*es of SC-C 3ho decreed orders and jud*%ents instituted
a conference or hearin*, thus, the orders and jud*%ents 3ere e= parte orders and
jud*%ents, /oid and null 3ithout an) authorit) to enforce the%. SC-C decreed orders
and jud*%ents t)picall) rendered in F5an*aroo courtsG of autocratic re*i%es, lac5in* of
an) ci/il ri*hts. 1laintiff2s constititional ri*hts under 1
st
,
th
. !
th
. 9
th
, 8
th
, and 14
th
a%end%ents of USC 3ere /iolated in SC-C 5an*aroo courts, as 3ell as in
Southern -istrict of +. and 2d Circuit Court of $ppeals federal courts.
AR@UMENT
1. 7or%er $? of +. State, $ndre3 Cuo%o, co%%enced in (ad faith a le*al action
a*ainst &ircea 8eleanu, in/o5in* the 1arens 1atriae doctrine, authorit) dele*ated under
?;B 349 and :=ecuti/e Ba3 !3.12. +onetheless, this le*al case does not qualif) under
1arens 1atriae doctrine that requires a 3 steps test entitle%ent@ 1. The state %ust
articulate a quasiAso/erei*n interest that is distin*uisha(le fro% the interest of pri/ate
parties. See $(ra%s / 11 Corn3ell Co., !9 72d at 38A39 "2d Cir. 1982#. En the present
le*al case, for%er $? Cuo%o, did not su(stantiate () an) ar*u%ent that the state has
an) quasiAso/erei*n interest in (ehalf of state, other than fraudulentl) inter/enin* in a
case 3here the co%plainant 3ho is not a citiHen of +. State, had no standin* in lac5 of
injur), and 3as protected () a co%%ercial contract 3ith the seller, clai%ed irrational and
false alle*ations not supported () an) plausi(le *rounds. 2. The second step in testin*
the eli*i(ilit) of standin* of $? to clai% 1arens 1atriae doctrine, is that the state %ust
alle*e injur) to a su(stantial se*%ent of the population, or threatened 3ith injur) () the
defendant conduct. See $lfred B. Snapp > Son, Enc., /. 1uerto ,ico, e= rel ;aretH, 48
US 92, !00 "1982#, at !09. See also, 1eople / 1eter > 4ohn2s 1u%p Couse Enc., 914 7
Supp 809, 811, 812 "+-+. 199!#, at 812. En this le*al case, $? Cuo%o failed to
sustain the require%ent of this le*al step, as far fro% lac5 of in/ol/in* a siHa(le se*%ent
of population, %erel), onl) one sin*le case of a co%plainant 3ho (reached the contract,
co%%itted cri%inal acts of %isla(elin* of forensic e/idence, for*er) () counterfeit of
the e/idence, accepted (ri(er) fro% Cuo%o, (lac5%ailed, e=torted and defrauded the
seller, e/en 3hen secured () a co%%ercial contract of her custo%er ri*hts, and
co%%itted perjur). Cuo%o failed to e=ercise due dili*ence () in/esti*atin* her
fraudulent alle*ations prior co%%encin* the le*al suit a*ainst 1laintiff. 3. The third step
in deter%inin* the standin* of $? to clai% 1arens 1atriae doctrine, requires $? to
su(stantiate that the in/ol/ed indi/iduals 3ho sustained injur), could not o(tain a relief
throu*h a pri/ate suit. See FState 1arens 1atriae $uthorit); The e/olution of the +.
State $ttorne) ?eneral 'fficeG () 4a) B. Ci%es, Chief $ntitrust ;ureau, office of +.
State $ttorne) ?eneral "$pril 23, 2004#. The 1arens 1atriae doctrine does not in/ol/e
the state steppin* in to represent the interests of pri/ate citiHens 3ho for different
reasons cannot represent the%sel/es. Ef the state is onl) a no%inal part) 3ithout a real
interest of its o3n, then it 3ill not ha/e standin* under the 1arens patriae doctrine.
Snapp at !01. See also Cliff /. 8acco, 2!9 $- 2d 931, !99 +.S 2d 991 "3
rd
-ept. 1999#"
A@?s a,t2!+t- ,nde+ N4S E5e/ Law 'F d!es n!t e5tend t! t2e +e.+esentat!n !f
.+vate ndvd,a"s n matte+s nv!"vn1 t2e enf!+/ement !f .+vate +12ts #. 1laintiff
a/ers that standard of re/ie3 is de no/o and that all properl) pleaded factual alle*ations
%ust (e considered as true. -e 4esus / Sears, ,oe(uc5 > Co., 89 7 3d , !. 90 "2d Cir.
199!# &/!n/",s!na+- a""e1at!ns !+ "e1a" /!n/",s!ns mas7,e+adn1 as fa/t,a"
/!n/",s!ns need n!t 8e a//e.ted3($ $ll alle*ations in the $?2s counsel in his
&e%oranda of Ba3, as 3ell as jud*e ,o%an2s &e%oranda 3ere conclusionar), lac5in*
an) factual e/idence, other than statin* le*al cases 3ithout an) relationship to factual
representation of present case issues. The standin* of 1arens 1atriae requires $? to
sho3 in addition to injur) to a su(stantial se*%ent of population, a quasiAso/erei*n
interest that is distinct fro% the interest of particular pri/ate citiHens. En Ta(le ;loof
,eser/ation "<)ot Tri(e# / 1hilip &orris, Enc., 2! 73d, 899, 88"9
th
Cir 2001#, the
+inth Circuit held that (efore an) could sue under 1arens 1atrae, the 1laintiff Tri(e
F%ust alle*e injur) in fact to the citiHens the) purport to representG. ;ecause the Tri(es
had failed to sho3 injur) to their %e%(ers, the Court found that the) lac5ed 1arens
1atriae standin*. Ed $ccord +e3 .or5 / &icrosoft Corp., 209 7 Sup 2d 132, 149A0
"--C 2002# "1arens 1atriae %ust esta(lish that $rticle EEE standin* requisitions 3ere
%et#. En su%, Cuo%o failed to %eet all 3 require%ents for standin* under 1arens 1atriae
and 1laintiff is entitled to full relief.
2. ,EC' is a cri%inal and ci/il statute desi*ned to eli%inate the influence of or*aniHed
cri%e and an) corrupt practice. See FCi/il ,EC' and 1arens 1atriae@ Bo3erin* liti*ation
(arriers throu*h State inter/entionG () ;eth Schipper. <illia% > &ar) Ba3 ,e/ie3,
8ol 24, Essue 3, $rticle 4. $n Fenterprise includes *o/ern%ent entitiesG. See US /
Tur5ette, 42 US 9! "1981#. See also@ ;la5e) > ?ettin*s@ F,ac5eteer influenced and
corrupt or*aniHations ",EC'#. ;asic conceptsACri%inal and ci/il re%ediesF. 3 Te%p
BO 1004 1023A28 "1980#. 18 USC Sec 19!1 "1# defines rac5eteerin* acti/it) as an)
serious state felon), or /iolation of federal la3 as (ri(er), counterfeitin*, interstate theft,
e=tortion, %ail or 3ire fraud, o(struction of justice, etc., e=actl) the cri%inal acts that
1laintiff is in/o5in* in this le*al action. See Straffer, &assu%i > S5olnic5@ FCi/il ,EC'
in the 1u(lic Enterest@ F:/er)(od)2s -arlin*G. 19 $&. Co%. B. ,e/. !, !!A9 "1982#.
;ecause ,ac5eteerin* acti/ities are state and federal offenses, ,EC' Con*ress2
le*islation under 1USC Sec.1 created ne3 re%edies to deal 3ith ,EC' offenses. The
statute per%its indi/iduals to act as pri/ate attorne) *eneral and sue for tre(le da%a*es.
See 6aushal / State ;an5 of Endia, +o. 82 C 9414 "+- Ell 1983#. ,EC' arose fro% deep
concern of Con*ress o/er 3hite collar cri%e and m!st"- !ve+ 1!ve+nment /!++,.t!n.
3. Be/a,se RICO .+!28ts /!nd,/t9 n!t states &See US v F!+s-t2e9 E'> F#d %%#<9
%%F' &F
+d
$ C+ %G<<(9 ts /v" +emedes a+e nte1+ated 8+!ad"-$ See %= USC Se/$ %G'#
&%G<'($ %= USC Se/$ %G'C &a( &%G<'($ It /!nfe+s 0,+sd/t!n !n t2e fede+a" dst+/t
/!,+t t! 2ea+ /v" RICO a/t!ns and .+e/",des State A@ t! nv!6e %%
t2
Amendment
and a8s!",te mm,nt-$
This le*al case liti*ation () 1laintiff is e=actl) follo3in* the prescription of 1USC Sec
1c that federal court acts in joinder 3ith the state interests represented () State
$ttorne) ?eneral and pri/ate 1laintiff2s le*al action in eradicatin* the deep corruption
of +e3 .or5 State Courts includin* the State $ppellate Court, ()passin* the authorit) of
the $ppellate Court.
4. 18 USC Sec 19!4 "(# pro/ides for a ci/il ,EC' action allo3in* State $? to institute
proceedin* under this section; 3hile 18 USC Sec 19!4 c, pro/ides for an a**rie/ed
person to sue in the federal court. This statute prescri(es@ F$n) person injured in his
(usiness or propert) () reason of a /iolation of section 19!2 of this chapter %a) sue
therefore in an) appropriate district court and shall reco/er threefold the da%a*es he
sustains and the cost of the suit, includin* a reasona(le attorne)2s feesF. ;) enactin* the
,EC' la3s, Con*ress 3as e=tre%el) effecti/e in pre/entin* and rectif)in* econo%ic
har% to indi/iduals and co%panies, and furtherin* the pu(lic purpose of pre/entin*
i%proper co%%ercial practicesG. 11! Con*. ,ec. 3, 229 "1990#. This case fits the preA
requisites of rac5eteerin* pattern of at least 2 acts occurrin* 3ithin 10 )ears, interrelated
() a co%%on sche%e to for% a pattern. Cuo%o controlled the enterprise throu*h the
rac5eteerin*, and the act of rac5eteerin* caused injur) to plaintiff. See US / Stofs5), 409
7 Supp !09, !14 "S-+. 1993#, aff2d., 29 72d 239 "2d Cir 199#, cert. denied. The
proof of the lin5 (et3een the acti/it) and injur) is essential See US / +erone, !3 72d
83! "9
th
Cir 1999# cert. den2d.
. En their in/esti*ati/e function de/oid of a(solute i%%unit), Cuo%o and ?arin, inter
alia, co%%itted the follo3in* federal cri%es, all proof of rac5eteerin* acti/it)@ 1.
;ri(er) of 3itnesses "punisha(le under 18 USC Sec. 201; 2. 7alse state%ents to the
%edia "punisha(le under 18 USC Sec 1001#; 3. 7raudulent acti/it) throu*h the %edia
"T8, ,adio, 3ire, Enternet#, punisha(le under 18 USC Sec 1343; 4. $idin* and a(ettin*
cri%inal acti/it) "see theft of propert) and su(stitution 3ith /alueless fa5e () -iana
+orton# punisha(le under 18 USC Sec 2;
. :n*a*in* in %onetar) transactions in propert) deri/ed fro% specific unla3ful acti/it)
"funds ori*inated fro% ille*al puniti/e penalties decreed () $4SC 1a*ones distri(uted to
,EC' cola(orators# punisha(le under 18 USC Sec 199; !. 7raud and false state%ents
offenses in/ol/in* the inte*rit) of in/esti*ati/e process "false declarations under penalt)
of perjur), aid and assistance of procure%ent of false or fraudulentl) e=ecuted entries
and docu%ents () jud*es, re%o/al or conceal%ent 3ith intent to defraud, 3ithholdin*,
falsif)in* or destro)in* docu%ents, etc.#, punisha(le under 2! USC Sec 920!; 9.
'(struction of justice () o(struction of proceedin* under the $ntiAtrust Ci/il 1rocess
$ct, punisha(le under 18 USC Sec 10; 8. '(struction of court order "conte%pt of
court () /iolation of *a* order of jud*e ;rands# punisha(le under 18 USC Sec. 109;
9. '(struction of cri%inal in/esti*ation ",eA-iana +orton theft of propert)# punisha(le
under 18 USC Sec. 110; 10. Ta%perin* 3ith 3itnesses, punisha(le under 18 USC Sec.
112; 11. -estruction, alteration, or falsification of le*al records; 12. 1erjur), punisha(le
under 18 USC Sec. 1!21; 13. Su(ornation of perjur) punisha(le under 18 USC Sec.
1!22; 14. 7alse declaration (efore a court, punisha(le under 18 USC Sec. 1!23; 1.
Cri%inal conte%pt punisha(le under 18 USC Sec. 402; 1!. ,ac5eteerin* conspirac)
punisha(le under 18 USC Sec 19!2 c, etc. 19. Conspirac) a*ainst constitutional ri*hts
under Sec. 1983 punisha(le under 18 USC Sec. 241; depri/ation of constitutional ri*hts
punisha(le under 18 USC Sec. 242;
E'$ The o(jecti/e of ,EC' is to turn an) /icti% in pri/ate prosecutors $?2s actin* in
(ehalf of people to eli%inate rac5eteerin* acti/it). See ,otella / <ood et al. certiorari to
the US Court of $ppeals for the
th
. Circuit +o. 98A89! "2000#. <hile jud*e ,o%an
clai%s that Spiridona5os is a 3itness of prosecution, this case is proof of rac5eteerin*
3here Spiridona5os 3as an associate of the rac5eteerin* acts and co%%itted cri%inal
acts in (ehalf of the :nterprise. 1laintiff is a /icti% of rac5eteerin* acts of Spiridona5os
and a 3itness a*ainst the :nterprise rather than /ice /ersa. +e/ertheless, 1laintiff did
not sue Spiridona5os for her rac5eteerin* cri%inal acts, rather for the (reach of contract
and frauds co%%itted to co/er up the (reach of contract () fraud.
9.The initial require%ent for standin* under 1arens patriae is the sho3 of injur) that
affects not onl) the pri/ate parties, (ut the state itself as a quasiAso/erei*n interest apart
fro% the pri/ate parties interests. &an) appellate courts ha/e concluded that a state does
not ha/e a standin* (ecause the da%a*es sustained () the state 3ere Fderi/ati/eG, or
Ftoo re%oteG. :,*. ?ani% / S%ith > <esson Corp., 980 $2d 98, 108 "Conn. 2001#. En
the present le*al case, Cuo%o did not alle*e an) injur) sustained () the state in its quasi
so/erei*n interest to satisf) 1arens patriae doctrine.
8. The defendants2 counsel did not tr) to de(ate or (rin* an) ar*u%ents a*ainst USC1
Sec. 1c that allo3s the 1laintiff to sue the $? in his official capacit) 3hen $? de/iates
fro% his official duties, F%a5in* %otions or asserted clai%s or defenses so lac5in* in
%erit as to sho3 that such part) or representati/e acted intentionall) for dela) or
other3ise acted in (ad faithG "See 1 USC Sec.1 "a# "2#"$#. &oreo/er, 1 USC Sec 1c
"a# "2#";# prescri(es that F3hether, in the course of the action in/ol/ed, such State or the
opposin* part), or either the part)2s representati/e, /iolated an) applica(le rule, statute,
or court order pro/idin* for sanctions for dilator) (eha/ior or other3ise pro/idin* for
e=peditious proceedin*G. 7inall), 1 USC 1c specifies in 1ara*raph "a# "2# C@ F3hether
such state or the opposin* part), or either the part)2s representati/e, en*a*ed in conduct
pri%aril) for the purpose of dela)in* the liti*ation or increasin* the cost thereofG. The
a(o/e 3 para*raphs of this Title, on (ase of the e/idence pro/ided, irrefuta(l) appl) to
this le*al case and the State representati/e "for%er $? $ndre3 Cuo%o is lia(le for the
/iolations clearl) sho3n in this Title that de%and his prosecution as a felon#. 7urther on,
this Title under para*raph "d# "2# pro/ides that Fthe court %a), in its discretion, a3ard a
reasona(le attorne)2s fee to a pre/ailin* defendant upon a findin* that the State $ttorne)
?eneral has acted in (ad faith, /e=atiousl), 3antonl), or for oppressi/e reasonsG.
P"antff s entt"ed t! +e"ef a1anst f!+me+ A@ And+ew C,!m! a/tn1 n 2s
.e+s!na" /a.a/t- w2e+e %%
t2
Amendment and a8s!",te mm,nt- d! n!t a.."-$
9. Et is 3ell settled that $? and his counsel "'$?# are entitled to a(solute i%%unit)
3hen actin* in his ad/ocator) function "other than unla3full) actin* under 1arens
1atriae doctrine 3hen sued under federal 1USC 1 C 3here 11
th
$%end%ent and
a(solute i%%unit) do not appl)#. +e/ertheless, the prosecutor is not co/ered () a(solute
i%%unit) 3hen perfor%in* in/esti*ati/e function. En this le*al case, %ost of the
ille*alities, felonious acts and fraud acts 3ere co%%itted () Cuo%o in the in/esti*ati/e
role. Oualified i%%unit) protects prosecutors unless their conduct /iolates clearl)
esta(lished constitutional ri*hts or statutor) of 3hich a reasona(le person 3ould ha/e
5no3n. See Carlo3 / 7itH*erald, 49 US 80!, 818 "1982#. En ;uc5le) / 7itHi%%ons,
09 US 29, 2!9 "1993#, Supre%e Court held that prosecutors are not entitled to
a(solute i%%unit) a*ainst clai%s 3hen Fthe) conspired to %anufacture false e/idenceG.
;uc5le) 09 US at 292. Supre%e Court noted that the alle*ed fa(ricated e/idence F3as
entirel) in/esti*ati/e in characterG. Ed at 294. The a(solute i%%unit) of prosecutor
Fdepends principall) on the nature of the function perfor%ed, not on the office itselfG.
See .in* 4in* ?an / Cit) of +., 99! 72d 22, 30 "2d Cir 1993#; see also 6alina /
7letcher, 22 118 "1999#. The qualified *ood faith i%%unit) does not protect $? 3hen
perfor%in* the non ad/ocator) functions in the preAtrial phase. '(/iousl), co%%ittal of
felonies () for%er $? Cuo%o %a5es hi% lia(le for the cri%inal acts 3ith %andator)
i%position of fines, i%prison%ent or (oth, and i%peach%ent fro% office for
%alfeasance. :/en 3hen not in/o5in* 1USC Sec 1c, 11
th
a%end%ent preclusion does
not appl) to the prosecutor actin* in his personal capacit), perfor%in* the non
ad/ocator) function as present case2s release of false and decei/in* state%ents to %edia,
/iolation of state and federal la3s, codes, rules and re*ulations. Cuo%o and ?arin %ade
li(elous state%ents to the %edia, /iolated the *a* order of justice 4a%es ;rands in
conte%pt of court and co%%itted se/eral cri%inal acts alread) stated. En su%, Cuo%o
and ?arin actin* in their personal capacit) are not protected () a(solute i%%unit), and
*ood faith i%%unit) does not appl) and protect for co%%ital of cri%inal acts. 11
th
.
$%end%ent does not appl) in Con*ress edict statute 1USC Sec. 1c, 3here equall),
state $? is entitled to relief, as 3ell as the state citiHen 3hose ri*hts 3ere /iolated ()
$?.
State 0,d1es s,ed n t2e Dst+/t C!,+t "a/6ed t2e .e+s!na" and s,80e/t matte+
0,+sd/t!n9 t2,s9 a"" !+de+s and 0,d1ments de/+eed a+e n,"" and v!d a8 nt! d,e
t! /!m."ete "a/6 !f 0,+sd/t!n$
!0. The order and jud*%ent decreed () $4SC -olan and $4SC 1a*ones in SC-C are
null and /oid due to lac5 of personal and su(ject %atter jurisdiction, as 3ell as disputed
territorial jurisdiction.
!1. The orders decreed in State2s $ppellate Court Second -epart%ent "$C# are /oid and
in/alid as lac5in* the standin*. $n $ppellate Court cannot confer jurisdiction nunc pro
tunc to a /oid trial court jud*%ent lac5in* the jurisdiction. $C decreed an order
dis%issin* 1laintiff2s $ppeal () fraud on the court () failin* to re/ie3 the trial court2s
proceedin*, () not ans3erin* to the posed questions and i*norin* 1laintiff2s ;rief2s
contentions. 7urther%ore, $C co%%itted se/eral frauds on the court in the proceedin* of
$rticle 98 as follo3s@ in/o5in* a co%%on le*al case that is not applica(le to
require%ents of $rticle 98 "C1B, 9801#, pre%aturel) ter%inatin* the proceedin* in a
fraudulent sua sponte decision and order that 3as %oot due to 1laintiff2s %otion for
su%%ar) jud*%ent that preceded () 9 da)s the order and jud*%ent of $rticle 98.
!2. ,oo5er 7eld%an doctrine do not appl) as the State Court2s $rticle 98 proceedin* is
li%ited in jurisdiction and the procedures in state courts did not adjudicate the %ultiple
causes of action. '(/iousl), the federal suit has different causes of actions, different
defendants and not applica(le to ,oo5er 7eld%an doctrine. +. state preclusion clai%
does not appl) to $rticle 98 proceedin* that lac5s po3er to a3ard the relief a/aila(le in
Sec. 1983 liti*ation. See -a/idson / Capuano, 992 72d 29, 298A99 "2d Cir. 198!#; see
also Colon / Cou*hlin, 8 72d 8!, 890 n3 "2d Cir 199#. Essue preclusion pertinent to
,oo5er 7eld%an doctrine applies onl) 3hen the issue in question 3as actuall) decided
in the prior state proceedin* and the part) a*ainst 3ho% the doctrine is asserted had a
full and fair opportunit) to liti*ate the issue. '(/iousl), 1laintiff did not ha/e the
opportunit) to fairl) liti*ate in a (iased court that /iolates the due process ()
pre%aturel) endin* $rticle 98 in a sua sponte order.
&ost i%portantl), this le*al case does not request re/ie3 of federal court of state le*al
proceedin*s, a preArequisite of ,oo5er 7eld%an doctrine.
FORMER A@ CUOMO DEFENSE IN FEDERAL COURT BASED ON RULE %#
&8( &'( OF FRCP INVOAIN@ RES JUDICATA9
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL9 ROOAER FELDMAN DOCTRINE9 %%
TH


AMENDMENT AND ABSOLUTE IMMUNIT4 DOES NOT HAVE STANDIN@$
'F$ C,!m! t2+!,12 2s /!,nse" nv!6ed t2e a8!ve stated defense a""e1at!ns n t2e
state AC a+t/"e <= .+!/eedn1$ In t2e Dst+/t C!,+t .+!/eedn1 2e s .+e/",ded 8-
"aw t! nv!6e t2e same defense a""e1at!ns$ M!+e!ve+9 state AC dened 2s m!t!n
f!+ dsmssa" !f .+!/eedn1 8ased !n t2e a8!ve stated a""e1at!ns$ C,!m! "!st t2e
defense n t2e state t+8,na"9 t2,s9 R!!6e+ Fe"dman d!/t+ne .+e/",des 2m and a""
t2e defendants 2e +e.+esents t! /"am t2e same defense n t2e fede+a" /!,+t$
:*re*ious and (iased inter/ention of jud*e ,o%an as a la3)er in (ehalf of the
defendants in this le*al action precludes hi% as 3ell, to clai% res judicata, collateral
estoppel, a(solute i%%unit) and 11
th
$%end%ent 3ith the (elief that he can do a (etter
jo( than counsel 1epper, "these defenses 3ere alread) used () $$? 1epper in the State
$rticle 98 proceedin* and no3 precluded in -istrict Court#. 4ud*e ,o%an in clear fraud
on the court, pre%aturel) ter%inated 1laintiff2s ri*hts to present e/idence in court, in a
fraudulent sua sponte order, and directed jud*%ent to cler5 of court. The fraud on the
court consisted in renderin* a /oid 'rder and 4ud*%ent due to prior default of all
defendants to su(%it a ti%el) $ns3er to $%ended co%plaint or %otion to dis%iss. See
E528ts$
CLERA OF STATE AC9 APRILANNE A@OSTINO9 ACTIN@ UNDER
THE COLOR OF STATE LAW VIOLATED PLAINTIFF?S CONSTITUTIONAL
RI@HTS UNDER %C AMENDMENT9 SEC$ %G=F AND %G==9 AND IN
CONSPIRAC4 WITH JUSTICES OF AC HELD PLAINTIFF?S APPLICATION
FOR SUMMAR4 JUD@MENT B4 ARBITRARIL4 FAILIN@ TO ACT UPON
THE MOTION$
!4. ;) failin* to act upon 1laintiff2s %otion for relief in her %inisterial and %andator)
function, she allo3ed $C2s justices to render a fraudulent jud*%ent that did not precede
1laintiffJs %otion for SU&&$,. 4U-?&:+T. ?o/ern%ent e%plo)ees as $*ostino
enjo) qualified i%%unit) 3hen the) perfor%ed discretionar) functions insofar as their
conduct does not /iolate Fclearl) esta(lished statutor) or constitutional ri*hts of 3hich a
reasona(le person 3ould ha/e 5no3nG. See Carlo3 8 7itH*erald, 49 US 800, 818A19 at
81. See also 7inne*an / 7ountain, 91, 72d 819, 823 "2d Cir 1990#. $*ostino acted in
(ad faith co%%ittin* 3illful %isconduct and *ross ne*li*ence for 3hich she is de/oid of
i%%unit). See &osherASi%ons / Count) of $lle*an), 94 C8 394S, 1999 <B !!212 at
P! "<-+. 1999#. "F*ross ne*li*ence under%ines the presu%ption of *ood faith
perfor%ance and pre/ents the in/ocation of i%%unit)G#. F?ross ne*li*ence is defined as
an a**ra/ated disre*ard for the ri*hts and safet) and othersG. &oshersASi%ons, 1999
<B !!212 at P!, quotin* ,icciardi / Con :dison, 1!1 &isc. 2d 919, 918, !1 +.S 2d
84, 8 "1994#. Cler5 of Court $*ostino is sued in present action for o(struction of
justice under 18 USC Sec. 109, 18 USC Sec 10, and failure to perfor% her
%andator) and %inisterial function de/oid of an) i%%unit) punisha(le under 18 USC
Sec. 401. $*ostino acted as an associate in the rac5eteerin* sche%e of the :nterprise
conducted () Cuo%o.
!. 4anet Spiridona5os did not pro/ide testi%on) in court for $? Cuo%o and is not a
3itness in a rac5eteerin* case. En opposition to Cuo%o2s alle*ations, 1laintiff is rather
the 3itness and /icti% of the rac5eteerin* acts and not Spiridona5os 3ho is a 3illin*
and acti/e participant in the rac5eteerin* acts of :nterprise headed () $? Cuo%o.
<itnesses not testif)in* at trial are not entitled to a(solute i%%unit). &oreo/er,
co%plainin* 3itnesses 3ere ne/er afforded a(solute i%%unit). See 1a)ne / Cit) of
Bo%poc, 1!0 73d !4A! "9
th
Cir 2000# "<itness2 a(solute i%%unit) does not shield an
outAofAcourt preAtrial conspirac) to en*a*e in nonAtesti%onial acts such as fa(ricatin* a
ph)sical or docu%entar) e/idence, or suppressin* the identities of potential 3itnesses#.
Spiridona5os ne/er testified in court and 1laintiff ne/er had the opportunit) to cross
e=a%ine her. 7urther %ore, in 6e5o / Cin*le, 318 73d !39, !42 "
th
Cir 2003#, a(solute
i%%unit) 3as denied to a 3itness as the testi%on) 3as not offered at trial, (ut at a
hearin*; police officers 3ho act as co%plainin* 3itnesses do not ha/e a(solute
i%%unit). See <hite / 7ran5, 8 72d 9!, 9!1 "2d Cir 1988#; $nthon) / ;a5er, 9!9
72d !9, !!0 "10 Cir 198# "Court refusal to e=tend a(solute i%%unit) to *rand jur)
3itnesses#; San 7ilippo / US Trust Co., 939 72d 24!, 2 "2d Cir. 1984# "no a(solute
i%%unit) for alle*ed conspirac) (et3een prosecutor and 3itness to secure false
testi%on) (efore *rand jur)#; <heeler / Cosden 'il > Che%ical Co., 934 72d 24, 2!1
"
th
Cir 1984# "den)in* a(solute i%%unit) to 3itness 3ho testified at pro(a(le cause
hearin*#.
JUD@E ROMAN IN HIS MEMORANDUM ORDER DISMISSIN@ THE CASE
COMMITTED LE@AL PLA@IARISM B4 IDENTICAL COP4IN@ OF ENTIRE
SECTIONS OF US DISTRICT COURT MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND
ORDER #)%# CV >FC=C &ADS( &WDW( DATED MA4 #G9 #>%F$
''$ $lthou*h le*al citations of co%%on la3 cases2 content is at $%erican jurisprudence
(asis, cop)in* of identical sections of le*al decisions 3ithout citation is unethical, ille*al
and cri%inal if an) %aterial (enefit is deri/ed fro%. 4ud*e ,o%an2s &e%orandu% >
'rder dis%issin* this case contains 3ordA()A3ord identical duplication of se/eral issues
raised in case $n*hel / +. State -epart%ent of Cealth et al. 7or e=a%ple@ collateral
estoppel of pa*e 8 of &e%orandu%9 Chapter E8 :le/enth $%end%ent and Chapter 8
$(solute i%%unit). The Conclusion is identical 3ith the e=ception of jud*e2s si*nature
and date. This unethical and ille*al judicial action is rather a ru((erAsta%p fraudulent
dis%issal of a le*al case on (asis of a dissi%ilar le*al case 3hose dictu% 3as
pla*iariHed.
CONCLUSION
;ased on the factual rendition of this case supported () le*al irrefuta(le *rounds,
$ppellant respectfull) requests that this Court re/erse the order and jud*%ent of the
district court 3ith a findin* of fact in fa/or of the appellant. En the alternati/e, this Court
should re%and the case for a fair and i%partial trial (efore an unprejudiced jur) on
proper e/idence and under correct judicial instructions of a neutral ar(iter of la3, as is
just and proper.
?od ;less $%ericaM
?od Sa/e $%ericaM
$pril 2014 ,espectfull) su(%itted
&ircea 8eleanu, 1ro Se
1laintiff $ppellant