RELEASE OF INFORMATION TO MEDIA-Re: ANTIQUE DEALER GETS DEATH PENALTY.

A real story of prosecutorial misconduct of Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and his counsel, Nicholas G. Garin. A real story of corruption of the following 4 justices of the Supreme Court of New York Dutchess County: James Brands, JSC, Thomas Dolan, AJSC, James Pagones, AJSC and Peter M.Forman, AJSC. A real story of judicial corruption of 4 justices of the Appellate Division, Second Department: Reinaldo Rivera, JP, Daniel D. Angiolillo, Ariel E. Belen, Sherri S Roman, JJ. Dr. Mircea Veleanu, life fellow of American College of Surgeons and life fellow of American College of Ob-Gyn, announces to the citizens of NY State and US of America and entire world, the commencement of a legal suit against Attorney General of NY State (AG) Andrew Cuomo (presently, the governor of NY State), Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Nicholas G. Garin, AKA Nick Garin, and four justices of the Supreme Court of New York pursuing the statute CPLR 78007806, Article 78. Under the name of The People of New York State, AG who is supposed to safeguard the integrity of the State, on August 7, 2009, in bad faith commenced a legal action against Dr. Mircea Veleanu, invoking General Business Law 349 and Executive Law 63.12. This legal action proved to be a sham and a chain of criminal acts and wrongdoings committed by AG Andrew Cuomo and his counsel Nick Garin, following a single complaint from a resident of Winsted, Connecticut named Janet Spiridonakos. She alleged that she was defrauded by Dr. Veleanu who sold her 7 Tibetan jadeite Buddhist rosary mala she alleged were made of quartz, rather than jadeite. After retirement from the field of medicine, Dr. Veleanu started a hobby business selling on the Internet some of his extensive collection of antiques and antiquities accumulated in the past 40 years. The irrefutable evidence proved that even if the complainant allegations were true, she was entitled to a refund according to the conditions of sale of the commercial contract that provided lifetime warranty and refunds in accordance with the commercial contract (it was offered by Dr. Veleanu and declined by the complainant). Nevertheless, this former customer premeditated the crime of defrauding and extorting the seller. Indirectly, she submitted the 7 rosary mala through a jeweler friend from Massachussetts, to a gemological laboratory named AGTA. This lab ceased its existence a few weeks after issuing fraudulent gemological reports in April 2009. Obviously, it is well established in commerce that ornamental jadeite carvings are not prone to be examined by gemological testing due to the presence of multiple minerals in the stone constituency. The gemological testing is and was always exclusively reserved to the jewelry grade jadeite. In contrast, art jade carvings are routinely tested by mineralogical testing consisting in determining hardness by Mohs test, specific gravity and examination under microscope. The evidence as proof showed that the complainant Spiridonakos mislabeled the rosary mala as carved head necklaces in order to submit the mala to a gemological testing as bona fide jewelry items. The irrefutable evidence as proof consisting in Spiridonakos affidavit revealed that she conspired with AG to charge Veleanu with fabricated charges. The complainants affidavit revealed intimate detailed information of AGs Petition as exhibit numbers, exhibits content and represented almost a duplication of AGs charges of his Petition to the Court. This knowledge would be impossible by complainant to know and represents proof of conspiracy with AG to charge Veleanu with concocted charges in order to extort and defraud him. This evidence is unrebuttable proof that AG composed and edited Spiridonakos affidavit. In her affidavit, Spiridonakos made absurd allegations that under the mask of ignorance are illogical allegations to make belief that Dr. Veleanu committed fraud. She alleged that the term fei tsui used as a term for one of mala sold to her indicated that is synonymous with imperial jade, the most precious and pure jadeite, present in minute amounts measured in carat weight, in the highest quality of jadeite jewelry. However, fei tsui is used in Mandarin Chinese to describe ordinary jadeite colors, rather than imperial jade. Another absurd and fraudulent allegation made by Spiridonakos was that Dr. Veleanu sold her 2 Chinese scholars calligraphy brushes with jadeite handles, she alleged were made of glass, rather than jadeite. Other than her minds confabulation, she did not prove her absurd allegations with any evidence whatsoever. Nonetheless, the brushes were returned, refunded to her several months prior her complaint and she was so unsure about her allegations that she begged to have the brushes resold to her.

Spriridonakos won her first purchases of mala at auction where Veleanu was a consignor, rather than the seller, and she paid the auctions commission of 27.5 %. The criminal activity of Spiridonakos was not limited to false accusations about the materiality of her complaint. As proof of her injury, she submitted an invoice provided by her close jeweler friend that was probably part of her criminal act of extortion, blackmail and fraud. A graphological examination of the unsigned jewelry firm invoice revealed that the invoices handwriting is identical to complainants handwriting on the edge of the invoice and other documents submitted by her and in which she used her handwriting. In the unsigned invoice she claimed the amount of $1540 for the cost of identification reports that was about 3 times higher than the customary charge of GIA Lab. Under the conditions of sale of the contract, she was not required to provide a proof of her claim to be eligible for refund. Spiridonakos contradicted the invoices amount by former statements she made to the seller in which she claimed in 2 separate emails that she paid $1000. Hiking up the amount she alleged she paid for the gemological testing is proof of her criminal intent to defraud the seller and the prior contradictory statements impeached her testimony under oath and is clear proof of the criminal act of perjury. The evidence submitted by Dr. Veleanu to the Court, clearly showed that she was promised a refund according to conditions of the sale of the commercial contract that she turned down in order to extort the merchant. It appears that AG promised complainant, as well as to any customer solicited to request a refund, the incentive award of a 9 % retroactive interest to the date of purchase. The gemological reports of AGTA Lab revealed the presence of natural species quartz, that is a single mineral. A consecutive gemological testing by GIA Lab did not confirm AGTA findings, rather identified the presence of species quartzite. Nonetheless, quartzite is a metamorphic rock containing several minerals and is not the same as quartz that is a single mineral. Quartzite and jadeite are both metamorphic rocks that frequently are intermingled in the nature as having a common origin and known as jadeite/quartzite. A plethora of scientific articles supporting the mineralogical genesis was provided by Dr. Veleanu in his pleadings, as well as in the motion for reargument/renew and other papers supporting the scientific base, contesting the irrational allegations of low intellect of the petitioner and his single complainants allegations. Evidently, gemological testing is inappropriate for identifying jadeite in non-jewelry grade ornamental art carvings and the gemological reports are irrelevant due to the fact that the findings could be different when examined by different gemological labs, as in the present case, or even by the same gemological lab that would test the stone in a different area. In this legal case, criminal fabrication of charges was not limited to the criminal complainant. The evidence as proof clearly revealed that the prosecutor (petitioner) was deeply involved in illegal and criminal activity in support of his fabricated charges. It was inconceivable to Dr. Veleanu that the highest prosecutor in the state, AG, could be involved in illegal and criminal activity to prosecute an innocent person with immaculate past. With extensive legal research and personal investigation, it was revealed that AG Andrew Cuomo commenced a legal action without standing to sue, not only by lacking of aggrieving of the single complainant, rather a case based on criminal fabrication of charges, forgery by counterfeit, perjury, impeachment of evidence consisting of single complainants affidavit, mislabeling with intention to extort and defraud, libel, forged forensic evidence, etc., etc. As the complainant was offered a refund in accordance with the conditions of sale of the commercial contract in an email addressed to her by Dr. Veleanu, she was not defrauded by the seller, rather she defrauded the seller with full cooperation, aid and illegal and criminal conspiracy of AG to defraud the respondent in the legal action. AG commenced a legal action in absence of a cognizable cause of action (in his 2 causes of action, AG failed to state a cause of action upon which judicial relief could be granted). AGs legal action demonstrates the initiation and continuing of a frivolous suit that is an illegal and criminal act in NY State. More egregious and proof of criminal act of uttering, is the submission to the Court by AG of forged and mislabeled legal evidence with full knowledge of the falsity and inadmissibility of altered, forged and mislabeled forensic evidence. AG subpoenaed Dr. Veleanu in the pre-trial phase and at that time, Dr. Veleanu brought the attention of AAG Garin that the gemological reports of AGTA were forged to the extent that 2 identification reports of rosary mala were forged by using the same photograph for 2 different mala. This contention was brought again by Dr. Veleanu in his response to the Notice of Intent to start a legal action by AG. AAG Garin committed perjury in 2 separate occasions in relationship to the uttering to the Court. First

instance of perjury consisted in AAG Garin deposition under oath in the Alternative Statement in lieu of stenographic transcripts pursuant to statute CPLR 5525 (d). In this deposition under oath, AAG Garin denied his knowledge that gemological identification reports were forged and the evidence was fraudulently mislabeled by the complainant until Dr. Veleanu answered to the Petition in his pleadings to the Court. This statement of AAG was a blatant lie as the evidence clearly has shown that Dr. Veleanu brought the attention of AG that AGTA gemological reports were mislabeled and forged, firstly, at the pre-trial subpoena session, and again in the pre-trial response to the Notice of Proposed Action pursuant to Article 22, weeks prior trial. The irrefutable evidence shows that AAG Garin preferred to commit the crime of perjury rather than acknowledge that he commenced a legal action against Dr. Veleanu in complete absence of a reasonable cause of action. As the legal action of AG was to deceive the Court, it clearly represents extrinsic fraud, fraud upon Court and unconscionable prosecutorial abuse of discretion. The fact that the forged evidence had no probative value, did not prevent AG to utter to Court forged and mislabeled evidence with full knowledge of the falsity of the evidence. This forged evidence was the only evidence that he could bring to the Court to support his false allegations. Other allegations in AGs petition as negative reviews of the book written by Dr. Veleanu, flaming on the Internet and bringing several pages of the Internet website without specifying any wrongdoings, were malicious, non-probative and non relevant, lacking any kind of evidence to allege statutory fraud. The uttering of false and forged evidence was not the only single criminal act of AG; more egregious and criminally incriminating act was the submission to the Court of forensic evidence that was mutilated, obstructed and impaired in order to conceal the exculpatory evidence. AG submitted a scientific article regarding jadeite in which exculpatory text was blocked from view by overlapping a photo over the exculpatory text in at least 2 occasions. The concealment of evidence by mutilating and obstruction from view of exculpatory text was done in 2 separate portions of this article offered as evidence by AG. Under a Court order, AG obtained a list of all customers who purchased jade items from Dr. Veleanu starting in 2003. AG contacted all customers soliciting them to request refunds. As all customers were bound by the commercial contract of sale, it appears that as an incentive for breaching the contract, AG promised a reward of an illegal retroactive interest of 9 % years back to the date of purchase. No customer alleged misrepresentation, but 3 customers, as well as 2 purchases of complainant Spiridonakos were at auctions where Dr. Veleanu was a consignor, rather than the seller. Subsequently, the auction commission of 27.5 %, Paypal fees of 3 % and shipping charges were fraudulently assessed by AG to Dr. Veleanu. The illegal acts of AG of granting non-statutory punitive fines to customers that breached the commercial contract and assessing auction commission to a consignor are unheard prosecutorial acts of misconduct that allowed almost doubling the initial investment of the unscrupulous customers who requested refunds through AG, rather than applying directly to the seller for refund in accordance with the conditions of sale of the commercial contract. One of the persons who requested a refund, criminally substituted the item returned for refund with a valueless fake made from a marble-type of material, rather than the original jade item. Both, the complainant and the above mentioned person committed the crime of perjury by swearing under oath of false statements with full knowledge of the falsity, made with the purpose of defrauding the merchant. These criminal acts were made possible only through the intervention of AG who facilitated and aided the commission of the criminal acts. AG initiated a frivolous and vexatious suit 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 court before a judge. According to statute CPLR 70, the person who initiates a frivolous and vexatious suit is guilty of misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment and fines. The 3 customers who requested a refund did not have a legal standing to sue as were not aggrieved and did not allege misrepresentation of purchased merchandise, rather were tricked by AG to request refunds with the incentive of retroactive interest of 9 % benefit starting years back to the date of purchase. The legal action commenced by AG had a collateral intention to cause pecuniary harm and psychological trauma to Dr. Veleanu, representing abuse of process and malicious prosecution. AG released to media libelous, false statements intended to harm psychologically and pecuniary. The libelous statements were outrageous lies not substantiated by any evidence to base upon. In addition, the false and malicious statements were meant to frighten former customers and request refunds with secondary collateral aim of abuse of process and malicious prosecution. AG

committed outrageous libel by stating false and damaging statements that irreversibly damaged the immaculate personal and professional reputation by using character assassination. In a brazen and contempt of court action, AG violated the court imposed gag on media regarding information pertinent to TRO. AG alleged, requested and obtained fines and court fees based on GBL 350 (d). Nevertheless, AG in his 2 causes of action did not allege any violation of GBL 350 that is based on fraudulent acts of advertising. As such, AG failed to state a cause of action upon which a relief could be granted. AG used his prosecutorial power to issue 4 subpoenas, 3 subpoenas fraudulently were not directed to serve the legitimate evidentiary role and as such were impermissible under Rule 26 (b) (1) of Federal statute which allow subpoenas only related to matters relevant to the subject of action. As the subpoenas issued by AG were with only purpose to force Veleanu not to seek justice in court, these illegal subpoenas of the AG clearly represent fraud upon the court and extrinsic fraud. The multitude of subpoenas issued by AG indicate the collateral objective of abuse of process and malicious prosecution in order to harass, intimidate and retaliate for the exercise of the constitutional rights to defend himself against the dictatorial and oppressive prosecutorial power of AG. AG solicited all former customers to request refunds beyond the statute of limitation that is 3 years for statutory fraud and even up to 6 years. AG violated the Penal Law 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. Bribing a witness is a Class D felony. AG is guilty of violating NY Penal Law Sec. 100.5 Criminal solicitation in 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. AG requested and obtained from Court punitive damages consisting in interest of 9 % starting from the date of purchase. The punitive damages were instituted and requested consequent to the motion for reargument/renew submitted by Veleanus lawyer, Clinton Calhoun. The punitive fines are illegal, not based or endorsed by any statute, law or rule. GBL 349 and Executive Law 63.12 do not provide for any punitive fines. Such prosecutorial misconduct of illegal judicial action clearly represents fraud upon court, extrinsic fraud and irrational arbitrary and capricious action. As much as egregious and damaging were the illegal and criminal actions of prosecutorial misconduct, such damages and grant of the requested relief could not be possible without cooperation and conspiracy of the Court presided by corrupt judges of the Supreme Court of New York. The corruption consisted in lack of a fair, unbiased and impartial court to adjudicate the material issues on merit, rather on technicalities favoring the powerful party and prejudicial to the pro se party. The high corruption of the judges of the Supreme Court is following the infamous legal dictum of quid pro quo (in fair folkloric translation from Latin signifying scratch my back and will scratch your back in return). Quid pro quo is the main way the politics are governed in the State of New York regardless of the political party belonging of the persons elected to represent the people of the State of New York. Justices of the Supreme Court of NY have absolute immunity from suits regardless of their level of egregious adjudication, when they are acting in their judicial duty secured by personal jurisdiction upon defendant and jurisdiction of subject matter. In this legal suit, 4 justices of the Supreme Court were involved and in which only one judge was an elected justice of the Supreme Court, and this justice recused invoking the conflict of interest. Another justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Christine Sproat, apparently and ethically refused the assignment in this case (the 5th judge assigned to this case). The other 3 judges were acting justices of Supreme Court (non elected), representing county judges or surrogate county judge. All the judicial proceedings were ex parte proceedings, without hearings, conference calls and lacking the possibility of representation of the person accused of a wrongdoing, typical for due process violations in the true kangaroo court proceedings. In this case the failure of the petitioner (AG) to serve the judicial process made all the court orders and judgments to be void, null and invalid due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In any non-corrupt tribunal in NY State and US, such legal suit would be declared void ab initio (from the beginning), but not in the

Supreme Court of NY State, favoring the AG supreme fascist/Soviet type judicial dictatorial based on dogma of infallibility. This dogma was once present under British Royal colonial regime in USA that ruled that the King cannot be wrong. Similarly, AG cannot be wrong in New York State!!! The first judge, justice James Brands granted a TRO in favor of AG with full knowledge that the evidence submitted by AG was mislabeled and forged and at least, had no probative value. Justice Brands signed an order to show cause that violated respondents constitutional rights of learning the substance of allegations prior onset of judicial proceeding. Dr. Veleanu was deprived of the right of an accused person of a wrongdoing, to be allowed sufficient time to be informed about charges and prepare a defense. The constitutional rights of due process were brutally violated even more by the failure of the petitioner (AG) to serve the respondent with the judicial process, procedure that is at the fundament of the American justice. Consequently, the Court failed to achieve the personal jurisdiction upon respondent with lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As such, the grant of TRO by justice Brands was void and null from the beginning. While justice Brands properly recused, he failed to decree a nolle prosequi (invalidating the improper decree ) after his recusal, in view of his irrefutable conflict of interest consisting in preparation of TRO papers and legal representation of his Principal Court Attorney in a previous suit where he represented the adversary party. Obviously, NY State has a Constitution that made it illegal of such judicial act. NY State belongs to US of America that also has a Constitution that proclaims freedom and due process constitutional rights to all the citizens. Soviet Union had also a Constitution that granted on paper to its oppressed citizens elementary human rights that in reality never were respected. The biggest demagogue in NY State is Andrew Cuomo; here is an excerpt from his declaration to the citizens of NY State in his official duty as Attorney General of NY State at the legal suit against Cohen & Slomowitz firm in Woodbury, LI, firm named ALP: Our legal system is defined by due process and the guarantee that every New Yorker will get the chance to defend himself in court. Andrew Cuomo proves in this excerpt his corrupt hypocrite politician way of acting in diametric opposition to what he is declaring in a pompous way. Dr. Veleanu in the kangaroo court of the Supreme Court of NY State was deprived of the elementary rights of due process of a citizen as secured by US Constitution. AG was outraged that Dr. Veleanu did not acknowledge to be guilty of the criminally concocted charges Andrew Cuomo and his counsel manufactured. The failure to acknowledge guilt was defined by AG Cuomo and his counsel as a crime in an identical way of action the fascist Third Reich Courts and Soviet communist Courts acted against the opponents of their oppressive regime. Following the recusal of justice Brands, acting justice Thomas Dolan was assigned to this legal case and decreed an order and judgment with a permanent injunction without seeing Dr. Veleanu and without any hearing or conference, in a typical kangaroo court that violated the due process under 14th amendment of US Constitution. As such, acting justice justice Dolans summary judgment was ex parte, illegal, void ab initio (from the onset), for lack of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to render a judgment. The kangaroo court never allows a defendant the chance to defend himself, the decision is made in advance based on prosecutors accusations in absence of representation of the accused party, without hearings and without the presence of the accuser in the court for an available cross-examination. Justice Dolans egregious judicial action had a collateral of abuse of judicial process by advising Dr. Veleanu to retain legal representation of a lawyer to learn about his rights. This advise was perverse and malicious!. Acting justice Dolan knew that Dr. Veleanu had no legal rights whatsoever in his court. The advise had the collateral objective to injure Veleanu with tremendous legal expenses and as such, clearly represents the abuse of judiciary process by the judge himself. As an officer of the court, the attorney retained by Veleanu 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, as such, active justice Dolans action represents extrinsic fraud, fraud upon court and unconscionable abuse of discretion. More egregious was justice Dolan denial of the pleadings to the Court of Dr. Veleanu, invoking that the answer to the Petition and Reply to AG were unsworn. Nonetheless, the pleadings

were in a legal form as declaration under penalty of perjury that under statute CPLR 105 (U) is legal and replaces the notarized form. As such, judge Dolan decision was fraudulent, illegal and represented unconscionable abuse of discretion and irrational arbitrary and capricious judicial action. In an identical way, justice Dolan denied the motions of dismissal of Petition not because lacked merit, but rather again, fraudulently ruled as unsworn, deliberately ignoring the statute CPLR 105 (U) that legally authorizes and replaces the outdated notarized form, with the declaration under penalty of perjury. Justice Dolan decreed a summary judgment with granting of a permanent injunction based on fraudulent and criminal mislabeled and forged forensic evidence he was aware of, and knowingly disregarded in egregious and flagrant fraud upon Court and extrinsic fraud. Justice Dolan fraudulently granted a summary judgment while being aware that the defendant raised numerous issues of material fact that preclude the grant of summary judgment. Justice Dolan violated CPLR R3212 regarding the AGs petition: 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. Justice Dolan as a graduate of law school knew or should have known that Veleanu contested the legal suit in his pleadings and motions to dismiss, due to lack of service, and subsequent failure of court to acquire personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. In accordance with statute CPLR 320 C, the court lacked the jurisdiction due to absence of personal service, or rather, improper service. Nevertheless, the denial of defense and denial of the motions to dismiss were not due to lack of knowledge of the law, rather extrinsic fraud, fraud upon court and unconscionable abuse of discretion and irrational, illogical, arbitrary and frivolous judicial action. Extrinsic fraud in contrast to intrinsic fraud is fraud committed by the officers of the court and judge Dolans act constitutes fraud upon court. The judgment decreed by judge Dolan was never entered and docketed by the AG and according to 22 NYCRR 202.48, after 60 days became null and invalid. CPLR R2220 specifies: .. (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. AG in his dilatory actions meant to increase the amount of penalties of retroactive interest of 9 %, neglected to prosecute the legal action. The Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County violated the statute CPLR 3216 that where a party unreasonable 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, in its own initiative or upon motion, may dismiss the partys pleading on term. Unless the order specifies otherwise, the dismissal is not on merits. Apparently judge Dolan stepped down the bench for one reason or another, and his order and judgment became void by failure to be docketed within 60 days. Accordingly, AG defaulted by failure to prosecute the action within the time prescribed by law. AG had the second chance to re-institute the charges by personal service to defendant within 6 months in accordance with CPLR 205. In his egregious and despicable laches (delays) made to increase the amount of illegal punitive action, AG failed to act within 6 months and re-institute the legal action. AG failed to re-institute the legal suit by serving the process to respondent within 6 months and consequently defaulted second time. The Supreme Court of NY in a protective and covering up the illegal judicial actions of AG, violated again CPLR 3216 that clearly specifies that where a party unreasonably neglects to generally proceed in an action or otherwise delays in prosecution thereof against any party, the court may dismiss the legal action for failure to prosecute. As the legal case was considered abandoned according to CPLR 205 and CPLR 3404, the Supreme Court violated the above mentioned statutes by failure to censor the inadmissible judicial actions of laches by AG. This represents an egregious and biased legal action of the Court, (or rather lack of legal action), due to AGs dilatory actions, by not voiding the order and judgment of justice Dolan that failed to be entered and docketed in the clerks office of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County. CPLR 205 that was violated by the Court clearly 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 statute specification obviously violated by the court in its cover up of wrongdoings of AG, made evident the egregious and fraudulent conduct of AG in delaying the legal proceedings with the obvious goal of increasing the amount of illegal punitive fines with interest of 9 % for laches of more than 2 years of judicial proceedings. This represented an unrebuttable demonstration of abuse of process and malicious prosecution. AG dilatory actions clearly demonstrate an unconscionable and illegal action that would be prosecuted and punished by any non-corrupt court, by acting for dismissal of action for failure of the prosecutor to prosecute in 2 separate occasions, by engaging in laches and consequent 2 defaults. Justice Christine Sproat assigned to this legal case, apparently, ethically and commandably refused the assignment. After more than 10 months since the decree of the original judgment of justice Dolan, a newly assigned judge, acting justice James Pagones, decreed a judgment, again, without the service of judicial process. The failure of AG to serve the judicial process resulted in failure of the court to achieve personal jurisdiction upon respondent Veleanu and represented another failed opportunity to execute personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the judgment of justice Pagones is null, invalid and void ab initio (from onset) for failure of the Supreme Court to achieve personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. While the legislation allows a county judge (as judge Dolan, or another assigned judge, Peter Forman), or a surrogate court judge (as judge Pagones) to act as Supreme Court justices, the legislation specifically defines this function as temporary. As judge James Pagones is acting as unelected Supreme Court justice since 1999, hardly could be arguable that the position of Supreme Court justice is temporary by substituting the capacity of an elected Supreme Court Justice. Judge Pagones acted in his judicial actions inconsistently and contradicting the present judicial case, where he was assigned to render judgment, and inconsistent with a fair and uniform decision. As American justice follows the common law precedent, in almost identical legal cases, acting justice Pagones rendered judgments in complete reversal of judgments rational to Dr. Veleanus legal case. For example, in Galasso v. Calder, 201 NY Slip Op. 50755 (U) (31 Misc. 3d 1220 A) decided on 04/29/11, justice Pagones decreed a judgment pursuant to CPLR 3126 dismissing the plaintiffs complaint for failure to prosecute. In another legal case, Village Dr. Assoc. LLC v. Schiavo, 2013 NY Slip Op. 50166 (U) decided on 2/7/13, judge Pagones made a similar decision in which he ruled in a manner completely opposed to the present legal case. In another legal case, BAC Home Loan Servicing LP v. Musa , 2012 NY Slip Op 51099 (U) decided on 06/18/12, defendant was in default in a home foreclosure. The plaintiff failed to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after default. The court presided by judge Pagones sua sponte dismissed the complaint as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215 C. The above case is another demonstration of the failure of judge Pagones to act fairly and consistently in his decisions, and a clear representation of his bias and prejudice against Dr. Veleanu that is in complete reverse judicial action to other legal cases decided by him. The most representative of bias and prejudice against Dr. Veleanu is another legal case in which judge Pagones presided the court, in Dooley v. Woods, 2011 NY Slip Op 50408 (U) decided on 03/22/11. In this case, acting justice Pagones dismissed the plaintiffs action due to the failure to serve the process. Acting justice Pagones stated in the decision: In this case, no summons and complaint, or summons with notice (CPLR 304) was served upon 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 was correct in rendering this order and judgment, the fairness and ethical judicial acts of judge Pagones make his judicial actions to be inconsistent, a mockery of justice, and rather adjudication based on his political philosophy, rather than fairness and lack of bias and prejudice to one party, and bias and partiality toward the other party. In Dr. Veleanu case, acting justice Pagones made a completely opposite decision and judgment in the same circumstances. While petitioner (AG) failed to serve the respondent (Dr. Veleanu), acting justice Pagones did not dismiss the legal case for failure of AG to serve the process and subsequent failure to achieve the personal jurisdiction by the court. Rather, in the most blatant bias and

prejudice, acting justice Pagones did not dismiss Veleanus legal case, despite that the cases are quite similar and according to common law represent a ground for failure to act in the same circumstances of law, by the same judge. The final case to demonstrate acting justice Pagones lack of impartiality and genuine bias and prejudice against Dr. Veleanu is the legal case US Bank Natl Assoc v. Alessandra Padilla et al., defendants, 2011 NY Slip Op 50535 (U) decided on 04/08/11. In this case, amazingly similar to the legal case against Dr. Veleanu, particularly in regard to the assessment by the plaintiff of interest accrued on a loan occurring from the date of default and additional legal fees and expenses. Judge Pagones acted in a completely opposite decision by ordering that the interest (that was a legal interest accumulated on a mortgage) should be not more than the principal balance of the loan and awarded the respondent the exemplary damage penalty in the exorbitant amount of $100,000. Judge Pagones stated: The bank conduct was shockingly inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious. On claiming bad faith, judge Pagones barred the bank for collecting interest accrued on the loan from the date of default, legal fees and other expenses. Absolutely amazing is the fact that the decision of judge Pagones in this case is exactly the opposite of the decision in which judge Pagones granted to AG retroactive interest of 9 % (that is probably several folds times higher than the interest the bank charged the defendant who defaulted). If judge Pagones would act uniformly and consistently in his judicial actions, Dr. Veleanu would be entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of $100,000, and forever barring the plaintiff (AG) 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, in an identical fashion, the dilatory scheme of AG allowed accumulation of large amount of due money, interest on interest that would make the restitution close to impossible. In a reprehensible and truly oprobrious fashion, judge Pagones did not find AGs conduct to be shockingly inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious as found and determined in the above described case. The judicial frivolous actions of judge Pagones are illustration of corruption at the highest level of NY State Supreme Court assigned judges. Acting justice Pagones judicial action in the above described case is exactly the opposite of judge Pagones judicial action in Dr. Veleanus case and un-controvertible proof of judge Pagones abhorrent bias and prejudice against Dr. Veleanu. While a justice of the Supreme Court is supposed to be unbiased, not prejudiced and not favoring a party in accordance with political views of the judge, the judicial actions of acting justice Pagones in Dr. Veleanus case is unethical, illegal and demands forever removal of this judge from the bench and disbarring. The judicial action of acting justice Pagones in Dr. Veleanus case, unambiguously demonstrates the irrational and logic defying arbitrary and frivolous action and opprobrious, human conscience shaking abuse of discretion of this judge. Judge Pagones ruled in his decision and judgment that the motion of reargument/renew brought by Dr. Veleanus lawyer was instead of reargument, rather a renew motion. Obviously, overlooked or misapprehended matters of law by the court presided by acting justice Pagones could not be renew as would defy the statutory definition. The misinterpretation of law by judge Pagones is not an error due to judges lack of knowledge of law, rather irrefutable proof of logic defying and irrational arbitrary and capricious judicial action of acting justice Pagones. The last judge involved in Dr. Veleanus legal case was judge Peter M. Forman that was assigned to the legal case following the judgment decree of judge Pagones in November 2010. Judge Forman consistently neglected to act upon every motion brought to the court by respondent Veleanu, or denied the relief after the action on the motion became moot, due to his failure to timely act upon motion. Judge Forman repeatedly and consistently violated CPLR 2219 (a) in biased, pro-prosecutorial, unconscionable, arbitrary and frivolous abuse of discretion. As such, judge Forman acted in bias and prejudice favoring the petitioner AG in any legal action he decided. On April 24, 2012 (that is more than 90 days since the submission of an application pursuing CPLR 5519). acting justice Forman denied the discretionary relief pursuant to CPLR 5519 as moot. Obviously, an emergency order to show cause that needs to be decided within 20 days, became moot and irrelevant after more than 3 months past submission date by unconscionable delay of the judge to make a decision upon motion. The repeated acts of disregard to the professional responsibility of a Justice in the Supreme Court to act upon motions,

made acting justice Forman liable to the criminal violation of law in NY State under Penal Law 195 Official misconduct. Penal Law 195 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. One of the most egregious judicial act committed by acting justice Forman was his refusal to sign an order to show cause submitted by Veleanu in August 2012. The leave requested was a TRO to prevent distribution of undertaking funds cashed by AG to criminal individuals including the complainant Janet Spiridonakos, and Diana Norton, a resident of Texas who substituted a valuable nephrite carving with a valueless fake. As all the persons involved were out-of-state residents, distribution of funds would make it impossible to retrieve the funds without additional litigation. In recognition of judge Formans lack of impartiality and bias against the respondent, Dr. Veleanu addressed the motion to the administrative judge of the court, rather than to judge Forman. Judge Forman intercepted the application and acted as he was the administrative judge of the court, despite that the motion was clearly addressed in caption content and signature to the administrative judge. The acts of impersonation of another public servant constitutes a criminal violation of Penal Law 190. Penal Law 190.25 CRIMINAL IMPERSONATION IN THE SECOND DEGREE specifies: 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 (or) otherwise cause another to act in reliance upon the pretense. Subsequently, Dr. Veleanu sent the application directly to the office of the administrative judge Alan Sheinkman in White Plains, NY. The application, inter alia, requested relief in accordance with CPLR 5015 C that is in the exclusive prerogative of the administrative judge, based on the previous 2 defaults of the AG. The administrative judge office denied the application fraudulently stating that there was no evidence of defaults despite that such evidence was irrefutable and advised that any relief according to CPLR 5015 should be addressed to the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County. The administrative judge, Alan Sheinkman, ordered the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County to remove the application from Courts records and return it to Dr. Veleanu, at which order, the Chief Clerk of Court, Mr. Thompson, complied. As judge Forman was named as a defendant in the motion for annulment of void judgments pursuing CPLR 5015 (a) (3) and CPLR 5015 (a) (4), Dr Veleanu was confident that another judge would be assigned, in view of justice Pagones obvious conflict of interest. To assure that judge Forman would not act upon this motion, Dr. Veleanu requested as one of the relieves of this motion, the voluntary recusal of judge Forman based on the undeniable conflict of interest; a judge can not sit and decide in a case where he is a defendant. On October 24, 2012, Dr. Veleanu submitted a motion with attached Memorandum of Law in which the requested leave was annulment of the void orders and judgments of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County pursuing CPLR 5015 (a) (3) and CPLR (a) (4). To the shock of Dr. Veleanu, acting justice Forman refused to recuse himself and continued to act in a biased and prejudiced manner toward Veleanu. In an irrefutable and 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). Judge Forman acted in disregard of the motion where one of the relieves was his recusal and in flagrant personal conflict of interest. The motion cited 2 cases of judge Formans demonstrated abuse of discretion as reasons for his disqualification to act as a judge where he is a defendant. The averments of the motion pursuing CPLR 5015 were not controverted by AG in his Reply to the motion as the averments were irrefutable. As such, the acting justice was obligated to grant the relief requested in the motion for annulment of orders and judgments. In addition, the relieves under CPLR 5015 (a) (3) and CPLR 5015 (a) (4) are not discretionary and cannot be denied by the acting justice in the absence of rebuttal by AG. On January 28, 2013, Dr. Veleanu submitted a motion with attached Memorandum of Law to the administrative judge of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County, Alan Sheinkman in which Dr. Veleanu requested the following administrative and ministerial determination orders: 1. A ministerial order in regard to violation of CPLR 2219 (a) and 22 NYCRR 202.8(h) by the Supreme Court of NY presided by judge Forman, consisting in the failure of the court 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. A ministerial order for violation of Penal Law Section 195 by acting justice Peter Forman. 3. A ministerial order for the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County presided by acting justice Forman in regard to the violations of several codes, regulations under 22NYCRR. 4. A ministerial administrative order regarding the violation by acting justice Forman of Penal Law 175. 5. An administrative order in regard to violation by the court presided by acting justice Forman of NY CVR Article 2 Civil Rights. Administrative judge Alan Sheinkman never responded to this motion. A motion addressed by Dr. Veleanu to administrative judge Alan Sheinkman, on February 25, 2013, requesting the administrative leave of assignment of another judge pursuing 22NYCRR 202.6 Judicial Intervention, was denied by judge Alan Sheinkman without any explanation. In accordance with 22NYCRR C-DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES: 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. On February 11, 2013, Dr. Veleanu submitted to the Supreme Court a motion requesting the voluntary recusal of acting justice Forman and implementation of hearings in accordance with CPLR 5015 (d) for a void judgment and restitution of undertaking, a declaratory judgment and other relieves mentioned in the original motion for annulment of orders and judgments dated October 24, 2012. On a decision and order (this time very prompt), dated February 15, 2013, acting justice Forman denied the motion without any reasoning of his decision not to resign. Judge Forman violated 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 procedure which has been before him in his official character. The above violation arose from judicial action of acting justice Forman as counselor to AAG Garin as demonstrated in his decisions and orders where he did not act as an impartial judge, rather as defending counselor to the prosecutor in the typical quid pro quo. Judiciary law Sec.17 prevents in reverse, that AG could represents the involved judge(s) in Article 78 proceedings. On January 29, 2013, acting justice Peter Forman fraudulently decreed an order in which he denied the motion for annulment of a void judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) and CPLR 5015 (a (4), submitted by Dr. Veleanu on October 24, 2012, as being moot. Acting justice Peter Forman violated NY State Judicial law 14: DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES that states: 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. The decision and order of acting justice Peter Forman is illegal and represents a conscience shaking abuse of discretion and illogical arbitrary and capricious judicial action. Firstly, the motion under CPLR 5015 (a) (4) is not discretionary and cannot be denied by a judge using his discretion. Is acting justices of the Supreme Court of New York the norm of what a judge should be: impartial, unbiased, adjudicate the legal controversies of the litigants in a fair and equitable way, or rather, favoring the strong party, cover up the wrongdoings of the powerful party in the typical corrupt QUID PRO QUO and infusing the personal political, personal, gender, moral predetermined presumption of guilt of one party, rather than the other in the court decisions???. Hereto is a list of the violations of NY State laws, canons of judicial conduct, NY Codes and Regulations, etc., by acting justice of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County Hon. Peter M. Forman: 1. Violation of 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. 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. 2. Acting justice 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 Rules and commit criminal acts.

3. Acting justice Forman violated judicial Canon 2: Violation of the Rules of Courts Civil Procedures demonstrate impropriety and the appearance of the impropriety. 4. Acting justice Forman violated Canon 3 A (5): 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. 5. Acting justice 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. 6. Acting justice 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. 7. Acting justice 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 servantor 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 or otherwise cause another to act in reliance upon that pretense. 8. Acting justice 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 an attorney or counsel, or in which he is interested. 9. Acting justice Forman violated Canon 3 E (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. 10. Acting justice Forman violated NY State Judiciary Law Sec.17: 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. 11. Acting justice Forman violated NY State statute CPLR 2219 (a). 12. Acting justice Forman violated NY State code and regulation 22NYCRR 202.8(h). 13. Acting justice Forman violated NY State Code and Regulation 22NYCRR 100 (E): A judge shall disqualify himself in a proceeding in which the judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 14. Acting justice Forman violated NY State Code and Regulation 22NYCRR C: 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. 15. Acting justice Forman violated the Rule of Chief administrative Judge 22NYCRR 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 manifest bias or prejudice. 16. Acting justice Forman violated the Rule of Chief Administrative Judge 22NYCRR 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. 17. Acting justice Forman violated the Rule of Chief Administrative Judge 22NYCRR 100 B (7): A judge shall dispose of all matters promptly, efficiently and fairly. 18. Acting justice Forman violated the Chief Administrative Judge Rule 22NYCRR 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. 19. Acting justice Forman violated NY State Bill of Rights and CVR Article 2 (10) regarding the

right to freely obtain writs upon payment of the fee. 20. Acting justice 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. 21. Acting justice 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 the party or in favor of the adverse party, such judge shall not proceed further, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding. 22. Acting justice 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 act 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. 23. Acting justice Forman violated Federal Law Title 18 Sec. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law. Penalty is fine or imprisonment not more than one year or both. This long list of violations of law by the acting justice Peter M. Forman unequivocally demonstrates the highest degree of judicial corruption in the Supreme Court of New York State and the impermissible lawlessness in New York State highest court of justice. Who is suppose to oversee, discipline and demand justice in the name of the People of New York State ???. On August 12, 2012, Dr. Mircea Veleanu addressed a complaint with NY State Commission on Judicial Conduct against 4 judges of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County. In a letter dated February 15, 2013, the Commission notified Dr. Veleanu that Upon careful consideration, the Commission concluded that there was insufficient indication of judicial misconduct to justify judicial discipline. In a reply letter dated February 27, 2013, Dr. Veleanu requested a reconsideration of the decision dismissing the complaint and complained that the Commission did not enclose an explanation for the dismissal of the complainant. The failure of the Commission to state the reasons for the dismissal of the case is violating the new legislation amendment to the judiciary law known as Bill # S249-2013 enacted on January 9, 2013. The amendment of Section 44 (1) of the judiciary law brought by Senator Sampson requires that (I)f the complaint is dismissed, the Commission shall PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR THE DETERMINATION FOR THE DISMISSAL TO the complainant. The capital letters are actually in the written ACT of the amendment Section 2. As Senator Sampson stated: this Bill will allow the Commission on Judicial Conduct to provide the basis for dismissing complaints rather than simply stating there was insufficient indication of misconduct. Senator Sampson also stated: This legislation will open the judiciary disciplinary process; judges are public officials whose actions on the Bench should be subject to public scrutiny. Despite 2 requests, till June 13, 2013, NY State Commission on Judicial Conduct did not provide the reason for dismissal of the complaint!!! Again, quid pro quo is the ruling dogma (an old Romanian proverb states that one hand washes the other and both hands wash the face!!!). Is this United States of America, the beloved land, bastion of freedom, liberty, or the land where dictatorial power oppresses the people and deprives the persons of life, liberty, or property without due process???. Dr. Veleanu is a Holocaust survivor and lived behind Iron Curtain a good portion of his life; as such, he is well accustomed with fascist/communist oppression of the dictatorial regimes. He escaped the communist hell to encounter in US the same dictatorial tyranny of judicial, elected legislative and executive corruption of cover up of officials: QUID PRO QUO!!! NY State Governor Andrew Cuomo stated on his speech at his inauguration as Governor of NY State: 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. This pure demagoguery of a corrupt politician is a reflection of the way Washington politicians

rule our beloved country that soon will become Zimbabwe (former Rhodesia, one of the past most prosperous African country)! The most hypocrite politician in NY State, Andrew Cuomo, in his megalomaniacal ambition desires to be the next elected president of USA in 2016!!!. God save United States of America! Dr. Mircea Veleanu challenged the judgment of acting justice Pagones in the Appellate Court, Second Department of the Supreme Court of New York. The Appellate Court failed to perform its judicial function of review of the trial court proceedings and failed to render opinions in controversial matters of law, opinion about violation by the trial court of the due process of the defendant Veleanu and forbid the fraudulent unconscionable abuse of discretion and illogical and irrational arbitrary and frivolous judgment of acting justice Pagones. The Appellate Division failed to answer the questions posed to the court in the legal fraudulent way typical of kangaroo court where the contentions of the appellant are completely ignored as inexistent. The appellant raised the most important issue that requires reversal of the trial court judgment, consisting in lack of jurisdiction of the court to render a judgment due to failure to achieve in personam jurisdiction and lack of court jurisdiction of subject matter. The law in any state of US as well as federal courts require proof of jurisdiction to appear in the record and all court proceedings. The lack of jurisdiction renders the court without any authority to decree any order and judgment as in Dr. Veleanus legal case. A court as Appellate Court cannot affirm a void judgment of trial court as no court can confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. However, fraudulently, the Appellate Court did in Dr. Veleanu.s appeal!. The Appellate Division failed to answer any of the questions raised by the appellant Veleanu and failed to give an opinion to the posed questions as: 1. Was the evidence presented by appellant consisting in plethora of scientific and mineralogical textbooks, etc., not rebutted by any scientific literature showing the contrary, a sufficient ground upon which to deny the summary judgment, due to the presence of numerous triable issues of material fact?. The Appellate Court did not respond to this question, but in an egregious and fraudulent Decision and Order dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County on base that appellant/defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in a genuine and reprehensible, opprobrious, human conscience shaking abuse of discretion, and irrational and illogical arbitrary and frivolous judicial action. In other words, all documentary evidence in form of proof, unrebutted by the adversary party, was arbitrarily and capriciously discarded by the Appellate Court as non-existent. Obviously, the presence of the triable issues of fact were clearly submitted in the Brief to the Appellate Court by appellant Veleanu under Point XIX : The plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment due to the fact that are numerous triable issues of fact. The Court erred by granting summary judgment to the plaintiff and this represents a miscarriage of justice. were sufficient to preclude the grant of summary judgment. The Appellate Court did not respond to the most important question posed by the Appellant: Was the constitutional right of the defendant violated by failure of the plaintiff to serve the petition and order to show cause in sufficient time to allow knowledge of the charges and prepare the defense?. The Appellate Court never rendered an opinion regarding this question. The service of the judicial process was never done and consequently the court did not have any jurisdiction upon the person of defendant. Luring the defendant to court for a calendar call of issuing a TRO is not considered by CPLR 320 C as service of the process. Accordingly, the court lack of subject matter jurisdiction made the judgment(s) null, invalid and void ab initio. The final judgment of acting justice Pagones completely lacked the service on respondent as it started de novo of a legal action after 2 defaults of the petitioner AG. The contentions of lack of court jurisdiction was raised in the Brief under Point XXI: The Court did not have personal jurisdiction upon defendant due to the fact that the Notice of Petition was never served to defendant (Order to show cause). The next question addressed to the Appellate Court was: Was the failure of the trial court to set up a hearing after granting the TRO and prior decreeing a permanent injunction a violation of the constitutional right of the defendant?. The Appellate Court did not give an opinion regarding this question, as well. The Appellate Court

failed to review the decisions, orders and judgments of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County and the suppression of constitutional rights of due process by lack of any hearings or conference calls during all proceedings in the trial court. The most egregious violation of appellant constitutional rights in the trial court was denial of defense by fraudulently ruling that the pleadings were unsworn, when actually the pleadings were submitted legally under declaration of perjury pursuant to CPLR 105 U. The violations of Appellants constitutional rights under 14th amendment, 6th , 7th and 8th amendment were brought in the Briefs Point XVII with detailed exemplification in support. The contentions of Appellant of the violations of the civil rights were brought in the Brief under Point XXIV: AG violated civil rights of the defendant. The only opinion rendered by the Appellate Court was the moronic, senseless and illogical, intellectually defective inference that appellant Veleanu sold a customer several items which he told her were made of high quality jade, but which laboratory testing proved were quartzite, a less expensive and more common stone. This statement upon which the Appellate Court based its decision was fraudulent and deceiving as the items sold were not of jewelry grade jadeite that is prone to be examined by gemological testing, rather ornamental art carvings that are constituted of a stone that contains several minerals other than jadeite. Even if this allegation would be true, the complainant was entitled to lifetime warranty for a refund in accordance with conditions of sale of the commercial contract. This determination statement is typical for an unconscionable abuse of discretion and irrational and illogical arbitrary and capricious judicial action unsuitable to a higher court of justice supposed to make the final determination of a legal case. The petitioner AG, never gave an example where an ornamental art carving was ever examined by gemological testing that is exclusively used for jewelry grade stone. Such examination was never done by any merchant of jadeite art carvings that exclusively use mineralogical testing for the identification. The Appellants contentions were brought to the Appellate Court in the Point II of the Brief: Gemological laboratory testing is not the proper method of identification of ornamental art jadeite carvings with detailed scientific support of the contentions. In abhorrent, fraudulent disregard of the exculpatory evidence, violation of constitutional and civil rights, irrefutable evidence of misconduct of the officers of trial court, criminal activity of the prosecutor, fraud upon court in numerous occasions, the Appellate Court failed to perform its legal duty to review and render an opinion in all issues raised by Appellant, fundamental in affecting the rights for a fair review. The Appellate Court did not perform its legal responsibility to reverse the trial court judgment based on CPLR 5704, based on ex parte legal proceedings without hearings, conference calls, based on orders and judgments that were void. CPLR 5704 that is the exclusive responsibility of Appellate Court was fraudulently ignored despite that this contention was brought in the Brief under Point XXI: CPLR R5704 review of ex parte orders (a) by appellate division specifies that the appellate division or a justice thereof may vacate or modify any order granted without notice to the adverse party by any court or a judge from which an appeal would lie to such appellate division. The 4 judges of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of NY: Reinaldo Rivera, JP, Daniel D. Angiolillo, Ariel E. Belen, Sherri S. Roman, JJ, acted in blatant bias and prejudice against appellant Veleanu by failing to take in consideration all Brief Points contents as they did not exist whatsoever. The decision and order of the Appellate Court is clearly representation of conscience shocking abuse of discretion and illogical aberration of mind and arbitrary and frivolous action of 4 justices covering up the fraud upon court of the involved judges of the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County. In a conference related to a subpoena intended to be followed by execution of home property of respondent, appellant Veleanu referred to the trial court as the court below. Associate justice of the Appellate Court, Hon. Priscilla Hall, candidly asked appellant why he believes the Dutchess County Supreme Court of NY is the court below as both SCDC and Appellate Court represent the Supreme Court of NY. At such statement, appellant Veleanu realized that the Appeals chances in that the decision of Appellate Court would be different than the trial court in Dutchess County were nil, however Veleanu was committed by submitting the appeal papers that demanded enormous effort for more than 6 months of gathering legal research. The Appellate Court violated the Bill of Rights and CVR Article 2(10) of NY State by denial of Veleanus motion for reargument of the order of denial of the Appeal by the Appellate Court of November 2, 2011, or in alternative, the permission to appeal

the order of denial of the Appeal with the Court of Appeals (the highest Court in NY State). The appeal denial by the Appellate Court was pre-determined, as well as the denial of reargument and permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals. The proof of pre-determination of the decision and order consisted in issuing the order prior deciding a motion for reargument/permission to appeal at the Court of Appeals. This decision and order was fraudulent in 2 points. 1. The order of denial of leave to reargument and pemission to appeal to the Court of Appeals was dated 11/02/12 at the time that a prior motion for protection and stay of enforcement was pending and placed on the motion calendar for 02/24/12 (that represents more than 3 weeks past the Appellate Court already decreed decision and order of the Appellate Court!!!. The Appellate Court violated CPLR 2219 that specifies that an order to show cause is to be decided within 20 days. 2. Fraudulently and recklessly, the Appellate Court tried to confuse the issue by stating that motion by the appellant for leave to reargue appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated September 29, 2010 and an order of the same court, also dated September 29, 2010, appears as the Appellate Court was fraudulently accusing the appellant to appeal decisions and judgments of the trial court that were already denied by the Appellate Court, action that if would be real, would not only be redundant, but would represent a frivolous action and genuine res judicata. In reality, appellant Veleanus leave was for reargument of the Appellate Courts decision and order of denial of the appeal, rather than reviving trial courts orders and judgment!. The Appellate Courts decisions and orders demonstrates predetermination without deliberation and also, cover up of judicial misconduct of the officers of the trial court by the 4 justices of the Appellate Court already mentioned. The justices of the Appellate Court conspired to violate the constitutional rights of the appellant in violation of Title 18 Section 19 of making 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. The Appellate Court violated Federal Law Title 18 Section 20 that involves the deprivation of the right to equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th amendment of USC. In absence of the permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals, Dr. Veleanu asked the leave of permission to appeal directly to the Court of Appeals, but was turned down by the Court of Appeals without any explanation. After exhausting any possibility to obtain relief from grievances, Dr. Veleanu sued the officers of the NY State Supreme Court of NY pursuing Article 78. All 4 justices of NY State Supreme Court of NY declined to appear in the Court and defend themselves in a clear act of invoking the 5th amendment of USC. They were prevented by Dr. Veleanu petition to be defended by the Attorney General due to the conflict of interest of being parties of the suit against them by Dr. Veleanu. AG cannot raise the collateral estoppel (issue determination) similar to res judicata (claim preclusion determination due to the following facts: 1. The issue preclusion requires an actual full and fair litigation of the issues, fact that did not take place. The first litigation in the Supreme Court of NY Dutchess County was a typical kangaroo court, without hearings and even when Dr. Veleanu was represented by legal counsel, the court did not set forth a hearing for a fair and actual adjudication. In the litigation of the trial court, the 2 causes of action were related to statutory fraud. Res judicata cannot apply to the second litigation as the causes of action are completely different, dealing in lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction due to failure to serve the process by the prosecutor, according to CPLR 5015 (a) (4). The second cause of action in the second litigation is also different claim dealing to fraud and criminal wrongdoing by the prosecutor pursuing CPLR 5015 (a) (3). The issues while were raised by Dr. Veleanu in the first litigation, but were completely ignored by the Court. The issue of lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of subject matter jurisdiction was raised at every step of the litigation, including the Appellate Court Appeal, nevertheless, the issue was ignored by the trial court and also by the Appellate Court and not adjudicated whatsoever. The third requirement for the res judicata/collateral estoppel is that a final judgment on merits must have been rendered, ultimately deciding the action (claim) and issues in litigation, fact that did not take place. If an issue was raised in the previous litigation (the lack of court jurisdiction) but the issue was not decided or adjudicated, the issue cannot be the target of the collateral estoppel. Res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply when the judgment is based on technicality, rather than the merits as in this fraudulent legal case. A courts lack of jurisdiction need not be plead and can be raised at any time and is not subject to a justice of the court discretion; the court cannot confer

jurisdiction by decrees of orders and judgment, as is illegal. The defense raised by Dr. Veleanu in the first litigation in the trial court of the Supreme Court of NY, as well as the motions to dismiss, were fraudulently denied by extrinsic fraud, by the acting justice of the Supreme Court, acting fraudulently in the name of the Court. The fraud upon court and extrinsic fraud by denying the defense of respondent ruling that the pleadings and motions to dismiss were unsworn, was committed by acting justice Thomas Dolan ignoring that the declaration under penalty of perjury according to CPLR 105 U allows the pleadings and motions to dismiss to be legal and binding to the Court. Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and the judgment from a Court that lacks subject matter jurisdiction is a nullity and forever void. Accordingly, all orders and judgments decreed by the Supreme Court of NY are void, null and unenforceable. Due process grants every litigant entitlement to have his day in court. US Supreme Court in Cromwell v County of Sac, 94 US 351, 352, 353 (1876) determined that when the second action between the parties is upon a different claim, the judgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel only to the matters actually litigated on merits. 1. Res judicata and collateral estoppel apply only when based on the same claim (cause of action) that evidently do not apply to this case. 2. The former judgment had to be rendered on merit (Did not happen in the litigation of the first instance) and is not conclusive as to issues or questions which have been, but were not litigated in the original action. The opportunity to be heard is the essential pre-requisite of due process in the judicial proceedings. According to 14th amendment of USC, the State cannot enforce a judgment against a party named in the proceeding without hearing or an opportunity to be heard. 1. In Dr. Veleanus legal case, the issues were presented to various tribunals but were not adjudicated at all. 2. Res judicata does not apply due to lack of identities of the parties, nor were in privity. 3. In addition, the factual issues were essentially not the same in the prior proceeding. 4. Factual issues sought to be litigated must have been litigated in the previous legal action. Neither of the above issues of the collateral estoppel apply to Dr. Veleanu petition according to Article 78 of CPLR. Finally, Dr. Veleanu invoked CPLR 5015 (a) (3) consisting in fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of the adverse party. The criminal acts of NY State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and his counsel Nicholas G. Garin, AKA Nick Garin need to be presented to the people of the State of New York, as the above claim to represent and act in the name of the People, The factual representation hereto presented to all citizens of United States of America supposed to be the bastion of freedom and liberty, and the people of the entire world, eager to learn about the violation of civil rights and human rights by the corrupt leaders who oppress, prosecute and persecute innocent people of the nation they lead. The illegal and (or) criminal acts committed by prosecutorial misconduct of AG Andrew Cuomo and his counsel Nick Garin, inter alia are as follows: 1. Motto. 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. 2. AG Andrew Cuomo commenced a contumacious legal proceeding against Dr. Mircea Veleanu in bad faith for lack of standing, lack of a cause of action to justify the commencement of legal action, and irrefutable proof of extrinsic fraud. The single complainant had no standing to sue as was not aggrieved. Under conditions of sale of the commercial contract, she was entitled to lifetime warranty and refund. The evidence, clearly has shown that complainant received reassurance that she will be refunded and thus, contradicting Attorney General (AG) as petitioner, the fraudulent lie that respondent refused to refund the complainant. 3. AG as petitioner started a 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 a summary judicial action and clearly represents an unconscionable abuse of officers of Courts discretion, fraud upon court, and irrational and illogical arbitrary and capricious judicial action. 4.This legal case represents a commercial dispute between a single criminal complainant 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, absence of substantiation of her allegations by evidence in form of proof, and on the other side, a seller that ethically acted conform with the conditions of sale of the 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 sale 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 legal case lacks materiality, as complainant collected only jewelry type of items, and the complainant was advised that the seller sells mainly art carvings that are not jewelry items per se, and do not satisfy the strict requirements of jewelry grade items. 4. The sole complainant committed criminal acts aided, encouraged and supported by the Attorney General. 1. The complainant committed perjury by making contradictory statements in her affidavit in regard to the cost of gemological testing done by AGTA Lab. The statement in her affidavit contradicted 2 previous statements she previously made in regard to the cost of the gemological testing by AGTA. Subsequently, her legal deposition became invalid due to her impeachment as a witness according to CPLR 4514. The complainant forged the evidence by mislabeling of the 7 jadeite mala as carved head 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 Dr. Veleanu. 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 wrote the invoice herself. The handwriting of the invoice is identical to her handwriting adjacent to the invoice and other legal documents exhibiting her handwriting. 5. Complainant conspired with Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Garin to charge Dr. Mircea Veleanu with false allegations. The evidence in form of proof revealed that complainants affidavit was composed, edited or written by AAG Garin. The affidavit contained intimate details of the legal process as Exhibit numbers in AGs 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 Dr. Mircea Veleanu 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 in the fact 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. 6. AG committed acts of malicious prosecution and abuse of legal process by contemplating 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 in malicious prosecution. The 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. The improper use of the abuse of process and malicious prosecution 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 true form of illegal prosecutorial extortion. 7. Prosecutor Attorney General, 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. Attorney General 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 Dr. Mircea Veleanu. She was entitled to lifetime warranty that provided refund based on the conditions of sale of the contract. 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 herself on total amount of her investment in purchasing jade items from Dr. Veleanu. 8. The conspiracy of AAG with complainant Spiridonakos to defraud and extort Dr. Veleanu

represents an unconscionable abuse of discretion, extrinsic fraud and fraud upon court. The illegal retroactive interest of 9 % was also promised by AG 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. 9. Attorney General did not provide with any evidence for the entitlement to GBL 349 and as such, his legal action by failure to state a cause of action and unconscionable abuse of discretion was fraudulently pre-conceived. 10. In his petition, AG 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. 11. Willingly and knowingly, AAG Garin uttered to the court documentary evidence he knew was false and fraudulent. 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. AG is guilty of 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. 12. 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. 13. AAG Garin committed the criminal act of 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 at the pre-trial subpoena and then 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 respondent Veleanu 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 Dr. Mircea Veleanu in absence of a reasonable cause of action. 14. 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 Court and unconscionable abuse of discretion. 15. The solicitation, aiding and supporting the violation and breach of the commercial contract by all former customers involved in this case was possible only through the egregious intervention of AAG Garin. Other than the criminal blackmail and extortion by complainant, another former customer, Diana Norton, 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 testimony

under oath. 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 Dr. Veleanu devoid of exercising his rights for a fair trial. 16. 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 and psychological trauma to Veleanu and represents abuse of process, malicious prosecution and Fraud Upon Court by intentional use of deceit and more importantly, unconscionable abuse of discretion. 17. AG willingly and knowingly committed the criminal act of submitting to the court (uttering) documents that concealed exculpatory evidence to respondent, by interposing a photograph over a text that was exculpatory to respondent Veleanu in 2 separate occasions. 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. 18. 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 extrinsic fraud, Fraud Upon Court and unconscionable abuse of discretion. 19. 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 supported by substantive evidence to be based 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. 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 an extrinsic fraud, Fraud Upon Court, unconscionable abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious action that defies the rational of any honest prosecutor. For similar, but less egregious, prosecutor Michael Nifong involved in Duke University prosecution, was disbarred and jailed. 20. 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 Dr. Veleanu in the court and as such represents extrinsic fraud, Fraud Upon 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 aggrieving. Even more, AG failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. This represents a clear Fraud Upon Court, unconscionable abuse of discretion and absurd and illogical arbitrary and capricious judicial action. 21. 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 extrinsic fraud, Fraud Upon Court, unconscionable abuse of discretion and an arbitrary and capricious judicial act defying the logic and rational of any reasonable prosecutor. 22. AG solicited former customers to request refunds for the past 6 years prior legal action that is beyond the statute 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 Court, abuse of discretion and an arbitrary and capricious prosecutorial action defying the logic of any honest prosecutor. 23. AG violated NY State 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. 24. NY State Attorney General is guilty of 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. 25. 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 by Attorney General consequently to the motion for reargument/renew of Veleanus legal counselor and represents Fraud Upon 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. 26. The adverse party, Attorney General of NY State 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 his ministerial and administrative function voided his prosecutorial absolute and qualified immunity. 2. 22 NYCRR 3.3.202. Prohibition of counsel to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation. Attorney General of NY State 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. Attorney General of NY State is liable of counterfeiting and forgery that 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. In his megalomaniacal and arrogant attributes, Andrew Cuomo most probably intends to be a candidate for the Presidency of US!!! GOD SAVE AMERICA!