Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division : Second Judicial Department ____________________________________ In the Matter of Application

of: Dr. Mircea Veleanu d/b/d Objets DArt Uniques Petitioner MEMORANDUM OF LAW Pursuant to CPLR Article 78 For a judgment under Article 78 of the CPLR Against Index No. 2013/3947

Hon. Thomas Dolan, AJSC, Hon. James Pagones AJSC, Hon. Peter M. Forman, AJSC, and Hon. James Brands, JSC, in their official capacity of Justices of the Supreme Court of New York Dutchess County, and, Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York, Nicholas G. Garin AKA Nick Garin, Assistant Attorney General of the State of New York, in their official capacity. Respondents __________________________________________ MOTTO. Public integrity was my top priority as New York Attorney General and it is as governorThose who hold public office must safeguard that trust and those that violate their oath must incur punishment, It is a new day in Albany and the old day of doing business will not be tolerated. Excerpt from the speech at the inauguration of Andrew Cuomo as governor of New York State. 1 1. The above dictum was pronounced at the inauguration of Andrew Cuomo as a governor of New York State and as such as is a commendable example of what is required from a public officer, it needs to apply to everybody including the governor himself who is the role model for foresaid public officers, other ways represents a pure political and demagogical hypocrisy. 2. The lawsuit that hereto is challenged pursuing the Article 78 of NY State CPLR 7801-7806 is the proper place for such challenge, if the challenge is effectuated under fairness, equal human rights granted by United States Constitution and presided in legal proceeding by an impartial, unbiased and unprejudiced referee who grants hearings in which the parties have the opportunity to debate, dispute and controvert the allegations of the parties involved. 3. In the former judicial proceedings, the undersigned did not have the opportunity to defend, argue and controvert the allegations of the powerful adversary party in a hearing. 4. The false allegations were upheld by biased and prejudicial officers of law who disregarded the evidence provided in the form of proof and either ruled that the contentions of the pro se litigant are without merit or completely ignored and/or not litigated at all on base of merit, thus protecting the interest of the powerful litigant. 5. No country is a democratic country when the civil rights of a person are totally repressed and the trials are in form of kangaroo court which is conducted without the opportunity to defend, 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. 6. In the legal case that hereto is legally challenged by the undersigned, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (AG) and his counsel, Assistant Attorney General Nicholas G. Garin, AKA Nick Garin (AAG), commenced a legal proceeding under GBL 349 and Executive Law 63.12, alleging

that the respondent Dr. Mircea Veleanu violated the fore mentioned laws by selling in his hobby minimal volume business, carved ornamental art Sino-Tibetan Buddhist rosaries that allegedly were misrepresented as made of jadeite when improvident and wrongful used gemological testing identified the presence of quartz in examination done by AGTA laboratory (went out of business in July 2009, a few weeks after performing the gemological testing), and gemological testing done by GIA that identified quartzite, a rock that contains several minerals including quartz and jadeite, and such rock identified as jadeite/quartzite. It is well known and world wide accepted by jade merchants, that the identification of jadeite is done by mineralogical testing that includes examination under microscope, Mohs test that determines the hardness of the stone and specific gravity. The gemological testing is exclusively reserved to jewelry grade jadeite of minute quantity of a stone measured in carat (200 mg), and never done in the ornamental art carvings that are large, measured in grams and obviously containing other minerals than jadeite as are not pure single mineral. Without getting in a more detailed scientific explanation, the finding of single mineral quartz, or poly mineral quartzite does not preclude the presence of jadeite that in pure form is a pyroxene with chemical composition of a silicate of sodium and aluminum. 7. A single person from Winsted, Connecticut named Janet Spiridonakos, purchased from the undersigned over a period of about 2 years, 7 Sino-Tibetan jadeite rosaries mala in shape of carved human faces of Tibetan monks used for meditation in Buddhist prayers. She was ecstatic about the quality of carvings and purchased 2 mala at auctions were the undersigned was a consignor, rather than a seller, and additional 5 mala directly from the Internet business of the undersigned. Ultimately, she purchased a pair of Chinese calligraphy brushes with jadeite handles. Upon receipt of the brushes, wrongly she believed that were made of glass, rather than jadeite. She did not consult with anybody else and returned the brushes and was refunded in full. She was not sure about her belief and as a matter of fact, she implored the undersigned for repurchase, that providently did not happen. According to her allegations, she submitted the 7 rosaries mala for an examination with AGTA Lab through a jeweler friend or accomplice in fraud that had his store in Great Barrington, Massachussetts. Rather than shipping the mala by registered mail as is customary, she used the services of her jeweler friend as a courier. The evidence shows that fraudulently, this person mislabeled the mala as head carved necklaces that are jewelry type of merchandise, in order to qualify the mala for a gemological testing. Nevertheless, there was no such nomenclature in the description and title of the items when were sold to her. AGTA Lab identified the mala as Natural species quartz. This woman complained with NY State AG, Connecticut AG, Winsted police, Chamber of Commerce, etc., alleging that she was defrauded by the undersigned. Obviously, all the agencies she complained, realized that her complaint is frivolous and ignored her complaint, except AG Andrew Cuomo and his counsel AAG Nicholas G. Garin, AKA Nick Garin, who started a legal proceeding against the undersigned under GBL 349 and Executive Law 63.12. An examination of the identification reports of AGTA revealed that 2 identification reports were tampered and forged as representing the same mala. 8. AAG Garin summoned the undersigned for a subpoena at the AG office in Poughkeepsie for a deposition under oath. At the deposition, the undersigned brought the attention of AAG that the evidence was forged and as such has no probative value. In addition, the undersigned mentioned that the complainant is a habitual returning of purchased items, and in the past she returned and was refunded in 2 separate occasions. Thus, there was no reason that she would not be refunded again if requested. Fraudulently, she claimed that she was refused a refund by the undersigned. In addition, she made another fraudulent allegation that one mala described as fei tsui jadeite, was imperial jade that is valued in hundreds of thousands dollars on weight in carats. However, fei tsui is actually the name attributed to ordinary jadeite and not to imperial jade. The undersigned was given the opportunity to contest AG allegations in defense to a Notice of Proposed Action by AG within 5 days, that undersigned did and was certain that he was exculpated. 9. On August 7, 2009, AAG Garin told the undersigned that he intends to appear in court within a few hours and request from a judge a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent the undersigned to sell jade. Upon appearance in the Court, AAG Garin handed to the undersigned a large stack of papers that it could not be read within a few minutes, even one page. Upon returning home, I

realized that the papers actually represented a petition and an order to show cause, rather than papers related to the grant of TRO. On this appearance that was labeled by the Judge James Brands as a calendar call, I protested about the handing of the papers a few minutes before the calendar call and did not have the opportunity to learn about charges. The appearance in court related to TRO is not considered to be service upon respondent as is considered trickery used by petitioner to illegally try to achieve personal jurisdiction upon the person of respondent. According to CPLR 320 C, a limited appearance in court not related to service of process is not considered service at all. Accordingly, the lack of personal service at the commencement of judicial action, precludes the court to obtain jurisdiction upon respondent and consequent lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, all subsequent orders and judgments decreed in absence of jurisdiction are null and invalid based on void judicial process. In People v Patterson, 39 NY2d, 288, 295 , 383 NYS 2d 573, 577 (1976), the court stated: Where the court has no jurisdiction, or where there was a fundamental non-waivable defect in the mode of procedure, an Appellate Court must reverse, even though the question was not formally raised below. See also People v Ahmed, 66 NY 2d 307, 310, 496 NYS 2d 984, 985 (1985). In this legal case, the undersigned requested the dismissal of petition based on CPLR 3211 (a) (8). See Exhibit 1 consisting in excerpts from the following documents: pleadings of the respondent, Brief to the Appellate Court Second Division, motion to Appellate Court for reargument and permission to appeal at the Court of Appeals, motion to Court of Appeals for permission to appeal and motion to SCDC pursuant to CPLR 5015 for annulment of orders and judgments decreed by SCDC. The documentation provided in Exhibit 1 demonstrates that the undersigned made all efforts to plead the righteousness of the judicial action and was prevented to obtain relief in clearly biased and prejudiced tribunals who refused to adjudicate respondents contentions on merit. (4). Egregiously and prejudicially, all the applications for relief due to lack of jurisdiction were disregarded in unconscionable abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious action, and never were adjudicated on merit in all above mentioned tribunals. The Court of Appeals determined that that only the fair and full opportunity to litigate any issue satisfies the safeguards that all judgments be decided on merits and litigated for all issues involved in order that res judicata is precluded to be invoked. A valid final judgment on merits prevent re-litigation. The Court of Appeals ruled that issue preclusion in collateral estoppel cannot be invoked , if a forum in the second action afforded a party against whom preclusion is invoked, new procedural opportunities. The issue of jurisdictional power of the court cannot be waived, until adjudicated in full with opportunities of the litigating parties to prove their position and substantiate with evidence of the proof of service in order to achieve the subject matter jurisdiction. 10. From common law of precedent similar cases, I present 2 judicial cases that are similar to the present case. A. Tickle v Barton, 142 W. Va. 185, 95 se 2d 427 W, Va. (1956). Service of process accomplished by fraud is not valid as held by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Tickles lawyer lured Barton into West Virginia with the false pretense of a party in order to serve process upon Barton in a suit for personal injury. The court held that a person may not be induced by false representation to enter the jurisdiction of the court for the purpose of service of papers. B. Wyman v. Newhouse, 93 F2d 313 (2nd Cir. 1937). Wyman lured Newhouse to Florida in order to serve him with process for recovery of loaned money and seduction under the promise of marriage. The court held that a judgment against a party based on fraudulent service of process is invalid. 11. In the evidence as irrefutable proof, AAG concedes that he did not serve the respondent with the petition in the fashion prescribed by law. In his Alternative proposed Statement in lieu of Stenographic Transcripts submitted to the Appellate Court pursuing CPLR 5525 (d), AAG stated: Dr. Veleanu stated that the fax had failed to come through and his first notice of the contents of the States petition was a few minutes prior to the hearing when he was served with the order to show cause and petition. He objected to going (sic) forward since the documents were so voluminous he had not had time to absorb them. I responded that the matter had been under investigation for months and that Dr. Veleanu knew essentially what the States case was about since he had been deposed recently. See Exhibit 11, A29. AAG Garin knew or should have known that a prior deposition is not a proof of service. Petitioner AAG failed to present proof of a

valid service of petition by any form as required by CPLR 306 (B), 308 (1) and 308 (2). Accordingly, in the absence of proper service of process, no personal jurisdiction was acquired over the defendant and also no jurisdiction on subject matter. See Bennett v. Acosta 68 AD 3d 910; Horseman Antiques, Inc. v. Huch, 50AD 3d 963. 964; Dominguez v. Sampson Mfg., Corp. 207 AD 2d 375. It is well settled that the failure to serve process in a legal proceeding leaves the court without personal jurisdiction over respondent and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, all subsequent proceedings resulting in orders and judgments are thereby rendered null, invalid and void (McMullen v. Arnone, 79 AD 2d, 496, 499; see also, Khanai v. Sheldon, 55 AD 3d, 684. Notice received by means other than those authorized by statute cannot bring a respondent within the jurisdiction of the court. (Feinstein v. Bergner, 48 NY 2d , 234, 241). 12. The law clearly shows that the burden of proof of proving jurisdiction is upon the party who asserts it, and that party must show by supporting evidence the essential requirement of the personal jurisdiction statute. See Saratoga Harness Racing Assn v. Moss, 26 AD, 486, 490 (1966). Furthermore, the court will not find personal jurisdiction based on conclusory and unsubstantiated assertions (Brown v. Blum, 1999, WL 10429 o 04, 21 NY Supp) citing Spectra Products , Inc. V. Indian River citrus Specialties, Inc., 144 AD 2d2d, 832 , 833 (1988); Lamarr v. Klein, 35 AD 2d , 248, 250(970). As relevant, CPLR 3211 (e)requires that the papers in opposition to a motion based on improper service, shall contain a copy of the proof of service in form of an affidavit, or a proof of a signed acknowledgement of receipt of the petition and order to show cause that was serviced properly according to CPLR 306 B. Petitioner (AG) could not prove any requirements of the burden of proof of service of process due to lack of service, or an improper service in accordance with CPLR 306 (b). As was proved in all the motions to dismiss, pleadings, appeal to the Appellate Court and the Court of Appeals, the petitioner failed to properly serve the respondent and delivery of the petition by trickery of claiming an appearance for a TRO, rather than service of process, precludes the petitioner to claim effectuation of service. CPLR 320 C clearly defines in limited appearance that when the court s jurisdiction is not based upon personal service on the defendant, an appearance is not equivalent to personal service upon the defendant. 13. AAG commenced this legal proceeding in bad faith for lack of standing, lack of a cause of action to justify the commencement and irrefutable proof of extrinsic fraud. The single complainant had no standing to sue as was not aggrieved. Under conditions of sale, she was entitled to lifetime warranty and refund. See Exhibit 3- Conditions of sale of the commercial contract. Furthermore, the evidence provided by the undersigned in form of the undersigneds email to the complainant, clearly shows that complainant received reassurance that she will be refunded and thus, contradicting petitioners fraudulent lie that respondent refused to refund the complainant See Exhibit 4 14. Further on, petitioner started this summary proceeding under GBL 349 and Executive Law 63.12 in complete failure to prove a cause of action under GBL 349 of statutory fraud, that will be eligible for an entitlement of relief. The case does not satisfy by any reasonable and logical basis to support such summary judicial action and clearly represents an unconscionable abuse of prosecutorial discretion and irrational arbitrary and capricious judicial action. This legal case represents a commercial dispute between a criminal complainant named Janet Spiridonakos engaged in perjury, fraud by mislabeling forensic evidence, extortion, forgery by counterfeit of document submitted to the court for charging the seller with alleged statutory fraud and in absence of substantiation of her allegations by evidence in form of proof, and on the other side, the undersigned seller that acted conform with the conditions of sale of contract. The case does not meet the requirements of GBL 349: 1. It was not addressed to the consumers at large, rather represented a private commercial dispute that had to be resolved according to the conditions of the commercial contract. 2. The dispute was particular and exclusively related to this case and did not involve any other customer with similar complaints. 3. The case lacks materiality, as complainant collected only jewelry type of items, and the complainant was advised that the undersigned sells mainly art carvings that are not jewelry items per se and do not satisfy the strict requirements of jewelry grade items. The evidence of prosecutor consisted, inter alia, in form of several emails between the complainant and the undersigned as seller, saved over a period of time of more than 2 years. The saving and collection of trivial emails concerning the sale of jadeite mala, by itself, represents a deliberate and premeditated intention to defraud the seller.

Her emails show that she used the services of a friend jeweler with a store in Great Barrington, Masssacchussets, to improperly authenticate carved jadeite art carvings that are not prone to be examined by gemological testing, as not being of jewelry grade jadeite and as such, containing a variation of different minerals and chemical elements that render the gemological testing not only to be inappropriate, but clearly fraudulent. While there is evidence of faking jewelry grade jadeite with inexpensive non jewelry grade jadeite or simulants of jade, there is no probative evidence whatsoever, in the commerce or legal suits, that a non jewelry grade jadeite carving had be tested by gemological testing, as forego mentioned. Petitioner had the obligation to research if ever a legal case involving such absurd moronic and irrational allegations ever occurred, of course, excluding the simulants of jadeite in expensive jewelry grade jewelry that is rather common. Nonetheless, the mala jadeite art carvings were not misrepresented as jewelry grade imperial jade, as fraudulently the complainant alleged. Nonetheless, the mala sold to complainant was exquisite in carving of the stone that is extremely hard, and the quality of the stone was excellent by itself, lacking inclusions. She produced as burden of proof of alleged fraud, gemological testing by AGTA Lab that showed the presence of natural species quartz. A repeat gemological testing by GIA Lab did not confirm the findings of AGTA Lab and identified mala as being species quartzite. While quartzite that is a poly mineral rock contains quartz (that is a mono mineral), the GIA examination did not confirm AGTA Lab testing, as species quartz is not the same as species quartzite. The research of mineralogical literature by the undersigned revealed that quartzite and jadeite are both poly mineral metamorphic rocks that contain, or may contain quartz. It is scientifically defective and moronic to do gemological testing in a rock that contains several minerals. So, by absurd , if a low intellect customer, or intentionally done by a researcher that would submit the poly mineral rock to the examination of the rock by gemological examination, it may yield to different results depending on the examination of the rock in a specific site, in comparison with examination of the same rock in a different site that could obtain different results of the mineral firstly discovered. Exhibit 1 shows in a sagittal section of a jadeite rock, the close proximity of the mineral quartz to the core of jadeite and the likely possibility that if the gemological examination is done in close proximity, the results of the testing could yield to different results. As a matter of fact, such analysis was done in an experiment by the Friends of Jade, an association of jade collectors enthusiasts. This long scientific explanation is provided due to the fact that both SCDC and the Appellate Court made legal decisions based on the faulty, moronic and scientifically low intellect determination that the identification of jadeite or nephrite art carvings of non jewelry grade stones has to be done by gemological examination and ignoring scientifically correct averments of the undersigned that non jewelry grade jade art carving has to be identified only by mineralogical testing (that was not done by AGTA or GIA lab). Such absurdity and moronic determination was decreed in a prestigious court of justice in New York State by decreeing a permanent injunction imposed on the undersigned that any sales of jade items has to be supported by a gemological identification report. The stupidity and absurdity of such decree makes the NY State Supreme Court (SCDC) to appear in front of the whole world as ignorant, lacking the rational and intellect for a such prestigious tribunal unless the arbitrary and capricious is or was its MO. The question that remains to be resolved by Article 78 proceeding is if that such requirement is due to ignorance and lack of intellectual capacity of the officers of the court of the Supreme Court of NY, or represents arbitrary and capricious judicial action that defies the rational of a reasonable fact finder, and represents an unconscionable abuse of discretion by the fore mentioned officers of the court and an arbitrary and capricious judicial act lacking the logic and rational. The undersigned contacted 3 prestigious gemological laboratories in New York City inquiring if they perform such gemological testing in non jewelry grade art carvings of jade. Not only that the answer was negative, but I was told that the maximum size of the stone to be examined should not be more than 40 carats ( about 4 grams). Further on, I was told that if an examination would be done in a bigger stone, the results could be inaccurate, as being proven in this case. AG lacked the due diligence prior commencement of the legal action, to investigate if the allegations of the single complainant are supported by any plausible and intelligent basis. Furthermore, AG was authorized by judge Thomas Dolan to contact all the former customers that purchased jade from the undersigned and urged to request refunds alleging that the undersigned committed fraud by selling quartz or glass instead of jade. The malicious and libelous attacks in media by the AG and the contact to all the

customers by the prosecutor did not yield to any claim of misrepresentation by any former customer. It proves that the jade collectors are not stupid and know how to identify jade. Nevertheless, in a perfidious, malicious and fraudulent misrepresentation and example of extrinsic fraud committed by AG, petitioner promised to all persons involved in jade purchases from the undersigned (that did not allege misrepresentation), a gratifying illegal interest of 9 %, retroactive, years back to the date of purchase of jade, waiving the auction companys commission of 27.5 % , Paypal fee of 3 % and shipping fee). As all the customers who requested refunds purchased the art jade carvings at auction, the refund of the auction house commission assessed to the undersigned (I was a consignor, rather than the seller), and other refunds, almost doubled their investments. However, their action was illegal in the fact that they breached the contract of sale that provide lifetime warranty with refunds in accordance to the conditions of sale of the contract. The illegal punitive action against the respondent Veleanu, represents an abuse of process and malicious prosecution by AG. AG solicited, provided, supported and aided the illegal act of breach of contract by the complainant (2 of the jade items purchased were at auctions where the undersigned was the consignor, rather than the seller). 15. The sole complainant committed criminal acts aided, encouraged and supported by the prosecutor. 1. The complainant committed perjury by making contradictory statements in her affidavit in regard to the cost of gemological testing done by AGTA. The statement in the affidavit contradicted a previous statement she made in an email. See Exhibit 6. 2. Subsequently, her legal deposition became invalid due to her impeachment as a witness according to CPLR 4514. See Exhibit 17. 3. The complainant forged the evidence by mislabeling of the 7 jadeite mala as head carved necklaces in order that she could submit the mala as jewelry items, as such, misrepresenting the 7 jadeite mala as jewelry items, rather than ornamental jade mala as labeled and sold to her by the undersigned. 4. 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 Spiridonakos wrote the invoice herself. The handwriting of the invoice is identical to handwriting of Spiridonakos adjacent to the invoice and other legal documents exhibiting her handwriting. See Exhibit 18. 5. Complainant conspired with AAG Garin to charge the undersigned with false allegations. In support of this contention, I submit as evidence in form of proof, complainants affidavit that irrefutably proves that AAG Garin wrote complainants affidavit, or edited the evidence to appear more plausible. The affidavit contains intimate details of the legal process as Exhibit numbers in AAGs Petition, content of the fore mentioned Exhibits that would be impossible to complainant named Janet Spiridonakos to know, in absence of the conspiracy with the prosecutor to charge the undersigned with concocted false charges. Spiridonakos affidavit was not written by her as a witness of facts she knew from personal experience, rather was imposed illegally and fraudulently by Attorney General that Spiridonakos 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 right or privilege secured to him by Constitution. AAG Garin contemplated an ulterior malicious motive in using the legal legitimate process of an affidavit. He committed a willful act in the use of process not proper with regular conduct of proceedings. See Brown v. Kennard 94 Cal App 4th 40, 44 (2001). (T)he 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. See Meadows v Bakersfield Sav. & Loan Assn, 250 Cal App 2d 749, 753 (1967); Spellen v Spellen 49 Cal 2d 210, 232-33 (1957). The court stated: The improper (use) takes the form of coercion to obtain a collateral advantage not properly involved with the proceeding itself, such as the surrender of property, or the payment of money, by the use of process as a threat or a club, a form of extortion, and it is what is done in the course of the negotiation, rather than the issuance of any formal of the process, itself which constitutes the tort. 16. Prosecutor AAG Garin committed illegal and criminal acts in achieving the relieves granted by the court in lack of any cause of action to substantiate the grant of such relieves. 1. AAG Garin willingly commenced a legal action when knowingly he was aware that he had no standing to initiate a legal action when the clear evidence showed that the single complainant was not aggrieved in any way by the undersigned. She was entitled to lifetime warranty that provided

refund based on the conditions of sale of the contract. See Exhibit 3. 2. Fraudulently, she breached the commercial contract in order to defraud and extort the respondent by conspiring with AAG Garin to receive illegal award of punitive retroactive interest of 9 % years back to the date of purchase of jade items. As such she fraudulently and criminally enriched on total amount of her investment in purchasing jade items from the undersigned. 17. The conspiracy of AAG with complainant Spiridonakos to defraud and extort the undersigned represents an unconscionable abuse of discretion, extrinsic fraud and fraud upon court. The illegal retroactive interest of 9 % was also promised by AAG to 3 customers who did not claim misrepresentation of the seller, but breached the commercial contract in order to achieve illegal enrichment 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. 18. AAG Garin did not provide with any evidence for the entitlement to GBL 349 and as such a failure to state a cause of action and unconscionable abuse of discretion. 5. In his petition, AAG Garin submitted false and deceiving allegations that Veleanu refused to take any malas (sic) back and refund to this consumer the thousands of dollars she paid him. Such abhorrent lies were submitted under penalty of perjury and represent the criminal act of perjury, unconscionable abuse of discretion and capricious and arbitrary statements made without rational. The substantial evidence clearly shows that the complainant and the prosecutor acted in unison to defraud and extort the respondent. 6. Willingly and knowingly, AAG Garin uttered to the court documentary evidence he knew was false and fraudulent. 20. AAG uttered to the court criminally forged and mislabeled evidence as prima facie of alleged fraud with 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 fake court documents is up to 5 years imprisonment. Title 18, Sec 514 of federal law provides that it is a crime to use a fraudulent document. 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 interstate or foreign commerceany false or fictitious instrument, document, or other item appearing, representing, purporting or contriving through a scheme or artifice shall be guilty of class B felony. New York State similarly, under Penal Law 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree specifies: A person is guilty of falsifying business records when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when by intend to defraud. AAG Garin committed perjury by stating in his Alternative Statement in lieu of Stenographic transcripts pursuant to CPLR 5525 (d), that he was not aware that gemological identification reports were forged and the evidence was fraudulently mislabeled by complainant Spiridonakos until respondent answered to Petition in his pleadings and later, on the motion to reargument and renew. This statement of AAG Garin is a blatant lie as the evidence showed that respondent brought to the attention of AAG Garin that AGTA gemological reports were forged and mislabeled, firstly in respondents pre-trial response to the Notice of Proposed Action pursuant to Article 22, weeks prior trial. The findings of forgery and mislabel were brought again in the defense by the undersigned at the calendar call of judge Brands. It appears from this irrefutable evidence that AAG Garin preferred to commit the criminal act of perjury, rather than acknowledge that he commenced a legal action against the undersigned in absence of a reasonable cause of action. 7. AG is liable under the laws of the State of New York of committing the crime of subornation of perjury. Willingly, AG submitted Spiridonakos affidavit with full knowledge of the falsity of affidavits declarations, and deliberately, he helped to fabricate and preserve them. As AGs legal action was intended to deceive the court, it clearly represents extrinsic fraud, Fraud Upon the Court and unconscionable abuse of discretion. 19. The solicitation, aiding and supporting violation and breach of the commercial contract by all former customers involved in this case was possible only through the egregious intervention by AAG Garin. Other than the criminal black mail and extortion by complainant, another former customer committed the crime of substitution of a precious jade carving (she returned it through AAG Garin intermediary) with a valueless contemporary fake made of a marble type of material. Both, the complainant and this mentioned person named Diana Norton, submitted affidavits in which stated false statements, thus committed the criminal act of perjury by swearing under oath

of false statements with full knowledge of the falsity of the their falsity. These criminal acts were made possible only through the intervention of AAG Garin who facilitated the commission of the criminal acts. As the intention of AAG was to prosecute the undersigned for alleged wrongdoings, his legal acts were Fraud upon Court based on deceit used to keep the undersigned devoid of exercising his right for a fair trial. AG initiated this frivolous and vexatious legal action in absence of any reasonable cause of action, in the name of other individuals, but without the consent of involved individuals in an action of special proceeding in a court before a judge. According to CPLR R70, the person who initiates a frivolous vexatious suit is guilty of misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment. In this legal case, AG initiated the legal action in behalf of 3 customers that did not claim misrepresentation, rather were tricked by AG to request refunds with the incentive of benefit of retroactive interest of 9 % starting years back to the date of purchase. These 3 customers did not consent for suing in their name as they did not have a legal standing to sue in the lack of aggrieving. Nevertheless, these 3 customers breached the commercial contract of sale and are liable for the damage incurred by Veleanu subsequent to their action. The legal action commenced and continued with the collateral intention to cause pecuniary harm, psychological trauma to Veleanu and represents abuse of process, malicious prosecution and Fraud Upon the Court by intentional use of deceit and more importantly, unconscionable abuse of discretion. . 20. AG willingly and knowingly committed the criminal act of submitting to the court documents that concealed exculpatory evidence by interposing a photograph over a text that was exculpatory to respondent Veleanu in 2 separate occasions. See Exhibit 19. This criminal act implying forgery of a legal document was intended to be used for prosecution of an innocent individual. Such misconduct of the prosecutor is defined in the Federal law Title 18, Chapter 73, Section 1513 (a) (3) as misleading conduct and is punishable with imprisonment and penalties under Section 1512: whoever knowingly usesor engages in misleading conduct toward another person with intent to: (B). ( alter, destroy, mutilate or conceal an object with intent to impair the objects integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding. This AG illegal action of concealment of exculpatory evidence clearly and concisely represents intrinsic and extrinsic fraud and Fraud Upon the Court. 21. AG used his prosecutorial power to issue several subpoenas with collateral objective of abuse of process in order to intimidate, harass and retaliate for the exercise of Veleanus constitutional rights to defend himself. 3 of 4 subpoenas were not directed to serve the legitimate evidentiary role and as such impermissible under Rule 26 (b) (1) of FRCP which allow subpoenas only to those matters that are relevant to the subject of action. As the subpoenas issued by AG were with the sole purpose to force Veleanu not to seek justice in the court, these illegal subpoenas of the AG clearly represent Fraud Upon the Court and unconscionable abuse of discretion. 22. AG released to media in 2 separate occasions false, inflammatory and misrepresenting, malicious, deceiving and libelous statements intended to harm Veleanu physically, psychologically and pecuniary. The statements were outrageous lies not substantiated by substantive evidence to base upon. The malicious and deceiving statements had secondary collateral of abuse of process and malicious prosecution into hope that the fraudulent accusations by the highest rank law enforcement official would frighten the former customers and recruit more people that would request refunds with the incentive of being awarded retroactive interest of 9 % back to the date of purchase. AG committed outrageous libel by stating false and damaging statements that irreversibly damaged the immaculate personal and professional reputation by using character assassination. See Exhibit 8. As the malicious prosecution with release to media of false information was meant to prevent Veleanu to pursue his legal defense in court, AG action is clearly a Fraud Upon the Court, unconscionable abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious action that defies the rationale of any prosecutor . 23. In a brazen and contempt of court action, AG violated the court imposed gag on media regarding information pertinent to TRO. The malicious action with secondary collateral of abuse of process had as purpose, the intention to prevent the defense of the undersigned in the court and as such represents Fraud Upon the Court and unconscionable abuse of discretion. AG commenced a legal action against respondent Veleanu based on GBL 349 and Executive Law

63 (12) without a reasonable cause of action. GBL 349 implies that customers affected by misrepresentation of deceit should show injury as a result of such misrepresentation or deceit. In the present legal case initiated as a result of a single complainant with doubtful moral character, there was no injury in any form and as such there was no standing to sue in lack of aggrievement. Even more, AG failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. This represents a clear Fraud Upon the Court, unconscionable abuse of discretion and absurd and illogical arbitrary and capricious judicial action. . 24. AG alleged and requested fines and court fees based on GBL 350 (d). Nevertheless, AG in his two causes of action did not allege any violations of GBL 350 that is based on fraudulent acts of advertising and did not state in his petition a cause of action under GBL 350. AGs request for relief based on violations of GBL 350 failed to state a cause of action upon which a relief could be granted. Thus, AG prosecutorial actions were fraudulent and clearly represent Fraud Upon the Court, unconscionable abuse of discretion and an arbitrary and capricious judicial act defying the logic and rational of any reasonable factor and issue finder. 25. AG solicited former customers to request refunds for the past 6 years prior legal action that is beyond the statue of limitations. One person who requested a refund, purchased the jade carving in February 2006 that is beyond the statute of limitations for statutory fraud that is 3 years only. This represents obvious Fraud Upon the Court, abuse of discretion and an arbitrary and capricious prosecutorial action defying the logic of any honest prosecutor. AG violated Penal Law 215-Article 215. Bribing a witness. A person is guilty of bribing a witness when he confers, or offers, or agrees to confer , any benefit upon a witness or a person about to be called as a witness in any action or proceeding upon an agreement or understanding that (a) the testimony of such witness will thereby be influenced, or, (b) such witness will absent herself from, or otherwise avoid or seek to avoid appearing to testify at such action or proceeding. Bribing a witness is a class D felony. 26. New York State Penal Law Sec. 100.05. Criminal solicitation of 4th degree. A person is guilty of solicitation in 4th degree when (1) with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes or otherwise attempts to cause such other person to engage in such conduct. 27. AG requested and obtained from the court punitive damages consisting in interest of 9 % starting from the date of the purchase. The punitive damage was requested consequently to the motion for reargument/renew of Veleanu and represents Fraud Upon the Court as is not based, endorsed and legal by any statute, law or rule. Of course, AG is not entitled to request punitive damages under GBL 349 or Executive Law 63 (12). Such prosecutorial judicial action clearly represents unconscionable abuse of discretion and rational defying arbitrary and capricious action. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Petitioner repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the forego paragraphs 1 to 27 and as a result, the prosecutor/petitioner Attorney General and Assistant Attorney Generals judicial actions demonstrated in the paragraphs 1 to 27 of the present petition to represent repeated acts of unconscionable abuse of discretion and or, arbitrary and capricious judicial actions defying logic and rational and as such are absurd and violated the constitutional rights of the petitioner for a just and fair adjudication of the allegations. In consideration of the violation of the prosecutor of Article 78, CPLR 7803(2): whether the body or officer(s) above listed, proceeded without and in excess of jurisdiction that was clearly demonstrated in the foregoing paragraph 1 to 29, petitioner, Dr. Mircea Veleanu seeks review of the respondent(s), Attorney General of State of New York, Andrew Cuomo and Assistant Attorney General, Nick Garins judicial actions. that unequivocally demonstrate violation of CPLR 7803 (2). 28. Judge James Brands properly recused from legal case invoking personal conflict of interest based on prior involvement of his Chief Court Attorney as representing the adversary party in the undersigneds divorce proceedings. A. Judge Brands granted a TRO with full knowledge that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor was forged and mislabeled and had no probative value, at least. B. Judge Brands signed an order to show cause that violated respondents constitutional

rights of learning the substance of allegations prior onset of judicial proceeding and not being allowed to have sufficient time to be informed about charges and prepare a defense. Thus, the undersigned was deprived of constitutional right of due process. The most egregious part was the failure of petitioner to perform the personal service upon respondent and consequently, failure of the court to achieve personal jurisdiction upon respondent and subsequent lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the decree of TRO was illegal due to the fact that the court lacked the personal jurisdiction upon respondent and the TRO was invalid and null ab initio. While judge Brands properly recused, he failed to decree a nolle prosequi after his recusal in view of his conflict of interest consisting in the preparation of TRO papers and legal involvement of his Principal Court Attorney. Judge Brands granted a TRO with full knowledge of the forgery and mislabeling of burden of proof evidence on which basis he granted the relief of TRO. As the fraudulent evidence lacked a probative value, or scientifically plausible basis, such faulty evidence would prevent any reasonable person acting in the capacity of the fact finder to grant such drastic relief. Judge Brands judicial action represents extrinsic fraud, fraud upon court and unconscionable abuse of discretion. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Petitioner repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the forego paragraph 28 and as a result, judge James Brands judicial actions demonstrated in the paragraph 30 of the present petition that represent acts of unconscionable abuse of discretion and or, arbitrary and capricious judicial actions defying logic and rational and as such are absurd and violated the constitutional rights of the petitioner for a just and fair adjudication of the allegations. In consideration of the violation by the justice James Brands of Article 78, CPLR 7803(2): whether the body or officer(s) above listed, proceeded without and in excess of jurisdiction, and in consideration of violation of judge James Brands of Article 78 CPLR 7803 (3): whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or an abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed, petitioner, Dr. Mircea Veleanu seeks review of the judicial actions of respondent(s) Hon. James Brands, judge of the Supreme Court Dutchess County that unequivocally demonstrate violation of CPLR 7803 (2) and CPLR 7803 (3). 29. Following the recusal of judge Brands, judge Thomas Dolan was assigned to this case and decreed an order and judgment with a permanent injunction preventing the undersigned to sell jade without a gemological examination by a gemological lab. Such permanent injunction was based on irrational and logic defying that ornamental jade carvings ought to be examined by gemological testing prior placing them for sale. Accordingly, the decree of judge Dolan represents an unconscionable abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious exercise of judicial act missing the rational and sound mind. 30. Judge Dolan willingly and knowingly, granted a summary judgment and a permanent injunction without instituting any hearing, or conference and without seeing the undersigned, in a typical kangaroo court that violated the constitutional rights of the undersigned. As such, judge Dolans order and judgment was ex parte, illegal and void ab initio, for lack of jurisdiction of the court and unconscionable abuse of discretion and irrational arbitrary and capricious judicial action. 31. Judge Thomas Dolan violated Veleanus due process constitutional rights by decreeing a Decision/Order/Judgment in which a permanent injunction was granted to AG, without any hearings, conference calls or even calendar calls. Veleanu never saw judge Dolan and never had an opportunity to defend himself. Judge Dolan judgment is a typical ex parte judgment granted to one party in absence of representation of the opposite party. Such judgment is void ab initio and cannot be enforced. Any attempt to enforce it is considered to be trespassing and an act of treason. Judge Dolans act of granting a permanent injunction is a violation of several CPLRs, is an illegal act and clear FRAUD UPON THE COURT and unconscionable abuse of discretion. 31. Judge Dolan decreed a judgment with granting of a permanent injunction based on forged and mislabeled fraudulent evidence that he had full knowledge of and willingly disregarded it in

flagrant FRAUD UPON THE COURT. Clearly, his judicial actions represent an unconscionable abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious judicial action defying the logic. Judge Dolan advised Veleanu to retain legal representation with full knowledge that such legal representation would not have any chance of succeeding despite the meritorious legal case. The advise had a collateral objective to injure Veleanu with tremendous legal expenses and as such, represents abuse of process by the judiciary. The attorney retained by Veleanu as an officer of the court could only negotiate terms that AG would impose with irreconcilable 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 to impose and as such judge Dolans judicial action represents extrinsic fraud and FRAUD UPON THE COURT as well as unconscionable abuse of discretion. 32. In his pleadings, Veleanu contested the lack of service and subsequent failure of the court to achieve personal jurisdiction upon Veleanu in his pleadings by raising an objection in the point of law and setting it forth in his pleadings pursuing CPLR 404 (a) and also in the submittal of motions for dismissal of the petition. 33. In accordance with CPLR 320 (c) Veleanu objected to the personal jurisdiction as courts jurisdiction was not based upon personal service of the defendant and an appearance was not equivalent to personal service upon the defendant. Judge Dolan judicial actions represent an unconscionable abuse of discretion. 34. In an egregious, arbitrary and unconscionable abuse of discretion and illogical arbitrary and capricious action, judge Dolan denied the defense of the pleadings and the motions to dismiss the petition on fraudulent ruling that the pleadings and the motions to dismiss were unsworn. However, the pleadings and the motions to dismiss of respondent Veleanu were in the form of declaration under penalty of perjury instead of being notarized. The ruling was fraudulent due to the fact that CPLR 105 (u) allows the declaration under penalty of perjury to be legally used instead of notarized oath in any judicial proceedings. The above stated judicial action of judge Dolan represents not only fraud upon the court, but an unconscionable abuse of discretion and clear an arbitrary and capricious legal action void of any logic and rational. His legal determination was a miscarriage of justice. 37. The judgment decreed by judge Dolan imposed a permanent injunction based on illegal, fraudulent and inadmissible evidence. The failure to achieve personal jurisdiction upon Veleanu makes the order of permanent injunction and judgment of judge Dolan void ab initio. Judge Dolans judicial action is clearly an unconscionable abuse of discretion. 38. In addition, judge Dolans judgment is void ab initio as in his decree judge Dolan ruled that AG has to show the existence of injury in order to allege relief under GBL 349. AG could not demonstrate any injury and as such, AG was not entitled to any relief as he failed to state a cause of action. Judge Dolans judicial action demonstrates a clear act of arbitrary and capricious judicial action void of rational and logic and unconscionable abuse of discretion. 39. Judge Dolan decreed an order and judgment with imposition of a permanent injunction in a kangaroo court not only that violated the due process and constitutional right of equal protection of Veleanu, but the special proceedings were identical to summary judgment that preclude the issuance of summary judgment due to the presence in this legal case of numerous issues of material fact. Judge Thomas Dolan committed fraud upon the court in an unconscionable abuse of discretion and irrational arbitrary and capricious action by decreeing a summary judgment despite that the presence of the numerous issues of material fact precluded the issue of summary judgment and the decree of a permanent injunction. Judge Dolan, violated CPLR R3212 regarding the petition of AG that specifies: The motion shall be granted if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense, shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party. Except as provided in subdivision c of this rule the motion shall be denied if any party shall show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact. 40. The judgment decreed by judge Dolan was never entered and docketed and according to 22 NYCRR 202.48 after 60 days became null and invalid. CPLR R2220 (a) specifies that (I)f a party fails to file any papers required to be filed under this subdivision, the order may be vacated as irregular, with costs. Analyzing the script of CPLR R3212, it appears as objectively evident that the summary

judgment against the undersignrd was granted on faulty, fraudulent judicial interpretation, or failure to interpret, but reflects extreme bias against the respondent and obvious violation of CPLR 3212. Wherefore, judge Thomas Dolan decreed a summary judgment decision in an irrational capricious, arbitrary action as well as unconscionable abuse of discretion, when numerous issues of material fact were submitted by defendant in his responsive pleadings, issues that would make the summary judgment inappropriate and void. Their judicial action is not only a clearly unconscionable, abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious, but also fraud upon court. 41. SCDC violated CPLR 3216 that where a party unreasonably neglects to proceed generally in an action or otherwise 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, on its own initiative or upon motion, may dismiss the partys pleading on terms. Unless the order specifies otherwise, the dismissal is not on merits. 42. Apparently judge Dolan stepped down the bench for one reason or another and the order and judgment of the judge became void by failure to enter and docket the judgment within 60 days. Accordingly, AG defaulted by failure to prosecute the action within the time prescribed by law. 43. SCDC violated again CPLR 3216 that where a party unreasonably neglects to proceed generally in an action or otherwise 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, on its own initiative or upon motion, may dismiss the partys pleading on terms. In an egregious judicial action, SCDC violated CPLR 205 AND CPLR 3404 by not VOIDING THE ORDER AND JUDGMENT DECREED BY JUDGE DOLAN that failed to be entered and docketed in the clerk office of SCDC as default judgment due to abandonment in 2 separate occasions. CPLR 205 that was violated by SCDC prescribes that where a dismissal is one for neglect to prosecute the action made pursuant to CPLR 3216, the judge shall set forth on the record the specific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation. This rule made evident the egregious and fraudulent conduct of AG in delaying (laches) of the legal proceedings with the obvious goal of increasing the amount of illegal punitive fine with interest of 9 % for delays of more than 2 years of the judicial proceedings. AG judicial action clearly demonstrate an unconscionable abuse of discretion that legally would be punished by any non corrupt court by dismissal of action for failure of the petitioner to prosecute in 2 separate occasion by engaging in laches. The delays to prosecute had the purpose to increase the amount of punitive penalty of retroactive interest of 9 % in an irrefutable demonstration of abuse of process and malicious prosecution. 44. CPLR 205 specifies that if an action timely commenced is terminated in any other manner than by a voluntary discontinuance, a failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant, a dismissal of the complaint for neglect to prosecute the action, or a final judgment upon the merits, the plaintiff or the successor in legal action, may commence a new action upon the same transaction or occurrences within six months after the termination provided that service upon defendant is effected within such six months period. 45. AG defaulted again by failing to prosecute and failing to start a new judicial proceeding within 6 months as made available to him according to CPLR 205. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Petitioner repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the paragraph 29 to paragraph 45 and as a result, judge Thomas Dolans judicial actions demonstrated in the fore mentioned paragraphs of this petition that represent repeated acts of unconscionable abuse of discretion and or, arbitrary and capricious judicial actions defying logic and rational and as such are absurd, that violated the constitutional rights of the petitioner for a just and fair adjudication of the allegations. In consideration of the violation of judge Thomas Dolan of Article 78, CPLR 7803 (2): whether the body or officer(s) above listed, proceeded without and in excess of jurisdiction, and in consideration of violation of judge Thomas Dolan of Article 78 CPLR 7803 (3): whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or an

abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed, petitioner, Dr. Mircea Veleanu seeks review of the judicial actions of respondent(s) Hon. Thomas Dolan, acting judge of the Supreme Court Dutchess County that unequivocally demonstrate violation of CPLR 7803 (2) and CPLR 7803 (3). 46. After judge Thomas Dolan retirement, the newly assigned judge, Hon. James Pagones, started a new judicial proceeding (de novo) AGAIN WITHOUT service of the new proceeding upon respondent Veleanu in clear violation of CPLR 403. Thus, the failure of the petitioner to serve the judicial process resulted in consequent failure to achieve personal jurisdiction upon respondent Veleanu AND THIS REPRESENTS THE SECOND INSTANCE AND OPPORTUNITY TO EXECUTE PERSONAL SERVICE UPON RESPONDENT.. Accordingly, the judgment of judge Pagones is void ab initio for failure to achieve personal jurisdiction upon Veleanu. 47. Judge Pagones acted in his judicial actions inconsistently and contradicting in cases where he was assigned to render judgment and inconsistent with a fair and uniform decision. A. For example, in Galasso v. Calder, 201 NY Slip Op. 50755 (U) (31 Misc. 3d 1220 A) decided on 4/29/11 in SCDC, judge Pagones decreed a judgment pursuant to CPLR 3126 dismissing the plaintiffs complaint for failure to prosecute. This decision and judgment is in complete opposition to the undersigneds legal case where judge Pagones failed to dismiss the case due to failure to prosecute and AG petitioners default by abandonment in 2 separate occasions. The dilatory actions of AG resulted in failure to docket judge Dolan decision within 60 days, and thereafter defaulted again by failure to act according to CPLR 205 and reinstitute the judicial action within 6 months. The plaintiff in fore mentioned legal case moved for recusal of judge Forman that was denied by judge Pagones. While the legislation allows a county judge (as judge Forman), or a surrogate court judge (as judge Pagones) to act as acting judges of the Supreme Court, the legislation specifically defines this function as temporary). As judge Pagones is acting since 1999 as acting judge of SCDC, hardly could be arguable that the position is temporary and substituting the capacity of an elected Supreme Court Judge. B. In another legal case, Village Dr. Assoc. LLC v. Schiavo, 2013 NY Slip Op 50166 (U) decided on February 7, 2013, judge Pagones made a decision and order similarly, in which judge Pagones ruled against the plaintiff who moved for summary judgment against the defendant. The defendant opposed the summary judgment, but no opposition was submitted to plaintiffs application for an order pursuant to CPLR 3126 and CPLR 3124. This order again is completely different than the order and judgment of judge Pagones against the undersigned. C. In another legal case, BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP v. Musa, 2012 NY Slip Op 51099 (U) decided on June 18, 2012 in SCDC, defendant was in a home foreclosure in default. The plaintiff failed to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default. The court presided by judge Pagones sua sponte dismissed the complaint as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215 C. This case again demonstrates not only the failure of judge Pagones to act fairly and consistently in his decisions, but also a proof of his bias and prejudice against the undersigned by decreeing a judgment against the undersigned in complete reverse action to other legal cases decided by him. D. Most representative case of judge Pagones bias and prejudice against the undersigned is Dooley v. Woods, 2011 NY SLIP Op. 50408 (U) decided on March 22, 2011. Judge Pagones dismissed the plaintiffs action due to the failure to serve the process by the Plaintiff. Judge Pagones stated in the decision: In this case, no summons and complaint, or summons with notice (CPLR 304), was served upon the respondent. Thus the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this case as the existence of an action is an indispensable prerequisite to the granting of the requested relief. While judge Pagones is correct in rendering this order, the fairness and ethical judicial acts of judge Pagones make his judicial actions to be inconsistent, unfair and prejudicial to one party. In the present legal case, judge Pagones made completely opposite judgment. While petitioner AG failed to serve the respondent, judge Pagones did not dismiss the legal case of the undersigned for AG failure to serve the process and subsequent failure to achieve personal jurisdiction by the court. Rather in the most blatant bias and prejudice, judge Pagones did not dismiss the case where the undersigned was involved, despite that the cases are similar and according to the common law represent a ground for failure to act in the same circumstances of law. E. Final case to

demonstrate judge Pagones lack of impartiality and genuine bias and prejudice against the undersigned is the legal case US Bank Natl Assoc. v. Alessandra Padilla et al, defendants, 2011 NY Slip Op 50535 (U) SCDC, decided on April 8, 2011. In this case resembling particularly the present legal case in regard to the assessment by the plaintiff of interest accrued on a loan occurred from the date of default and additional legal fees and expenses. Judge Pagones acted in a completely opposite decision to the present case. He ordered that the interest should be not more than the principal balance of the loan. and awarded the respondent the exemplary damage in the exorbitant amount of $ 100,000. Judge Pagones stated that: The bank conduct was shockingly inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious. On claiming bad faith, the Court presided by judge Pagones, barred the Bank for collecting interest accrued on the loan from the date of default, legal fees and other expenses. Amazingly, decision of judge Pagones is exactly the opposite of the decision in which judge Pagones granted to AG retroactive interest of 9 % (that probably is several times higher than the interest the bank charged the defendant). If judge Pagones would act uniformly and consistently in his judicial actions, the undersigned would be entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of $ 100,000, and forever barring the plaintiff to assess retroactive interest to the date of the occurrence. Judge Pagones stated that the plaintiffs delays allowed racking up interest, fees and penalties to plaintiffs benefit and the respondents detriment. Nonetheless, laches and dilatory scheme of AG allowed the accumulation of large amount of due money that would make the restitution close to impossible. The judicial action in the above case, that is exactly the opposite of judge Pagones judicial action in the present legal case, is uncontrovertible proof of judge Pagones abhorrent bias and prejudice against the undersigned respondent in the action, or an action that serves judges political views that in any situation, is unethical, illegal and demands forever removal of the judge from the bench. Judge James Pagones acted in abuse of discretion that is shaking the conscience of any fact finder, and irrational arbitrary and capricious judicial action. 48. The irrefutable evidence of lack of jurisdiction, based on failure to achieve personal jurisdiction upon the undersigned and subsequent failure of subject matter jurisdiction is sufficient proof substantiating that judge James Pagones acted in complete lack of jurisdiction to render decision and decree order and judgment, and thus violated the laws and statutes of the State of New York. 49. While the paragraph 48 is absolutely relevant that judge Pagones acted without jurisdiction to entitle the court with power to enforce any order and judgment, the petitioner brings another example of judicial action of judge Pagones in this case that demonstrate unambiguously the irrational and logic defying. This consists in judicial act of judge Pagones of decreeing an order and judgment in which he denied the motion for reargument and renew by falsely decreeing that the motion for reargument was rather a motion to renew, and without denying the reargument portion of the motion. In an unconscionable abuse of discretion and irrational arbitrary and capricious judicial action, judge Pagones ruled that the reargument was rather a renew in fraudulent disregard of the law in which CPLR 2221 defines what is a renew motion. Obviously, courts overlooked or misapprehended matters of law cannot be renew. The misinterpretation of law by judge Pagones is not an error, rather irrefutable proof of irrational arbitrary and capricious judicial action of judge Pagones. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Petitioner repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the paragraph 46 to paragraph 49 and SUBSEQUENTLY, judge James Pagones judicial actions demonstrated in the paragraph 46 to paragraph 49 of this petition that represent repeated acts of unconscionable abuse of discretion and or, arbitrary and capricious judicial actions defying logic and rational and as such are absurd, that violated the constitutional rights of the petitioner for a just and fair adjudication of the allegations. In consideration of the violation of judge James Pagones of Article 78, CPLR 7803(2): whether the body or officer(s) above listed, proceeded without and in excess of jurisdiction, and in consideration of violation of judge James Pagones of Article 78 CPLR 7803 (3): whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or an abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed, petitioner, Dr. Mircea Veleanu seeks review of the judicial actions

of respondent(s) Hon. Thomas Dolan, acting judge of the Supreme Court that unequivocally demonstrate violation of CPLR 7803 (2) and CPLR 7803 (3). 51. The last judge involved in this legal case was judge Peter M. Forman that was apparently assigned to this case following the judgment decree of judge Pagones in November 2010. Judge Peter Forman persistently and consistently, neglected to act upon motions brought to SCDC by respondent Veleanu, or denied the relief after the action on the motion became moot. ACCORDINGLY, judge Forman acted in bias and prejudice favoring the petitioner/respondent in any legal action he decided. 52. The first judicial action by judge Forman in which he demonstrated prejudice and bias toward the undersigned, was his failure to act upon an Order to Show Cause submitted to SCDC on November 12, 2010, in which the undersigned requested leave as Stay of judgment pending the resolution of an appeal to Appellate Court Second Division. The undersigned was confident that the leave was granted in absence of a motion to oppose by AG. Petitioner was shocked to learn that the relief was not applicable due to failure of judge Forman to sign it, at the time when AG proceeded to execute the petitioners property by the Sheriff in a public auction. Judge Forman failure to act upon a motion represents an undeniable proof of an unconscionable abuse of discretion. 53. The undersigned submitted to the Supreme Court of New York Dutchess County (SCDC) an Order to Show Cause entered in the Clerk of Dutchess County Office on January 23, 2012 with request for a leave to relief and enforce, the already granted by default Stay of Judgment by SCDC of November 12, 2010 in accordance with CPLR 5519. Judge Peter M. Forman failed to make a decision regarding defendants motion to obtain relief and prevent the sale of property owned by Veleanu at a public auction by the Sheriff. As such, judge Forman violated CPLR R2219 by not making a determination within 20 days for this provisional remedy order. On April 24, 2012 (that is more than 90 days since the submission of the application), judge Forman issued a decision and order that denied the discretionary relief requested by Veleanu pursuant to CPLR 5519 C as moot. Of course that an emergency relief requested in an Order to Show Cause became moot after more than 3 months since the application was submitted. Judge Forman action, or rather lack of action, represents unconscionable abuse of discretion and frivolous, arbitrary and capricious action and FRAUD UPON THE COURT. Accordingly, the judicial action of judge Forman was perverse, biased, timely improper and irregular. In his Decision and Order dated April 24, 2012, judge Forman made a false statement that defendant filed an application for an Order to Show Cause with the Appellate Court-Second Division on November 12, 2010. The evidentiary proof however, shows that the application for relief in the Order to Show Cause of November 12, 2010 was actually filed, and deemed as entered by the SCDC while the unperfected appeal was pending before the Appellate Court and apparently the judge acting upon the motion was judge Peter Forman. See paragraph 52. As such, the application to the SCDC could not be denied by the Appellate Court and is clear misrepresentation and evidence of FRAUD UPON THE COURT by judge Peter Forman, as well as unconscionable abuse of discretion. 54. One of the most egregious judicial act committed by judge Peter Forman was the refusal to sign an Order to Show Cause submitted by respondent Veleanu in August 2012, in which Veleanu requested leave for a TRO to prevent distribution of the undertaking funds cashed by the AG, due to the fact that all customers who requested refunds, including the complainant Spiridonakos, are out-of-state residents and a premature distribution of the funds would make difficult if not impossible to retrieve the proceeds in case of granted relief by the court. Judge Forman refused to sign the Order to Show Cause invoking his discretionary power. See Exhibit 20. 55. However, this application was addressed to the Administrative Judge of the Supreme Court in which the undersigned pursuant to CPLR R5015 (a) (3), requested relief from judgments and orders based upon the ground of fraud, misrepresentation and other misconduct of the adverse party. Also, the applicant requested relief from judgment according to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) upon the ground of lack of jurisdiction to render the judgments and orders and CPLR 5015 C that is the prerogative of the administrative judge of SCDC. The order to Show Cause and accompanied papers were clearly marked and addressed to the Administrative Judge. The line 3 of the Order to Show cause: is probative: Let People of the State of NY/Petitioner SHOW CAUSE BEFORE

THIS COURT before the administrative judge of the Supreme Court of the State of NY. Further on, the application shows below the signature place of the magistrate marked in majuscule letters: ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT. Prior sending the application to the court, the respondent inquired with the chief clerk of the court to whom to send the application and was told that the administrative justice is Hon. Alan Sheinkman. The clerk of the court instructed to send the application to the attention of judge Forman that will forward the motion to the Administrative Judge. Judge Forman intercepted the motion addressed to the administrative judge and acted as he was the administrative judge despite that it was clear that the application was not to be decided by him and he was not assigned as the administrative judge of the Supreme Court and thus, he did not have the authority to act as the administrative judge of SCDC. 56. Judge Peter Forman repeatedly and consistently violated CPLR 2219(a) in a biased, proprosecutorial, unconscionable, arbitrary and frivolous abuse of discretion. While abuse of discretion is a civil infraction that could lead to severe judicial penalties, the repeated acts of disregard to the professional responsibility as a judge in the Supreme Court of New York makes the judge liable to criminal violation of law in New York State under Penal Law 195. New York State Penal Law 195.00 OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT Penal Law 195.00 specifies: A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit: 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 his office. The TRO requested by the undersigned and presented in the attached affidavit to the application was based on objective incontrovertible evidence beyond the reasonable doubt that criminal acts of theft of property, forgery, uttering, forgery by counterfeit , mislabeling, perjury were perpetrated upon the applicant and for the reason that all the persons involved in the criminal acts are not citizens of New York State, the premature distribution of the undertaking would unjustly enrich criminal persons and make the recovery of distributed funds difficult or impossible. CPLR 2214 c clearly specifies: Issues of fact. Providing that the elements required for the issuance of a preliminary inquiry are demonstrated in the plaintiffs papers, the presentation by the defendant of evidence sufficient to raise an issue of facts as to any of such elements shall not in itself be grounds for denial of the motion. In such event, the court shall make a determination by hearing or otherwise whether each of the elements required for the issuance of a preliminary injunction exists. Accordingly CPLR 6312 c allows the adversary party to present evidence necessary to controvert the movants averments. Judge Forman denied to grant a hearing as requested in the applicants motion and his action is arbitrary and capricious logic defying act and unconscionable abuse of discretion. 57. On August 21, 2012 at the time specified in the motion as 10 am, the undersigned appeared in the Court and upon the appearance, Mr. Michael G. Hayes, Principal Law Clerk advised me that judge Forman declined to sign the application and a copy of an explanatory letter that allegedly was mailed the precedent day was handed to the undersigned. I left the court one hour later at 11 am and the adversary party did not show up despite that was notified by certified letter with return receipt. Also, Mr. Nick Garin did not submit any papers in opposition to refute the undersigneds averments. According to NY State Unified Court System and Appellate Court Second Department Rule 8.2 : The signing of an order to show cause is discretionary, and if is not signed, the movant may proceed by notice of motion. Judge Formans biased actions represented an unconscionable abuse of discretion and a miscarriage of justice. First of all, he was ethically prevented to act in this legal document due to his previous involvement in this legal case where he acted biased and partial against respondent Veleanu, thus he acted in conflict of interest when ethically and legally should recuse himself from this legal case. Fed. R. Civ. P 26 c(1) provides: Evidence is essential if the court is to fulfill its fact finding function. Judge Forman committed obstruction of justice by suppression and preventing evidence to be submitted and committed fraud upon the court. Judge Forman committed extrinsic fraud defined as occurring when intentional deceit is employed to keep someone from exercising a right, such as a fair trial by misleading a party, or preventing a party to exercise his rights to defend in a trial. Judge Forman violated several Codes of Judicial Conduct and NY State law. Judge Forman violated 22 NYCRR 100.3 (e) (1): A judge should disqualify

himself in a proceeding in which the impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Judge Forman violated 22 NYCRR 100.2: Substantial misconduct rose to such an egregious level that 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 the appearance of impropriety in all judges activities. Judge Forman violated the Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7. Conflict of Interest. Judge Forman violated Federal Law Sec 455:Recusal of judges. 58. Finally, the undersigned requested relief from judgments and orders in accordance with CPLR 5015 c: An administrative judge upon a showing that judgments and orders were obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, illegality, unconscionableness, lack of due service, violations of law, or other illegalities, or where such judgments were obtained in cases which the defendant would be uniformly entitled to interpose a defense predicated upon but not limited to the foregoing defense, may bring a proceeding to relieve the party of such position with objective proof of evidence rather than subjective inference based on poor understanding of scientific evidence, conjecture, conclusionary statements not based on objective evidence, etc. The Unified Court System provides that the failure to appear in court for the Order to Show Cause and failure to submit evidentiary response constitutes default and subsequently, the affiant is entitled to the relief requested in the application. The second default of the petitioner occurred when he failed to prosecute within the time prescribed by the CPLR 3216 and CPLR 205 after the judgment of judge Thomas Dolan by failure to enter and docket within 6 months and subsequently the judgment was considered abandoned. The remainder of the issues could not be evaluated and decided by judge Forman that was already proved to be a biased party in the prior judicial proceedings and played a significant part in the injustice perpetrated upon the undersigned in a kangaroo trial without service, without hearings and denial of pleadings and motions to dismiss by invocation of unsworn declarations. Judge Forman conclusion that the application failed to demonstrate that a proper case exists is undeniable pro-prosecutorial in face of un-refutable issues of material fact presented in the affidavit. This represented a major conflict of interest that prevented the adjudication in a fair and impartial fashion. Judge Formans biased actions represent an unconscionable, capricious and arbitrary abuse of discretion and a miscarriage of justice. Further on, this represented a major conflict of interest that prevented the adjudication in a fair and impartial fashion. Judge Peter Forman judicial action represented not only an egregious abuse of discretion, but also a criminal violation of Penal Law 190.25. Penal Law 190.25. Criminal impersonation in the second degree. A person is guilty of impersonation in second degree when he : 3 (a) pretends to be a public servant or falsely expresses by his words or 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 official authority(o)r otherwise cause another to act in reliance upon the pretense. Criminal impersonation in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor. Veleanu decided to re-submit the application directly to the SCDC judge Alan Sheinkman in White Plains, NY due to interference and acting upon by judge Forman. to 202.7(f) notice. On a letter dated October 5, 2012, James Garfein, counsel to administrative judge advised the respondent to submit the application to the Supreme Court of Dutchess County and instructed Mr. Michael Thompson, the Chief Clerk of SCDC to return the application to the undersigned. 59. On October 24, 2012, petitioner submitted a motion with attached Memorandum of law in which it was requested a leave in accordance with CPLR 5015 (a) (4), CPLR 5015 (a) (3), and CPLR 5015 (a)(2) In consideration of former biased and prejudicial judicial action against the undersigned, the petition requested as a relief the voluntary recusal of judge Forman. In view that judge Forman was named in the motion as a defendant in the judicial action, the undersigned was confident that another judge would be assigned in view that disqualification of a judge to act in a judicial proceeding is required due to conflict of interest. The application cited 2 cases of demonstrated abuse of discretion as has been shown in the present petition under paragraph 52 and 53 reasons for requested recusal of judge Forman from further actions.

60. In an irrefutable unconscionable abuse of discretion, judge Forman failed to make a decision upon the motion within 60 days, thus, violating again CPLR 2219 and 22 NYCRR 202.8 (h). The obvious conflict of interest demonstrated in his previous biased and lack of impartiality, ethically, would prevent judge Forman to act upon the motion where his recusal was requested as a relief. The Canon 3 B (5) provides: Judges shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. When a judge demonstrate bias or prejudice, it is a violation of Canon 3 B (5). Judges should recuse themselves when they have a bias or prejudice. Recklessly, judge Forman ignored the request for his recusal and did not provide any reason about his failure to resign or ask a fellow judge to replace him on the bench because of obvious conflict of interest. The failure to act upon a motion, is considered an unconscionable abuse of discretion. 61. As the refusal to act upon a motion or a delay used as a dilatory technicality to make the motion moot is considered an unconscionable abuse of discretion, the judicial action, or rather judicial act of inaction of judge Forman, represents an unconscionable abuse of discretion. 62. The unethical and illegal judicial actions of judge Forman does not represent only one episode of illegal and unethical action, rather a pattern of repeated acts of denials of motions submitted by the undersigned based on motions delayed by judge Forman until became moot, or failing to act upon a motion at all. These acts of illegal and unethical judicial actions of judge Forman unequivocally represent unconscionable abuse of discretion. The averments of the respondent were not controverted by the AG in his Reply to the Motion and as such, the judge was obligated to grant the relief requested by the respondent in his motion. 63. On January 28, 2013, the undersigned submitted a motion with attached Memorandum of Law to the administrative judge in which the undersigned requested the following administrative and ministerial determination orders: 1. A ministerial administrative order in regard to violation of CPLR 2219(a) and 22 NYCRR 202.8 (h) by SCDC presided by judge Forman as failure to decree a decision and order upon a motion of relief from a void judgment submitted to the court on October 24, 2012 (representing more than 90 days). 2. Ministerial administrative order for violation of Penal Law section 195.00 by judge Forman. 3. Ministerial administrative order for SCDC presided by judge Forman of the violation of several codes, regulations under 22 NYCRR in this legal action 4. Ministerial administrative measure regarding the violation of the court presided by judge Forman of Penal Law 175.00. 5, Ministerial administrative measure in regard to the court presided by judge Forman violation of the New York CVR Article 2 Civil Rights. Till present time (more than 90 days), the undersigned did not receive a response to the motion addressed to the administrative judge of SCDC. 64. On January 29, 2013, judge Forman decreed an order in which he denied the motion for annulment of a void judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 submitted by the undersigned on October 24, 2012, as being moot. Judge Forman violated NY State Judicial Law 14: Disqualification of judges by reason of interest that prescribes: A judge shall not sit, as such in, or take any part in the decision of an action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding to which HE IS A PARTY, or in which he has been attorney or counsel, or in which he is interested. Despite that judge Forman was prevented legally and ethically to act on a motion where he was named as defendant and where one of the requested relief was his voluntary recusal, judge Forman denied the motion by ruling that it was moot. The decision and order of judge Forman represents a conscience shaking abuse of discretion and an irrational and illogical arbitrary and capricious judicial act. See Pell, 34 NY2d 222; Matter of Kreisler v. NY City Transit Authority, 2 NY 3d 775 (2004); Matter of Pearl v. Bd. of Profl Med. Conduct, 295 AD 764 (3rd Dept , 99 NY 2d 501 (2002). The motion for relief cannot be moot as the undersigned is proceeding in action against the illegal and unconscionable abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious judicial acts of judge Forman and has to exhaust all judicial and administrative procedures prior instituting Article 78 proceeding. While administrative actions of the undersigned are futile, nevertheless, are required as a required exhaustion of all administrative actions. 65. In sequence of the paragraph 64, the undersigned submitted on February 25, 2013, a motion addressed to the administrative judge in which it was requested ministerial administrative leave of assignment of another judge in the legal case, pursuing 22 NYCRR 202.6-Judicial intervention, and in undeniable judicial actions of judge Forman showing bias and prejudice against the undersigned. This motion was denied by the administrative judge of SCDC. As the

administrative judge decisions and orders are not prone to be addressed in Article 78, this issue is to be considered only as a futile measure required for satisfaction of exhaustion of all judicial and administrative action instituted by petitioner prior commencing Article 78 proceeding. 66. In support of the violations of the rules and regulations of the administrative judge of the State of New York, The Code of Judicial Conduct by Judges, Canons and several CPLR, the undersigned submits the following more significant violations of the rules requiring recusal of judges. Canon 3 E (1) provides : 1. Judges shall disqualify themselves in any proceedings in which the impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Judges refuse to recuse themselves when their impartiality would be questioned by reasonable people. 67. The Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge 22 NYCRR Part 100 reinforces the above Canon stating in Sec.100 (E): A judge shall disqualify himself in a proceeding in which the judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 68. 22 NYCRR C. Disqualification. A judge shall disqualify himself in a procedure in which the judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned including but not limited to instances in which (a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge or disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding. 69. In accordance with the above Rules, on February 11, 2013, the undersigned submitted to SCDC a motion requesting the voluntary recusal of judge Forman and implementation of hearings in accordance with CPLR (d) for a void judgment and restitution of undertaking, a declaratory judgment and other relieves mentioned in original motion for annulment of orders and judgments dated October 24, 2012. On a decision and order dated February 15, 2013, Judge Forman denied the motion without any substantiation of his decision not to resign. Judge Forman violated NY State Judiciary Law Sec. 17 that states: A judge or surrogate, or former 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. The above violation arose from judicial actions of judge Forman as acting as counselor to AAG Garin demonstrated in judge Forman decisions and orders. 70. Judge Peter Forman violated judicial Canon 2: Violation of The Rules of Courts Civil Procedures demonstrates impropriety and the appearance of the impropriety. 71. Judge Peter Forman violated Canon 3 B (5) Judges shall perform judicial duties without bias or 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. 72. Judge Peter Forman violated Canon 3 (A) (5): In disposing of matters promptly. efficiently and fairly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the promptly, efficiently and fairly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of the parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without dilatory practice, avoidable delays and unnecessary costs. 73. Judge Peter Forman violated Canon 3 B (8): Judges shall dispose of all judicial matters fairly, promptly and efficiently. When the judges failed to do so, they ignore the facts, ignore and violate the law, ignore and violate the Rules and commit criminal acts. 74. Subsequent to violation of Canon 3 B (8), judge Forman violated Penal Law 195.00 Official Misconduct. A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit: 195.1. He commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized. 195.2. He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office. Judge Peter Forman violated Canon 3 B (7): Judges shall accord to any person the right to be heard according to law. Judges shall not initiate ex parte communications. Judges violate this Canon when parties are denied the right to have hearings, testify under oath, examine witnesses, cross examine witnesses. Judge Peter Forman violated Penal Law 190.25. Criminal impersonation in the second degree. A person is guilty of impersonation in the second degree when he: 1. impersonates another and does an act in such assumed character with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another, or, 3. Pretends to be a public servant or falsely expresses by words or actions that he

is a public servant, or is acting with approval of authority of a public agency or department, and (b) so acts with intent to induce another to submit to such pretended official authority toor otherwise cause another to act in reliance upon that pretense. 75. Judge Forman violated Federal Law 18 USC Sec. 401. Power of courts. A court of the US shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of 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. 76. Judge Forman violated Federal law Title 18 Sec. 912: Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under of the US or any department, agency, or officer thereof, and acts as such or in such pretended character, demands or obtains anypaper, document (s)hall be assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under of the US or any department, agency, or officer thereof, and acts 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. 77. Judge Forman violated Federal Law Title 18. Sec. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law. Penalty is fines or imprisonment not more than one year or both. 78. Judge 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 for a party to recuse a judge based that the judge has a personal bias or prejudice against him or in favor of the adverse party, such judge shall not proceed further, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding. 79. Judge Forman violated New York Bill of Rights, CVR Article 2 (10) provides that writs and process ought to be granted freely and without delay. 80. Judge Forman violated the following Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge in Part 100: Judicial conduct:. 22 NYCRR 100.2 states: Substantial misconduct rose to such an egregious level that 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 the appearance of impropriety in all judges activities 82. 22 NYCRR 100.B(4). A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice against or in favor of any person. A judge in the performance of the judicial duties shall not by words or conduct violate manifest bias or prejudice. 83. 22 NYCRR 100.B(6). A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding or that persons lawyer the right to be heard according to law. A judge shall not initiate, permit or consider ex parte communications. 84. 22 NYCRR 100.B(7). A judge shall dispose of all matters promptly, efficiently and fairly. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Petitioner repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth in the paragraph 51 to paragraph 84 and SUBSEQUENTLY, judge Peter M. Formans judicial actions demonstrated in the paragraph 51 to paragraph 84 of this petition that represent repeated acts of unconscionable abuse of discretion and or, arbitrary and capricious judicial actions defying logic and rational and as such are absurd, that violated the constitutional rights of the petitioner for a just and fair adjudication of the allegations. In consideration of the violation of judge Peter M. Forman of Article 78, CPLR 7803(1): whether the body or officer above listed, failed to perform a duty enjoined upon him by law and in consideration of violation of judge Peter M. Forman of Article 78 CPLR 7803 (3): whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or an abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed, petitioner, Dr. Mircea Veleanu seeks review of the judicial actions of respondent(s) Hon. Peter M. Forman, acting judge of the Supreme Court that unequivocally demonstrate violation of CPLR 7803 (1) and CPLR 7803 (3). Respondent, Dr. Mircea Veleanu, seeking relief in accordance with CPLR 5015 (a) 4 and CPLR 5015 (a)(3), as well as CPLR 5015 (a) (2) clearly demonstrated to the court the legal right to the

entitlement to relief that is mandatory and not prone to a discretionary decree. The respondent established by evidentiary proof that the court is lacking the personal jurisdiction upon the respondent and the authority and power to enforce the legality of the proceedings. See Matter of Rush v Mordue 68 NY 2d at 352; Matter of Neal v White 46 AD 3d at 159. Constitutional violations were not reviewed or remedied by Appeal. It appears that the only impediment to carrying on the justice and justiciary remedy is the purely ministerial act of entering a decision conforming to the relief pursuing CPLR 5015 (a) (4) and CPLR 5015 (a) (3). In disposing of matters promptly, efficiently and fairly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of the parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without dilatory practice, avoidable delays and unnecessary costs, proved to be violated by judge Forman. Petitioners factual findings are conclusive supported by substantial evidence defined as such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact. See People ex rel Vega v. Smith, 66 NY 2d, 130, 139 (1985); 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY 2d 176, 180-81 (1978). In addition there is irrefutable proof that respondent failed to controvert the contentions of petitioner Veleanu. Finally, petitioner requests judicial review of the Appellate Court of judicial actions of judge Peter Forman who failed to perform a duty enjoined by law to enter the annulment of a void judgment where the right to relief is clear and the performance of the required judicial act is not discretionary. Judge Forman acted in unconscionable abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious judicial acts not supported by substantial evidence that a reasonable person would accept as enough to support the claim. Klosterman V.Cuomo, 61 NY 2d 525, (1984); Matter of DiBiasio v. Novello, 28 AD 3d 339, (1st Dept. 2006). In support of CPLR 5015 (a) (3), petitioner submits the following list of alleged fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of the adversary party. The adverse party is liable to the following NY State Penal Laws violations by the prosecutor in this legal case: 1. NY Penal Law 175.25. Tampering with public records in the first degree. Tampering with public records in the first degree is a class D Felony. 2. NY Penal Law Sec. 210.14. Perjury in the first degree. Perjury in the first degree is a class D Felony. 3. NY Penal Law Sec. 100.05. Criminal solicitation in fourth degree. 4. NY Penal Law Sec. 215.50. Criminal contempt in the second degree. Criminal contempt in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor. 5. NY Penal Law Sec. 170.10. Forgery in the second degree. In addition, petitioner violated the following NY State codes, rules or regulations: 1. 22 NYCRR Sec 130.1.1: Initiating a frivolous suit. His action of fraud upon court in the investigative function voided his prosecutorial immunity. In addition, violation of CPLR Article 7 R70. Initiating a frivolous and vexatious suit. 2. 22 NYCRR 3.3.202. Prohibition of counsel to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation. Petitioner violated the following Federal laws: 1. Title 18 Sec. 19. Conspiracy to injure and oppress a citizen in the face of exercise of any right or privilege secured to him by Constitution. 2. Title 18. Chapter 25 Sec. 514. Counterfeiting and forgery represents a class B felony. 3. Title 18 Sec 371. Use of fake documents, penalty is 5 years imprisonment. 4. Title 18 Sec. 201 (b) (3): Influence a witness. Penalty is 15 years imprisonment and disqualification from holding any office or trust under the US. 5. Title 18. Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights. Penalty is imprisonment up to 10 years, fines or both. 6. Title 18 Sec. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law. Penalty is imprisonment up to one year, fines or both. 7. Title 18. Sec. 1349. Attempt and conspiracy. Penalty is the same as for the conspiratoroffender of the perpetrated crime. Title 18. Sec. 1505. Obstruction of justice. Penalty is imprisonment up to 5 years, fines or both. 8. Title 18. Sec. 1506. Alteration of records. Penalty is imprisonment up to 5 years, fines or both.

9. Title 18. Sec. 1512. Influencing the testimony, mutilation of records. Penalty is imprisonment up to 20 years, fines or both. 10. Title 18. Sec. 1621. Perjury. Penalty is up to 5 years imprisonment, fines or both. 11. Title 18. Sec. 1622. Subornation of perjury. Penalty is imprisonment up to 5 years, fines or both. 12. Title 18. Sec. 1623. False declaration before court. Penalty is up to 5 years imprisonment, fines or both. 13. Title 18. Sec. 2071. Concealment or mutilation of documents. Penalty is imprisonment up to 3 years, fines or both. 14. Title 18 Sec. 3173, Sixth amendment rights violation. Request for initial determination by the Appellate Court. Petitioner, Dr. Mircea Veleanu requests the Appellate Court Second Division to disqualify the Attorney General to represents and defend the judges of the Supreme Court of Dutchess County forego accused in this petition of violations of Article 78 of CPLR. The reason for the disqualification of AG to represent and defend the accused judges of alleged violations of Article 78 is based on the obvious conflict of interest. In this legal proceeding, Attorney General is a defending party with prior knowledge about the case and prior involvement in the case, thus ethically and legally cannot represent defendants that are also defendants in the same legal case. The Canons of Judicial Conduct prohibit such legal representation that is unquestionably a conflict of interest. Judiciary Law Sec. 17 provides that a judge, or a surrogate, or former judge or surrogate shall not act as attorney or counselor in any action, claim, matter , motion or proceeding which as been before him (or her) in his (her) official character. In addition Judicial law Sec. 701 prescribes that District Attorney is disqualified from fulfilling the duty because of actual prejudice arising from a demonstrated conflict of interest. See Schumer v. Holtzman, 60 NY 2d 46, 55 (1983). Finally, Judicial Law Sec. 14 prescribes that a judge shall not sit, or take any part in the decision of an action, matter, claim, motion or proceeding to which he is a party, or in which he has been an attorney or counsel, or in which he is interested Conclusion. The Adversary party did not controvert the allegations of petitioner by any evidence that is not conclusionary, thus, the judgment should be granted to petitioner, Dr. Mircea Veleanu in accordance with CPLR 7806 that specifies: any restitution or damages granted to the petitioner must be incidental to the primary relief sought by the petitioner, and must be such as he might otherwise recover on the same set of facts in a separate action or proceeding suable in the Supreme Court against the same body or officer in its or his official capacity. Accordingly, petitioner requests the refund of the undertaking paid by petitioner and the legal expenses involved in defending this frivolous suit, including the lawyers fees. In addition, petitioner requests a declaratory judgment in accordance to CPLR 3001, necessary to repair the damaged moral character and professional reputation in this legal suit. Pursuant to the court decision in Gobel v. Maricopa County, 867 F2d 1201 at 1203 where Appellant demanded a public apology, petitioner requests a public apology from the parties involved in this legal case. Dated April 8, 2013 ________________________ Mircea Veleanu, acting pro se Sworn to before me this ___ day of April 2013 Notary Public CC: Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and Assistant Attorney General Nick Garin CC. Hon. James Brands, JSC, Hon. Thomas Dolan, AJSC,

Hon. James Pagones, AJSC, Hon. Peter M. Forman, AJSC As per personal service prescribed in Article 78

43