Upon information and belief, we respectfully submit this complaint alleging that the judges referenced in this complaint allowed dilatory practices that have brought the administration of justice into disrepute. The allegations I set forth relate to violations of PART 100 OF THE RULES OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COURTS GOVERNING JUDICIAL CONDUCT 22 NYCRR Part 100. I respectfully allege that on more than one occasion the xxxxx County Supreme Court Judges named herein witnessed actions that were clearly unlawful and that the judges turned a blind eye to those instances. We respectfully allege that Administrative Law Judge xxxxx and Judge xxxx were remiss in their responsibilities as Supreme Court Justices, notably complicit, thus, abusing their discretion; for all intents and purposes the malfeasance in office advocated exploitation involving systemic perjury, judge shopping, fabrication and or concealment of court documents submitted to the judges by The xxxxx Law Firm (defendants counsel) and defendant. Consequently, we civilly ask the judicial committee to thoroughly examine the issues in hand and investigate the alleged inactions of the Hon Administrative Law judge xxxxxx combined with Hon Judge xxxxx alleged bias-related conduct, including but not limited to the allegation mentioned herein, for neglecting to recognize the level of criminal conduct which arose during the action that seriously infringed upon my due process rights. Whereas, a genuine dispute having substance was presented together with supporting documentation down to supporting case law, nonetheless, the courts suppressed and disregarded the same. Respectfully, we allege Judge xxxxx seemed Blind to Reason displaying in his decisions what emerge as pre-conceived notions. A review of the referenced case records will likely bear out a notable overextension by the xxxxxx County Courts that created an imbalance that was in favor of the opposing party, given the impression of bias related conduct, appearing as an effort to protect the favored defendant. The decisions specifically made by Judge xxxx emerge as inconsistent and arbitrary and have convinced me that the legal issues in my case were intentionally misconstrued. At best this means that Judge xxxxx was not able to understand the issues of the lawsuit from the submissions. At worst, this indicates that Judge xxxxx was deliberately falsifying the issues in order to justify likely faulty decisions. We courteously request that all events are considered in totality as we unwaveringly allege the illicit high jinks (False declarations before the court by defendant) points to a deliberate and dynamic undertaking that in fact resulted in the wrongful dismissal of index # 2007-xxxx. Under close scrutiny the case history will indicate disingenuous procedures that were exploitative in nature such as defendants' premeditated quest to entangle court cases through perjurious case and judge omissions, ensuing actions that manipulated the improper usage of two separate court case index and RJI numbers' this act deliberately perpetrated by the defendant had in fact resulted in "substantial confusion", three (3) judicial assignments (Judge Shopping endeavors), whereas, the opposing party was aware of a conflicting interest and the wrongful dismissal of Index # 2007-xxxx. We ask that the referenced Judges, through their conduct, are held responsible for the apparent abuse in discretion which I allege has failed to maintain the credibility of the judicial system ,as a result, my constitutional rights under the 5th and 14th Amendment was infringed upon denying my fundamental right to due process, that is, basic procedural rights, basic substantive rights, thus, causing the deprivation of liberty, leaving me together with my family destitute.
Questionable and pervasive dealings that draw alarming parallels, notably, on December 19, 2006, September 7th 2007, March 13, 2008 and April 22nd, 2008. Review of acts on said dates puts into view the defendants State of Mind in relation to false affirmations defendant made on September 7th 2007, whereas, defendant willfully omitted Index # 2007-xxx and knowingly omitted judicial assignments. We alleged that the Motion to Dismiss 2007-xxx on September 7th 2007 that defendant had acted with malice demonstrated on three fronts. Firstly, the defendant was notified and had credible information of a duplicate case index no.2007-xxxx, nonetheless, the defendant willfully mislead by omitting this related action, secondly, defendant had knowledge of Judge xxx assignment to index no.2007-xxx and Judge xxxx assignment to 2007-xxx, nonetheless, defendant knowingly omitted their judicial assignments to said actions. Thirdly, on September 7, 2007 the defendant submitted their own request for an assignment of a judge, whereas, Hon. xxxxx gets assigned whom defendant then had corresponded with on September 21, 2007, even though defendant and or counsel was fully aware of a probable disqualifying interest, nevertheless, the defendant did not notify the court of this potential conflict of interest.
Additionally, after all parties received strict instructions from the courts on two separate occasions October 12, 2007and February 25, 2008 concerning the proper case numbers and Judge xxx assignment to 2007-xxxx, on March 23.2008 the defendant unrelenting in their quest continued usage of RJI acting with malicious intent by sending case related communications to Administrative Law Judge xxxx, the defendant haven firsthand knowledge of Jude xxxx probable disqualifying interest. These acts are indicative of an underhanded scheme that manifested as an unlawful coercion of an administrative law judge, whereas, the defendant in said actions together with legal counsel was fully cognizant of a credible disqualifying interest, nevertheless, defendant knowingly sought out preferential treatment on several separate occasions from Administrative law Judge Hon xxxx whom defendant had known had prior information concerning the facts in said actions. Tainting the disposition of referenced actions, such acts are highly suggestive of a corrupting influence to negatively impact the motivation of an act of a presiding judge through another judicial officer whom happens to be an Administrative Law Judge as in this case. This is clearly a violation of the Code of Conduct expected from the legal community.
Questionable and pervasive dealings that draw alarming parallels, notably, on December 19, 2006, September 7th 2007, March 13, 2008 and April 22nd, 2008. Review of acts on said dates puts into view the defendants State of Mind in relation to false affirmations defendant made on September 7th 2007, whereas, defendant willfully omitted Index # 2007-xxx and knowingly omitted judicial assignments. We alleged that the Motion to Dismiss 2007-xxx on September 7th 2007 that defendant had acted with malice demonstrated on three fronts. Firstly, the defendant was notified and had credible information of a duplicate case index no.2007-xxxx, nonetheless, the defendant willfully mislead by omitting this related action, secondly, defendant had knowledge of Judge xxx assignment to index no.2007-xxx and Judge xxxx assignment to 2007-xxx, nonetheless, defendant knowingly omitted their judicial assignments to said actions. Thirdly, on September 7, 2007 the defendant submitted their own request for an assignment of a judge, whereas, Hon. xxxxx gets assigned whom defendant then had corresponded with on September 21, 2007, even though defendant and or counsel was fully aware of a probable disqualifying interest, nevertheless, the defendant did not notify the court of this potential conflict of interest.
Additionally, after all parties received strict instructions from the courts on two separate occasions October 12, 2007and February 25, 2008 concerning the proper case numbers and Judge xxx assignment to 2007-xxxx, on March 23.2008 the defendant unrelenting in their quest continued usage of RJI acting with malicious intent by sending case related communications to Administrative Law Judge xxxx, the defendant haven firsthand knowledge of Jude xxxx probable disqualifying interest. These acts are indicative of an underhanded scheme that manifested as an unlawful coercion of an administrative law judge, whereas, the defendant in said actions together with legal counsel was fully cognizant of a credible disqualifying interest, nevertheless, defendant knowingly sought out preferential treatment on several separate occasions from Administrative law Judge Hon xxxx whom defendant had known had prior information concerning the facts in said actions. Tainting the disposition of referenced actions, such acts are highly suggestive of a corrupting influence to negatively impact the motivation of an act of a presiding judge through another judicial officer whom happens to be an Administrative Law Judge as in this case. This is clearly a violation of the Code of Conduct expected from the legal community.
