You are on page 1of 15


United States District Court
Southern District of New York State
Civil Docket No.13 CV 5566 (VB)
Civil Docket No. 13 CV 5693 (VB)
Mircea Veleanu
Andrew Cuomo, former Attorney General of
the State of New York, individually and in his official capacity as Attorney General
of New York State, Defendant, et al
Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, the following Plaintiffs contentions represent material
facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue to be tried.
Material facts related to former AG Andrew Cuomo and his counsel, Nicholas Garin
1. Former Attorney General of the State of New York and his counsel, Nicholas G.
Garin, in bad faith contumaciously commenced and continued a vexatious legal
action pursuant to GBL 349 and Executive Law 63.12 against Mircea Veleanu
without probable cause, without standing to sue and lack of ground to sue due to
lack of injury to the single complainant. In addition, the case was not addressed to
public at large, constituted only from a series of private transactions related only
to the complainant and lacking of any other complaints in this matter by any
former clients, could be resolved based on the conditions of sale of the contract
and finally lacked the materiality due to the fact that complainant Spiridonakos
was prior informed that the items sold as jadeite ornamental art carvings
2. Prosecutor was knowledgeable that complainant Spiridonakos had a
commercial contract with Plaintiff that provided refunds in conformance with the
conditions of sale with lifetime warranty.
3. Prosecutor conspired with complainant Spiridonakos to breach the
commercial contract to benefit from a bribe of offering an illegal (not backed by
any statute) retroactive interest of 9 % starting years back to the time of purchase

of all her items. With clear intention to increase the amount of bribe, prosecutor
engaged in dilatory legal actions that extended the litigation of 3 years or more
from the start of legal action against Plaintiff.
4. The prosecutor conspired with the single complainant, Janet Spiridonakos, to
charge Plaintiff with false and concocted forensic evidence being aware that such
evidence is fraudulent.
. 5. The prosecutor committed perjury in official statement in His Alternative
Statement in lieu of stenographic transcripts pursuant to CPLR 5525 (d) that he
was not aware that the mineralogical reports were forged and forensic evidence
was mislabeled by complainant Spiridonakos until Veleanu. answered the Petition,
and later, argued it in the motion to reargument/renew. AAG Garin preferred to
commit perjury, rather than admit that commenced a legal action in absence of
probable cause.
6. The prosecutor wrote himself the prima facie evidence used to charge Plaintiff
with the false charges as representing the complainants, Janet Spiridonakos,
alleged to be her sworn under oath affidavit based on her personal knowledge.
The affidavit revealed information that was based on privileged prosecutors
legal action consisting in presentation to the court of paragraphs, Exhibits and
their content, etc. that would be impossible to be known to the complainant
alleged to swear under oath that is her personal knowledge. As such, complainant
committed perjury. Plaintiff impeached her affidavit by revealing that the affidavit
alleged statements that contradicted prior statements she made in the emails
evidence she produced to the prosecutor. Complainant committed perjury and
subsequently, prosecutor in his investigative function committed subornation of
perjury as being knowledgeable of the premeditated criminal acts of the
7. Prosecutor willingly and knowingly, falsified the forensic evidence by forgery
and concealment of exculpatory evidence residing in obstruction of exculpatory
evidence in his submitting to the Court of such forged evidence with clear
intention to deceive and mislead the court.
8. Willingly and knowingly, the above mentioned defendants uttered to the court
forensic evidence constituting in gemological evidence they were aware that was
forged, tampered and mislabeled and fraudulently offered as prima facie evidence
of alleged statutory fraud.
9. Prosecutor failed to act upon exculpatory evidence provided by Plaintiff in his
Reply to Notice of proposed Action, further investigate by using diligent action
and dismiss the legal action as Nolle Prosequi.
10. Prosecutor failed to serve Plaintiff with the service of legal process and
subsequently, the Court failed to achieve personal jurisdiction of the Court upon
11. Prosecutor fraudulently used trickery by luring Plaintiff to the court to make
an appearance and handle the Complaint, with the pretext of a TRO proceeding.
Nevertheless, NY State CPLR 320 c provides that an unrelated appearance does
not constitute the service of action.
12. In absence of any other complainant against Veleanu, AG offered bribery to
any former customer who would claim a refund without a statement of
misrepresentation. Obviously, the amount of bribery would be higher than
claiming a refund from Plaintiff as based on the conditions of sale of the contract.

The request for the refund of the purchases of jade art carvings through AG from 3
former customers, was fraudulent not only that breached the commercial
contract, but also due to the fact that the jade items were not purchased directly
from Veleanu as seller, rather through auctions on the Internet where Veleanu was
a consignor, rather than the seller. Accordingly, the request included 27.5 %
auction fees, Paypal fees and shipping charges. The illegal punitive retroactive
interest of 9 % from the date of purchase was fraudulently extended to these 3
former customers who unjustly enriched by the fraudulent actions of AG. These
customers who requested a refund were not aggrieved or injured, did not allege
misrepresentation and conspired with AG to unjustly enriched themselves. AG
initiated the vexatious and frivolous legal action lacking standing and probable
cause in behalf of former customers who willingly and knowingly breached the
commercial contract to benefit of the bribe solicitation by AG of not only a refund,
but also benefit of considerable benefit of punitive to Plaintiff of 9 % interest
charged years back, in one case of being illegally more than 3 years back that is
the limitation of time for statutory fraud. The instituted legal action was
fraudulent and vexatious as these 3 customers were not aggrieved and thus,
lacked the standing to sue. AG violated NY State CPLR 70 by commencing
vexatious suits in behalf of people that did not consent to sue in their behalf. This
fraudulent act is one of the several acts of extrinsic fraud and fraud upon the
Court committed by AG. One of the former customers, named Diana Norton,
conspired with AG to request a refund. She committed criminal acts with full
support and collaboration of AG by solicitation and offering of a bribe of 9 %
retroactive interest, that prompted her to commit theft of precious merchandise
and substitution with a valueless fake, perjury, by submitting false statements in
an affidavit and breach of contract. AG facilitated and indirectly served as an
accessory to the crimes committed by Norton.
13. AG used his prosecutorial power to issue 4 subpoenas from which only one
served the investigative purpose and the others were used for the collateral goal
of abuse of process and malicious persecution. AGs action represents a violation
of constitutional rights of Plaintiff under 4th. Amendment of USC and clear
example of use of illegal subpoenas to harass, oppress and intimidate and prevent
the Plaintiff to seek justice in court. AG exceeded his power under NY Judiciary
Law Sec. 43 (2) and 44 (4) and most significantly, violated Section 42 of the
Judiciary Law that prohibits the fishing expeditions.
14. AG maliciously released to media in 2 separate occasions during the active
phase of trial, false, deceiving and misleading inflammatory statements that were
misrepresenting and deceiving the court and the public. These criminal acts of
libel and abuse of process had the collateral goal to pecuniary, emotional and
physically injure the Plaintiff with clear intention that the fraudulent allegations by
the highest rank law enforcement official in the State, Andrew Cuomo, would
appear credulous enough to frighten former customers and recruit more
customers to request refunds by using libel and deceit.
15. In a brazen contempt of court, AG violated the court imposed gag on media
regarding the TRO by releasing information that AHG was pursuing a permanent
injunction to prevent the sale of jade items by Veleanu.
16. AG requested and obtained from AJSC James Pagones, illegal penalties and

court fees based on GBL 350 (d) despite that AG did not invoke a cause of action
under GBL 350 (d) in his Complaint. AG fraudulent action represents a clear
violation of the Constitutional rights of Plaintiff under 8th Amendment of USC,
extrinsic fraud and fraud upon the Court.
17. AG through active solicitation of recruiting former customers by promising
large bribes and aiding and encouraging the breach of contract through BRIBERY
OF WITNESSES constitute a federal criminal act under 18 USC Sec. 201 (b) (3).
18. AG solicited and personally contacted a known blogger, troller, spammer
and flamer, resident of communist China, to attack and libel Plaintiff and publicize
his deceiving and fraudulent releases to media. AG conspiracy action with the
troller in China represents a clear violation of USC Sec 241 and demonstrable
abuse of process and malicious prosecution by the prosecutor in his non-advocate
role that voids his absolute immunity and also his qualified immunity by
performance of illegal acts.
19. In conspiracy with complainant Spiridonakos, AG criminally uttered to the
court of forged, mislabeled and counterfeit forgery of prima facie evidence, for
charging and prosecuting Plaintiff using fabricated false charges. Representation
of false evidence as bona fide forensic evidence with full knowledge of its
fraudulent basis and concealing of exculpatory evidence denotes contumacious
prosecutorial action in bad faith. Such action clearly demonstrate illegal and
criminal action punishable under 18 USC sec. 1505 Antitrust Civil process of
obstruction of justice, extrinsic fraud, fraud upon the court and violation of
constitutional rights for a fair litigation and trial. AGs criminal acts represent
violation of 18 USC Sec. 373 and clear representation of deprivation of
constitutional rights of Veleanu under color of state law, extrinsic fraud and fraud
upon the court.
20. AG conspired with 3 acting justices of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess
County to oppress and suppress the rights and privileges secured by US
constitution to the Plaintiff, and prevent Plaintiff to defend in the typical
kangaroo court, devoid of personal jurisdiction and decreeing extra parte orders
and judgments without any hearing, whatsoever. The peremptory dictatorial
power of the acting justices of the trial court precluded debate, right to defend
and left no opportunity to deny the false and fabricated charges.
21. In pursuit of his fishing expeditions, AG engaged in dilatory manoeuvres
and was negligent by failing to docket within 60 days as provided by NY State 22
NYCRR of the order and judgment of acting justice Thomas Dolan. Thus, the order
and judgment of acting justice Dolan, as well as the permanent injunction became
null and invalid. As such, AG negligently defaulted by abandonment of legal action
by failure to prosecute.
22. AG had the opportunity to restart the legal action within 6 months since the
void judgment of acting justice Dolan, in accordance with CPLR 205 that provides
de novo legal action by service of process upon respondent. Nevertheless, AG
failed to do so as the amount of bribe was not yet at the satisfaction of AG. The
failure to restart the legal action within 6 months represents the second default of
AG for negligent abandonment of prosecution. Accordingly, AG violated the Anti
Trust and racketeering Act 15 USC Sec. 15 c (2) C that specifies: Whether in the
course of action involved (e)ither partys representative, engaged in conduct
primarily for the purpose of delaying the litigation or increasing the cost thereof.

23. Plaintiff contends that according to 15 USC Sec 15 c (2) (A), AG made
motions or asserted claims so lacking in merit as to show that he acted
intentionally for delayor otherwise acted in bad faith. As a result of the
prosecutorial misconduct of AG Andrew Cuomo, illegal and criminal acts,
violations of rules and regulations of the Unified Court System, statutes judicial
laws and Canons of judicial conduct, Plaintiff suffered irreparable physical,
psychological and financial injury.
Material facts related to justices of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County
24. Justice James Brands acting under color of state law granted a TRO based on
fraudulent forged and mislabeled forensic evidence and lack of probative value of
negative reviews of books written by Plaintiff in and presentation of
numerous pages of Plaintiffs website without any specification of a misconduct.
25. Justice Brands was aware of the lack of service by AG and despite the lack of
service, he decreed a TRO in absence of personal jurisdiction and subject matter
jurisdiction. His judicial action represents a violation of Veleanus constitutional
right of due process, extrinsic fraud and fraud upon the court.
26. Acting justice Thomas Dolan acting under the color of the state law,
fraudulently denied the defense of Plaintiff by declaring that the answer to the
complaint was unsworn. Nonetheless, the Plaintiffs pleadings were in the form
of declaration under the penalty of perjury that is legal under CPLR 105 U.
Accordingly, judicial action of acting justice Dolan represents egregious abuse of
discretion, irrational arbitrary action, extrinsic fraud and fraud upon the court.
27. Acting justice Dolan denied the motions to Dismiss the Complaint as being
unsworn. However, the motions to Dismiss were under legal form of declaration
under penalty of perjury in accordance with CPLR 105 U. Judge Dolan committed
again, extrinsic fraud, abuse of discretion, irrational arbitrary legal action and
28. Acting justice Dolan acting under the color of the state law. decreed a
permanent injunction without a mandatory hearing violating the states statutory
requirement. His actions are clear representation of abuse of discretion, irrational
arbitrary action, extrinsic fraud and FRAUD UPON THE COURT. His permanent
injunction is null and void due to lack of jurisdiction of the court.
29. Acting justice Dolan decreed an Ex Parte ORDER and JUDGMENT without a
hearing, without personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. As such, his
order and judgment are void ab initio.
30. Acting justice Dolan was aware from Veleanus pleadings and Motions to
Dismiss the Complaint that the prima facie evidence of alleged statutory fraud
was forged, mislabeled and at least, without any probative value. Acting Justice
ignored the evidence and decreed a fraudulent Order and Judgment that was
VOID from the beginning.
Material facts related to judicial actions of acting justice James Pagones
31. On September 29, 2010, acting justice decreed a summary judgment in a
legal proceeding de novo that again, lacked the service to Veleanu by AG with
consequent failure of the court to achieve personal and subject matter

jurisdiction. Thus the Order and Judgment of acting justice Pagones is void and
32. The Decision Order and Judgment of acting justice Pagones was an ex parte
Order and Judgment lacking any hearing, even when this time, Veleanu had legal
representation by a lawyer. His judicial action clearly represents a violation of
constitutional rights of Plaintiff for due process and equal rights. Acting justice
Pagones committed extrinsic fraud and FRAUD UPON THE COURT.
33. Acting justice Pagones fraudulently stated in his Order and Judgment (DOJ)
that Veleanu failed to provide triable issue of material fact, ignoring as inexistent
the reargument and renew motion of attorney Clinton Calhoun that brought to the
court several issues of material fact that preclude a summary judgment. Acting
justice Pagones committed egregious abuse of discretion, arbitrary irrational
judicial action, extrinsic fraud and FRAUD UPON THE COURT.
34. Acting justice Pagones violated the constitutional rights of Plaintiff under 8th
Amendment of USC, by granting illegal penalties under GBL 350 (d) that was not
claimed in the Complaint, as such failed to state a cause of action under GBL 350
(d). In addition, Acting justice Pagones granted to AG punitive retroactive interest
of 9 % that is not provided in GBL 349, or even GBL 350.
35. Acting justice Pagones violated the constitutional rights of Plaintiff under 42
USC Sec 1983 of his illegal judicial action under the color of law and in lack of ANY
JURISDICTION that voids his absolute immunity. The criminal act of fraud upon the
court voids even his qualified judicial immunity. His decreed judgment is a VOID
Material facts related to judicial actions of acting justice Peter M. Forman
36. Acting justice Forman acting under the color of the state law violated the
rights and privileges of Veleanu under 14th Amendment of USC. Acting justice
Forman deliberately denied all applications submitted to the court by Plaintiff in
open bias and prejudice.
37. Acting justice Forman impersonated the authority of Administrative judge of
the court by declining an application addressed to the Administrative judge by
Plaintiff done to prevent AJSC Forman to deny another application. AJSC Forman
judicial action represented abuse of discretion and a violation of 18 USC Sec 912.
38. In October 2012, Plaintiff submitted an application to the court pursuant to
CPLR 5015 (a) (4) and CPLR 5015 (a) (3) for annulment of order and judgment
decreed by AJSC Pagones based on the fact that the judgment was void. To
prevent AJSC Forman interference, AJSC Forman was requested to recuse in the
motion for annulment, based on his former acts of bias and prejudiced toward
Plaintiff. Nonetheless, AJSC Forman refused to recuse and acted upon the motion
even when he was named as a defendant in the application and ethically, legally
and the conflict of interest would preclude him to make a decision upon himself as
a defendant and clear the charges against himself. As in the previous Plaintiffs
applications, AJSC Forman attempted to moot the application with the hope that
Veleanu would give up and abandon the application. After a delay of more than 3
months, Plaintiff submitted an application to the Administrative judge of SCDC in
which Plaintiff requested several ministerial and administrative orders in regard to
the violation by AJSC Forman to decide upon a motion within 60 days as provided

by Rules and regulations of the Court and most importantly, violation of Penal Law
195 (failure to perform a ministerial and mandatory function. The administrative
judge never answered to Plaintiffs motion. However, next day, on January 29m
2013, AJSC Forman denied the Plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a), by
fraudulently stating that it was moot. Obviously, the motion was not moot, but
illegally delayed by AJSC Forman.
AJSC Forman violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights under the color of state law
and the Bill of rights. His resistance to do writs, and act impartially and timely
upon legally submitted applications, violated Plaintiffs civil and human rights of
obtaining the undeniable relief without unnecessary delays, upon payment of the
fees established by law.
39. Acting justice Forman violated 2 criminal laws: NY Penal Law 195 regarding
the failure to perform the mandated ministerial duty and Penal Law 190.25
(impersonation of the administrative judge and acting as such. Acting justice
violated judiciary Law 14 that specifies that a judge cannot act in an action where
he is a defendant, or has an interest. Also, AJSC Forman violated Judiciary Law 17
that prohibits a judge to take part in an action that was previously before him on
his official character. Finally, AJSC Forman violated Judiciary Law 701 which
prescribes that a judge shall not sit in a decision of an action or motion in which
he has an interest. As AJSC Forman had been disqualified by law, the conflict of
interest by itself nullifies the decision and order that illegally he had decreed.
Material facts related to justices of the Appellate Court Second Department as
follows: Reinaldo E. Rivera, JP, Daniel D. Angiolillo, Ariel E. Belen, and Sherri S.
40. The above stated justices held that the appellant failed to raise a triable
issue of fact and affirm the order and judgment of acting justice Pagones by
completely ignoring the exculpatory evidence, disregarding and ignoring the
complete lack of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County SCDC)
and ignoring as inexistent the unconscionable abuse of discretion and irrational
arbitrary and capricious judicial action and egregious and abhorrent acts of fraud
upon the court committed by acting justice Pagones.
41. The fore mentioned justices of the Appellate Court ignored as inexistent the
triable issues of material fact raised by Plaintiff in Point XIX of the Brief. The
decision and order of the Appellate Court Second Department was fraudulent and
void ab initio due to complete lack of jurisdiction of SCDC. The Appellate Court
cannot confer jurisdiction nunc pro tunc to the trial court of SCDC, when SCDC
lacks the jurisdiction in personam and subject matter jurisdiction,. thus, the orders
and judgments decreed by the acting justices of SCDC cannot be affirmed by the
Appellate Court justices.
42. THE FORE MENTIONED JUSTICES of the Appellate Court failed to review the
Appellants averments of FRAUD UPON THE COURT and unconscionable abuse of
discretion and the irrational arbitrary and capricious legal actions of the officers of
court of SCDC.
43. The fore mentioned justices of the Appellate Court failed to review and
ignore Appellants contentions as inexistent, the un-rebutted averments of
Appellant in Point IX of the Brief in regard to the criminal and illegal actions of the
44. The fore mentioned justices of the Appellate Court in a contumacious and

abhorrent lack of action, ignored the rebuttal of the false holding of all the acting
justices of the SCDC and their false and deceiving holding that the items sold to
Spiridonakos were made of a common stone that is less expensive than jadeite.
This fraudulent and intellectually degrading is based on the fabricated charges of
Spiridonakos that are not supported by any plausible scientific base. The Point II of
the Brief is conclusive in this matter: Gemological identification reports are
ITEM IN DIFFERENT AREAS. This paragrph of Brief had several exhibits in support
of the scientific documentation that the fore mentioned justices of the Appellate
Court failed to review, render an opinion and completely ignored as inexistent.
More egregious is the fore mentioned justices deliberate disregarding the
scientific explanation as inexistent that was not rebutted by any documentation
to controvert by AG Cuomo and his counsel.
45. Federal Trade Commission in 15 USC Sec. 45 and Sec. 52 (from where GBL
349 and 350 were adopted from states: Courts may not make thir own
determination as to where a test (like in the present case, gemological testing for
non jewelry jadeite authentication) should be the standard authentication as they
lack the specialized knowledge to do so and it is unfair to have liability turn on a
judges personal subjective view without expert witness testimony.
46. The Appellate Court fore mentioned justices violated constitutional rights
under 14th. Amendment, 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments of USC by
completely ignoring the contentions raised by Appellant in Points XXI, XXII, XXIII
and Point XXIV. In a typical kangaroo court of the autocratic or theocratic
dictatorial oppressive regimes, the for mentioned justices of the Appellate Court
failed to review the Briefs Points and completely ignored them as inexistent.
47. The fore mentioned justices of the Appellate Court ignored as inexistent the
4 questions posed to the court and failed to answer any.
48. The fore mentioned justices of The Appellate Court (AC) failed to take action
and vacate the order and judgment of acting justice Pagones on basis of CPLR
5704 as raised in Point XXI of the Brief (ex parte order and judgment).
49. The fore mentioned justices of the Appellate Court failed to perform their
mandatory duty to review the SCDC acting justices fraudulent judicial actions,
make a determination based on the issues raised in the Appeals Brief , respond to
the questions posed to the court by the Appellant and act with impartiality toward
the litigants, rather than decree pre-determined decision and orders. The decision
and order of justices Rivera, Angiolillo and Roman represent a sham and a palm
on the face to the People of New York State facing kangaroo court orders that
are irrational, illogical and absurd reflecting a peremptory dictatorial power typical
to the oppressive autocratic regimes. The fore mentioned justices of the Appellate
Court of NY Second Department committed extrinsic fraud, unconscionable abuse
of discretion chilling the Plaintiffs constitutional right for a fair and impartial
adjudication in United States of America!. Their judicial action represents

50. The fore named justices of the AC denied the motion for reargument and in
alternative the permission to appeal at the Court of Appeals and, thus denied the
right for a fair adjudication in any tribunal in NY State.
Material facts related to justices of the Appellate Court Second Department as
follows: Randall T. Eng, PJ, Cheryl E. Chambers, Robert J. Miller and Sherri S.
51. The fore named justices of the Appellate Court (AC), violated the due
process of Plaintiff by prematurely and illegally terminating the judicial proceeding
by a sua sponte decreed order and judgment based on a citation of a common
law case that did not satisfy the requirement of an Article 78 proceeding. The case
cited, The Matter of Legal Aid Society of Sullivan County v. Scheinman, 53 NY 2d
12, 16 was a legal case based on a motion on limine where the petitioner was not
entitled to a writ of mandamus due to the fact that he did not exhaust all judicial
and administrative alternatives for relief. Nonetheless, CPLR 7801 specifies that a
legal proceeding under Article 78 shall not be used to challenge a determination
that is not final, could be adequately reviewed by an appeal, or to a body or
officer to rehear the matter. The Appellate Court of the Supreme Court of NY
Second Department by the above named justices committed unconscionable
abuse of discretion, illogical and absurd legal action by comparing apples with
oranges and dismissing the Plaintiffs Petition requesting the writ of mandamus
to acting justice Peter Forman who denied Plaintiffs motion for annulment of the
void judgment in accordance with CPLR 5015 (a) (4) and CPLR 5015 (a) (3) that
are not susceptible to judges discretion. Acting justice committed fraud upon the
court by refusing to perform his ministerial and mandatory function of doing the
writ of dismissal of the judicial proceeding based on a Void judgment decreed by
acting justice Pagones.
52. The fraudulent legal action of the justices of the AC of Supreme Court of NY
did not limit to dismissal of Article 78 on basis of fraud upon the court. In
conspiracy with the Clerk of Court of the Appellate Court, the fore named justices
of AC decreed a fraudulent judgment that was dated 7 days following the
submission of Plaintiff of an application for summary judgment based on the
grounds that AG Cuomo and his counsel defaulted by failure to answer to the
contentions of the petitioner and could not provide any defense as lacking any
evidence to rebut the petitioners contentions. The Clerk of Court held the
application for about 3 weeks without filing and docketing it, thus, allowing the
justices of the AC to decree the fraudulent order and judgment that postdated
Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.
53. The sua sponte order and judgment was not brought by the adverse party,
rather by court intervention as an active litigant, or in behalf of 8 judges defended
by AG Cuomo and his counsel who opted not to appear in court., but benefited
from the biased and prejudicial action of the fore named justices of the AC who
acted as lawyers in the court they were sitting in. The judicial action of the fore
named justices of acting as a lawyer in behalf of one party and in detriment of the
opposing party and the violation of the substantial rights for a fair and unbiased
trial in the Supreme Court of NY Appellate Division Second Department is one of
the most egregious judicial acts that demands impeachment from the office and
disbarment of the AC justices.
54. Moreover, Justice Sherri S. Roman, was legally disqualified to sit in the

Article 78 proceeding due to the fact that she participated in the panel of AC who
dismissed Plaintiffs appeal. Justice Roman willingly and knowingly, dismissed
Plaintiffs Appeal by ignoring the numerous triable issues of material fact brought
by the Appeal, especially the complete lack of jurisdiction of the trial court of
SCDC to decree orders and judgments. Justice Sherri S. Roman violated NY State
Judiciary Law Sec 17 that prohibits a judge.. shall not act as an attorney in any
action, claim, motion or proceeding which has been before her (him) in her official
55. The fore named justices of AC violated judiciary Law Sec. 701 and Judiciary
Law 701 that prohibit a judge to act as an attorney in his court. Federal law 28
USC 455 and 28 USC Sec. 144 demand disqualification of a judge based on action
of bias and prejudice and obstruction of justice.
56. The fore named justices of AC violated NY State 22 NYCRR 100.3 (B) that
provides that a judge shall not practice law in the court he serves or has served as
a judge, or in any other proceeding related thereto. The fore named justices of the
AC violated the canons of judicial conduct, NY State judiciary laws and rules and
violations of NY State,
57.Presiding justice in the panel acted in conflict of interest by failure to
disqualify himself in a legal action where he was directly involved. AS Andrew
Cuomo as governor of NY State appointed him as a justice of the Appellate Court,
he could not act impartially against Andrew Cuomo as a Defendant in his court, in
Article 78 proceeding. Nevertheless, justice Eng did not disqualify himself from the
Article 78 proceeding and in conspiracy with justice Roman (who was also
disqualified by law to sit in Article 78 proceeding) and the other justices of the
panel, dismissed Article 78 proceeding without adjudication other than the fraud
upon the court dismissing Article 78 by invoking a legal case that does not satisfy
CPLR 7801 of the Article 78 proceeding.
58. The fore named justices of the AC stated that the judgment pursuant to
Article 78 was on merits. Nonetheless, the order and judgment pursuant to
Article 78 did not adjudicate all causes of action including the constitutional
violations by the justices of the court and by law and legal definition cannot be a
final decision on merit, supposedly ending the litigation and leaving nothing other
than to execute the judgment. Federal Rule 54 and CPLR 5012 set it forth that a
final judgment needs to adjudicate all causes of action, obviously the egregious
order of the judicial panel did not meet the requirement of Rule 54 of FRCP or
CPLR 5012.
59. Former AG of NY State committed the following, but not limited, illegal
prosecutorial misconduct, most of them being criminal under the laws of NY State
and US of America as follows: , commission of perjury and subornation of perjury,
uttering to the court of fraudulent evidence with full knowledge of the falsity of
evidence, extrinsic fraud, concealing exculpatory evidence, fabrication of false
evidence, forgery of forensic evidence, conspiracy with a complainant to charge
Plaintiff with fabricated charges, conspiracy with the same complainant to violate
Plaintiffs constitutional rights, conspiracy with the same complainant to defraud
Plaintiff, soliciting and bribing potential witnesses, offering bribes to persons who
did not claim misrepresentation and encouraging them to defraud Plaintiff by
breaching the commercial contract they had with the Plaintiff, violation of
constitutional rights of Plaintiff under the color of the state law, delaying the legal

proceeding in order to increase the amount of illegal and fraudulent punitive

penalties granted by AJSC James Pagones, and subsequently defaulting repeatedly
with full confidence that the illegal laches would not be sanctioned by the judges
the prosecutor conspired with, malicious prosecution and abuse of process,
release of false and libelous information to media, contempt of court by violation
of court gag order, making false statements of law or facts and representing them
as true, legitimate and valid, participation in the creation and preservation of
evidence known to be fraudulent and illegal, counseling and supporting, aiding
and assisting the sole complainant in a conduct the lawyer knew or should have
known is illegal and fraudulent, failing to exercise due diligence in his
investigative activity, violation of several applicable statute, rule and regulation
providing for sanctions for dilatory behavior, or otherwise providing for
expeditious proceeding conform with federal 15 USC Sec. 15 c (2) (B) prosecutor
is charged with, engagement in conduct primarily for the purpose of delaying the
litigation and or increasing the cost thereof in accordance with federal 15 USC
Sec. 15 c (2) C, prosecutor is charged with, misprision of felonies, bribing a
complainant with illegal money obtained from conspiracy with the judge who
decreed the void order and judgment lacking any jurisdiction, etc., etc. Most of
the above illegal activities being criminal in nature were done in the quasi judicial
non advocatory function in which the prosecutor is devoid of his absolute
immunity. Even qualified immunity is voided when the prosecutor committed
criminal acts and is fully responsible to law enforcing agencies and fully liable for
impeachment from the office for malfeasance, disbarment, fines and
Material facts related to violations of law committed by the Clerk of NY State
Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department, Aprilanne Agostino.
60. The Clerk of the Appellate Court, Aprilanne Agostino, acting under the color of
the state law, conspired with the prosecutor, former AG of NY State, Andrew
Cuomo and his counsel to violate the legal rights of Plaintiff for a fair opportunity
to litigate in the Appellate Court and petition the Appellate Court for a redress of
grievances as per prescription of 1st Amendment of USC. The common law
precedent clearly and irrefutably established as a matter of law that the Clerk of
the Court who performs ministerial and mandatory functions is not entitled to
quasi judicial immunity that is reserved exclusively only when Clerk performs
discretionary judicial immunity subsequent to an order or direction of a judge.
Clerk of the Court, Aprilanne Agostino did not perform any of such discretionary
function when she held the application for summary judgment of Plaintiff for
about 3 weeks without any reason to endorse her egregious and criminal action of
obstruction of justice.
61. The illegal holding of the application for summary judgment based on the
default of the opposing party, former AG Andrew Cuomo and his counsel, N. Garin,
allowed the following justices of the Appellate Court: Randall Eng, Cheryl
Chambers, Sherri S. Roman and Robert J. Miller, to decree an illegal Order and
Judgment dated 7 days later than the date the Appellate Court Clerk received the
application for summary judgment dismissing the Article 78 proceeding.
Material facts related to violations of law committed by Janet Spiridonakos and

Free Board International, Inc. she used funds from to acquire items from Plaintiff
62. While Defendant Janet Spiridonakos was not named as a defendant in the
Amended Complaint of legal suit 13 CV 5566, by fraudulent act of consolidation of
her legal case 13 CV 5693 with present case, 13 CV 5566 and the subsequent
Memorandum and Order of judge Nelson S. Roman that rendered his order that
had in its caption both legal case caption numbers, reluctantly, Plaintiff has to
include and defend Defendant Spiridonakos illegal and irrational Dismissal of the
Complaint not only of her case 13 CV 5693 but also the Amended Complaint of
present legal case.
63. Wherefore, defendant Spiridonakos alleges irrational, illogical and
groundless allegations for Dismissal of Complaint in 2 different legal cases, it is
essential and mandatory to state that when Spiridonakos made such irrational
allegations, she already defaulted by failure to submit to the Court an Answer to
her Complaint or a Motion to Dismiss within the limits of time established by the
Court. Even by admitio ad absurdum that such irrational allegations would not be
irrational, her default precludes her to make further motions to rescind the legal
64. Spiridonakos committed intrinsic fraud by deceiving the court that she made
an Appearance in Court on October 22, 2013, completely ignoring that already
she made an appearance on August 23, 2013. The SDNY time limitation to
respond to a complaint was established to be 30 days after sending the Waiver of
service. See Exhibit 1. Accordingly, the rule provides that the Plaintiff should file a
Motion for Default Judgment if no response is provided within the required period
of time. 65. The irrational and bizarre request to the Court to dismiss not only the
Complaint in her judicial case, but also the Amended Complaint of a legal case
where she was not named as a defendant, was not served with summons or
waiver of service and where no cause of action alleges her directly or asking the
court for any relief. In support of such mental aberration, on or about October 28,
2013, Spiridonakos submitted to the Court (a late and illegal as post-default)
application in which she continued her mental aberrant line of thinking, of
allegations invoking res judicata, collateral estoppel and allegation that she was a
witness in the former AG Cuomo and his counsel , and provide testimony
against Plaintiff. First of all, Plaintiff never previously sued Spiridonakos, thus res
judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply. Secondly, Spiridonakos never
testified in the Court and the allegation that she provided testimony in court is
outright PERJURY.
Judge Nelson S. Roman recused following Plaintiffs request for recusal based on
his acting as a lawyer in his court and obvious atrocious FRAUD UPON THE COURT,
66. Wherefore, Spiridonakos breached the commercial contract she had with the
Plaintiff in order to benefit from an illegal bribe offered by Prosecutor (AG Andrew
Cuomo and his Counsel) which will refund her of auctions commission of 27.5 %
(in which Plaintiff was a consignor, rather than a seller, paypal fees and shipping
fees, and the reward of retroactive illegal punitive fee to the date of purchase that
is not authorized by any statute or rule. Accordingly, Defendant Spiridonakos
unjustly enriched from her fraudulent activities in conspiracy with Prosecutor to
defraud the Plaintiff.

67. In bad faith as failing to sustain any injury from Plaintiff that even offered
her satisfaction above the Conditions of Sale of Contract, Spiridonakos complained
with Prosecutor Cuomo invoking false charges she knew were fraudulent.
68. Wherefore, defendant Spiridonakos committed fraud by submitting
gemological testing never used for art carvings that are not suitable for
gemological examination.
69. Wherefore, Defendant Spiridonakos committed fraud by mislabeling the
ornamental art carvings Buddhist rosaries as carved head necklaces
(terminology never used by Plaintiff in selling her the artifacts) in order to qualify
the items as bona fide jewelry items.
70. Wherefore, Defendant Spiridonakos committed forgery by counterfeit of
forensic evidence constituting the prima facie evidence used by Prosecutor, a
blank invoice provided to her by a jeweler from Massachussetts she used to
accomplish her fraudulent acts and blackmail and extort Plaintiff. The evidence
points toward a conspiracy between Spiridonakos and her accomplice, jeweler,
Tim McClellan.
71. Wherefore, Defendant Spiridonakos conspired with the Prosecutor to defraud
Plaintiff by turning down any negotiation according to the conditions of sale of the
contract. Defendant Spiridonakos declined the negotiation with Plaintiff for refund
according to commercial contract, obviously on basis of preferring Prosecutors
bribe that was substantially better than the conditions of sale of the contract she
72. Wherefore, Defendant Spiridonakos inflated the cost of gemological testing.
She avoided to offer the invoice as evidence based on the fact that the invoice
was forged by her and had no probative value as not being signed or based on a
Dated : January 15, 2014
Somers, NY

Signature ______________________
Mircea Veleanu
Somers, NY 10589
Telephone: 914-534-6003


Get a free Evernote account to save this article and view it later on any device.