RELEASE OF INFORMATION TO MEDIA-Re: ANTIQUE DEALER GETS DEATH PENALTY. ich Text Editor File

7/23/2019 RELEASE OF INFORMATION TO MEDIA-Re: ANTIQUE DEALER GETS DEATH PENALTY. ich Text Editor File

1/21

RELEASE OF INFORMATION TO MEDIA-Re: ANTIQUE DEALER GETS DEATH PENALTY.A real story of prosecutorial misconduct of Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and his counsel,Nicholas G. Garin.

A real story of corruption of the following 4 justices of the Supreme Court of New York DutchessCounty: James Brands, JSC, Thomas Dolan, AJSC, James Pagones, AJSC and PeterM.Forman, AJSC.

A real story of judicial corruption of 4 justices of the Appellate Division, Second Department:Reinaldo Rivera, JP, Daniel D. Angiolillo, Ariel E. Belen, Sherri S Roman, JJ.Dr. Mircea Veleanu, life fellow of American College of Surgeons and life fellow of AmericanCollege of Ob-Gyn, announces to the citizens of NY State and US of America and entire world,the commencement of a legal suit against Attorney General of NY State (AG) Andrew Cuomo(presently, the governor of NY State), Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Nicholas G. Garin, AKANick Garin, and four justices of the Supreme Court of New York pursuing the statute CPLR 7800-7806, Article 78.Under the name of The People of New York State, AG who is supposed to safeguard the integrityof the State, on August 7, 2009, in bad faith commenced a legal action against Dr. MirceaVeleanu, invoking General Business Law 349 and Executive Law 63.12. This legal action

proved to be a sham and a chain of criminal acts and wrongdoings committed by AG AndrewCuomo and his counsel Nick Garin, following a single complaint from a resident of Winsted,Connecticut named Janet Spiridonakos. She alleged that she was defrauded by Dr. Veleanuwho sold her 7 Tibetan jadeite Buddhist rosary mala she alleged were made of quartz, ratherthan jadeite. After retirement from the field of medicine, Dr. Veleanu started a hobby businessselling on the Internet some of his extensive collection of antiques and antiquities accumulated inthe past 40 years. The irrefutable evidence proved that even if the complainant allegations weretrue, she was entitled to a refund according to the conditions of sale of the commercial contractthat provided lifetime warranty and refunds in accordance with the commercial contract (it wasoffered by Dr. Veleanu and declined by the complainant). Nevertheless, this former customerpremeditated the crime of defrauding and extorting the seller. Indirectly, she submitted the 7

rosary mala through a jeweler friend from Massachussetts, to a gemological laboratory namedAGTA. This lab ceased its existence a few weeks after issuing fraudulent gemological reports inApril 2009. Obviously, it is well established in commerce that ornamental jadeite carvings are notprone to be examined by gemological testing due to the presence of multiple minerals in thestone constituency. The gemological testing is and was always exclusively reserved to the

jewelry grade jadeite. In contrast, art jade carvings are routinely tested by mineralogical testingconsisting in determining hardness by Mohs test, specific gravity and examination undermicroscope. The evidence as proof showed that the complainant Spiridonakos mislabeled therosary mala as carved head necklaces in order to submit the mala to a gemological testing asbona fide jewelry items. The irrefutable evidence as proof consisting in Spiridonakos affidavitrevealed that she conspired with AG to charge Veleanu with fabricated charges. The

complainants affidavit revealed intimate detailed information of AGs Petition as exhibit numbers,exhibits content and represented almost a duplication of AGs charges of his Petition to theCourt. This knowledge would be impossible by complainant to know and represents proof ofconspiracy with AG to charge Veleanu with concocted charges in order to extort and defraud him.This evidence is unrebuttable proof that AG composed and edited Spiridonakos affidavit. In heraffidavit, Spiridonakos made absurd allegations that under the mask of ignorance are illogicalallegations to make belief that Dr. Veleanu committed fraud. She alleged that the term fei tsuiused as a term for one of mala sold to her indicated that is synonymous with imperial jade, themost precious and pure jadeite, present in minute amounts measured in carat weight, in thehighest quality of jadeite jewelry. However, fei tsui is used in Mandarin Chinese to describeordinary jadeite colors, rather than imperial jade. Another absurd and fraudulent allegationmade by Spiridonakos was that Dr. Veleanu sold her 2 Chinese scholars calligraphy brusheswith jadeite handles, she alleged were made of glass, rather than jadeite. Other than her mindsconfabulation, she did not prove her absurd allegations with any evidence whatsoever.Nonetheless, the brushes were returned, refunded to her several months prior her complaint andshe was so unsure about her allegations that she begged to have the brushes resold to her.


2/21

Spriridonakos won her first purchases of mala at auction where Veleanu was a consignor, ratherthan the seller, and she paid the auctions commission of 27.5 %. The criminal activity ofSpiridonakos was not limited to false accusations about the materiality of her complaint. As proofof her injury, she submitted an invoice provided by her close jeweler friend that was probablypart of her criminal act of extortion, blackmail and fraud. A graphological examination of theunsigned jewelry firm invoice revealed that the invoices handwriting is identical to complainantshandwriting on the edge of the invoice and other documents submitted by her and in which sheused her handwriting. In the unsigned invoice she claimed the amount of $1540 for the cost of

identification reports that was about 3 times higher than the customary charge of GIA Lab. Underthe conditions of sale of the contract, she was notrequired to provide a proof of her claim to be eligible for refund. Spiridonakos contradicted theinvoices amount by former statements she made to the seller in which she claimed in 2 separateemails that she paid $1000. Hiking up the amount she alleged she paid for the gemologicaltesting is proof of her criminal intent to defraud the seller and the prior contradictory statementsimpeached her testimony under oath and is clear proof of the criminal act of perjury. Theevidence submitted by Dr. Veleanu to the Court, clearly showed that she was promised a refundaccording to conditions of the sale of the commercial contract that she turned down in order toextort the merchant. It appears that AG promised complainant, as well as to any customersolicited to request a refund, the incentive award of a 9 % retroactive interest to the date of

purchase. The gemological reports of AGTA Lab revealed the presence of natural speciesquartz, that is a single mineral. A consecutive gemological testing by GIA Lab did not confirm

AGTA findings, rather identified the presence of species quartzite. Nonetheless, quartzite is ametamorphic rock containing several minerals and is not the same as quartz that is a singlemineral. Quartzite and jadeite are both metamorphic rocks that frequently are intermingled in thenature as having a common origin and known as jadeite/quartzite. A plethora of scientific articlessupporting the mineralogical genesis was provided by Dr. Veleanu in his pleadings, as well as inthe motion for reargument/renew and other papers supporting the scientific base, contesting theirrational allegations of low intellect of the petitioner and his single complainants allegations.Evidently, gemological testing is inappropriate for identifying jadeite in non-jewelry gradeornamental art carvings and the gemological reports are irrelevant due to the fact that the findingscould be different when examined by different gemological labs, as in the present case, or evenby the same gemological lab that would test the stone in a different area. In this legal case,criminal fabrication of charges was not limited to the criminal complainant. The evidence as proofclearly revealed that the prosecutor (petitioner) was deeply involved in illegal and criminalactivity in support of his fabricated charges. It was inconceivable to Dr. Veleanu that the highestprosecutor in the state, AG, could be involved in illegal and criminal activity to prosecute aninnocent person with immaculate past. With extensive legal research and personal investigation,it was revealed that AG Andrew Cuomo commenced a legal action without standing to sue, notonly by lacking of aggrieving of the single complainant, rather a case based on criminalfabrication of charges, forgery by counterfeit, perjury, impeachment of evidence consisting of

single complainants affidavit, mislabeling with intention to extort and defraud, libel, forgedforensic evidence, etc., etc. As the complainant was offered a refund in accordance with theconditions of sale of the commercial contract in an email addressed to her by Dr. Veleanu, shewas not defrauded by the seller, rather she defrauded the seller with full cooperation, aid andillegal and criminal conspiracy of AG to defraud the respondent in the legal action. AGcommenced a legal action in absence of a cognizable cause of action (in his 2 causes of action,

AG failed to state a cause of action upon which judicial relief could be granted). AGs legal actiondemonstrates the initiation and continuing of a frivolous suit that is an illegal and criminal act inNY State. More egregious and proof of criminal act of uttering, is the submission to the Court by

AG of forged and mislabeled legal evidence with full knowledge of the falsity and inadmissibilityof altered, forged and mislabeled forensic evidence. AG subpoenaed Dr. Veleanu in the pre-trial

phase and at that time, Dr. Veleanu brought the attention of AAG Garin that the gemologicalreports of AGTA were forged to the extent that 2 identification reports of rosary mala were forgedby using the same photograph for 2 different mala. This contention was brought again by Dr.Veleanu in his response to the Notice of Intent to start a legal action by AG. AAG Garincommitted perjury in 2 separate occasions in relationship to the uttering to the Court. First


3/21

instance of perjury consisted in AAG Garin deposition under oath in the Alternative Statement inlieu of stenographic transcripts pursuant to statute CPLR 5525 (d). In this deposition under oath,

AAG Garin denied his knowledge that gemological identification reports were forged and theevidence was fraudulently mislabeled by the complainant until Dr. Veleanu answered to thePetition in his pleadings to the Court. This statement of AAG was a blatant lie as the evidenceclearly has shown that Dr. Veleanu brought the attention of AG that AGTA gemological reportswere mislabeled and forged, firstly, at the pre-trial subpoena session, and again in the pre-trialresponse to the Notice of Proposed Action pursuant to Article 22, weeks prior trial. The irrefutable

evidence shows that AAG Garin preferred to commit the crime of perjury rather than acknowledgethat he commenced a legal action against Dr. Veleanu in complete absence of a reasonablecause of action. As the legal action of AG was to deceive the Court, it clearly represents extrinsicfraud, fraud upon Court and unconscionable prosecutorial abuse of discretion.The fact that the forged evidence had no probative value, did not prevent AG to utter to Courtforged and mislabeled evidence with full knowledge of the falsity of the evidence. This forgedevidence was the only evidence that he could bring to the Court to support his false allegations.Other allegations in AGs petition as negative reviews of the book written by Dr. Veleanu, flamingon the Internet and bringing several pages of the Internet website without specifying anywrongdoings, were malicious, non-probative and non relevant, lacking any kind of evidence toallege statutory fraud. The uttering of false and forged evidence was not the only single criminal

act of AG; more egregious and criminally incriminating act was the submission to the Court offorensic evidence that was mutilated, obstructed and impaired in order to conceal the exculpatoryevidence. AG submitted a scientific article regarding jadeite in which exculpatory text wasblocked from view by overlapping a photo over the exculpatory text in at least 2 occasions. Theconcealment of evidence by mutilating and obstruction from view of exculpatory text was done in2 separate portions of this article offered as evidence by AG. Under a Court order, AG obtained alist of all customers who purchased jade items from Dr. Veleanu starting in 2003. AG contactedall customers soliciting them to request refunds. As all customers were bound by the commercialcontract of sale, it appears that as an incentive for breaching the contract, AG promised a rewardof an illegal retroactive interest of 9 % years back to the date of purchase. No customer allegedmisrepresentation, but 3 customers, as well as 2 purchases of complainant Spiridonakos were atauctions where Dr. Veleanu was a consignor, rather than the seller. Subsequently, the auctioncommission of 27.5 %, Paypal fees of 3 % and shipping charges were fraudulently assessed by

AG to Dr. Veleanu. The illegal acts of AG of granting non-statutory punitive fines to customersthat breached the commercial contract and assessing auction commission to a consignor areunheard prosecutorial acts of misconduct that allowed almost doubling the initial investment ofthe unscrupulous customers who requested refunds through AG, rather than applying directly tothe seller for refund in accordance with the conditions of sale of the commercial contract. One ofthe persons who requested a refund, criminally substituted the item returned for refund with avalueless fake made from a marble-type of material, rather than the original jade item. Both, thecomplainant and the above mentioned person committed the crime of perjury by swearing under

oath of false statements with full knowledge of the falsity, made with the purpose of defraudingthe merchant. These criminal acts were made possible only through the intervention of AG whofacilitated and aided the commission of the criminal acts. AG initiated a frivolous and vexatioussuit in absence of any reasonable cause of action in the name of other individuals, but withoutthe consent of involved individuals, in an action of special proceeding, in court before a judge.

According to statute CPLR 70, the person who initiates a frivolous and vexatious suit is guilty ofmisdemeanor punishable by imprisonment and fines. The 3 customers who requested a refunddid not have a legal standing to sue as were not aggrieved and did not allege misrepresentationof purchased merchandise, rather were tricked by AG to request refunds with the incentive ofretroactive interest of 9 % benefit starting years back to the date of purchase. The legal actioncommenced by AG had a collateral intention to cause pecuniary harm and psychological trauma

to Dr. Veleanu, representing abuse of process and malicious prosecution.AG released to media libelous, false statements intended to harm psychologically and pecuniary.The libelous statements were outrageous lies not substantiated by any evidence to base upon. Inaddition, the false and malicious statements were meant to frighten former customers and requestrefunds with secondary collateral aim of abuse of process and malicious prosecution. AG


4/21

committed outrageous libel by stating false and damaging statements that irreversibly damagedthe immaculate personal and professional reputation by using character assassination. In abrazen and contempt of court action, AG violated the court imposed gag on media regardinginformation pertinent to TRO.

AG alleged, requested and obtained fines and court fees based on GBL 350 (d). Nevertheless,AG in his 2 causes of action did not allege any violation of GBL 350 that is based on fraudulentacts of advertising. As such, AG failed to state a cause of action upon which a relief could begranted.

AG used his prosecutorial power to issue 4 subpoenas, 3 subpoenas fraudulently were notdirected to serve the legitimate evidentiary role and as such were impermissible under Rule 26(b) (1) of Federal statute which allow subpoenas only related to matters relevant to the subject ofaction. As the subpoenas issued by AG were with only purpose to force Veleanu not to seek

justice in court, these illegal subpoenas of the AG clearly represent fraud upon the court andextrinsic fraud. The multitude of subpoenas issued by AG indicate the collateral objective ofabuse of process and malicious prosecution in order to harass, intimidate and retaliate for theexercise of the constitutional rights to defend himself against the dictatorial and oppressiveprosecutorial power of AG.

AG solicited all former customers to request refunds beyond the statute of limitation that is 3years for statutory fraud and even up to 6 years.

AG violated the Penal Law 215: Bribing a witness: A person is guilty of bribing a witness whenhe confers, or offers, or agrees to confer, any benefit upon a witness or a person about to becalled as a witness in any action or proceeding. Bribing a witness is a Class D felony.

AG is guilty of violating NY Penal Law Sec. 100.5 Criminal solicitation in 4th degree. A person isguilty of solicitation in 4th degree when (1) with intent that another person engage in conductconstituting a felony, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes or otherwise attempts to causesuch other person to engage in such conduct.

AG requested and obtained from Court punitive damages consisting in interest of 9 % startingfrom the date of purchase. The punitive damages were instituted and requested consequent tothe motion for reargument/renew submitted by Veleanus lawyer, Clinton Calhoun. The punitivefines are illegal, not based or endorsed by any statute, law or rule. GBL 349 and Executive Law63.12 do not provide for any punitive fines. Such prosecutorial misconduct of illegal judicialaction clearly represents fraud upon court, extrinsic fraud and irrational arbitrary and capriciousaction. As much as egregious and damaging were the illegal and criminal actions ofprosecutorial misconduct, such damages and grant of the requested relief could not be possiblewithout cooperation and conspiracy of the Court presided by corrupt judges of the Supreme Courtof New York. The corruption consisted in lack of a fair, unbiased and impartial court to adjudicatethe material issues on merit, rather on technicali ties favoring the powerful party and prejudicial tothe pro se party. The high corruption of the judges of the Supreme Court is following the infamouslegal dictum of quid pro quo (in fair folkloric translation from Latin signifying scratch my backand wil l scratch your back in return). Quid pro quo is the main way the politics are governed in

the State of New York regardless of the political party belonging of the persons elected torepresent the people of the State of New York. Justices of the Supreme Court of NY haveabsolute immunity from suits regardless of their level of egregious adjudication, when they areacting in their judicial duty secured by personal jurisdiction upon defendant and jurisdiction ofsubject matter. In this legal suit, 4 justices of the Supreme Court were involved and in which onlyone judge was an elected justice of the Supreme Court, and this justice recused invoking theconflict of interest. Another justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Christine Sproat, apparently andethically refused the assignment in this case (the 5th judge assigned to this case). The other 3

judges were acting justices of Supreme Court (non elected), representing county judges orsurrogate county

judge. All the judicial proceedings were ex parte proceedings, without hearings, conference calls

and lacking the possibility of representation of the person accused of a wrongdoing, typical fordue process violations in the true kangaroo court proceedings. In this case the failure of thepetitioner (AG) to serve the judicial process made all the court orders and judgments to be void,null and invalid due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In any non-corrupt tribunal in NY Stateand US, such legal suit would be declared void ab initio (from the beginning), but not in the


5/21

Supreme Court of NY State, favoring the AG supreme fascist/Soviet type judicial dictatorialbased on dogma of infallibility. This dogma was once present under British Royal colonialregime in USA that ruled that the King cannot be wrong. Similarly, AG cannot be wrong in NewYork State!!!The first judge, justice James Brands granted a TRO in favor of AG with full knowledge that theevidence submitted by AG was mislabeled and forged and at least, had no probative value.Justice Brands signed an order to show cause that violated respondents constitutional rights oflearning the substance of allegations prior onset of judicial proceeding. Dr. Veleanu was

deprived of the right of an accused person of a wrongdoing, to be allowed sufficient time to beinformed about charges and prepare a defense. The constitutional rights of due process werebrutally violated even more by the failure of the petitioner (AG) to serve the respondent with the

judicial process, procedure that is at the fundament of the American justice. Consequently, theCourt failed to achieve the personal jurisdiction upon respondent with lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. As such, the grant of TRO by justice Brands was void and null from the beginning.While justice Brands properly recused, he failed to decree a nolle prosequi (invalidating theimproper decree ) after his recusal, in view of his irrefutable conflict of interest consisting inpreparation of TRO papers and legal representation of his Principal Court Attorney in a previoussuit where he represented the adversary party. Obviously, NY State has a Constitution that madeit illegal of such judicial act. NY State belongs to US of America that also has a Constitution that

proclaims freedom and due process constitutional rights to all the citizens. Soviet Union had alsoa Constitution that granted on paper to its oppressed citizens elementary human rights that inreality never were respected.The biggest demagogue in NY State is Andrew Cuomo; here is an excerpt from his declaration tothe citizens of NY State in his official duty as Attorney General of NY State at the legal suitagainst Cohen & Slomowitzfirm in Woodbury, LI, firm named ALP: Our legal system is defined by due process and theguarantee that every New Yorker will get the chance to defend himself in court.

Andrew Cuomo proves in this excerpt his corrupt hypocrite politician way of acting in diametricopposition to what he is declaring in a pompous way. Dr. Veleanu in the kangaroo court of theSupreme Court of NY State was deprived of the elementary rights of due process of a citizen assecured by US Constitution. AG was outraged that Dr. Veleanu did not acknowledge to be guiltyof the criminally concocted charges Andrew Cuomo and his counsel manufactured. The failure toacknowledge guilt was defined by AG Cuomo and his counsel as a crime in an identical way ofaction the fascist Third Reich Courts and Soviet communist Courts acted against the opponentsof their oppressive regime.Following the recusal of justice Brands, acting justice Thomas Dolan was assigned to this legalcase and decreed an order and judgment with a permanent injunction without seeing Dr.Veleanu and without any hearing or conference, in a typical kangaroo court that violated the dueprocess under 14th amendment of US Constitution. As such, acting justice justice Dolanssummary judgment was ex parte, illegal, void ab initio (from the onset), for lack of jurisdiction of

the Supreme Court to render a judgment. The kangaroo court never allows a defendant thechance to defend himself, the decision is made in advance based on prosecutors accusations inabsence of representation of the accused party, without hearings and without the presence of theaccuser in the court for an available cross-examination. Justice Dolans egregious judicial actionhad a collateral of abuse of judicial process by advising Dr. Veleanu to retain legalrepresentation of a lawyer to learn about his rights. This advise was perverse and malicious!.

Acting justice Dolan knew that Dr. Veleanu had no legal rights whatsoever in his court. Theadvise had the collateral objective to injure Veleanu with tremendous legal expenses and assuch, clearly represents the abuse of judiciary process by the judge himself. As an officer of thecourt, the attorney retained by Veleanu could only negotiate terms that AG would impose withirreconcilable clauses repugnant to the moral and conscience of an innocent individual. Plea

bargaining is unconscionable to an innocent individual and an ethical violation of a judge toimpose, as such, active justice Dolans action represents extrinsic fraud, fraud upon court andunconscionable abuse of discretion.More egregious was justice Dolan denial of the pleadings to the Court of Dr. Veleanu, invokingthat the answer to the Petition and Reply to AG were unsworn. Nonetheless, the pleadings


6/21

were in a legal form as declarationunder penalty of perjury that under statute CPLR 105 (U) is legal and replaces the notarized form.

As such, judge Dolan decision was fraudulent, illegal and represented unconscionable abuse ofdiscretion and irrational arbitrary and capricious judicial action. In an identical way, justice Dolandenied the motions of dismissal of Petition not because lacked merit, but rather again,fraudulently ruled as unsworn, deliberately ignoring the statute CPLR 105 (U) that legallyauthorizes and replaces the outdated notarized form, with the declaration under penalty ofperjury.

Justice Dolan decreed a summary judgment with granting of a permanent injunction based onfraudulent and criminal mislabeled and forged forensic evidence he was aware of, and knowinglydisregarded in egregious and flagrant fraud upon Court and extrinsic fraud.Justice Dolan fraudulently granted a summary judgment while being aware that the defendantraised numerous issues of material fact that preclude the grant of summary judgment. JusticeDolan violated CPLR R3212 regarding the AGs petition: The motion shall be granted if, upon allthe papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently towarrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party. Except as providedin subdivision c of this rule the motion shall be denied if any party shall show facts sufficient torequire a trial of any issue of fact.Justice Dolan as a graduate of law school knew or should have known that Veleanu contested

the legal suit in his pleadings and motions to dismiss, due to lack of service, and subsequentfailure of court to acquire personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. In accordance withstatute CPLR 320 C, the court lacked the jurisdiction due to absence of personal service, orrather, improper service. Nevertheless, the denial of defense and denial of the motions to dismisswere not due to lack of knowledge of the law, rather extrinsic fraud, fraud upon court andunconscionable abuse of discretion and irrational, illogical, arbitrary and frivolous judicial action.Extrinsic fraud in contrast to intrinsic fraud is fraud committed by the officers of the court and

judge Dolans act constitutes fraud upon court.The judgment decreed by judge Dolan was never entered and docketed by the AG andaccording to 22 NYCRR 202.48, after 60 days became null and invalid. CPLR R2220 specifies:.. (I)f a party fails to file any papers required to be filed under this subdivision, the order may bevacated as irregular, with costs.

AG in his dilatory actions meant to increase the amount of penalties of retroactive interest of 9 %,neglected to prosecute the legal action. The Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County violated thestatute CPLR 3216 that where a party unreasonable neglects to proceed generally in an action orotherwise delays in the prosecution thereof against any party who may be liable to a separate

judgment, or unreasonably fails to serve and file a note of issue, the court, in its own initiative orupon motion, may dismiss the partys pleading on term. Unless the order specifies otherwise, thedismissal is not on merits.

Apparently judge Dolan stepped down the bench for one reason or another, and his order andjudgment became void by failure to be docketed within 60 days.

Accordingly, AG defaulted by failure to prosecute the action within the time prescribed by law.AG had the second chance to re-institute the charges by personal service to defendant within 6months in accordance with CPLR 205. In his egregious and despicable laches (delays) made toincrease the amount of illegal punitive action, AG failed to act within 6 months and re-institute thelegal action. AG failed to re-institute the legal suit by serving the process to respondent within 6months and consequently defaulted second time.The Supreme Court of NY in a protective and covering up the illegal judicial actions of AG,violated again CPLR 3216 that clearly specifies that where a party unreasonably neglects togenerally proceed in an action or otherwise delays in prosecution thereof against any party, thecourt may dismiss the legal action for failure to prosecute. As the legal case was consideredabandoned according to CPLR 205 and CPLR 3404, the Supreme Court violated the above

mentioned statutes by failure to censor the inadmissible judicial actions of laches by AG. Thisrepresents an egregious and biased legal action of the Court, (or rather lack of legal action), dueto AGs dilatory actions, by not voiding the order and judgment of justice Dolan that failed to beentered and docketed in the clerks office of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County. CPLR205 that was violated by the Court clearly prescribes that where a dismissal is one for neglect to


7/21

prosecute the action made pursuant to CPLR 3216, the judge shall set forth on the record thespecific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern ofdelay in proceeding with the litigation.This statute specification obviously violated by the court in its cover up ofwrongdoings of AG, made evident the egregious and fraudulent conduct of AG in delaying thelegal proceedings with the obvious goal of increasing the amount of illegal punitive fines withinterest of 9 % for laches of more than 2 years of judicial proceedings. This represented an un-rebuttable demonstration of abuse of process and malicious prosecution. AG dilatory actions

clearly demonstrate an unconscionable and illegal action that would be prosecuted andpunished by any non-corrupt court, by acting for dismissal of action for failure of the prosecutor toprosecute in 2 separate occasions, by engaging in laches and consequent 2 defaults.Justice Christine Sproat assigned to this legal case, apparently, ethically and commandablyrefused the assignment.

After more than 10 months since the decree of the original judgment of justice Dolan, a newlyassigned judge, acting justice James Pagones, decreed a judgment, again, without the service of

judicial process. The failure of AG to serve the judicial process resulted in failure of the court toachieve personal jurisdiction upon respondent Veleanu and represented another failedopportunity to execute personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the

judgment of justice Pagones is null, invalid and void ab initio (from onset) for failure of the

Supreme Court to achieve personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction.While the legislation allows a county judge (as judge Dolan, or another assigned judge, PeterForman), or a surrogate court judge (as judge Pagones) to act as Supreme Court justices, thelegislation specifically defines this function as temporary. As judge James Pagones is acting asunelected Supreme Court justice since 1999, hardly could be arguable that the position ofSupreme Court justice is temporary by substituting the capacity of an elected Supreme CourtJustice. Judge Pagones acted in his judicial actions inconsistently and contradicting the present

judicial case, where he was assigned to render judgment, and inconsistent with a fair anduniform decision. As American justice follows the common law precedent, in almost identicallegal cases, acting justice Pagones rendered judgments in complete reversal of judgmentsrational to Dr. Veleanus legal case. For example, in Galasso v. Calder, 201 NY Slip Op. 50755(U) (31 Misc. 3d 1220 A) decided on 04/29/11, justice Pagones decreed a judgment pursuant toCPLR 3126 dismissing the plaintiffs complaint for failure to prosecute. In another legal case,Village Dr. Assoc. LLC v. Schiavo, 2013 NY Slip Op.50166 (U) decided on 2/7/13, judge Pagones made a similar decision in which he ruled in amanner completely opposed to the present legal case. In another legal case, BAC Home LoanServicing LP v. Musa , 2012 NY Slip Op 51099 (U) decided on 06/18/12, defendant was indefault in a home foreclosure. The plaintiff failed to take proceedings for the entry of judgmentwithin one year after default. The court presided by judge Pagones sua sponte dismissed thecomplaint as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215 C. The above case is another demonstration ofthe failure of judge Pagones to act fairly and consistently in his decisions, and a clear

representation of his bias and prejudice against Dr. Veleanu that is in complete reverse judicialaction to other legal cases decided by him. The most representative of bias and prejudice againstDr. Veleanu is another legal case in which judge Pagones presided the court, in Dooley v.Woods, 2011 NY Slip Op 50408 (U) decided on 03/22/11. In this case, acting justice Pagonesdismissed the plaintiffs action due to the failure to serve the process. Acting justice Pagonesstated in the decision: In this case, no summons and complaint, or summons with notice (CPLR304) was served upon respondent. Thus the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this case asthe existence of an action is an indispensable prerequisite to the granting of the requested relief.While judge Pagones was correct in rendering this order and judgment, the fairness and ethical

judicial acts of judge Pagones make his judicial actions to be inconsistent, a mockery of justice,and rather adjudication based on his political philosophy, rather than fairness and lack of bias

and prejudice to one party, and bias and partiality toward the other party. In Dr. Veleanu case,acting justice Pagones made a completely opposite decision and judgment in the samecircumstances. While petitioner (AG) failed to serve the respondent (Dr. Veleanu), acting justicePagones did not dismiss the legal case for failure of AG to serve the process and subsequentfailure to achieve the personal jurisdiction by the court. Rather, in the most blatant bias and


8/21

prejudice, acting justice Pagones did not dismiss Veleanus legal case, despite that the casesare quite similar and according to common law represent a ground for failure to act in the samecircumstances of law, by the same judge. The final case to demonstrate acting justice Pagoneslack of impartiality and genuine bias and prejudice against Dr. Veleanu is the legal case USBank Natl Assoc v. Alessandra Padilla et al., defendants, 2011 NY Slip Op 50535 (U) decidedon 04/08/11. In this case, amazingly similar to the legal case against Dr. Veleanu, particularly inregard to the assessment by the plaintiff of interest accrued on a loan occurring from the date ofdefault and additional legal fees and expenses. Judge Pagones acted in a completely opposite

decision by ordering that the interest (that was a legal interest accumulated on a mortgage)should be not more than the principal balance of the loan and awarded the respondent theexemplary damage penalty in the exorbitant amount of $100,000. Judge Pagones stated: Thebank conduct was shockingly inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious. Onclaiming bad faith, judge Pagones barred the bank for collecting interest accrued on the loanfrom the date of default, legal fees and other expenses. Absolutely amazing is the fact that thedecision of judge Pagones in this case is exactly the opposite of the decision in which judgePagones granted to AG retroactive interest of 9 % (that is probably several folds times higherthan the interest the bank charged the defendant who defaulted). If judge Pagones would actuniformly and consistently in his judicial actions, Dr. Veleanu would be entitled to exemplarydamages in the amount of $100,000, and forever barring the plaintiff (AG) to assess retroactive

interest to the date of the occurrence. Judge Pagones stated that the plaintiffs delays allowedracking up interest, fees and penalties to plaintiffs benefit and the respondents detriment.Nonetheless, in an identical fashion, the dilatory scheme of AG allowed accumulation of largeamount of due money, interest on interest that would make the restitution close to impossible. In areprehensible and truly oprobrious fashion, judge Pagones did not find AGs conduct to beshockingly inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious as found and determined inthe above described case. The judicial frivolous actions of judge Pagones are illustration ofcorruption at the highest level of NY State Supreme Court assigned judges. Acting justicePagones judicial action in the above described case is exactly the opposite of judge Pagones

judicial action in Dr. Veleanus case and un-controvertible proof of judge Pagones abhorrent biasand prejudice against Dr. Veleanu. While a justice of the Supreme Court is supposed to beunbiased, not prejudiced and not favoring a party in accordance with political views of the judge,the judicial actions of acting justice Pagones in Dr. Veleanus case is unethical, illegal anddemands forever removal of this judge from the bench and disbarring.The judicial action of acting justice Pagones in Dr. Veleanus case, unambiguouslydemonstrates the irrational and logic defying arbitrary and frivolous action and opprobrious,human conscience shaking abuse of discretion of this judge. Judge Pagones ruled in hisdecision and judgmentthat the motion of reargument/renew brought by Dr. Veleanus lawyer was instead of reargument,rather a renew motion. Obviously, overlooked or misapprehended matters of law by the courtpresided by acting justice Pagones could not be renew as would defy the statutory definition. The

misinterpretation of law by judge Pagones is not an error due to judges lack of knowledge of law,rather irrefutable proof of logic defying and irrational arbitrary and capricious judicial action ofacting justice Pagones.The last judge involved in Dr. Veleanus legal case was judge Peter M. Forman that wasassigned to the legal case following the judgment decree of judge Pagones in November 2010.Judge Forman consistently neglected to act upon every motion brought to the court byrespondent Veleanu, or denied the relief after the action on the motion became moot, due to hisfailure to timely act upon motion. Judge Forman repeatedly and consistently violated CPLR 2219(a) in biased, pro-prosecutorial, unconscionable, arbitrary and frivolous abuse of discretion. Assuch, judge Forman acted in bias and prejudice favoring the petitioner AG in any legal action hedecided. On April 24, 2012 (that is more than 90 days since the submission of an application

pursuing CPLR 5519). acting justice Forman denied the discretionary relief pursuant to CPLR5519 as moot. Obviously, an emergency order to show cause that needs to be decided within 20days, became moot and irrelevant after more than 3 months past submission date byunconscionable delay of the judge to make a decision upon motion. The repeated acts ofdisregard to the professional responsibility of a Justice in the Supreme Court to act upon motions,


9/21

made acting justice Forman liable to the criminal violation of law in NY State under Penal Law195 Official misconduct. Penal Law 195 specifies: A public servant is guilty of official misconductwhen with intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit: PL 195.2: Heknowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearlyinherent in the nature of his office. One of the most egregious judicial act committed by acting

justice Forman was his refusal to sign an order to show cause submitted by Veleanu in August2012. The leave requested was a TRO to prevent distribution of undertaking funds cashed by AGto criminal individuals including the complainant Janet Spiridonakos, and Diana Norton, a

resident of Texas who substituted a valuable nephrite carving with a valueless fake. As all thepersons involved were out-of-state residents, distribution of funds would make it impossible toretrieve the funds without additional litigation. In recognition of judge Formans lack of impartialityand bias against the respondent, Dr. Veleanu addressed the motion to the administrative judgeof the court, rather than to judge Forman. Judge Forman intercepted the application and acted ashe was the administrative judge of the court, despite that the motion was clearly addressed incaption content and signature to the administrative judge. The acts of impersonation of anotherpublic servant constitutes a criminal violation of Penal Law 190. Penal Law 190.25 CRIMINALIMPERSONATION IN THE SECOND DEGREE specifies: A person is guilty of impersonation insecond degree when he: 3(a): pretends to be a public servant or falsely expresses by his wordsor actions that he is a public servant or is acting with approval or authority of a public agency or

department and (b) so acts with intent to induce another to submit to such pretended officialauthority (or) otherwise cause another to act in reliance upon the pretense. Subsequently, Dr.Veleanu sent the application directly to the office of the administrative judge Alan Sheinkman inWhite Plains, NY. The application, inter alia, requested relief in accordance with CPLR 5015 Cthat is in the exclusive prerogative of the administrative judge, based on the previous 2 defaultsof the AG. The administrative judge office denied the application fraudulently stating that therewas no evidence of defaults despite that such evidence was irrefutable and advised that anyrelief according to CPLR 5015 should be addressed to the Supreme Court of NY DutchessCounty. The administrative judge, Alan Sheinkman, ordered the Chief Clerk of the SupremeCourt of NY Dutchess County to remove the application from Courts records and return it to Dr.Veleanu, at which order, the Chief Clerk of Court, Mr. Thompson, complied. As judge Formanwas named as a defendant in the motion for annulment of void judgments pursuing CPLR 5015(a) (3) and CPLR 5015 (a) (4), Dr Veleanu was confident that another judge would be assigned,in view of justice Pagones obvious conflict of interest. To assure that judge Forman would not actupon this motion, Dr. Veleanu requested as one of the relieves of this motion, the voluntaryrecusal of judge Forman based on the undeniable conflict of interest; a judge can not sit anddecide in a case where he is a defendant. On October 24, 2012, Dr. Veleanu submitted a motionwith attached Memorandum of Law in which the requested leave was annulment of the voidorders and judgments of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County pursuing CPLR 5015 (a) (3)and CPLR (a) (4). To the shock of Dr. Veleanu, acting justice Forman refused to recuse himselfand continued to act in a biased and prejudiced manner toward Veleanu. In an irrefutable and

unconscionable abuse of discretion, judge Forman failed to make a decision upon the motionwithin 60 days, thus, violating again CPLR 2219 and 22 NYCRR 202.8 (h). Judge Forman actedin disregard of the motion where one of the relieves was his recusal and in flagrant personalconflict of interest. The motion cited 2 cases of judge Formans demonstrated abuse of discretionas reasons for his disqualification to act as a judge where he is a defendant. The averments ofthe motion pursuing CPLR 5015 were not controverted by AG in his Reply to the motion as theaverments were irrefutable. As such, the acting justice was obligated to grant the relief requestedin the motion for annulment of orders and judgments. In addition, the relieves under CPLR 5015(a) (3) and CPLR 5015 (a) (4) are not discretionary and cannot be denied by the acting justice inthe absence of rebuttal by AG.On January 28, 2013, Dr. Veleanu submitted a motion with attached Memorandum of Law to the

administrative judge of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County, Alan Sheinkman in which Dr.Veleanu requested the following administrative and ministerial determination orders: 1. Aministerial order in regard to violation of CPLR 2219 (a) and 22 NYCRR 202.8(h) by theSupreme Court of NY presided by judge Forman, consisting in the failure of the court to decree adecision and order upon a motion of relief from a void judgment submitted to the court on October


10/21

24, 2012 (representing more than 90 days). 2. A ministerial order for violation of Penal LawSection 195 by acting justice Peter Forman. 3. A ministerial order for the Supreme Court of NYDutchess County presided by acting justice Forman in regard to the violations of several codes,regulations under 22NYCRR. 4. A ministerial administrative order regarding the violation byacting justice Forman of Penal Law 175. 5. An administrative order in regard to violation by thecourt presided by acting justice Forman of NY CVR Article 2 Civil Rights. Administrative judge

Alan Sheinkman never responded to this motion. A motion addressed by Dr. Veleanu toadministrative judge Alan Sheinkman, on February 25, 2013, requesting the administrative leave

of assignment of another judge pursuing 22NYCRR 202.6 Judicial Intervention, was denied byjudge Alan Sheinkman without any explanation.In accordance with 22NYCRR C-DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES: A judge shall disqualifyhimself in a procedure in which the judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned includingbut not limited to instances in which (a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning aparty or personal knowledge or disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding. OnFebruary 11, 2013, Dr. Veleanu submitted to the Supreme Court a motion requesting thevoluntary recusal of acting justice Forman and implementation of hearings in accordance withCPLR5015 (d) for a void judgment and restitution of undertaking, a declaratory judgment and otherrelieves mentioned in the original motion for annulment of orders and judgments dated October

24, 2012. On a decision and order (this time very prompt), dated February 15, 2013, acting justiceForman denied the motion without any reasoning of his decision not to resign. Judge Formanviolated Judiciary Law Sec. 17 that states: A judge or surrogate, or former judge or surrogateshall not act as attorney or counselor in any action, claim, matter, motion or procedure which hasbeen before him in his official character. The above violation arose from judicial action of acting

justice Forman as counselor to AAG Garin as demonstrated in his decisions and orders where hedid not act as an impartial judge, rather as defending counselor to the prosecutor in the typicalquid pro quo. Judiciary law Sec.17 prevents in reverse, that AG could represents the involved

judge(s) in Article 78 proceedings.On January 29, 2013, acting justice Peter Forman fraudulently decreed an order in which hedenied the motion for annulment of a void judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) and CPLR5015 (a (4), submitted by Dr. Veleanu on October 24, 2012, as being moot. Acting justice PeterForman violated NY State Judicial law 14: DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES that states: A

judge shall not sit, as such in, or take any part in the decision of an action, claim, matter, motionor proceeding to which HE IS A PARTY, or in which he has been attorney or counsel, or in whichHE IS INTERESTED.The decision and order of acting justice Peter Forman is illegal and represents a conscienceshaking abuse of discretion and illogical arbitrary and capricious judicial action. Firstly, themotion under CPLR 5015 (a) (4) is not discretionary and cannot be denied by a judge using hisdiscretion.Is acting justices of the Supreme Court of New York the norm of what a judge should be:

impartial, unbiased, adjudicate the legal controversies of the litigants in a fair and equitable way,or rather, favoring the strong party, cover up the wrongdoings of the powerful party in the typicalcorrupt QUID PRO QUO and infusing the personal pol itical, personal, gender, moral pre-determined presumption of guilt of one party, rather than the other in the court decisions???.Hereto is a list of the violations of NY State laws, canons of judicial conduct, NY Codes andRegulations, etc., by acting justice of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County Hon. Peter M.Forman:1. Violation of Penal Law 195.00. Official misconduct. A public servant is guilty of officialmisconduct when, with intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit: 195.1. Hecommits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his officialfunctions, knowing that such act is unauthorized. PL 195.2. He knowingly refrains from

performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of hisoffice.2. Acting justice Peter Forman violated Canon 3 B (8): Judges shall dispose of all judicialmatters fairly, promptly and efficiently. When the judges failed to do so, they ignore the facts,ignore and violate the Rules and commit criminal acts.


11/21

3. Acting justice Forman violated judicial Canon 2: Violation of the Rules of Courts CivilProcedures demonstrate impropriety and the appearance of the impropriety.4. Acting justice Forman violated Canon 3 A (5): In disposing of matters promptly, efficiently andfairly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of the parties to be heard and to haveissues resolved without dilatory practice, avoidable delays and unnecessary costs.5. Acting justice Forman violated Canon 3 B (5): Judges shall perform judicial duties without biasor prejudice. When a judge demonstrates bias or prejudice it is a violation of Canon 3 B (5).Judges should recuse themselves when they have bias or a prejudice.

6. Acting justice Forman violated Canon 3 B (7): Judges shall accord to any person the right to beheard according to law. Judges shall not initiate ex parte communications. Judges violate thisCanon when parties are denied the right to have hearings, testify under oath, examine witnesses,cross examine witnesses.7. Acting justice Forman violated Penal Law 190.25. Criminal impersonation in the seconddegree: A person is guilty of impersonation in the second degree when he: 1. Impersonatesanother and does an act in such assumed character with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure ordefraud another, or 3. Pretends to be a public servantor falsely expresses by words or actionsthat he is a public servant, or is acting with approval of authority of a public agency ordepartment, and (b) so acts with intent to induce another to submit to such pretended officialauthority or otherwise cause another to act in reliance upon that pretense.

8. Acting justice Forman violated NY State Judicial Law 14. Disquali fication of judges by reasonof interest that prescribes: A judgeshall not sit, as such in, or take any part in the decision of an action, claim, matter, motion orproceeding to which he is a party, or in which he has been an attorney or counsel, or in which heis interested.9. Acting justice Forman violated Canon 3 E (1): Judges shall disqualify themselves in anyproceedings in which the impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Judges refuse to recusethemselves when their impartiality would be questioned by reasonable people.10. Acting justice Forman violated NY State Judiciary Law Sec.17: A judge or surrogate, orformer judge or surrogate shall not act as attorney or counselor in any action, claim, matter,motion or proceeding which has been before him in his official character.11. Acting justice Forman violated NY State statute CPLR 2219 (a).12. Acting justice Forman violated NY State code and regulation 22NYCRR 202.8(h).13. Acting justice Forman violated NY State Code and Regulation 22NYCRR 100 (E): A judgeshall disqualify himself in a proceeding in which the judges impartiality might reasonably bequestioned.14. Acting justice Forman violated NY State Code and Regulation 22NYCRR C: A judge shalldisquali fy himself in a procedure in which the judges impartiality might reasonably bequestioned including but not limited to instances in which (a) the judge has a personal bias orprejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge or disputed evidentiary facts concerning theproceeding.

15. Acting justice Forman violated the Rule of Chief administrative Judge 22NYCRR 100 B (4): Ajudge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice against or in favor of any person. Ajudge in the performance of the judicial duties shall not by words or conduct manifest bias orprejudice.16. Acting justice Forman violated the Rule of Chief Administrative Judge 22NYCRR 100 B (6): a

judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding or that personslawyer the right to be heard according to law. A judge shall not initiate, permit or consider exparte communications.17. Acting justice Forman violated the Rule of Chief Administrative Judge 22NYCRR 100 B (7):

A judge shall dispose of all matters promptly, efficiently and fairly.18. Acting justice Forman violated the Chief Administrative Judge Rule 22NYCRR 100.2:

Substantial misconduct rose to such an egregious levelthat the conduct implicates the attorneys honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer when a

judge is accused of being biased and pro-prosecutorial. A judge must avoid impropriety and theappearance of impropriety in all judges activities.19. Acting justice Forman violated NY State Bill of Rights and CVR Article 2 (10) regarding the


12/21

right to freely obtain writs upon payment of the fee.20. Acting justice Forman violated Federal law 18 USC Sec. 401. Power of Courts. A Court of theUS shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contemptof its authority as: 1. Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions. 3.Disobedience or resistance to do writs process, order, rule, decree or command.21. Acting justice Forman violated Federal law 28 USC Sec. 144 and 28 USC Sec 455 (1989)statutory basis for the recusal or disqualification of judges. Section 144 provides a procedure fora party to recuse a judge based that the judge has a personal bias or prejudice against the party

or in favor of the adverse party, such judge shall not proceed further, but another judge shall beassigned to hear such proceeding.22. Acting justice Forman violated Federal Law Title 18 Sec 912: Whoever falsely assumes orpretends to be an officer or employee acting under of the US or any department, agency, orofficer thereof, and act as such or in such pretended character, demands or obtains anypaper,document(s)hall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 3 years or both.23. Acting justice Forman violated Federal Law Title 18 Sec. 242. Deprivation of rights undercolor of law. Penalty is fine or imprisonment not more than one year or both.This long list of violations of law by the acting justice Peter M. Forman unequivocallydemonstrates the highest degree of judicial corruption in the Supreme Court of New York Stateand the impermissible lawlessness in New York State highest court of justice. Who is suppose to

oversee, discipline and demand justice in the name of the People of New York State ???.On August 12, 2012, Dr. Mircea Veleanu addressed a complaint with NY State Commission onJudicial Conduct against 4 judges of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County. In a letter datedFebruary 15, 2013, the Commission notified Dr. Veleanu that Upon careful consideration, theCommission concluded that there was insufficient indication of judicialmisconduct to justify judicial discipline.In a reply letter dated February 27, 2013, Dr. Veleanu requested a reconsideration of the decisiondismissing the complaint and complained that the Commission did not enclose an explanationfor the dismissal of the complainant. The failure of the Commission to state the reasons for thedismissal of the case is violating the new legislation amendment to the judiciary law known asBill # S249-2013 enacted on January 9, 2013. The amendment of Section 44 (1) of the judiciarylaw brought by Senator Sampson requires that (I)f the complaint is dismissed, the Commissionshall PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR THE DETERMINATION FOR THE DISMISSAL TO thecomplainant. The capital letters are actually in the written ACT of the amendment Section 2. AsSenator Sampson stated: this Bill will allow the Commission on Judicial Conduct to provide thebasis for dismissing complaints rather than simply stating there was insufficient indication ofmisconduct. Senator Sampson also stated: This legislation will open the judiciary disciplinaryprocess; judges are public officials whose actions on the Bench should be subject to publicscrutiny. Despite 2 requests, till June 13, 2013, NY State Commission on Judicial Conduct didnot provide the reason for dismissal of the complaint!!!

Again, quid pro quo is the ruling dogma (an old Romanian proverb states that one hand washes

the other and both hands wash the face!!!).Is this United States of America, the beloved land, bastion of freedom, liberty, or the land wheredictatorial power oppresses the people and deprives the persons of life, liberty, or propertywithout due process???.Dr. Veleanu is a Holocaust survivor and lived behind Iron Curtain a good portion of his life; assuch, he is well accustomed with fascist/communist oppression of the dictatorial regimes. Heescaped the communist hell to encounter in US the same dictatorial tyranny of judicial, electedlegislative and executive corruption of cover up of officials: QUID PRO QUO!!!NY State Governor Andrew Cuomo stated on his speech at his inauguration as Governor of NYState:

PUBLIC INTEGRITY WAS MY TOP PRIORITY AS NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL AND

IT IS AS GOVERNORTHOSE WHO HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE MUST SAFEGUARD THATTRUST AND THOSE THAT VIOLATE THEIR OATH MUST INCUR PUNISHMENT. IT IS ANEW DAY IN ALBANY AND THE OLD DAY OF DOING BUSINESS WILL NOT BETOLERATED.This pure demagoguery of a corrupt politician is a reflection of the way Washington politicians


13/21

rule our beloved country that soon will become Zimbabwe (former Rhodesia, one of the pastmost prosperous African country)!The most hypocrite politician in NY State, Andrew Cuomo, in his megalomaniacal ambitiondesires to be the next elected president of USA in 2016!!!.God save United States of America!Dr. Mircea Veleanu challenged the judgment of acting justice Pagones in the Appellate Court,Second Department of the Supreme Court of New York. The Appellate Court failed to perform its

judicial function of review of the trial court proceedings and failed to render opinions in

controversial matters of law, opinion about violation by the trial court of the due process of thedefendant Veleanu and forbid the fraudulent unconscionable abuse of discretion and illogicaland irrational arbitrary and frivolous judgment of acting justice Pagones. The Appellate Divisionfailed to answer the questions posed to the court in the legal fraudulent way typical of kangaroocourt where the contentions of the appellant are completely ignored as inexistent. The appellantraised the most important issue that requires reversal of the trial court judgment, consisting inlack of jurisdiction of the court to render a judgment due to failure to achieve in personam

jurisdiction and lack of court jurisdiction of subject matter. The law in any state of US as well asfederal courts require proof of jurisdiction to appear in the record and all court proceedings. Thelack of jurisdiction renders the court without any authority to decree any order and judgment as inDr. Veleanus legal case. A court as Appellate Court cannot affirm a void judgment of trial court

as no court can confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid.However, fraudulently, the Appellate Court did in Dr. Veleanu.s appeal!. The Appellate Divisionfailed to answer any of the questions raised by the appellant Veleanu and failed to give anopinion to the posed questions as:1. Was the evidence presented by appellant consisting in plethora of scientific and mineralogicaltextbooks, etc., not rebutted by any scientific literature showing the contrary, a sufficient groundupon which to deny the summary judgment, due to the presence of numerous triable issues ofmaterial fact?.The Appellate Court did not respond to this question, but in an egregious and fraudulentDecision and Order dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of NYDutchess County on base thatappellant/defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in a genuine and reprehensible,opprobrious, human conscience shaking abuse of discretion, and irrational and il logical arbitraryand frivolous judicial action. In other words, all documentary evidence in form of proof, un-rebutted by the adversary party, was arbitrarily and capriciously discarded by the Appellate Courtas non-existent. Obviously, the presence of the triable issues of fact were clearly submitted in theBrief to the Appellate Court by appellant Veleanu under Point XIX : The plaintiff was not entitledto summary judgment due to the fact that are numerous triable issues of fact. The Court erred bygranting summary judgment to the plaintiff and this represents a miscarriage of justice. weresufficient to preclude the grant of summary judgment.The Appellate Court did not respond to the most important question posed by the Appellant:

Was the constitutional right of the defendant violated by failure of the plaintiff to serve the petitionand order to show cause in sufficient time to allow knowledge of the charges and prepare thedefense?.The Appellate Court never rendered an opinion regarding this question. The service of the

judicial process was never done and consequently the court did not have any jurisdiction uponthe person of defendant. Luring the defendant to court for a calendar call of issuing a TRO is notconsidered by CPLR 320 C as service of the process. Accordingly, the court lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction made the judgment(s) null, invalid and void ab initio. The final judgment ofacting justice Pagones completely lacked the service on respondent as it started de novo of alegal action after 2 defaults of the petitioner AG. The contentions of lack of court jurisdiction wasraised in the Brief under Point XXI: The Court did not have personal jurisdiction upon defendant

due to the fact that the Notice of Petition was never served to defendant (Order to show cause).The next question addressed to the Appellate Court was: Was the failure of the trial court to setup a hearing after granting the TRO and prior decreeing a permanent injunction a violation of theconstitutional right of the defendant?.The Appellate Court did not give an opinion regarding this question, as well. The Appellate Court


14/21

failed to review the decisions, orders and judgments of the Supreme Court of NY DutchessCounty and the suppression of constitutional rights of due process by lack of any hearings orconference calls during all proceedings in the trial court. The most egregious violation ofappellant constitutional rights in the trial court was denial of defense by fraudulently ruling thatthe pleadings were unsworn, when actually the pleadings were submitted legally underdeclaration of perjury pursuant to CPLR 105 U. The violations of Appellants constitutional rightsunder 14th amendment, 6th , 7th and 8th amendment were brought in the Briefs Point XVII withdetailed exemplification in support. The contentions of Appellant of the violations of the civil

rights were brought in the Brief under Point XXIV: AG violated civil rights of the defendant.The only opinion rendered by the Appellate Court was the moronic, senseless and illogical,intellectually defective inference that appellant Veleanu sold a customer several items which hetold her were made of high quality jade, but which laboratory testing proved were quartzite, a lessexpensive and more common stone. This statement upon which the Appellate Court based itsdecision was fraudulent and deceiving as the items sold were not of jewelry grade jadeite that isprone to be examined by gemological testing, rather ornamental art carvings that are constitutedof a stone that contains several minerals other than jadeite. Even if this allegation would be true,the complainant was entitled to lifetime warranty for a refund in accordance with conditions ofsale of the commercial contract. This determination statement is typical for an unconscionableabuse of discretion and irrational and illogical arbitrary and capricious judicial action unsuitable

to a higher court of justice supposed to make the final determination of a legal case. Thepetitioner AG, never gave an example where an ornamental art carving was ever examined bygemological testing that is exclusively used for jewelry grade stone. Such examination was neverdone by any merchant of jadeite art carvings that exclusively use mineralogical testing for theidentification. The Appellants contentions were brought to the Appellate Court in the Point II ofthe Brief: Gemological laboratory testing is not the proper method of identification of ornamentalart jadeite carvings with detailed scientific support of the contentions. In abhorrent, fraudulentdisregard of the exculpatory evidence, violation of constitutional and civil rights, irrefutableevidence of misconduct of the officers of trial court, criminal activity of the prosecutor, fraud uponcourt in numerous occasions, the Appellate Court failed to perform its legal duty to review andrender an opinion in all issues raised by Appellant, fundamental in affecting the rights for a fairreview.The Appellate Court did not perform its legal responsibili ty to reverse thetrial court judgment based on CPLR 5704, based on ex parte legal proceedings without hearings,conference calls, based on orders and judgments that were void. CPLR 5704 that is theexclusive responsibility of Appellate Court was fraudulently ignored despite that this contentionwas brought in the Brief under Point XXI: CPLR R5704 review of ex parte orders (a) by appellatedivision specifies that the appellate division or a justice thereof may vacate or modify any ordergranted without notice to the adverse party by any court or a judge from which an appeal wouldlie to such appellate division.The 4 judges of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of NY: Reinaldo Rivera, JP, Daniel

D. Angiolillo, Ariel E. Belen, Sherri S. Roman, JJ, acted in blatant bias and prejudice againstappellant Veleanu by failing to take in consideration all Brief Points contents as they did not existwhatsoever. The decision and order of the Appellate Court is clearly representation ofconscience shocking abuse of discretion and illogical aberration of mind and arbitrary andfrivolous action of 4 justices covering up the fraud upon court of the involved judges of theSupreme Court of NY Dutchess County. In a conference related to a subpoena intended to befollowed by execution of home property of respondent, appellant Veleanu referred to the trialcourt as the court below. Associate justice of the Appellate Court, Hon. Priscilla Hall , candidlyasked appellant why he believes the Dutchess County Supreme Court of NY is the court belowas both SCDC and Appellate Court represent the Supreme Court of NY. At such statement,appellant Veleanu realized that the Appeals chances in that the decision of Appellate Court

would be different than the trial court in Dutchess County were nil, however Veleanu wascommitted by submitting the appeal papers that demanded enormous effort for more than 6months of gathering legal research. The Appellate Court violated the Bill of Rights and CVR

Article 2(10) of NY State by denial of Veleanus motion for reargument of the order of denial of theAppeal by the Appellate Court of November 2, 2011, or in alternative, the permission to appeal


15/21

the order of denial of the Appeal with the Court of Appeals (the highest Court in NY State). Theappeal denial by the Appellate Court was pre-determined, as well as the denial of reargumentand permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals. The proof of pre-determination of the decisionand order consisted in issuing the order prior deciding a motion for reargument/permission toappeal at the Court of Appeals. This decision and order was fraudulent in 2points. 1. The order of denial of leave to reargument and pemission to appeal to the Court of

Appeals was dated 11/02/12 at the time that a prior motion for protection and stay of enforcementwas pending and placed on the motion calendar for 02/24/12 (that represents more than 3 weeks

past the Appellate Court already decreed decision and order of the Appellate Court!!!. TheAppellate Court violated CPLR 2219 that specifies that an order to show cause is to be decidedwithin 20 days. 2. Fraudulently and recklessly, the Appellate Court tried to confuse the issue bystating that motion by the appellant for leave to reargue appeals from a judgment of the SupremeCourt, Dutchess County, dated September 29, 2010 and an order of the same court, also datedSeptember 29, 2010, appears as the Appellate Court was fraudulently accusing the appellant toappeal decisions and judgments of the trial court that were already denied by the AppellateCourt,action that if would be real, would not only be redundant, but would represent a frivolous actionand genuine res judicata. In reality, appellant Veleanus leave was for reargument of the

Appellate Courts decision and order of denial of the appeal, rather than reviving trial courts

orders and judgment!. The Appellate Courts decisions and orders demonstrates pre-determination without deliberation and also, cover up of judicial misconduct of the officers of thetrial court by the 4 justices of the Appellate Court already mentioned. The justices of the

Appellate Court conspired to violate the constitutional rights of the appellant in violation of Title18 Section 19 of making a crime to conspire, to injure or oppress any citizen in the face ofexercise of any right or privilege secured to him by Constitution. The Appellate Court violatedFederal Law Title 18 Section 20 that involves the deprivation of the right to equal protection of thelaws guaranteed by the 14th amendment of USC.In absence of the permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals, Dr. Veleanu asked the leave ofpermission to appeal directly to the Court of Appeals, but was turned down by the Court of

Appeals without any explanation. After exhausting any possibility to obtain relief from grievances,Dr. Veleanu sued the officers of the NY State Supreme Court of NY pursuing Article 78. All 4

justices of NY State Supreme Court of NY declined to appear in the Court and defendthemselves in a clear act of invoking the 5th amendment of USC. They were prevented by Dr.Veleanu petition to be defended by the Attorney General due to the conflict of interest of beingparties of the suit against them by Dr. Veleanu. AG cannot raise the collateral estoppel (issuedetermination) similar to res judicata (claim preclusion determination due to the following facts: 1.The issue preclusion requires an actual full and fair litigation of the issues, fact that did not takeplace. The first litigation in the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County was a typical kangaroocourt, without hearings and even when Dr. Veleanu was represented by legal counsel, the courtdid not set forth a hearing for a fair and actual adjudication. In the litigation of the trial court, the 2

causes of action were related to statutory fraud. Res judicata cannot apply to the second litigationas the causes of action are completely different, dealing in lack of personal and subject matterjurisdiction due to failure to serve the process by the prosecutor, according to CPLR 5015 (a) (4).The second cause of action in the second litigation is also different claim dealing to fraud andcriminal wrongdoing by the prosecutor pursuing CPLR 5015 (a) (3). The issues while wereraised by Dr. Veleanu in the first litigation, but were completely ignored by the Court. The issue oflack of personal jurisdiction and lack of subject matter jurisdiction was raised at every step of thelitigation, including the Appellate Court Appeal, nevertheless, the issue was ignored by the trialcourt and also by the Appellate Court and not adjudicated whatsoever. The third requirement forthe res judicata/collateral estoppel is that a final judgment on merits must have been rendered,ultimately deciding the action (claim) and issues in litigation, fact that did not take place. If an

issue was raised in the previous litigation (the lack of court jurisdiction) but the issue was notdecided or adjudicated, the issue cannot be the target of the collateral estoppel. Res judicata andcollateral estoppel do not apply when the judgment is based on technicality, rather than themerits as in this fraudulent legal case. A courts lack of jurisdiction need not be plead and can beraised at any time and is not subject to a justice of the court discretion; the court cannot confer


16/21

jurisdiction by decrees of orders and judgment, as is illegal.The defense raised by Dr. Veleanu in the first litigation in the trial court of the Supreme Court ofNY, as well as the motions to dismiss, were fraudulently denied by extrinsic fraud, by the acting

justice of the Supreme Court, acting fraudulently in the name of the Court. The fraud upon courtand extrinsic fraud by denying the defense of respondent ruling that the pleadings and motions todismiss were unsworn, was committed by acting justice Thomas Dolan ignoring that thedeclaration under penalty of perjury according to CPLR 105 U allows the pleadings and motionsto dismiss to be

legal and binding to the Court. Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and the judgmentfrom a Court that lacks subject matter jurisdiction is a nullity and forever void. Accordingly, allorders and judgments decreed by the Supreme Court of NY are void, null and unenforceable.Due process grants every litigant entitlement to have his day in court. US Supreme Court inCromwell v County of Sac, 94 US 351, 352, 353 (1876) determined that when the second actionbetween the parties is upon a different claim, the judgment in the prior action operates as anestoppel only to the matters actually litigated on merits. 1. Res judicata and collateral estoppelapply only when based on the same claim (cause of action) that evidently do not apply to thiscase. 2. The former judgment had to be rendered on merit (Did not happen in the litigation of thefirst instance) and is not conclusive as to issues or questions which have been, but were notlitigated in the original action. The opportunity to be heard is the essential pre-requisite of due

process in the judicial proceedings. According to 14th amendment of USC, the State cannotenforce a judgment against a party named in the proceeding without hearing or an opportunity tobe heard. 1. In Dr. Veleanus legal case, the issues were presented to various tribunals but werenot adjudicated at all. 2. Res judicata does not apply due to lack of identities of the parties, norwere in privity. 3. In addition, the factual issues were essentially not the same in the priorproceeding. 4. Factual issues sought to be litigated must have been litigated in the previous legalaction. Neither of the above issues of the collateral estoppel apply to Dr. Veleanu petitionaccording to Article 78 of CPLR.Finally, Dr. Veleanu invoked CPLR 5015 (a) (3) consisting in fraud, misrepresentation, or othermisconduct of the adverse party. The criminal acts of NY State Attorney General Andrew Cuomoand his counsel Nicholas G. Garin, AKA Nick Garin need to be presented to the people of theState of New York, as the above claim to represent and act in the name of the People, Thefactual representation hereto presented to all citizens of United States of America supposed to bethe bastion of freedom and liberty, and the people of the entire world, eager to learn about theviolation of civil rights and human rights by the corrupt leaders who oppress, prosecute andpersecute innocent people of the nation they lead.The il legal and (or) criminal acts committed by prosecutorial misconduct of AG Andrew Cuomoand his counsel Nick Garin, inter alia are as follows:1. Motto. No country is a democratic country when the civil rights of a person are totally repressedand the trials are in form of kangaroo court which is conducted without the opportunity todefend, without hearings and in which a defendant is allowed only to accept guilt in form of

unethical bargaining plea, when defendant is innocent of all fraudulent charges against him.2. AG Andrew Cuomo commenced a contumacious legal proceeding against Dr. Mircea Veleanuin bad faith for lack of standing, lack of a cause of action to justify the commencement of legalaction, and irrefutable proof of extrinsic fraud. The single complainant had no standing to sue aswas not aggrieved. Under conditions of sale of the commercial contract, she was entitled tolifetime warranty and refund. The evidence, clearly has shown that complainant receivedreassurance that she will be refunded and thus, contradicting Attorney General (AG) aspetitioner, the fraudulent lie that respondent refused to refund the complainant.3. AG as petitioner started a summary proceeding under GBL 349 and Executive Law 63.12 incomplete failure to prove a cause of action under GBL 349 of statutory fraud, that will be eligiblefor an entitlement of relief. The case does not satisfy by any reasonable and logical basis to

support a summary judicial action and clearly represents an unconscionable abuse of officers ofCourts discretion, fraud upon court, and irrational and il logical arbitrary and capricious judicialaction.4.This legal case represents a commercial dispute between a single criminal complainantengaged in perjury, fraud by mislabeling forensic evidence, extortion, forgery by counterfeit of


17/21

document submitted to the court for charging the seller with alleged statutory fraud, absence ofsubstantiation of her allegations by evidence in form of proof, and on the other side, a seller thatethically acted conform with the conditions of sale of the contract.The case does not meet the requirements of GBL 349: 1. It was not addressed to the consumersat large, rather represented a private commercial dispute that had to be resolved according to theconditions of sale of the commercial contract. 2. The dispute was particular and exclusivelyrelated to this case and did not involve any other customer with similar complaints. 3. The legalcase lacks materiality, as complainant collected only jewelry type of items, and the complainant

was advised that the seller sells mainly art carvings that are not jewelry items per se, and do notsatisfy the strict requirements of jewelry grade items.4. The sole complainant committed criminal acts aided, encouraged and supported by the

Attorney General. 1. The complainant committed perjury by making contradictory statements inher affidavit in regard to the cost ofgemological testing done by AGTA Lab. The statement in her affidavit contradicted 2 previousstatements she previously made in regard to the cost of the gemological testing by AGTA.Subsequently, her legal deposition became invalid due to her impeachment as a witnessaccording to CPLR 4514. The complainant forged the evidence by mislabeling of the 7 jadeitemala as carved head necklaces in order that she could submit the mala as jewelry items, assuch, misrepresenting the 7 jadeite mala as jewelry items, rather than ornamental jade mala as

labeled and sold to her by Dr. Veleanu. In a criminal act, the complainant forged by counterfeit,an invoice provided to her by her partner in fraud, a jeweler friend with store in Massachussetts.The graphological examination reveals that complainant wrote the invoice herself. Thehandwriting of the invoice is identical to her handwriting adjacent to the invoice and other legaldocuments exhibiting her handwriting.5. Complainant conspired with Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Garin to charge Dr. MirceaVeleanu with false allegations. The evidence in form of proof revealed that complainantsaffidavit was composed, edited or written by AAG Garin. The affidavit contained intimate detailsof the legal process as Exhibit numbers in AGs Petition, content of the fore-mentioned Exhibitsthat would be impossible to complainant named Janet Spiridonakos to know, in absence of theconspiracy with the prosecutor to charge Dr. Mircea Veleanu with concocted false charges.Spiridonakos affidavit was not written by her as a witness of facts she knew from personalexperience, rather was imposed illegally and fraudulently by Attorney General in the fact thatSpiridonakos wrote like she was the prosecutor of the legal process. Federal law Title 18, Sec.19 makes a crime to conspire to injure or oppress any citizen in the face of exercise of any rightor privilege secured to him by Constitution.6. AG committed acts of malicious prosecution and abuse of legal process by contemplating anulterior malicious motive in using the legal legitimate process of an affidavit. He committed awillful act in the use of process not proper with regular conduct of proceedings in maliciousprosecution.The essence of the tort of abuse of process lies in the misuse of the power of the court; it is an act

done in the name of the court and under its authority for the purpose of perpetrating an injustice.The improper use of the abuse of process and malicious prosecution takes the form of coercionto obtain a collateral advantage not properly involved with the proceeding itself, such as thesurrender of property, or the payment of money, by the use of process as a threat or a club, a trueform of illegal prosecutorial extortion.7. Prosecutor Attorney General, committed illegal and criminal acts in achieving the relievesgranted by the court in lack of any cause of action to substantiate the grant of such relieves. 1.

Attorney General willingly commenced a legal action when knowingly he was aware that he hadno standing to initiate a legal action, when the clear evidence showed that the singlecomplainant was not aggrieved in any way by Dr. Mircea Veleanu. She was entitled to lifetimewarranty that provided refund based on the conditions of sale of the contract. 2. Fraudulently, she

breached the commercial contract in order to defraud and extort the respondent by conspiringwith AAG Garin to receive i llegal award of punitive retroactive interest of 9 % years back to thedate of purchase of jade items. As such, she fraudulently and criminally enriched herself on totalamount of her investment in purchasing jade items from Dr. Veleanu.8. The conspiracy of AAG with complainant Spiridonakos to defraud and extort Dr. Veleanu


18/21

represents an unconscionable abuse of discretion, extrinsic fraud and fraud upon court. Theillegal retroactive interest of 9 % was also promised by AG to 3 customers who did not claimmisrepresentation of the seller, but breached the commercial contract in order to achieve il legalenrichment of their investment by defrauding the respondent. The punitive retroactive interest of 9% was illegal, as GBL 349 does not provide punitive fines. Such act represents extrinsic fraud,fraud upon court and unconscionable abuse of discretion.

9. Attorney General did not provide with any evidence for the entitlement to GBL 349 and assuch, his legal action by failure to state a cause of action and unconscionable abuse of discretion

was fraudulently pre-conceived.10. In his petition, AG submitted false and deceiving allegations that Veleanu refused to takeany malas (sic) back and refund to this consumer the thousands of dollars she paid him. Suchabhorrent lies were submitted under penalty of perjury and represent the criminal act of perjury,unconscionable abuse of discretion and capricious and arbitrary statements made withoutrational. The substantial evidence clearly shows that the complainant and the prosecutor acted inunison to defraud and extort the respondent.11. Willingly and knowingly, AAG Garin uttered to the court documentary evidence he knew wasfalse and fraudulent. AAG uttered to the court criminally forged and mislabeled evidence asprima facie of alleged fraudwith full knowledge of the falsity of the evidence he presented to the court. Using fake court

documents constitutes a violation of federal statute Title 18 Sec 371. The penalty for using fakecourt documents is up to 5 years imprisonment. Title 18, Sec 514 of Federal Law provides that itis a crime to use a fraudulent document.

AG is guilty of Federal law Title 18 Chapter 25 Sec 514 counterfeiting and forgery, provides:whoever with the intent to defraud: 1. Draws, prints, processes, publishes, or otherwise makes,or attempts or causes the same, within the US; 2. Passes within the US, or (3) utilizes interstateor foreign commerceany false or fictitious instrument, document, or other item appearing,representing, purporting or contriving through a scheme or artifice shall be guil ty of class Bfelony.12. New York State similarly, under Penal Law 175.10 Falsifying business records in the firstdegree specifies: A person is guilty of falsifying business records when he commits the crime offalsifying business records in the second degree, and when by intend to defraud.13. AAG Garin committed the criminal act of perjury by stating in his Alternative Statement in l ieuof Stenographic transcripts pursuant to CPLR 5525 (d), that he was not aware that gemologicalidentification reports were forged and the evidence was fraudulently mislabeled by complainantSpiridonakos until respondent answered to Petition in his pleadings and later, on the motion toreargument and renew. This statement of AAG Garin is a blatant lie as the evidence showed thatrespondent brought to the attention of AAG Garin that AGTA gemological reports were forgedand mislabeled, firstly at the pre-trial subpoena and then in respondents pre-trial response to theNotice of Proposed Action pursuant to Article 22, weeks prior trial. The findings of forgery andmislabel were brought again i

RELEASE OF INFORMATION TO MEDIA-Re: ANTIQUE DEALER GETS DEATH PENALTY. ich Text Editor File

Documents

Transcript of RELEASE OF INFORMATION TO MEDIA-Re: ANTIQUE DEALER GETS DEATH PENALTY. ich Text Editor File