Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I, hereby, Mircea Veleanu, Plaintiff in the above captioned legal actions, declare under the penalty of
perjury that the following statements are true and known to me be accurate as being a factual witness of
the material facts. This declaration is in compliance with 28 USC Sec 1746, submitted in good faith in
support of the undersigned’s application for the annulment of the moot Orders and Judgments decreed
by this Court in lack of standing and consequent lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
1. The undersigned, Plaintiff in the fore captioned legal cases, challenges the subject matter
jurisdiction of this federal court of justice who knowingly rendered unenforceable Orders and
2. This application for relief is pertinent to two legal cases, 13 CV 5566, and 13 CV 5693,
consolidated by Nelson S. Roman, presiding judge of this Court, who rendered an Order and Judgment
by which he dismissed both cases in a single decision after the consolidation. Thus, this application is
legally challenging the subject matter jurisdiction of dismissal of the Complaint in both fore captioned
cases, by a single contemporaneous instant decision and Order of this Court dated November 12, 2013
3. Subject matter jurisdiction never can be waived, never can be disregarded by a court due to lapse of
time or course of events, other than sufficient pleading in an unprejudiced court. When subject matter
jurisdiction is challenged (as in the present application), the party asserting that the court has subject
matter jurisdiction (in the present case, judge Nelson S. Roman who acted sua sponte), has the burden
of showing that such jurisdiction exists. Once the court has knowledge that subject matter jurisdiction
is lacking, the court (judge Nelson S. Roman) has no discretion but to dismiss the action and grant
summary judgment to the party who asserted and proved the default of the defendants.
4. The background of case 13 CV 5566, reveals that the defendants were served by Plaintiff with the
waiver of summons on August 9th, 2013 and according to FRCP 12(a)(1)(A)(ii), the Answer or a
Motion was due “within 60 days after the request for a waiver was sent”. Thus, in order to comply with
the above cited Rule, the Answer or a Motion had to be submitted prior October 9th., 2013. Nonetheless,
the defendants submitted a Motion to Dismiss, on October 11, 2013. (See Dkt. # 22 dated 10/11/2013).
5. The background of case 13 CV 5693 illustrates that defendant Janet Spiridonakos and Freeboard
International, Inc., were served with the Waiver of summons on August 14, 2013. Rather than
responding to the Waiver of summons, on August 30, 2013, she made a voluntary appearance in the
Court presided by judge Vincent Briccetti. She did not retain legal representation for the Corporation,
Freeboard International, Inc. and subsequently, the Corporation defaulted on October 14, 2013. In
accordance with FRCP Rule 12(a), Defendant Spiridonakos failed to submit a responsive pleading
within the time provided by the Rule and subsequently defaulted as a matter of fact and law in the case
13 CV 5693 prosecuted for breach of contract and acts of fraud. (on October 22, 2013, she submitted a
tardy motion to dismiss both legal cases (irrational, as in case 13 CV 5566, she was not named as a
defendant and defendants’ counsel, Joshua Pepper refused to defend her). This motion irrationally
invoked res judicata, collateral estoppel and Rooker Feldman doctrine, when she was not ever sued by
the Plaintiff in the state court, or any court. Such motion would entitle any unbiased presiding judge of
a federal court to deny the motion and request a psychiatric evaluation of the defendant.
6. Subsequent to Defendants default, on October 18, 2013, Plaintiff submitted a motion for Entry of
default in accordance with FRCP 55(a) to be entered by the clerk of court, Ruby Krajick. (See Dkt. # 6
of case 13 CV 5693). Exhibit # 1. FRCP 55(a) provides that when a party fails to plead, the clerk of
court must enter a default. Although Plaintiff Veleanu moved under Rule 55(a) and submitted all the
required documentation including the affidavit in support, the clerk of court failed to act upon the
properly submitted motion without any defect. FRCP 55(a) is not discretionary and obliges the clerk
of
court to comply to ministerial function, otherwise, is considered gross negligence and prosecuted as
an obstruction of justice in a potential suit. Rule 55(a) clearly specifies: “Entering a default. When a
party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend,
and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default”. On
November 12, 2013, judge Roman “terminated” Plaintiff’s motion without any dictum, reasoning or
explanation that determined him to act so. Judge Nelson Roman violated Plaintiff’s due process rights
in dismissing applications without any legal support to do so, without hearing or even a conference,
whatever. As a matter of fact, Plaintiff never saw judge Roman who decreed all his orders and
7. In addition, the defendants of case 13 CV 5566 did not default for the first time. On November 14,
2013, Plaintiff submitted a motion to strike defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(f),
as redundant, immaterial and impertinent based on the incontrovertible facts that defendants’ counsel
submitted a motion to dismiss that was identical in the documents submitted with the motion to dismiss
in the Supreme Court of NY Appellate Division Second Department. The identical motion to dismiss
was actually denied by the Supreme Court of NY Appellate Division in the Article 78 proceeding.
Further on, res judicata, collateral estoppel and Rooker Feldman doctrine prevent the defendants’
counsel to submit the identical motion to Dismiss the Complaint in the federal district court. More
importantly, defendants’ counsel did not contest or reply in defense to Plaintiff‘s application, thus the
8. In addition to the application pursuant to FRCP 55 (a), Plaintiff submitted to the court a motion for
Default judgment in accordance with FRCP 55 (b)(2). See Dkt. # 29 entered in the general docket of
Judge Nelson S. Roman presiding of SDNY failed to act upon this application that till present time
failed to be acted upon by clear gross negligence and failure to perform the mandatory and ministerial
legal function to act upon the applications submitted to the court. Nonetheless, judge Nelson Roman
acting sua sponte, in a Memorandum and Order, ordered that Motion for Entry of Default pursuant to
FRCP Rule 55(a) be “terminated” without any explanation. His Memorandum pertinent to case 13 CV
5566, state that “In sum, the Court finds that the Plaintiff failed to properly plead any case of action”.
This characterization is false and misleading as judge Roman by fraud upon the court, failed to
adjudicate Plaintiff’s Complaint causes of action pertinent to 42 USC Sec. 1983, as well as causes of
action of Plaintiff’s causes of action pursuant to USC Sec. 15 c named State Attorney General
prosecuted by Plaintiff under RICO where AG is sued in his official capacity, as well as the associates
in the “Enterprise” racketeering acts precluded of an opportunity to claim 11th Amendment defense.
Instead, judge Roman plagiarized word-by-word Discussion and Argument of Memorandum of
Decision and Order of the case of Anghel v. NY State Department of Health et al. (US District Court
Eastern District Of NY, 2:12-CV-03484 (ADS)(WDW), dated 5/29/2013 where 11th Amendment and
9. Wherefore, it is incontrovertible that the Defendants in the aforementioned legal cases defaulted as
a matter of fact and law, by failure to submit a timely answer or motion within the limits of time
10. Wherefore, it is incontrovertible that the defendants in both legal cases, did not ask the Plaintiff or
the court for an extension of time to submit a responsive pleading, or contest the default by submitting
any evidence, nonetheless inadmissible, due to counsel of the defendants AAG Pepper,
acknowledgment of default. In addition, Counsel of defendants, AAG Joshua Pepper, requested this
court that his motion for Dismissal of Complaint in accordance to FRCP 12(b)(6), need not convert the
instant motion to one for summary judgment. See Defendants Memorandum of Law in support of their
motion to Dismiss and in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify counsel., page 3, bottom.
11. Wherefore, it is incontrovertible that the default of the defendants in both legal cases, created a
moot court that precluded such court to proceed further, due to lack of standing.
Therefore, this court should take notice that the Orders and Judgments decreed by this court in lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, are void as a matter of law, null and unenforceable and could be attacked at
Thus, Plaintiff requests this Court to grant the relieves requested in the Complaints of fore captioned
legal cases. This Affirmation is served in lieu of an affidavit in accordance to 28 USC Sec. 1746 and
the undersigned, Plaintiff in this legal action in good faith declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing statements and contentions are true and only the truth, so help me God in this legal action.
6
God bless US of America my beloved adoptive country!
God save US of America from its enemies from outside and within!
Somers, NY ___________________________
Somers, NY
Telephone: 914-617-9304
Email: objetsdartuniques@comcast.net
7
United States District Court
I, hereby, Mircea Veleanu, Plaintiff in the above captioned legal actions, declare under the penalty of
perjury that the following statements are true and known to me be accurate as being a factual witness of
the material facts. This declaration is in compliance with 28 USC Sec 1746, submitted in good faith in
support of the undersigned’s application for the annulment of the moot Orders and Judgments decreed
by this Court in lack of standing and consequent lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
1. The undersigned, Plaintiff in the fore captioned legal cases, challenges the subject matter
jurisdiction of this federal court of justice who knowingly rendered unenforceable Orders and
2. This application for relief is pertinent to two legal cases, 13 CV 5566, and 13 CV 5693,
consolidated by Nelson S. Roman, presiding judge of this Court, who rendered an Order and Judgment
by which he dismissed both cases in a single decision after the consolidation. Thus, this application is
legally challenging the subject matter jurisdiction of dismissal of the Complaint in both fore captioned
cases, by a single contemporaneous instant decision and Order of this Court dated November 12, 2013
3. Subject matter jurisdiction never can be waived, never can be disregarded by a court due to lapse of
time or course of events, other than sufficient pleading in an unprejudiced court. When subject matter
jurisdiction is challenged (as in the present application), the party asserting that the court has subject
matter jurisdiction (in the present case, judge Nelson S. Roman who acted sua sponte), has the burden
of showing that such jurisdiction exists. Once the court has knowledge that subject matter jurisdiction
is lacking, the court (judge Nelson S. Roman) has no discretion but to dismiss the action and grant
summary judgment to the party who asserted and proved the default of the defendants.
4. The background of case 13 CV 5566, reveals that the defendants were served by Plaintiff with the
waiver of summons on August 9th, 2013 and according to FRCP 12(a)(1)(A)(ii), the Answer or a
Motion was due “within 60 days after the request for a waiver was sent”. Thus, in order to comply with
the above cited Rule, the Answer or a Motion had to be submitted prior October 9th., 2013. Nonetheless,
the defendants submitted a Motion to Dismiss, on October 11, 2013. (See Dkt. # 22 dated 10/11/2013).
5. The background of case 13 CV 5693 illustrates that defendant Janet Spiridonakos and Freeboard
International, Inc., were served with the Waiver of summons on August 14, 2013. Rather than
responding to the Waiver of summons, on August 30, 2013, she made a voluntary appearance in the
Court presided by judge Vincent Briccetti. She did not retain legal representation for the Corporation,
Freeboard International, Inc. and subsequently, the Corporation defaulted on October 14, 2013. In
accordance with FRCP Rule 12(a), Defendant Spiridonakos failed to submit a responsive pleading
within the time provided by the Rule and subsequently defaulted as a matter of fact and law in the case
13 CV 5693 prosecuted for breach of contract and acts of fraud. (on October 22, 2013, she submitted a
tardy motion to dismiss both legal cases (irrational, as in case 13 CV 5566, she was not named as a
defendant and defendants’ counsel, Joshua Pepper refused to defend her). This motion irrationally
invoked res judicata, collateral estoppel and Rooker Feldman doctrine, when she was not ever sued by
the Plaintiff in the state court, or any court. Such motion would entitle any unbiased presiding judge of
a federal court to deny the motion and request a psychiatric evaluation of the defendant.
6. Subsequent to Defendants default, on October 18, 2013, Plaintiff submitted a motion for Entry of
default in accordance with FRCP 55(a) to be entered by the clerk of court, Ruby Krajick. (See Dkt. # 6
of case 13 CV 5693). Exhibit # 1. FRCP 55(a) provides that when a party fails to plead, the clerk of
court must enter a default. Although Plaintiff Veleanu moved under Rule 55(a) and submitted all the
required documentation including the affidavit in support, the clerk of court failed to act upon the
properly submitted motion without any defect. FRCP 55(a) is not discretionary and obliges the clerk
of
court to comply to ministerial function, otherwise, is considered gross negligence and prosecuted as
an obstruction of justice in a potential suit. Rule 55(a) clearly specifies: “Entering a default. When a
party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend,
and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default”. On
November 12, 2013, judge Roman “terminated” Plaintiff’s motion without any dictum, reasoning or
explanation that determined him to act so. Judge Nelson Roman violated Plaintiff’s due process rights
in dismissing applications without any legal support to do so, without hearing or even a conference,
whatever. As a matter of fact, Plaintiff never saw judge Roman who decreed all his orders and
2013, Plaintiff submitted a motion to strike defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(f),
as redundant, immaterial and impertinent based on the incontrovertible facts that defendants’ counsel
submitted a motion to dismiss that was identical in the documents submitted with the motion to dismiss
in the Supreme Court of NY Appellate Division Second Department. The identical motion to dismiss
was actually denied by the Supreme Court of NY Appellate Division in the Article 78 proceeding.
Further on, res judicata, collateral estoppel and Rooker Feldman doctrine prevent the defendants’
counsel to submit the identical motion to Dismiss the Complaint in the federal district court. More
importantly, defendants’ counsel did not contest or reply in defense to Plaintiff‘s application, thus the
8. In addition to the application pursuant to FRCP 55 (a), Plaintiff submitted to the court a motion for
Default judgment in accordance with FRCP 55 (b)(2). See Dkt. # 29 entered in the general docket of
Judge Nelson S. Roman presiding of SDNY failed to act upon this application that till present time
failed to be acted upon by clear gross negligence and failure to perform the mandatory and ministerial
legal function to act upon the applications submitted to the court. Nonetheless, judge Nelson Roman
acting sua sponte, in a Memorandum and Order, ordered that Motion for Entry of Default pursuant to
FRCP Rule 55(a) be “terminated” without any explanation. His Memorandum pertinent to case 13 CV
5566, state that “In sum, the Court finds that the Plaintiff failed to properly plead any case of action”.
This characterization is false and misleading as judge Roman by fraud upon the court, failed to
adjudicate Plaintiff’s Complaint causes of action pertinent to 42 USC Sec. 1983, as well as causes of
action of Plaintiff’s causes of action pursuant to USC Sec. 15 c named State Attorney General
prosecuted by Plaintiff under RICO where AG is sued in his official capacity, as well as the associates
in the “Enterprise” racketeering acts precluded of an opportunity to claim 11th Amendment defense.
Decision and Order of the case of Anghel v. NY State Department of Health et al. (US District Court
Eastern District Of NY, 2:12-CV-03484 (ADS)(WDW), dated 5/29/2013 where 11th Amendment and
9. Wherefore, it is incontrovertible that the Defendants in the aforementioned legal cases defaulted as
a matter of fact and law, by failure to submit a timely answer or motion within the limits of time
10. Wherefore, it is incontrovertible that the defendants in both legal cases, did not ask the Plaintiff or
the court for an extension of time to submit a responsive pleading, or contest the default by submitting
any evidence, nonetheless inadmissible, due to counsel of the defendants AAG Pepper,
acknowledgment of default. In addition, Counsel of defendants, AAG Joshua Pepper, requested this
court that his motion for Dismissal of Complaint in accordance to FRCP 12(b)(6), need not convert the
instant motion to one for summary judgment. See Defendants Memorandum of Law in support of their
motion to Dismiss and in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify counsel., page 3, bottom.
11. Wherefore, it is incontrovertible that the default of the defendants in both legal cases, created a
moot court that precluded such court to proceed further, due to lack of standing.
Therefore, this court should take notice that the Orders and Judgments decreed by this court in lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, are void as a matter of law, null and unenforceable and could be attacked at
Thus, Plaintiff requests this Court to grant the relieves requested in the Complaints of fore captioned
legal cases. This Affirmation is served in lieu of an affidavit in accordance to 28 USC Sec. 1746 and
the undersigned, Plaintiff in this legal action in good faith declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing statements and contentions are true and only the truth, so help me God in this legal action.
God save US of America from its enemies from outside and within!
Somers, NY ___________________________
Somers, NY
Telephone: 914-617-9304
Email: objetsdartuniques@comcast.net