"" 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
No comments:
Post a Comment