Subject: THESE LAWLESS NEW YORK JUDGES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WILL THEY BECOME FEDERAL JUDGES?
I PASSED the NY Bar Exam with high points in 1996. I also PASSED the US Patent Bar Exam, which is said to be the “hardest” Bar Exam in the US (though I did not think it was hard at all) (And I passed that exam based on self-study alone).
I won my first Trial in Albany Traffic Court when I was 20 years old. I won my first Federal Appeal at age 23 (argued before I began Law School) 21 F.3rd 11 (2nd Cir. 1993), and the Chief Judge of the Federal Court of Appeals said I was a “prodig[y]”.
I entered Law School with a 7/8ths full-tuition merit scholarship. I had full-tuition merit scholarships to engineering schools.
I got A+ grades in Civil Procedure (From Distinguished Professor David Siegel (West Publishing)), Evidence, Ethics, and Real Property Tax.
As a scientist, and a computer expert, the lawlessness and criminality of New York’s judges was disconcerting to me, because in the court room, the B-students always outnumber the A+student, and together they make-up whatever pretended rules they want, without regard to any set of fixed rules or laws. It is madness. It is simply disgusting to have to take an appeal to compel a Judge to read and follow the basic law. (I have many reversals on Appeal of State and Federal Judges)
BUT NOW, in New York, it is getting even WORSE, much much worse.
Now, you have to file a lawsuit in Federal Court against State Appellate Judges just to force them to follow the most elementary of Rules of Law and Civil Procedure: 1) “DON’T LIE” in your Decision; 2) “READ THE COMPLAINT”, and determine what causes of action are pleaded, before presuming to determine whether the Plaintiff has a right/standing “to sue” upon the facts pleaded; 3) “FOLLOW THE LAW” even if that means your favored party will pay for his tort.
This [Draft] Federal District Court Complaint complains about LAWLESS State Court Judges that New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo is fast-tracking up the chain of State Appellate Courts to position them for appointment to the Federal Courts, and even the U.S. Supreme Court, if and when he gets elected to President of the United States.
The Totally-Lawless and dishonest character of these Judges can affect everyone in the United States.
In this DRAFT Federal District Court Complaint, we have pleaded and Proved that New York State Court judges have LIED in written their decisions and have directly and expressly violated the Statutory and Constitutional Rights of litigants (especially Pro Se litigants) to Plead their Tort causes of action in the State courts against Democrat Machine operatives who employed fraud to transcend the limits of their lawful authority.
I believe that the related state court case being collaterally attacked is the first and only decision rendered by State Judges ever to declare with satisfaction that State Law failed to provide a “meaningful post-deprivation remedy”. [Plaintiffs made no such argument. Plaintiffs argued that the Complaint stated a Cause of Action for Fraud, Trespass and Conversion for each Plaintiff] The Judges’ declaration (without purporting to fix this problem with State Law that the Judges themselves created) is itself a violation of the Constitutional Duty of the Judges to establish and maintaining meaningful post-deprivation remedies. In this case, they made this absurd declaration as an excuse to IGNORE state law tort (trespass, fraud, conversion) causes of action pleaded against agents of New York’s Democrat Machine, preferring to substitute the narrower Federal Section 1983 cause of action, even though Plaintiffs refused to plead such a federal cause of action. Plaintiffs’ State Complaint expressly states that Plaintiffs are not pleading any federal causes of action under section 1983. It seems the State Court judges are trying to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ right to file a parallel Federal Court action. Plaintiffs seek an injunction against the State Court Judges to restrain them from usurping jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ Federal Causes of Action.
The Plaintiff Nadia Ferran (my mother) is an octogenarian who owned her mother’s brownstone Historic District House at 54 Clinton Avenue in Albany, NY when it was targeted for an illegal “emergency demolition”. A roofing contractor torched the roof and burned only “the roof” off of the House. The flat roof simply burned away cleanly. There was no structural damage below the roof level. But, the City Attorney Bradford Burns recommenced a civil engineer that he knew would Lie who then did Lie by stating that there was an invisible “bow” that he “could not see” in the lower front brick wall of the house. After that was verbally challenged by myself, the City Attorney realized that was RIDICULOUS and then the attorney and the engineer destroyed and concealed the engineer’s original false report (dated November 14, 2011) and tried to substitute a different false report dated December 13, 2011 that he has REFUSED TO SIGN much less swear to in Affidavit form. After that, in March of 2012 they changed the time/date settings on the engineer’s computer, to produce a counterfeit “draft” version of the December 13, 2011 report, to conceal the existence of the original false report (dated November 14, 2011). You can plainly see in the attached PDF print of emails between and the PDF draft “properties” print that the engineer Lanaro changed the date/time settings on his computer to create the false-dated “draft”.
After that the Judge Eugene Devine pretended the unsigned false-report letter (December 13) was an Affidavit/Affirmation and the Judge quoted from this False Hearsay paper in his Decision granting Pre-Answer Summary Judgment. Judge Eugene Devine also LIED about the content of the Defendant’s only actual “Affidavit” in the case. Judge Devine invented a material false allegation that was not in the Affidavit, was not even argued for by the Defendants’ Attorneys, and Devine declared that this fictional allegation was dispositive of the summary judgment. That summary judgment WAS REVERSED on appeal (for lack of “competent evidence), but the Appellate court did not condemn Eugene Devine for LYING in his decision. Five days after this soft reversal was issued, Eugene Devine was appointed to that Appellate Division, and a little while after that, one of these Appellate Judges was appointed to the NY High Court, by Governor Andrew Cuomo. Then a close staff attorney friend of Andrew Cuomo was appointed to hear the State case, replacing Eugene Devine.
Does New York Governor Andrew Cuomo intend to Appoint some these New York Judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Courts if and when he becomes President of the United States? I think that is his present intention, so even if you are not in New York, it is urgent that you read this Complaint to understand exactly how TOTALLY LAWLESS New York Judges have become, and what that will mean to vulnerable people throughout the United States if they are imposed by Cuomo upon the People of the United States.
The new Arbitrary “Standing” Doctrine invented by these Judges to IGNORE and defeat pleaded Tort (e.g., Fraud, Trespass) causes of action can affect anyone, even parties represented by Attorneys. But this doctrine does even more harm to directly Destroy the constitutional right of Pro Se (in pro per) litigants to PLEAD their causes of action Jointly without being falsely accused of the crime of “unauthorized practice of law”.
Judge Eugene Devine declared that any submissions that he has made in this action as a pro se litigant will not be considered upon the Motion to decide Plaintiff Mark Ferrans standing to sue, whereupon Devine ignored the entire COMPLAINT (with respect to both Plaintiffs).
- Richard Platkins March 13, 2015 Decision expressly acknowledged that Platkin purported to Decide Plaintiff Mark Ferrans right to sue without any consideration of any of the causes of action accrued to Plaintiff Mark Ferran and pleaded in the Amended Complaint, stating: any submissions that [Mark Ferran] has made (or may make) as a self-represented litigant have not been (and will not be) considered. (Parroting Judge Devines same violation of Plaintiffs Right to Be Heard, to Petition, and to the Equal Protection of the CPLR).
The words pro se mean for self. “[T]he right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws. Elmore v. McCammon 640 F. Supp. 905 (1986).
- Judge Devine intentionally ignored the entire original Complaint (1413-12) with respect to both Plaintiffs (contrary to his legal duty under Leon v. Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 ) (The Judge must read the Plaintiff’s Complaint) and Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274 (1876) (The partys pleading was ordered to be stricken from the files; The decision of a court, pronounced against a party without hearing him or giving him an opportunity to be heard, is not a judicial determination of his rights and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal. Syllabus). ALL “Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard.” Baldwin v. Hale, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 223, 233 (1863).
This Federal Complaint points out the Judge’s Lies with particularity and lucidly shows that these Judges are TOTALLY LAWLESS. The relief requested includes a declaration that these JUDGES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, for lack of capacity or intent to KNOW and abide by the LAW of the Land.
The complaint “challeng[es] the constitutionality of state court Judges Eugene P. Devine, Richard M. Platkin, John A. Lahtinen, Leslie Stein, Elizabeth A. Garry, Robert S. Rose.”
Because of the nature of the case, the Complaint Pleads Procedural and Substantive LAW, and establishes Constitutional Duty of Judges by reference to Quotations to Constitutional cases. The footnotes appear at the end.