Andrew Cuomo - Two Faces As Andrew Cuomo Changes Pay To Play To Indirect Payment

"" Two Faces As Cuomo Changes Pay To Play To Indirect Payment

"Follow the money" or "The best candidate that money can buy."

My friend, Joe, enlightened me decades earlier that for great service and a good table, the time to tip the maitre d' and then your waiter is when you first meet each. Does this apply elsewhere in New York?

Andrew Cuomo is the multi-faceted candidate, with a smiling face for everybody. Andrew Cuomo's face towards the People on his web site say Cuomo wants, "to eliminate pay to play campaign contributions."

Another face of Andrew Cuomo looks at his donation forms, where "contributors [are asked] to sign a statement saying they have no “matter” pending with him. That rule “does not extend to attorneys representing persons or entities with matters before the NYS Attorney General’s office.”

"Contributors to Cuomo include a who's who of law firms and their attorneys. In addition to Boies, Patterson Belknap, Paul Weiss, Sullivan & Cromwell, Skadden Arps, Kramer Levin, Mayer Brown and O'Melveny & Myers are named in the article as contributors or event sponsors."

The People have Cuomo's and his contributing attorneys' assurances that said attorneys would never give money, if they thought it would benefit themselves or their clients, "We do not think that the attorney general of New York would make it any easier for lawyers or cut any slack for their clients because of the lawyers’ prior campaign contributions,” said Arthur Culvahouse Jr., the law firm’s chair, who was counsel to President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

“That was not our thinking in 2006 or now. Indeed, as officers of the court we would not contribute to a candidate if we thought that were the case.”

Cuomo wants to eliminate direct pay to play. The People are assured that no NY attorneys would ever act as cash conduits for their clients in an indirect pay to play scheme.

Check out the NY court and lawyer reality show to see our honest judges and lawyers in action. and for the 98,750 exceptions to court/lawyer honesty.

Andrew, a smiling face for everybody? There will be no indirect pay to play through attorneys? What will my measly single vote buy? ""

Source of Post
http://cuomotarp.blogspot.com/2010/04/two-faces-as-cuomo-changes-pay-to-play.html

St. Charles Medical Center - Interview with Bankruptcy Whistleblower Stephanie DeYoung

Stephanie DeYoung Oregon Bankruptcy Whistleblower Kidnapped
by those involved in the 40 Million Dollar Bankruptcy out of Bend Oregon.

Brian Stevens and Sharon Stevens of Bend Oregon got the Bend Police
to "Commit" Stephanie DeYoung - Illegally..

Judge - Michael C. Sullivan

DR. - Ben Elison

Listen to interview with Bankruptcy Whistleblower .. she is STUCK in the St. Charles Medical Center in Bend Oregon for almost 30 days.. any day now they will move her to the Oregon State Mental Hospital, My Fear is that they will not let her live through this.. as Umpqua Bank - Summit 1031 - Judges - High Powered Attorneys and some Major corruption.. greed and secrets are at play here...

This mother of 3 young boys missed Easter with them, missed her sons 13th Birthday.. life and business ruined all because she knows to much about the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy...


Part One of Interview...




Part 2 of Interview with Bankruptcy Whistleblower Stephanie Studebaker DeYoung as she is LOCKED up in a Mental Institute ILLEGALLY in Bend Oregons' St. Charles Medical Center.




More on this Story at
www.Summit1031Sucks.com

posted her by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox

Ruth M. Pollack - Kevin G. Chesney - New York Summons in a Civil Action

AO 440 (Rev. 02109) - - Southern District of New York


"" UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

Southern District of New York

Ruth M. Pollack, Esq.

and Ruth M. Pollack Sui Juris,

and Kevin G. Chesney and Lorraine Chesney, UX.

Plaintiff

Civil Action No.:

10 Civ. 00135 (HB)(THK)

v.

See Rider Annexed

Defendant

AMENDED SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant's name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff(s) attorney, whose

name and address are: PRO SE RUTH M. POLLACK, ESQ.

21 WEST SECOND STREET, SUITE 13 P.O. BOX 120

RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901-0120

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Ja MICHAEL McMAHON

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

--------------------

JAN2Q 2010

ClvA.lUtC UJuuJL__

Signature of Clerk of Deputy Clerk

STATE OF NEW YORK, STATE OF NEW YORK

SECOND DEPARTMENT SUPREME COURT ~'

APPELLATE DIVISION; OFFICE OF COURT " .. : .•..

ADMINISTRA TION OF THE UNIFIED COURT ~

SYSTEM; JAMES EDW AND PELTZER, in his

Official and individual capacity; TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE, RITA E.

ADLER, CffiEF COUNSEL, in her official and

individual capacities; MICHELE FILOSA, ESQ.;

in her official and individual capacities; ROBERT H. CABBLE, ESQ., in his official and individual capacities; JAl\1ES A. GOWAN, ESQ., in his official and individual capacities; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CruEV ANCE COMMITTEE; CHIEF CLERK OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ROBERT C. HEINEMANN, in his official and individual capacities; his agents, servants and employees; PAULAMARIE SUSI, in her official and individual capacities; PACER Service Center, JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF

THE UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES OFFICE OF RECORDS; ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES COURTS and "JANE AND

JOHN DOES 1-100", the latter being those individuals and entities unknown to plaintiff;

Defendants.

Rider to Amended Summons Defendants and Addresses lOcv00135

State of New York

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo The Capitol

Albany, NY 12224-0341

State of New York Grievance Committee for the io" Adler, Filosa, Cabble

150 Motor Parkway

Hauppauge, NY

James A. Gowan, Esq.

90 Sequams Ln E.

West Islip, NY

Appellate Division Second Department and Peltzer 45 Monroe Place

Brooklyn, NY 11201

NYS Unified Court System Office of Court Administration 25 Beaver Street

New York, NY 10004

NYS Unified Court System Office of Court Administration 4 ESP, Suite 2001

Empire State Plaza

Albany, NY 12223-1450

EDNY

United States District Court 100 Federal Plaza

Central Islip, NY 11772

EDNY Grievance Committee 100 Federal Plaza

Central Islip, NY 11772

u.s. Atto

610 F ral Plaza

C ral Islip, NY 11722-4454

Benton Camp' I

U.S. Atto y EDNY 271 C man Plaza East

B oldyn, NY 11201

Eric H. Holder, J United State ttorney General

United S es Department of Justice

950 nnsylvania Ave, NW

shington, DC 20530-0001

PACER Service Center P.O. Box 780549

San Antonio, TX 78278

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts One Columbus Circle, NE

Washington, DC 20544

Judicial Conference of the U.S. Courts

Federal Judicial Center of the U.S. Courts Thurgood Marshall Federal judiciary Building One Columbus Circle, NE

Washington, DC 20002-8003

United States Office of Records and

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration 700 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20408

Robert C. Heinemann, Clerk EDNY EDNY Courthouse

225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201-1818

Preet Bharara, . Attorney SDNY

86 Ch s Street, 3rd Floor

10004

PaulaMarie Susi Clerk

U.S District Court EDNY 225 Cadman Plaza Brooklyn, NY 11201

Rider to Amended Summons Defendants and Addresses lOcv00135

State of New York

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo The Capitol

Albany, NY 12224-0341

State of New York Grievance Committee for the io" Adler, Filosa, CabbIe

150 Motor Parkway

Hauppauge, NY

James A. Gowan, Esq.

90 Sequams Ln E.

West Islip, NY

Appellate Division Second Department and Peltzer 45 Monroe Place

Brooklyn, NY 11201

NYS Unified Court System Office of Court Administration 25 Beaver Street

New York, NY 10004

NYS Unified Court System Office of Court Administration 4 ESP, Suite 2001

Empire State Plaza

Albany, NY 12223-1450

EDNY

United States District Court 100 Federal Plaza

Central Islip, NY 11772

EDNY Grievance Committee 100 Federal Plaza

Central Islip, NY 11772

U.S. Attorney EDNY 610 Federal Plaza

Central Islip, NY 11722-4454

Benton Campbell

U.S. Attorney EDNY 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201

Eric H. Holder, Jr.

United States Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001

PACER Service Center P.O. Box 780549

San Antonio, TX 78278

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts One Columbus Circle, NE

Washington, DC 20544

Judicial Conference of the u.s. Courts

Federal Judicial Center of the U.S. Courts Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building One Columbus Circle, NE

Washington, DC 20002-8003

United States Office of Records and

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration 700 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20408

Robert C. Heinemann, Clerk EDNY EDNY Courthouse

225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201-1818

Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney SDNY 86 Chambers Street, 3rd Floor

NY, NY 10004

PaulaMarie Susi Clerk

U.S District COUli EDNY 225 Cadman Plaza Brooklyn, NY 11201

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ECF:

Ruth M. Pollack, Esq., Ruth M. Pollack, individually, Sui Juris,

Kevin G. Chesney and Lorraine Chesney,

Plaintiff,

IOCV00135 (HB)(THK) FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

-against-

STATE OF NEW YORK, STATE OF NEW YORK SECOND DEPARTMENT SUPREME COURT APPELLATE DIVISION; OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM; JAMES EDWARD PELTZER, in his Official and individual capacity; TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE, RITA E. ADLER, CHIEF COUNSEL, in her official and individual capacities; MICHELE FILOSA, ESQ.;

in her official and individual capacities; ROBERT H. CABBLE, ESQ., in his official and individual capacities; JAMES A. GOWAN, ESQ., in his official and individual capacities; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE; CIllEF CLERK OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ROBERT C. HEINEMANN, in his official and individual capacities; his agents, servants and employees; PAULAMARIE SUSI, in her official and individual capacities; PACER Service Center, JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF

THE UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES OFFICE OF RECORDS; ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES COURTS and "JANE AND

JOHN DOES 1-100", the latter being those individuals and entities unlrnown to plaintiff;

Defendants.

______________________________________________ x.

Plaintiff Ruth M. Pollack, Esq. and individually, sui juris, as and for her Verified

Complaint against the above-captioned defendants, and plaintiffs Kevin G Chesney and

Lorraine Chesney by their attorney Ruth M. Pollack, as and for their Verified Complaint against the above-captioned defendants alleges upon knowledge as to their own facts and upon information and belief as to all other matters:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiffs bring this action seeking relief from defendants above named for, inter

alia, acts of retaliation, negligence, harassment, official misconduct, mail and wire fraud, violation of the New York State and federal FOrA statutes, defamation, destruction and spoliation of official files and electronic records, denial of equal protection and due process, obstruction of justice, tortious interference with contract, and attorney client relationship, via the illegal suspension of plaintiff Pollack, all as a consequence of her discovering and reporting of multiple acts of misconduct and corruption constituting an abuse of power and massive fraud and criminal enterprise upon the public.

2. At all relevant times herein, plaintiff Pollack has been employed as an attorney in

good standing since 1983 with a concentration in litigation through trials and appeals in most courts and agencies, civil and criminal, federal and state, in New York State.

3. At all relevant times herein, plaintiff Po Hack has a track record of success in her

cases and a fine reputation for her work and character spanning over 26 years.

4. Plaintiff became physically disabled by ovarian cancer in 2004. Since on or

about 2004, plaintiff's cases in EDNY have been tampered on the ECF docket to defraud her, to cause her to miss dates and to defeat her cases.

5. At all relevant times, plaintiffs Kevin G. and Lorraine Chesney ("Chesney")

were and are clients of plaintiff Pollack since 2005.

6. Plaintiff Kevin G. Chesney has been a disabled American since 2004.

7. One such case file, Chesney v. Valley Stream Union Free School District No. 24

et al., [05cv5106] ("Chesney case") was destroyed in its entirety while in the exclusive custody and control of the Eastern District of New York C'EDNY") and EDNY Chief Clerk Robert C. Heinemann ("Clerk Heinemann"), its agents, servants and employees, and "Does 1-100",

8. The destruction of the file occurred on or about the time that plaintiffs Chesney

and Pollack officially reported extensive docket tampering to the EDNY Court, PACER, the Judicial Conference of the United States ("JCUS") and the United States Office of Records ("US OR") and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts ("AOUSC").

9. Plaintiffs first learned of the file's destruction on July 10,2009 when Plaintiff
Chesney visited, as a pro se litigant, on invitation of the Court and by rule, the EDNY Islip Clerk's Office to obtain, copy and prepare copies of the file for his appeal of Chesney to the Second COUli.

10. Plaintiff Chesney, a disabled American, waited for three (3) hours with no offer of

accommodation, only to learn that the status of his entire original case file was

"cannot find", "unavailable" and "destroyed."

11. The Clerk of the Court certified this status of the file in writing.

12. To date, the file has not been produced by the Court to plaintiff.

13. Plaintiff Pollack's cases have included many cases against school districts on Long Island found by the New York State Comptroller to be fraught with financial mismanagement and massive theft of public funds. At least one case involved the

discovery and cover-up of massive amounts of asbestos in two school districts and its unlawful abatement and disposal by unlicensed and unpaid workers, all to the detriment of the health and welfare of the public, staff and children.

14. On September 9,2009, plaintiffs timely served a notice or claim and intent to sue

for all of the above acts upon, inter alia, PACER, United States Office of Records, Judicial Conference of the United States, Valley Stream Union Free School District No. 24, et al., Tenth Judicial District of the Appellate Division Grievance Committee; it agents servants and employees, each in its individual and official capacities; Eastern District of New York ("EDNY"); Clerk Heinemann; E.D.N.Y. Grievance Committee ("EDNY Grievance");

United States Department of Justice and United States Attorney General Eric Holder; New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (''NYAG'') and "Jane Does and John Does 1-100", being those respondents whose identities and addresses are unknown to claimants; each respondent named in its official and individual capacities.

15. On January 15, 2009 plaintiff Pollack wrote a letter to the EDNY Court in the
Chesney case to notify the Court as to incorrect docket entries, to wit: discovery was never certified as closed or complete by the parties or the Court as falsely set forth on the ECF docket and no order emanated from the Court in the case and to correct the docket. The docket, having been reviewed as per an admonition on it was false.

16. The next day, unknown to plaintiff Chesney, EDNY mailed a letter to his two

year old, outdated address, and told him to obtain new counsel in his case. The mailing of the letter was on January 16,2009 and received by Chesney three weeks later after it had been opened by strangers and forwarded to him, leaving him with

less than a week to find new counsel due to his attorney's having been unlawfully suspended for two more years also by mail fraud.

Plaintiff Pollack also learned, belatedly, that she was "suspended" by EDNY Grievance for two years in EDNY in abstencia, without any due process, meeting, hearing, discovery, participation of the full Committee, and with the assistance of a former law clerk to Judge A. Ross of EDNY.

17. On or about March 26, 2009, plaintiffs also reported and complained about these

and other instances of defense attorney misconduct in the Chesney case accordance with Pollack's obligations under the New York State Code of Professional Responsibility and under plaintiffs' guaranteed rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution by posting it on the EDNY ECF docket and by mail to the Tenth Grievance.

18. These complaints went unanswered except for an Apri127. 20091etter from the

Tenth to plaintiff Chesney that the Committee was unable to act on the complaints because "your allegations are intertwined with a pending court action, this Committee does not intervene in matters pending before a court, nor does it have tbe same powers as a court to provide the legal redress required in the circumstances described. You must first resolve the matter in court in which the matter is pending. Accordingly, our Committee is unable to be of assistance to you at this time. Should evidence of unethical conduct be proven during the course of further proceedings, either the Court or you can bring such evidence to our Committee's attention at the conclusion of all legal proceedings". [Emphasis added]

19. The docket tampering started as early as November 21,2005 [ECF 6] and
continued to date in the Chesney case [05cv51 06] ON THE CURRENT PUBLIC DOCKET on January 13,2010, which case was deemed closed by Heinemann on May 15, 2009 before Chesney's motion for reconsideration had been filed pro se. [ECF 147, 148 and 149].

20. The EDNY P ACERlECF docket claims that these entries were entered and filed

on July 13,2009, in contradiction to the certified copy of the same docket dated July 31, 2009, which does not contain these entries at all.

21. As a result of reporting this docket tampering and destruction, plaintiff each
suffered retaliation. While defendant Tenth Judicial District Grievance Committee ("Tenth") never admonished, prosecuted or punished any of the attorneys who were publicly reported as having taken pension and other financial benefits from such school districts as Roslyn, defendants Tenth and EDNY Grievance has pursued the systematic attack, defamation and prosecution of plaintiff who is without fault. Defendant Grievance has refused and failed to address complaints as to the Chesney case to date.

22. Plaintiff Pollack also suffered unprovoked physical assaults on her person in June

and September 2007 by eight or more members of the New York State Court Officers in Family Court.

23. On June 8, 2009, plaintiff Pollack testified before the New York State Senate

Judiciary Committee as to the corruption and retaliation she had suffered at the hands of the committees and the cases she was working on at the time of the retaliation. Immediately thereafter, Peltzer, Adler, the 10th and the Appellate Division suddenly advised plaintiff Pollack that she was suspended from the practice of law until : further notice based merely on a "position" Adler had taken that she thought plaintiff Pollack had been "convicted of a "serious crime",

24. The actions taken by defendants have been with the malicious intention of
impeding plaintiff's ability to lawfully fulfill her obligations to her clients, and have caused damages to her health, finances, and reputation.

25. The actions taken by defendants have been reckless, careless and negligent efforts

to impede plaintiff Pollack's ability to lawfully fulfill her obligations to her clients, and have caused damages to her health, finances, and reputation.

26. The actions taken by defendants have been with the malicious intention of

impeding plaintiff Chesney's ability to proceed with their case against Valley Stream et al. and to deprive them of their chosen attorney, plaintiff Pollack.

27. The actions taken by defendants have been reckless, careless and negligent efforts

to impede Chesney's ability to proceed with their case against Valley Stream et al. and to deprive them of their chosen attorney, plaintiff Pollack.

28. Plaintiff brings this action seeking injunctive relief, monetary relief, monetary

damages for financial damages, punitive damages, stigma due to defamation, and defamation by her public, ongoing miss- characterization as a "criminal", loss of clients, and loss of ability to timely handle cases due to unlawful suspensions, disbursements, costs, fees, and public apology.

29. The action is brought pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"),

state and federal; The Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996 (E-FOIA); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U,S.C. § 2000e

et seq.; 42 U.S. C. §§ 1983, the First Amendment [based not only on Pollack's duty to report but also on her opinion as a citizen and discourse of public relevance], the Fifth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and New York State and Federal law; mail fraud and wire fraud under Wire Fraud statute-Title 18, United States Code (USC) 1341; The Mail Fraud statute--18 USC §1343; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1734 and 1735 Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, Ch. 115: Evidence:

Court Record Lost or Destroyed When the United States is Interested.

30. Plaintiff alleges that defendants, with evil intent, wantonly, recklessly, intentionally, purposefully, acting individually and in conspiracy with one another, sought to and did deprive plaintiff of employment, position, title, license, and pay by use of a pattern and practice of violating her constitutional rights, depriving her of due process, discrimination, retaliation, federal case and docket tampering and destruction, misrepresentation, misinformation, fraud, harassment, threat, character assassination, three physical assaults, abuse and manipulation of the law, rules and regulations because of plaintiff's exercise of her free speech rights on matters of public concern and on her own behalf and on behalf of the public which she represents and her reporting of official and private corporate misconduct.

31. Upon information and belief, the acts complained of were done intentionally and/or recklessly with the consent and condonation, by omission and/or commission, jointly and severally, of the State of New York ("State"), State of New York Appellate Division Second Department ("Appellate Division"), Tenth Judicial District Grievance Committee ("Grievance"), State of New York Office of Court Administration ("OCA"), and each of its agents servants and employees, Rita E.

Adler, Esq. Chief Counsel, in her official and individual capacities; Michele Filosa, Esq.; in her official and individual capacities; Robert H. Cabble, Esq., in his official and individual capacities; James A. Gowan, Esq., in his official and individual capacities; United States District Court, Eastern District of New York; United States District Court; Eastern District of New York Grievance Committee; Chief Clerk of the Eastern District of New York Robert C. Heinemann, in his official and individual capacities and his agents, servants and employees; PaulaMarie Susi, in her official and individual capacities;

PACER Service Center, the Judicial Conference of the United States; United States Office of Records, "Jane and John Does 1-100", each in its official and individual capacity .

.nJruSDICTION AND VENUE

32. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §1331, 28 U.S.C.

§§1343(3) and (4) and 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. Pendent jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

33. This COU1i has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, because defendant State

of New York is a "state actor", within the meaning of §1983; and State of New York Appellate Division Second Department ("Appellate Division"), Tenth Judicial District Grievance Committee ("Grievance"), State of New York Office of Court Administration ("OCA"), and each of its agents servants and employees, Rita E. Adler, Esq. Chief Counsel, ("Adler") in her official and individual capacities; Michele Filosa, Esq., ("Filosa") in her official and individual capacities; Robert H. Cabbie, Esq., ("CabbIe") in his official and individual capacities; and James A.

Gowan, Esq., ("Gowan") in his official and individual capacities are all arms of the State of New York and "state actors" within the meaning of §1983.

34. Venue is proper herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because, upon information
and belief, the cause of action arose in part in the Southern District of New York, all or some of the parties reside or are located in the State of New York, and the acts and/or omissions giving rise to plaintiffs claims occurred in this judicial district and/or across state lines.

35. Defendants and each of them has waived any protection or immunity they may
have enjoyed under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution because they knowingly and intentionally engaged in the conduct alleged herein as state actors.

36. At all times hereinafter relevant to this complaint, plaintiff Ruth M. Pollack, Esq.

in her individual and official capacity ("Plaintiff') is an individual who resides in the State of New York and has practiced in state and federal courts in the State of New York as a registered attorney under OCA since 1983.

37. At all times relevant in this complaint, defendant State of New York ("State") is a
sovereign state of the United States of America.

38. At all times relevant in this complaint, defendant State was an employer of co-
defendants Appellate Division, OCA, Grievance, Adler, Filosa, Cabble and Gowan and was a governmental entity acting under color of the laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs and usages ofthe State of New York.

39. At all times relevant in this complaint, defendant Office of Court Administration

of the Unified Court System, New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

10

Second Judicial Department ('~OCA") is and was a governmental agency created by and authorized under the laws of the State of New York.

40. At all times relevant in this complaint, OCA was responsible for the proper
maintaining of attorney registration information, addresses and collected fees for registration on a biennial basis.

41. At all times relevant in this complaint, Adler is an attorney who resides in the
County of Suffolk and is licensed to practice law in the State of New York,

42. At all times relevant in this complaint, defendant Adler was required to comport
herself in the lawful and proper legal duties of "Chief Counsel" to the "Grievance Committee" under the civil and criminal laws and regulations of the State of New York, and the United States of America.

43. At all times relevant in this complaint, defendant Filosa was required to comport
herself in the lawful and proper legal duties of "Staff Counsel" to the "Grievance Committee" under the civil and criminal laws and regulations of the State of New York, and the United States of America.

44. At all times relevant in this complaint, defendant Cabble was required to comport

himself in the lawful and proper legal duties of "Staff Counsel" to the "Grievance Committee" under the civil and criminal laws and regulations of the State of New York, and the United States of America.

45. At all times relevant in this complaint, upon defendant Gowan was required to be
selected and compensated in an open and impartial manner by both parties and to comport himself in the lawful and proper legal duties of "Special Referee" to the "Grievance Committee" under the civil and criminal laws and regulations of the State of New York, and the United States of America. He was also required, on plaintiff's request, to disclose how he was selected and paid.

46. Defendant Gowan failed and refused to disclose any requested information.

47. Defendant Gowan was paid for his services in cormection with plaintiff Pollack by the State of New York, Appellate Division in an undisclosed sum.

48. Upon information and belief, defendant Gowan engaged in ex parte

communications with defendants Grievance, Adler, Filosa, Cabble, Jane Does and John Does "1-100" TO DATE about plaintiff in violation of his oath of office, ethical rules and plaintiff Pollack and Chesneys' guaranteed state and federal due process rights.

49. Upon information and belief, the Appellate Division has a Departmental

Disciplinary Committee ("DDC") for each of its four judicial departments of which Grievance is a part of a number of committees within each of the four Districts.

50. Upon information and belief, the DDC is part of the New York State judiciary.

51. Members of the Tenth Judicial Grievance Committee who are attorneys are

charged with the responsibility to be properly trained and to abide by the same laws as those members of the bar that they investigate.

52. Upon information and belief, defendants Grievance, Adler, Filosa. Cabble and

Appellate Division covertly conducted an "investigation" about plaintiff with the assistance of defendant PaulaMarie Susi ("Susi") telephonically, through the U.S. Mails and the federal court system.

53. On one occasion, Susi screamed at Plaintiff Pollack in open court "YOU ARE A
HORSE'S ASS!" three times, in an undignified and brutish manner, without cause or
provocation, when Susi was supposed to be in her own designated courtroom elsewhere in the building.

54. Susi's misconduct was part of a planned pattern and practice of harassment of
plaintiff Pollack.

55. At all relevant times, Susi acted outside the scope of her employment.

56. At all relevant times, Susi acted within the scope of her employment.

57. Susi's misconduct was contemptuous and caused pain and suffering and alarm to plaintiff Pollack.

58. Defendants Grievance, Adler, Filosa. Cabble, Susi and Appellate Division failed
and refused to advise plaintiff that they were conducting such "investigation."

59. Defendants Grievance, Adler, Filosa. Cabble and Appellate Division failed and
refused to advise plaintiff Pollack of the contents of and participants in this "investigation" despite her many formal written demands for such information.

60. Plaintiff duly demanded aU information as to the "investigation" and "charges"
from Adler, Chief Clerk James Edward Peltzer and the EDNY Grievance Committee Chairman, Judge Brian Cogan so she could respond properly and defend herself.

61. Defendants, and each of them, denied all requested information to plaintiff.

62. A "Policy Committee" for the DDC exists and consists of members who are selected in a manner not disclosed to the bench or bar.

63. Upon information and belief, certain information about plaintiff was provided to
the "Policy Committee" without her lrnowledge or ability to determine what was submitted or of any conflicts of interests may exist.

64. The members of the Policy Committee were never disclosed to plaintiff.

65. A conflict of interest existed between plaintiff and the Policy Committee,
undisclosed to plaintiff but known to defendants.

66. The Policy Committee has favored certain attorneys and firms and disfavored
others, in contravention of its duty to obey state and federal laws and its obligation to refuse favors of any kind.

67. The investigation included materials from the Eastern District of New York and

other unknown materials unavailable to plaintiff on the federal docket or clerk's office.

68. The refusal to supply this information deprived plaintiff of due process and equal

protection.

69. The refusal violated FOIA/FOIL on a state and federal leveL

70. Upon information and belief, materials were forwarded to members of the Second Department and Peltzer about plaintiff Pollack seeking her discipline for a "crime" and falsely accusing her of practicing law during a 45-day suspension in the EDNY.

71. Plaintiff never committed a "crime" in her entire life.

72. Plaintiff did lawfully report and complain about crimes and violations committed by others she uncovered incidental to her work and as a general and civil rights attorney representing whistle blowers and workers suffering discrimination and retaliation.

Motive

73. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, state and federal defendants

herein were motivated, in part, by the desire to cover-up a now confirmed pattern and practice of financial misappropriation of in excess of twenty ($20,000,000.00) million
dollars by the Valley Stream Union Free School Districts, as reported by all plaintiffs and as reported in Newsday on November 11, 2009 [Districts 24 and 30] and January 8,2010 [District 13], and confirmed in official Audit Reports of New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and Jeffrey Leonard, Chief Examiner, State of New York Comptroller's Office in the Local Government and School Accountability Office.

HARASSMENT

[All Defendants individually and officially]

74. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 73

as though more fully set forth herein.

75. In or about 2008, after numerous years of no contact with plaintiff Pollack about

any complaints or issues, Defendants Grievance, Adler, Filosa. Cabble and Appellate Division embarked on a campaign of a constant barrage of mailings, letters, false accusations and demands for information of plaintiff, which were outside the scope of their authority.

76. Most of the letters were intentionally miss -eddressed to plaintiff so that she

would not receive them or receive them late despite her letters to them to address letters correctly.

77. The harassment interrupted plaintiffs practice, and caused her damages in an

amount to be determined and continuing.

78. Upon information and belief, many New York State tax dollars were miss-spent

by defendants to certify mail and express deliver letters to plaintiff to create the false

15

appearance that she was not actively retrieving her mail or that the mail was "undeliverable" .

79. This tactic was perpetuated by OCA, which failed and refused to correct

plaintiff's clear and concise mailing address provided to it at each biennial registration after repeated mailed requests by her that OCA do so. This O.C.A. failure has continued to date.

80. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, the DDC engaged in a pattern and practice of whitewashing and routinely dismissing or ignoring completely complaints filed against certain select attorneys - to the detriment and fraud of the public.

Upon information and belief, state and federal funds were used to pay the members of the DDC to accomplish this misconduct and fraud and discrimination against certain attorneys and firms.

81. The harassment of plaintiff culminated in her being falsely accused of committing

a "crime" by defendant Adler, who was herself committing a crime.

82. This "crime" concocted by Adler was a scheme to further harm plaintiff and to

obstruct her ability to practice law.

83. Defendants Adler, Filosa, Cabble and the 10th committed legal malpractice by their negligent and criminal acts against plaintiff Pollack.

84. As a consequence of the above acts of defendants, plaintiffhas suffered damages as set forth above and monetary damages in the amount of $50,000,000.00 plus interest.

DEFAMATION [Libel and Slander]

Plaintiff Pollack

16

85. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 84

as though more fully set forth herein.

86. At all relevant times, federal defendants and "Does 1-100" caused to be published on the ECF docket of the Chesney case a series of false entries which were intended to create missed deadlines and the impression that plaintiff Pollack was missing deadlines.

87. EDNY defendants then caused to be issued and published a defamatory and
desultory "Decision" in the Stuart v. Ragusa and U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. discrimination case, dismissing the case at trial because of plaintiff Pollack's alleged misconduct, to wit: using the bathroom too often and too long, five "latenesses" and disagreement with the Court about rulings on the Internet and front page of the New York Law Journal.

88. The defamation continues to date.

89. None of the false allegations against plaintiff Pollack, an attorney disabled by the

cancer that almost killed her, were ever proven in a court of law to date.

90. In contrast, the EDNY court protected a corrupt and dysfunctional U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Park Police and a sexual deviant and predator at the center of the case, the latter of who voyeuristic ally peeped on women employees the public in bathrooms and locker rooms through the ceilings on U.S. Government property for at least five (5) years yet was never prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division EDNY despite his admissions.

17

91. As a consequence of the above acts of defendants, plaintiff Pollack has suffered

damages as set forth above and monetary damages in the amount of $50,000,000.00 plus interest.

Plaintiff Chesney

92. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 91

as though more fully set forth herein.

93. EDNY unlawfully stayed all discovery in Chesney indefmitely in 2005 as soon as

Valley Stream U.F. School District removed the case to EDNY from state court.

94. EDNY falsely stated in its stay "order" that Chesney did not injure his back at

work, which was false.

95. These statements were published on the Internet to sway public opinion in an act

of libel and slander.

96. As a consequence of the above acts of defendants and "Does 1-100", plaintiff

Chesney has suffered damages as set forth above and monetary damages in the amount of $50,000,000.00 plus interest.

MAIL and WIRE FRAUD

[Tenth, Appellate Division, OCA, Peltzer, Adler, Cabbie, Filosa)

97. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 96 as though more fully set forth herein.

98. Under DRl-l 03 (A), plaintiff herein reports acts of apparent attorney misconduct

by defendants.

18

99. The Wire Fraud statute--Title 18, United States Code (USC), Section 1343--

makes it illegal to cause any electrical signal to cross state lines (including the borders of the United States as a whole) in the course ofa scheme to defraud.

100. According to the FBI, "by the very nature of the Internet, it is highly unlikely that

any communication would not cross a state line. Wire transfers-either through a bank or through a money transfer agent such as Western Union--will in most circumstances be sufficient to trigger 18 USC §1343 when such transfers are part ofa scheme to defraud". sent through the U.S. mails in furtherance of a scheme to defraud. For the purposes of this statute, items sent via commercial carriers such as FedEx, United Parcel Service (UPS), DHL, and others also implicate the Mail Fraud statute.

102. Upon information and belief, on or about August and October 2009 defendants Appellate Division, 10th Judicial Committee Grievance Committee, Adler, Filosa, and Cabble in concert with Peltzer intentionally used a fifteen year old, outdated United Parcel Service ("UPS") pre-printed mailing label with UPS Account No. 0184WW, "NYS APPELLATE DIV GRIEV AN COM" to send official correspondence to plaintiff Pollack relative to her removal of the Grievance proceeding that she duly filed in the Southern District of New York. The driver could not deliver the package, as the number would not come up for the driver when he/she punched it into its keypad scanner.

103. Upon information and belief, at all times herein, the UPS account used was and is an account belonging to Arnerichem International. ("Arnerichem").

1 04. Upon information and belief, at all times herein, Arnerichem was and is a domestic corporation, doing business in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, as well as in various international locations.

100. At all times herein, Americhem was engaged in interstate commerce.

1 ° 1. At all times herein, Americhem was engaged in the manufacture of chemical products and janitorial supplies.

102. One (1) UPS package sent by defendants to plaintiff Pollack had two (2) totally different tracking sequences; both under the same Americhem account number used by defendant 10th Grievance, its agents, servants and employees, Peitzer, and Appellate Division.

103. Upon information and belief, defendants used this Americhem UPS account to defraud plaintiffs Pollack, and the Chesneys and the State of New York to avoid anyone from tracking the package for two separate trackings in violation of the mail and wire fraud statutes.

104. Upon information and belief, this tampering with mail is criminal in nature and should result in the arrest, prosecution, imprisonment and disbarment of defendants.

105. As a consequence of the above acts of defendants, plaintiff Pollack has suffered damages as set forth above and monetary damages in the amount of $50,000,000.00 plus interest.

106. As a consequence of the above acts of defendants, plaintiff Chesneys have suffered damages as set forth above and monetary damages in the amount of $50,000,000.00 plus interest.

MAIL and WIRE FRAUD

lEDNY AND EDNY Grievance Committee]

107. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 106 as though more fully set forth herein.

20

108. Defendants EDNY and EDNY Grievance Committee engaged in mail and wire fraud by intentionally using FEDEX packaging which required a signature of plaintiff Pollack to authorize its release but which was dumped at a residential address, not used by plaintiff Pollack for her mailings so that she would not receive it.

109. No one ever signed for the package and plaintiff Pollack never stipulated to release the package without a signature.

110. As a result, plaintiff Pollack was unlawfully suspended from practicing in the EDNY only for two (2) additional years, because she was deprived of the ability to respond to the contents of the package.

111. Any delivery confirmation date claimed by defendants is therefore fraudulent and invalid.

112. This intentional act deprived plaintiff Pollack of due process.

113. This intentional act deprived plaintiff Chesneys of their selected lawyer after six (6) years of litigation in EDNY and interfered with a private contractual relationship between Pollack and the Chesneys.

114. As a consequence of the above acts of defendants, plaintiff Pollack has suffered damages as set forth above and monetary damages in the amount of $50,000,000.00 plus interest.

115. As a consequence of the above acts of defendants, plaintiff Chesney has suffered damages as set forth above and monetary damages in the amount of $50,000,000.00 plus interest.

DOCKET TAMPERING and FILE DESTRUCTION [All Defendants]

21

116. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 115 as though more fully set forth herein.

117. Defendants have admittedly engaged in docket tampering in this Court and have refused to investigate the docket tampering and file destruction in the E.D.N.Y. as reported by plaintiffs Pollack and Chesney to Grievance and to the E.D.N.Y. Court in violation of the wire fraud statutes set forth above and state criminal law.

118. Upon information and belief, at all times herein, since at least 2004, particular members of the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, United States District Court, Eastern District of New York Grievance Committee, Chief Clerk of the Eastern District of New York Robert C. Heinemann, in his official and individual capacities and his agents, servants and employees, PACER Service Center, the Judicial Conference of the United States; United States Office of Records, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and "Does 1-100", each in its official and individual capacity, and in concert, by commission or omission permitted the extensive tampering of electronic dockets in cases such as Chesney to occur unabated to defeat the rights of disabled attorneys and litigants in this case and the rights of attorneys and litigants in general, all in violation of28 U.S.C. §§1734 and 1735 Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, Ch. 115:

Evidence: Court Record Lost or Destroyed When the United States is Interested. 29 U.S.C. § 1735(b) provides that "Whenever the United States is interested in any lost or destroyed records or files in a court ofthe United States, the clerk of such COU1t shall take the steps necessary to restore such records or files under the direction of the judges of

such COU1t."

22

119. The tampering and destruction of an official federal court public docket, file,

evidence and transcripts in Chesney [05cv51 06] were accomplished, in part, by removing

a fraudulent forged time sheet of plaintiff Chesney submitted as evidence to the Court in

the course of litigation, and other such acts to change and alter the docket so as to make

the docket unreliable to defraud the public.

120. Said rights were defeated as a result and despite the timely, repeated, formal

complaints made to all of these agencies by plaintiffs Pollack and Chesney.

121. As a consequence of the above acts of defendants, plaintiff Pollack have suffered

damages as set forth above and monetary damages in the amount of $50,000,000.00 plus

interest.

122. As a consequence of the above acts of defendants, plaintiff Chesney have suffered

damages as set forth above and monetary damages in the amount of $50,000,000.00 plus

interest.

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. §1983 AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

[All Defendants in their individual capacities]

Plaintiff Pollack

123. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through

122 as though more fully set forth herein.

124. Plaintiff Pollack was targeted for defamation, harassment, abuse, physically

beaten and retaliated against solely because she discovered and reported acts of serious

misconduct, docket tampering and corruption in her cases, in the legal system and the

private sector which constituted an abuse of power and a fraud upon the public.

23

125. Defendants, each in its individual capacity, subjected plaintiff Pollack to conduct

that occurred under color of state law, and this conduct deprived plaintiff Pollack of

rights, privileges, or immunities guaranteed under federal law or the U.S. Constitution.

126. Defendants' acts of sudden, unlawful suspension of plaintiff Pollack plaintiffs

ability to practice law based on hearsay and false statements were done to and did deprive

her of her ability to practice law, to act to protect the rights of others who chose her as

their attomey, engaged her in a contract to do so, all in violation of the First Amendment,

Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S C. §1983.

127. At all times herein, defendants' conduct was reckless or callously indifferent to the

federally protected rights of plaintiff Pollack andlor defendant was motivated by an evil

intent.

128. As a consequence of the above acts of defendants, plaintiff has suffered damages as

set forth above and monetary damages in the amount of $50,000,000.00 plus interest and

Punitive damages.

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. §1983 AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

[All Defendants in their official capacities]

Plaintiff Pollack

129. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 128

as though more fully set forth herein.

130. Plaintiff Pollack was targeted for deprivation of her civil rights and licensure,

defamation, harassment, abuse, physically beaten and retaliated against solely because

she discovered and reported acts of serious misconduct, docket tampering and corruption

24

in her cases, in the legal system and the private sector which constituted an abuse of

power and a fraud upon the public.

131. Defendants, each in its official capacities, subjected plaintiff Pollack to conduct

that occurred under color of state law, and this conduct deprived plaintiff Pollack of

rights, privileges, or immunities guaranteed under federal law or the U.S. Constitution.

132. Defendants' acts of sudden, unlawful suspension of plaintiff Pollack plaintiff's

ability to practice law based on hearsay and false statements were done to and did deprive

her of her ability to practice law, to act to protect the rights of others who chose her as

their attorney, engaged her in a contract to do so, all in violation of the First Amendment,

Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S C. §1983.

133. At all times herein, defendants' conduct was reckless or callously indifferent to the

federally protected rights of plaintiff Pollack and/or defendants were motivated by an evil

intent.

134. As a consequence of the above acts of defendants, plaintiff has suffered damages as

set forth above and monetary damages in the amount of $50,000,000.00 plus interest and

Punitive damages.

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. §1983 AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

[Against all defendants in their individual capacities]

Plaintiff Chesney

135. Plaintiff repeats and real leges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 134

as though more fully set forth herein.

25

136. Plaintiff Chesney was targeted for defamation, harassment, docket, file and

evidence tampering and destruction and retaliated against because they discovered and

reported acts of serious misconduct, docket tampering and corruption in their case, in the

legal system and the private sector, which constituted an abuse of power and a fraud upon

the public.

137. Defendants, each in its individual capacities, subjected plaintiff Chesney to conduct

that occurred under color of state law, and this conduct deprived plaintiff Chesney of

rights, privileges, or immunities guaranteed under federal law or the U.S. Constitution.

138. Defendants' acts of sudden, unlawful suspension of plaintiff Pollack deprived

plaintiff Chesney of its attorney of choice to litigate against several law firms, all in

violation of the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S

C. §1983.

139. At all times herein, defendants' conduct was reckless or callously indifferent to the

federally protected rights of plaintiff Chesney and/or defendant was motivated by an evil

intent.

140. As a consequence of the above acts of defendants, plaintiff has suffered damages as

set forth above and monetary damages in the amount of $50,000,000.00 plus interest and

Punitive damages.

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. §1983 AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

[Against all defendants in their official capacities)

Plaintiff Chesney

141. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 140

as though more fully set forth herein.

26

142. Plaintiff Chesney was targeted for defamation, harassment, docket, file and

evidence tampering and destruction and retaliated against because they discovered and

reported acts of serious misconduct, docket tampering and corruption in their case, in the

legal system and the private sector, which constituted an abuse of power and a fraud upon

the public.

143. Defendants, each in its official capacities, subjected plaintiff Chesney to conduct

that occurred under color of state law, and this conduct deprived plaintiff Chesney of

rights, privileges, or immunities guaranteed under federal law or the U.S. Constitution.

144. Defendants' acts of sudden, unlawful suspension of plaintiff Pollack deprived

plaintiff Chesney of its attorney of choice to litigate against severallaw firms, all in

violation of the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S

C. §1983.

145. At all times herein, defendants' conduct was reckless or callously indifferent to the

federally protected rights of plaintiff Chesney and/or defendant was motivated by an evil intent. io", Adler, Filosa, CabbIe, and Peltzer

146. As a consequence of the above acts of defendants, plaintiff has suffered damages as

set forth above and monetary damages in the amount of$50,000,000.00 plus interest and

Punitive damages.

VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C.§1983

(MONELL V. DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVS. 436 U.S. 658 (1977) [All State Defendants]

147. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1

through 146 as though more fully set forth herein.

148. The State bar, Appellate Division, the 101\ Adler, Filosa, Cabble, and Peltzer are

27

"persons" as that term is used in the text of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

149. Upon information and belief, the State Bar, Appellate Division, the io", Adler,

Filosa, Cabble, and/or Peltzer are at all relevant times supervisory defendants with

policymaking authority.

150. Upon information and belief, the State Bar, Appellate Division, the 10th, Adler,

Filosa, Cabbie, and/or Peltzer had contemporaneous knowledge that officials and

employees were engaged in unlawful conduct.

151. It would have been plainly obvious to a reasonable policymaker that such conduct

would lead. to deprivations of plaintiffs Pollack and Chesney's constitutional rights.

152. Upon information and belief, the supervisory defendants and other officials

nevertheless agreed, encouraged, approved, and ratified the unconstitutional conduct by

subordinates and employees.

153. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these policy decisions, plaintiffs Pollack

and Chesney were each deprived of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the

United States Constitution.

154. As a consequence of the above acts of defendants, plaintiff has suffered damages

as set forth above and monetary damages in the amount of $50,000,000.00 plus interest

and Punitive damages.

VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. §1983

[State Actors Make Determinations on an Exclusive Area of Federal Law]

155. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1

through 154 as though more fully set forth herein.

28

156. At all relevant times, state defendants misconstrued a federal law of contempt and used an unlawful contempt "conviction" of a petty offense to create a non-existent state law "serious crime" to retaliate against plaintiff Pollack further.

157. Since the process leading to the petty offense "conviction" was illegal and completely violative of due process, was based on hearsay, was obtained without any witnesses or evidence, all matters that are based on and derived from the proceedings are also null and void.

158. Minimum due process requirements would require federal and state defendants to report the tampering and file destruction as well as the nature of the case Pollack was trying to the u.s. Govermnent and Department of Homeland Security and other agencies for investigation. Instead, state defendants viewed themselves as supreme to the federal government and adopted the unlawful "contempt" petty offense "conviction" as its own false allegations.

159. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these acts and omissions, plaintiff Pollack was again deprived of her rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

160. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these acts and omissions, plaintiff Pollack has suffered economic loss, physical harm, emotional trauma and irreparable harm to her reputation.

161. As a further consequence of these deprivations, plaintiff Pollack is forced to engage in litigation and to incur the expenses of litigation to remedy defendants' unlawful conduct.

29

162. As a consequence of the above acts of defendants, plaintiff has suffered damages

as set forth above and monetary damages in the amount of $50,000,000.00 plus interest and Punitive damages.

CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1983

[Against state defendants in their official and individual capacities]

163. Plaintiffs Pollack repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 162 as though more fully set forth herein.

164. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, under color of state law, state defendants conspired and entered into express and/or implied agreements, understandings or meetings of the minds among themselves and Does 1-100 to deprive plaintiff Pollack of her due process, equal protection ofthe laws, and of her equal privileges and immunities under the laws, either directly or indirectly, by adopting false allegations that they knew or should have known were not true.

165. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, state defendants willfully participated in this illegal objective by various means, with the intent to further some purpose of the conspiracy.

166. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these acts and omissions, plaintiff Pollack was again deprived of her rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

167. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these acts and omissions, plaintiff Pollack has suffered economic loss, physical harm, emotional trauma and irreparable harm to her reputation.

30

168. As a further consequence ofthese deprivations, plaintiff Pollack is forced to engage in litigation and to incur the expenses oflitigation to remedy defendants' unlawful conduct.

169. As a consequence of the above acts of defendants, plaintiff has suffered damages as set forth above and monetary damages in the amount of $50,000,000.00 plus interest and Punitive damages.

CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1983

[Against state defendants in their official and individual capacities]

170. Plaintiffs Chesney repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 169 as though more fully set forth herein.

1 71. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, under color of state law, state defendants conspired and entered into express and/or implied agreements, understandings or meetings of the minds among themselves and Does 1-100 to deprive plaintiff Chesneys of their due process, equal protection of the laws, and of their equal privileges and immunities under the laws, either directly or indirectly, by adopting false allegations that they knew or should have known were not true.

172. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, state defendants willfully participated in this illegal objective by various means, with the intent to further some purpose of the conspiracy.

173. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these acts and omissions, plaintiff Chesney was again deprived of her rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

31

174. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these acts and omissions, plaintiff Chesney has suffered economic loss, physical harm, emotional trauma and irreparable harm to her reputation.

175. As a further consequence of these deprivations, plaintiff Chesney is forced to engage in litigation and to incur the expenses of litigation to remedy defendants' unlawful conduct.

176. As a consequence of the above acts of defendants, plaintiff has suffered damages as set forth above and monetary damages in the amount of $50,000,000.00 plus interest and Punitive damages.

INTENTIONAL and NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS [All Defendants]

177. Plaintiffs Chesney and Pollack repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 176 as though more fully set forth herein.

178. Defendants made repeatedly made false, insulting, offensive and inflammatory statements about plaintiffs for the purpose of harming them.

179. In combination with the conduct described above, defendants' conduct evidenced a pattern of extreme and outrageous behavior pursued with the intent to and/or to negligently cause plaintiffs emotional distress.

180. Defendants intentionally andlor negligently attempted to mark plaintiff Pollack as a "criminal" and Kevin G. Chesney as one who committed insurance fraud, all of which was false.

32

181. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these acts and omissions, plaintiffs each have suffered economic loss. physical harm, emotional trauma of the nature treated by licensed medical practitioners.

182. As a further consequence of these deprivations, plaintiffs are forced to engage in litigation and to incur the expenses oflitigation to remedy defendants' unlawful conduct. 183. As a consequence of the above acts of defendants, plaintiffs each has suffered damages as set forth above and monetary damages in the amount of $50,000,000.00 plus interest and Punitive damages

DEMAND FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs each respectfully request that the Court enter judgment and an order as follows:

a. On each cause of action, $50,000,000.00 plus punitive damages, interest, and costs;

b. A declaratory judgment stating that defendants violated plaintiffs' respective rights as set f011h herein;

c. For a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice or an independent prosecutor and all appropriate law enforcement agencies forthwith;

33

d. Injunctive relief: An injunction immediately halting all actions against

plaintiffs by defendants in any state or federal proceeding and restoring

plaintiff Pollack's ability to practice law in all courts;

e. Granting such other and further relief as is just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiffs request a trial by jury on all claims so triable.

Dated: Riverhead, New York January 18,2010

Respectfull y submitted,

~~~~7)

Plaintiff Sui Juris and

Attorney for Plaintiffs Chesney 21 West Second Street • Suite 13 P.O. Box 120

Riverhead, New York 11901-0120 Tel. 631- 591-3160

Fax. 631-591-3162

rZ:~:G7

LO~h:n~ c2!:

Kevin G. Chesney ... Plaintiffs

34

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ECF: lOCV00135 (HB)(THK) x

Ruth M. Pollack, Esq., Ruth M. Pollack, individually, Sui Juris,

Kevin G. Chesney and Lorraine Chesney,

Plaintiff,

-against-

STATE OF NEW YORK, STATE OF NEW YORK SECOND DEPARTMENT SUPREME COURT APPELLATE DIVISION; OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM; JAMES EDWARD PELTZER, in his Official and individual capacity; TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE, RITA E. ADLER, CHIEF COUNSEL, in her official and individual capacities; MICHELE FILOSA, ESQ.;

in her official and individual capacities; ROBERT H. CABBLE, ESQ., in his official and individual capacities; JAMES A. GOWAN, ESQ., in his official and individual capacities; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

GRIEV ANCE COMMITTEE; CIDEF CLERK OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ROBERT C. HEINEMANN, in his official and individual capacities; his agents, servants and employees; PAULAMARIE SUSI, in her official and individual capacities; PACER Service Center, IDDICIAL CONFERENCE OF

THE UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES OFFICE OF RECORDS; ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES COURTS and "JANE AND

JOHN DOES 1-100", the latter being those individuals and entities unknown to plaintiff;

Defendant.

______________________________________ ~ x

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Ruth M. Pollack, Esq. (RP1407)

Sui Juris Plaintiff and Counsel to Plaintiff Chesney 21 West Second Street

Post Office Box 120

Riverhead, New York 11901

Tel. 631-591-3160

Fax. 631-591-3162

Locar Govemment and School Accountability - Audits of Local Governments

Page 1 of

About DiNapoli

Home> Local Government> Audits

Newsroom

Unclaimed Funds

Retirement

Pension Fund

Audits 8. Publications State Finances

State Agencies

Public Authorities

Local Government

NYC Oversight

Vendors

OSC Procurements

Investigations

Legal Opinions

Oil Spill Fund

College Savings

WorKing Here

Contact Us

Local Government and School Accountability fSearch

Audits of Local Governments

Auditors of the Division of Local Government and School Accountability conduct performance audits. Performance audits are objective and systematic examinations of evidence for the purpose of providing an independent assessment of the performance of your organization to improve public accountabifity and deciSion-making.

"What Our Peers Say About Us"

Local Government Audit Reports from 2003 to Present

Understanding the Audit Process

Am I required to have an audit?

How is all audit scheduled?

Responding to an OSC Audit Report

Contact LG5A

Useful Links

New Releases: (date posted to this site)

November 12, 2009

Syracuse City School District [pdf] ! Open/Ciose Summary ~

Stony Point, Town of [pdf] f Open/Close Summary "

November 10, 2009

Deerpark, Town of [pdf] I Open/Close Summary

> v

November 9, 2009

Beacon CIty School District [pdf] f Open/Close Summary

~ .

Hammond Central School District [pdf] ! Open/Close Summary ~

Otsego Northern Catskills BOCES [pdf] f Open/Close Summary

. ~

tttp:llwww.osc.state.ny.us!localgov/audits/index.htm

1 1 f 1 'J ''''I ()flO

Local Government: Schools and BOCES Audit Reports

Page 13 of 14

computer data. [complete audit - pdf]

1f V. Valley Stream #24 - Internal Controls [pdf] I Open/Close Summary ...

Internal Controls Over Selected Financial Operations

District officials did not retain an unreserved, unappropriated fund balance within the statutory limit. As of June 3D, 2008, the unreserved, unappropriated fund balance in the general fund totaled $3.09 million, which was more than three times the $1.02 million allowed by Law. This excessive fund balance resulted mainly from operating surpluses that were either not allocated to legal reserves or used to reduce real property taxes. In addition, the District's claims auditing process is not appropriately designed and operating effectively. We reviewed 38 claims totaling $22,055 and found that the Board did not properly audit 18 claims totaling $13,006, which contained various deficiencies related to itemization and documentation. FinalJy, we found that controls over the student activities account are not appropriately designed. [complete audit - pdf]

'* /. Valley Stream 1t30 - Internal Controls [pdf] I Open/Close Summary ".

Internal Controls Over Selected Operations

Although the Board has adopted a purchasing policy, District officials did not always ensure that employees complied with the policy. We tested payments made to nine professional services providers who were paid a total of $456,983 during our audit period. District officials procured services from five of the professional service providers, totaling $198,624, without the benefit of competition. In addition, the District paid two of these providers $102,090 for legal services without a written agreement. District officials did not have a procedure in place to ensure that criminal background checks were performed and filed with New York State Education Department's Office of School Personnel Review and Accountability (OSPRA) for a sample of five individuals (three independent contractors and two agency-provided therapists) who had, or were expected to have, direct contact with students. Finally, internal controls over the District's IT system also need to be strengthened. [complete audit - pdf]

" Van Hornesville-Owen D. Young - Internal Controls [pdf] I Open/Close Summary ....


Iw-x-v-z

~ Wallkill - Internal Controls [pdf] I Open/Close Summary ...

.. Wantagh - Internal Controls [pdf] I Open/Close Summary ....

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/schools/2009.htm

2/1612010

Local Government: Schools and BOCES Audit Rep011s

Page 12 of 14

~ South Mountain Hickory - Internal Controls [pdf] I Open/Close Summary ....

• Spackenkill - Internal Controls [pdf] I Open/Close Summary v

~ Spencerport - Reserve and Debt Service Funds [pdf] I Open/Close Summary ....

• St. Lawrence-Lewis BOCES - Internal Controls [pdf] I Open/Close Summary v

• Susquehanna Valley - Internal Controls [pdf] I Open/Close Summary ,..-

• Sweet Home - Financial Condition and Internal Controls [pdf] I Open/Close Summary ....

• Syracuse - Internal Controls [pdf] I Open/Close Summary .....

... Back to Top

T-U-V

~ Thousand Islands - Internal Controls [pdf] I Open/Close Summary ...

~ Troy - Budget Review [pdf] I Open/Close Summary ....

• Union Springs - Financial Condition [pdf] I Open/Close Summary ....

~ Utica - Internal Controls [pdf] I Open/Close Summary ....

• Valley Central - Internal Controls [pdf] I Open/Close Summary ....

/ po Valley Stream #13 - Internal Controls [pdf] I Open/Close Summary ....

Internal Controls Over Selected Financial Operations

At June 3D, 2008, the EBALR had a balance of $4.2 million, which was more than four times the amount of the related liability. Therefore, the EBALR was overfunded by a total of $3.3 million. The District established this reserve without a Board resolution. The District also used a total of more than $900,000 from this reserve in the 2003-04 and 2004-05 fiscal years for improper purposes. The Board appointed a Treasurer annually and referred to the Treasurer being paid a "retainer," rather than a salary, as would be the case generally with an officer.

The manner in which the Treasurer has been compensated indicates that the District treated the Treasurer as if she were an independent contractor. However, the Treasurer's responsibilities cannot be delegated to an independent contractor. The District's procurement policy did not require using competition when obtaining professional services. Finally, District officials need to improve controls over

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/schools/2009.htm

2/16/2010

State: LI schools amass $615M in excess funds

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.convnewsday/access/l 958391621.html?dids"" ...

Server not found

PhOt05 11 Video

Blogs

Hot Topics

Search

Document

t.,QCHI\.'ES

Basic. Search Adv3nccd Se:::rch SO,"8d Seorch About lho Archive Se~rd1 Tip:; Pricmg

FAO

M:; Account I+o:p

Terms

L091n

Home

CMS

JOBS

REftLESTATE

PLACE A'I JlD

r.~onE CLASS~FIEDS

'\."i/EATHER

OB!TUMIES

LotlG ISLA'JC

NEW YOm( CITY

tJAT!ON I:. VlORLD

=cimcs

SPORTS

HIGH SCHOOLS

EtHERTAitJr-IENT

lIFE5TYlE

EXPLORE U

TRAVEL

HEALTH & FlTNESS

OP!NlotJ

COLUMrJl5T5

BUSlNESS

TECHr';OLOGY

BLOGS

PHOTOS S. t~DEO

smV:CES

lof2

Subscribe to Newsd~y ~!,gir1 or L~9i!;t'U"

Things to Do

Start a New Search I Previous Results

Buy Complete Document: rtrE"bstrilct [] S Funoxl

State: LI schools amass $615M in excess funds

Newsday - Long Island, N.Y.

Author: JOHN

Date: Feb 10, 2010

Start Page: A.S

Section: NEWS

Text Word Count: 635

Abstract (Document Summary)

Robert Lowry, deputy director of the State Council of School Superintendents, who attended yesterday's news conference, said in an interview that any state move to authorize tax-stabilization reserves could help districts build adequate "rainy day" funds.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproductlcn cr dtstributlen is. probjbned 'Without permrsson.

Buy Complete Document: fTI'Efobstroct DSFu:ITo,1

Most Viewed Articles (Updated Doily)

A 'Virgin' Falls For Train to Niagara

JACI(POTS!, Lotto joy on LI, A Sea Cliff mom and kids make a landmarl, Lotto haul, and a Levittown

\'/ ...

COOL 2 KNOW, DEVIANTART.COM,

o BITUARI ES I Mary vVilkinson Streep, Mother of the Actress Mor(1an Daughter Dies Last surviving cllild was 92

Log In

Hannovor Relicfl Intolddote0 will help you look forward to tomorrow moming ag~in!

www ir.~Q)·i':::Cl!l com

Mortaagc Rata Drop" to 4.0% FIXED!

S200,QQO teen for S70B/month. Free QuotesNo SSN Rqd. Save S 1000s! f.~ortg3gr:_Rc'-;ri8-l1:::cFrQrr!J(;r,_.

111 Anti·Agina Cream? Top anli-oging products reviewed, You11 be amazed with the discovery!

v ... l\.'I.\·/~l:::l!e11i::; com

2009 Top 10 War« At Home

Top 10 Scam Free Won, AI. Home Jobs. Eam Good Money Working AI. Home! WCc:.~4yTCor,-:;umcr·r;c.,: .. :;;r~:!

RofiniJnco Now 4.1{'1{~ FIXED!

No hidden 1005-4.4% Al'R! No ObHg3tion. Get 4 FREE mortgage quotes

IW/W lcndGo com

2118/20 I 0 6:25 AM

VALLEY STREAM: State audits critical of2 districts Districts No. 24 ...

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.comfnewsday/accessI18981 03591.html?dids"" ...

SCIVcr not found

Photno & Vide 0

Hot Toplc5

Search

Document

"'"'CHIVES

Basic Search Ac1;ar1ce-d Sezrch Su,,,,d secrcn About t'ie Arcruva search Tips Pricing

FAQ

r.';y Account H2'P

Terms Logm

Home

cms

JOSS

REtL ESTATE

PlACEt.'Jm

r.~ORE CU..sS!Ff::DS

\'lEATHER

OBiTUt.RIES

lOlJG rSu.'ID

1JEI'J YORl( CITY

NAnON & WORLD

POUTiCS

SPOR1S

HIGH SCHOOLS

EtJTERTMJt.1ENT

Llr-ESTYLE

EXPLORE u

TRAVEL

HEtLTH t. FITNESS

OfiiNlOtJ

COLUMNJ5TS

BUS!~ESS

TECHNOLOGY

SLOGS

PKOTOS ~ VlDEO

r,JB':S TOOLS

Iof2

Subscribe to Newsd8y LQgirj or Legli;J"(,

BlagG

Thing~ to Do

Start a New Search I Previous Results

Buy Complete Oocument: FiirEPbOlr.cl Ds Fu:1 Toxt

VALLEY STREAM: State audits critical of 2 districts Districts No. 24 and 30 cited for discrepancies Both state they have corrected the flaws

Newsday - Long Island, N.Y.

Author: JOHN HILDEBRAND

Date: Nov 11, 2.009

Start Page: A.26

Section: NEWS

Text Word Count: 450

Abstract (Document Summary)

Six teachers and other staffers in the Valley Stream No. 24 school district obtained reimbursement for nearly $3,000 in convention expenses without submitting registration forms or other proof of attendance, according to state auditors, who also fault the district for accumulating excess cash reserves.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright oWI'IJ'tr. Farther reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.

Buy Complete Document: F;rE Pbstrocl Ds Fu:1 To>i

Most Viewed Articles (Updotod Doily)

A 'Virgin' Falls For Train to Niagara

JACI(POTS!. Lotto joy on L!. A Sea Cliff mom and I~ids make a landnurl, Lotto 113UI. and a Levittown

VI" ..

COOL 2 I(NOW, DEVIANTART.COM,

OBITUARIES / Mary Will;inson Streep, Mother of the Actress Mornan DauQhter Dies Last surviving child was 92

Login

Hongovor Relief! Inloxidole9 will help you look forward to tomorrow moming agiJint

IT,· r. v.intoxtote com

Mortgafjo Rotc props to 4.0% FIXED!

S200.000 loan far S708lmonth. Free QuotesNo SSN Rqd. Save S10005! r.r~rt!lJ[l(l_R(l~n:;;nc,:F(Onlic.r ,.

1i1 Anti-Aging Cream? Top unli-llging products reviewed. You'lI be amazed with the di!icovery'

\'IVI'o'I w~1;::~crt::; corn

200S Top 10 Worl, At Home

Top 1 D Scam Free WOn( At Home Jobs. E~m Good Money WorkinG AI Home! wct:h.I!l'Ccn~umcr·~.~·:I:j.!C:!

Rofin::mcc Now 4_1{'1':-~ FIXED!

No hidden fees-4.4% APR! No Obligation. Get 4 FREE mortooge quotes.

W\'NJ .lendGo com

Buya Enk here

2fl8f2010 6:28 AM

VALLEY STREAM: Account overfunded, audit says State criticizes sc ...

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.comlnewsday/access/ 1935122481.html ?dids=.,.

Server not found

PhQt()~ 8. Video

Hot Topics

Search

Document

Ba5~C Se;::;rch Advanced Search Sa'.'3d Search About 1il3 Archl\.'3 Search Tipo PncHig

FAQ

r/;j Accomt H<.:p rcrrrc Login Home cms JOBS REAL ESTATE PLACEh'l so MORE ClASs)F!EOS \'IEATHER 08ITUAi'lIES LONG !SLA'JD rIE\'/YOR!( CITY riATlDtI Il. WORLD POLITICS SPORTS HIGH SCHOOLS ErJTERTftJW,1ENT LlFE$TYLE EXPLOREL! TRNJEL HEt.!... TH S. srrr.ass COLUMNISTS BUSI~JE.SS TECHtlOLOGY SLOGS PHOTOS &. ViDEO t~E\".'5 TOOLS SEIlVoCES OUR PROGRt.MS 10f2 Subscribe 10 Newsday ~gj~ or r~gisler BlOg5 Thin!J5 to Do Start a New Search t Previous Results Buy Complete Document: ,l1'Ef>llstract Ds Fu1 To>1

VALLEY STREAM: Account overfunded, audit says State criticizes school district 13 liability reserve

Newsday - Long Island, NY.

Author: JOI E

Date:

Start Page:

Section:

Text Word Count:

Jan 8, 2010 A.26

NEWS

450

Abstract (Document Summary)

State law says the only costs that can be paid from these reserve funds are for compensated absences earned by and paid to employees (or to a third party on their behalf) at the time of separation, along with related administrative costs.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distrlbutlcn is prohibited without permission.

Buy Complete Document: ,l1'E f>ll51r.C! Ds Fu:t Te>1

Most Viewed Articles IUpdoied Doily)

A 'Virgin' Fails For Train to Niagara

JAC!~POTSI, Lotto joy on LI, A Sea Cliff mom and II ids make a landmark Lotto haul, and a Levittown

w ...

COOL 2 KNOW, DEVIANTART.COM,

OBITUARIES / Mary Wilkinson Streep, Moti"m of the Actress Mornan Oaunhter Dies Last surviving child was 92

Login

Hanqov er Ro!iofl Inlo>:idole
'\'I\',W uttoxdctc cern

Mortgage Rotc Drop" to 4.0% F[XEDf

S200,OOO 10Jn for S708/month. Free QuotesNo SSN Rqd. Save S 1 OOOs! ~.~-artg::-g~ .gerrunccrrcnner

t~1 Anti-Aglng Cream? Top anti·~ging products reviewed. You'll be omazed with the discovery!

\'/\','&'1 ':J::;1-O-j~rt!,"; com

2009 Top 10 Worr, At Home

Top 10 Scam Free Work.o'J Horne Jobs, E~m Good Money Won,Ing At Home! \N~~~..ti·cc:n~umcr~N;:;'·I:::r;;H

Rcfin~ncc Now 4.1% FIXED!

No hidden fees4.4% .APR! No Oblig~tion. Gel 4 FREE martgsge quotes.

':",".\'/ LcndG-::o cern

BUYil nnk here

211 8/20 10 6:23 AM

NYSED:: Report Fraud Waste and Abuse

NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

The New York State Education Department (NYSED) is interested in information pertaining to fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement of local, state, or federal education funds (including information on vendors who receive education funds). Both the Board of Regents and the Commissioner of Education take these concerns very seriously. Once an allegation of fraud, waste, or abuse is received, NYSED will take the following actions:

• Conduct a preliminary assessment, with one of the following three results:

1. Begin an audit or review;

2. Forward your information to a more apporpriate agency or authority;

3. Close the case.

Individuals who make an allegation are not required to identify themselves; they may remain:

Anonymous: Regardless of whether or not you provide contact information (name, address, e-mail, phone number) it will not be released to anyone outside of the Office of Audit Services, and you will not receive a response or any other contact from us in the future. Your complaint may be forwarded to another office or agency.

Confidential: The contact information you provide (name, address, e-mail, phone number) may be released to other offices. Your request to remain confidential will be included.

Not stated, or no restriction: The information you provided is free to be used at the discretion of our office and may be shared with other offices, or outside entities.

Tips for submitting information

How to Report

If you have information you would like to report to NYSED you may choose anyone of the following reporting methods:

1. Electronic Complaint Form

2. E-Mail: FWA\almail.nysed.aov

3. Fax: 518-473-0259

4. Phone: 518-474-3062

5. Mail: New York State Education Department Office of Audit Services, Room 524 EB 89 Washington Avenue

Albany, New York 12234

http://www.oms.nysed.gov/oas/fraud/

Source of Post
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_heU7ZadLcoJ:www.scribd.com/doc/29338796/Pollackchesney-Complaint+%22account+overfunded+audit+says%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

More on the Ruth M. Pollack and KEVIN G. CHESNEY at
www.SecondDepartment.com and
http://www.concealingdocuments.com/

Posted Here by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger

Got a Tip?
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Where are the Documents? Ruth M. Pollack - See you Can't "Appeal" if there are No Records, Right? Convenient, don't ya Think.

Order, denying the Appellant's motion to Stay the Appeal and for other relief, by JAC Filed. ...

Letter, dated 3-29-2010, indicating that "not one element of the record on appeal exists, to wit: there is no file, no official electronic docket and materials... there can be no appeal in this case," .... Click on Photo Above to Enlarge...

Go to www.SecondDepartment.com or www.ConcealingDocuments.com

Where are the Documents? Ruth M. Pollack - See you Can't "Appeal" if there are No Records, Right? Convenient, don't ya Think.

Order, denying the Appellant's motion to Stay the Appeal and for other relief, by JAC Filed. ...

Letter, dated 3-29-2010, indicating that "not one element of the record on appeal exists, to wit: there is no file, no official electronic docket and materials... there can be no appeal in this case," .... Click on Photo Above to Enlarge...

Go to www.SecondDepartment.com or www.ConcealingDocuments.com

Eliot Spitzer DiD not Resign Due to a Call Girl. Follow Andrew Cuomo and Eliot Spitzer's Money Trail.

"following Cuomo's role model, Spitzer, and Spitzer's money trail"

""Follow Cuomo's and Spitzer's Money Trails Pursuing "The Ring."

First, following Cuomo's role model, Spitzer, and Spitzer's money trail (Or How the People of NY lost big):

If you believe Eliot Spitzer resigned only because of a whore, please contact me for a three life or 99 year lease on a bridge. Spitzer funded his Governor's campaign with a shakedown that damaged NY finances.

Here's a quote from Great Britain on the election of Eliot Spitzer:

"Barring the most astonishing electoral upset in history, Eliot Spitzer will, by the time you read this, be governor-elect of New York.

History will come to view him as one of the most damaging figures in the history of the state. It is difficult to imagine that he will, as governor, do anything to counter the damage he has already done to American business, or even that he would wish to do so.

As governor, he will probably continue to make things much worse."

Read the whole article at http://www.quentinlangley.net/article.php?ex=-1&id=290

Was Spitzer worth his cost to the People of NY? Should Spitzer have become our first Jewish President?

NYT's Wake Up Call: Did Clinton resign because of Monica? Did Spitzer resign because his moral standing was eroded? Did Spitzer have a moral standard? Did Spitzer resign, because there was a more to hide, and he got a deal, he couldn't refuse from federal prosecutors? If federal prosecutors offered a deal, do the People have to accept it, also?

Second, following Cuomo's money trail:

Is Cuomo like Spitzer, a Gollum, obsessed with the "Ring," and becoming Governor and our first Italian president?

Do the People of NY benefit when Cuomo shakes down lawyers for his campaign treasury, instead of Spitzer shaking down Wall Street? Cuomo built a 16 million dollar campaign fund with payoffs by lawyers with cases against NY State.

In the end don't the payoffs made to Cuomo's treasury come at the expense of the People of NY whose interests were compromised? Was the salary paid by the People of NY insufficient for Cuomo' needs?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a0OvxJSr7EbU

Matthew 6:24 "No man can serve two masters" nor can the People's attorney.

Here is the applicable Disciplinary Rule copied from the NY State's Codes, Rules and Regulations:

DR 5-101 [1200.20] Conflicts of Interest - Lawyer's Own Interests.

A lawyer shall not accept or continue employment if the exercise of professional judgment on behalf of the client will be or reasonably may be affected by the lawyer’s own financial, business, property, or personal interests, unless a disinterested lawyer would believe that the representation of the client will not be adversely affected thereby and the client consents to the representation after full disclosure of the implications of the lawyer’s interest.

Questions in regard the blue text above for Andrew Cuomo:

1. Did you obtain the consent of the People after full disclosure of the implications before you took the money for your own personal campaign interests? Answer -NO.

2. A special prosecutor?

3. Is your defense, Spitzer did it first? ""

Source of Post
http://cuomotarp.blogspot.com/2010/04/follow-cuomos-and-spitzers-money-trails.html

Posted here by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox

Jame E. Pelzer - Second Department - New York Reported to Be Issuing Unethical and UnLawful Suspensions on Lawful Ethical New York Attorneys

In the Matter of Ruth M. Pollack - James Edward Pelzer

Sources say that Ruth M. Pollack was Illegally and Unethical Suspended as a New York Attorney, her Civil Rights have been violated and sources say that she is not taking it laying down.

So the question .... is James Pelzer - Clerk of Court handing out Attorney Suspensions for Political Favors, Pay Offs, OR are they actually based in Law, Truth and What Really Happened?
Does James Edward Pelzer have to Prove that an Attorney actually committed a crime or did something unlawful or does James E. Pelzer just hand out suspensions like candy...???

See in New York.. My Whistleblower Network talks about an incredible, historic Wall of Corruption.. it is said that Attorneys all know each other and they are above the Law. So the Big Law Firms are protected to committ Billion Dollar Crimes and no one seems to have the Moxy to hold them accountable for anything...

I am seeing in Court Corruption across the United States in Big and Small Courts, that the Law is irrelevant and that the Truth is No Defense. However, the law is forced, faked, staged to set up those who know to much, or speak out against corruption or injustice.. it happens the same in small towns and the biggest of cities... the Game is the Same... easily set up the "Good Guy" for a Text Message, a Faked Incident.. and well you would be shocked.. this to run them out of business and bring the Ol' Economic Terrorism, take their livelihood - take their credibility and ruin their life all to protect some unethical behavior that some Well Connected Attorney or Politician has done... it is Wrong Folks.. Flat out Wrong..

Those of you Who Follow My Blogs.. know that .. it is simple.. the Truth is Criminal.. and the courts, the clerks and corrupt attorneys will make sure you go down for it.. that simple.. I have now seen it over and over again..

Below is a Suspension Letter to New York Attorney Ruth M. Pollack, I found it online.. it is My Opinion that this Letter from James E. Pelzer is Illegal, Not Based in Fact, Not Based in Truth, Not Based in Law and that this Letter is a Civil Violation of Ruth Pollack's Rights.

Stay Tuned to Our Blog Network for More on the Ruth M. Pollack Story, as we uncover More TRUTH out of the Second Departmet - www.SecondDepartment.com

Got a Tip
Email Me at
Crystal@CrystalCox.com


"" In the Matter of Ruth M. Pollack, admitted
as Ruth Marie Pollack, an attorney and
counselor-at-law.

Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, petitioner;
Ruth M. Pollack, respondent.

(Attorney Registration No. 1892660)

By letter dated January 27, 2009, the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial
District informed the court that the respondent was convicted on September 26, 2008, of criminal contempt pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure rule 42 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York.

She was sentenced by the Honorable Allyne R. Ross to unsupervised probation for a period of two years and suspended from the practice of law in the Eastern District of New York for a period of 45 days.

The Grievance Committee submitted certified copies of the judgment dated September 26, 2008, the memorandum and verdict dated September 19, 2008, and the sentencing minutes dated September 26, 2008, and took the position that the respondent’s conviction qualifies as a serious crime within the meaning of Judiciary Law § 90(4)(d) and 22 NYCRR 691.7(b). Notwithstanding that order of suspension, the respondent continued to practice law in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York.

Accordingly, by order dated December 31, 2008, the Committee on Grievances for the Eastern District of New York suspended the respondent from the practice of law before that court for a period of two years.

The Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District also submitted a certified copy of that order to the court and served the respondent with a notice pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.3 informing her of her right to file a verified statement setting forth defenses to the imposition of reciprocal discipline.

The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on October 26, 1983, under the name Ruth Marie Pollack.

Upon the papers submitted to the court, it is ORDERED that on the court’s own motion, the respondent Ruth M. Pollack, admitted as Ruth Marie Pollack, is immediately suspended from the practice of law pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(f) as a result of her conviction of a serious crime, continuing until further order of this court;

and it is further, ORDERED that the respondent, Ruth M. Pollack, admitted as Ruth Marie Pollack, shall promptly comply with this court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended, and resigned attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,

ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, during the period of suspension and
until further order of this court, the respondent, Ruth M. Pollack, admitted as Ruth Marie Pollack, is commanded to desist and refrain from

(1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or agent, clerk, or employee of another,

(2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority,

(3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and

(4) holding herself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further,

ORDERED that on the court's own motion, the Grievance Committee for the Tenth
Judicial District is hereby authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding in this court, as petitioner, against the said Ruth M. Pollack, admitted as Ruth Marie Pollack, based on her conviction of a serious crime; and it is further,

ORDERED that Rita E. Adler, Chief Counsel to the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, 150 Motor Parkway, Suite 102, Hauppauge, N.Y. 11788, is hereby appointed as attorney for the petitioner in such proceeding; and it is further,

ORDERED that the petitioner Grievance Committee shall serve upon the respondent and the Special Referee and file with this court a petition within 30 days after receipt of a copy of this decision and order on motion; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent shall serve an answer to the petition upon the petitioner and the Special Referee and file the original answer with this court within 20 days after service upon her of the petition; and it is further,

ORDERED that the issues raised by the petition and any answer thereto are referred
to the Honorable James A. Gowan, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, 90 Sequams Lane East, West Islip, N.Y. 11795, as Special Referee to expeditiously hear and report, together with his findings on the issues, and to submit a report within 60 days after the conclusion of the hearing or the submission of post-hearing memoranda; and it is further,

ORDERED that if the respondent, Ruth M. Pollack, admitted as Ruth Marie Pollack,
has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned forthwith to the issuing agency and the respondent shall certify to the same in her affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.10(f); and it is further,

ORDERED that the Grievance Committee’s application pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.3
to impose reciprocal discipline upon the respondent is denied as academic.

PRUDENTI, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, SPOLZINO and FISHER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court ""

Source of Post
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad2/calendar/webcal/motions/2009/M88523.pdf

Do you have a Tip on Jame E. Pelzer ?

We are getting information on James Edward Pelzer - Clerk of the Court - Second Judicial Department - Appellate Division ... it is said that Jame E. Pelzer is possibly... simply handing out suspensions as the one above without approval, not based in law or fact but instead based on the New York Attorney Fraternity and the Culture of Corruption that we hear so much about out of New York - Especially the "Second Department.

If you have any Knowledge of Possible Unethical or Corrupt actions from or by James Edward Pelzer - Please Email your Whistleblower Tip to me at Crystal@CrystalCox.com

More Facts and the TRUTH about Ruth M. Pollack Coming Soon to my New Investigative Blog - www.SecondDepartment.com

Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com