State of New York, et al.
1. The plaintiff, Harlow Zirkind, will move this court, before the Honorable Judge Korman, at the United States Courthouse, 225 Cadmen Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY, on the ____ day of the month of _________, 19___, dismissing defendant's, Stella Arsenakos, Esq., motion to dismiss; ordering discovery; and/or setting of a trial date to determine matters of fact and law in dispute; if appropriate imposing sanctions for requesting sanctions when sanctions are not warranted or justified; and for any such further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
2. The plaintiff hereby reaffirms each and every allegation contained in the complaint that the defendant Stella Arsenakos, Esq: conspired and/or acted in concert with other defendants; and/or violated the plaintiff's civil rights; and/or exceeded her jurisdiction; and/or made misrepresentations to, and/or perpetrated frauds upon New York State Courts as well as misrepresented her clients Pesach Hai Shaul and Malkitzedek Zirkind. In addition, the plaintiff will augment and further define those claims with further claims and/or instances within this reply and in the memorandum of law to be submitted after all defendants have answered.
3. As to the defendant's claim that the plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against the defendants, this defense is ridiculous. This matter will be fully addressed in the memorandum of law.
4. The defendants violated the plaintiff's civil rights many times in many ways and in various combinations and permutations. A brief statement of the cause of action is stated below which in no way detracts from the detailed description in the complaint or to be submitted in the memorandum of law:
A. The defendants Mazal Zirkind, Mark A. Feldman, Herschel Kurzrock, Mendel Epstein, and The Rabbinical Alliance of America, conspired to coerce the plaintiff to commit a religious ritual that he does not wish to perform as well as to consent to an unequitable divorce agreement, by initiating and protracting a malicious prosecution predicated on false child and sexual abuse charges and abusing the process which includes but is not limited to New York State Family Court, court appointed mental health facilities and evaluators and other New York State and City government officials and agencies.
B. In addition they acted in this manner for: sexism, sizeism, the (religious or dogmatic) belief or creed in divorce as opposed to the Judeo-Christian belief in marriage as well as the creed that divorce is good for children as opposed to the Judeo-Christian belief that divorce is bad for children, Hellenistic Jewish practices and beliefs, greed, corruption, and lying and covering up.
C. By the above mentioned actions and/or processes, the plaintiff had monies and property confiscated; was evicted from his home; denied access to his home; and denied access, society and parenting of his children.
D. This conspiracy and violation of civil rights was condoned and aided by Judge Karen S. Burstein who shares the values and beliefs of the above mentioned and abused her position to allow the malicious prosecution to continue; and having financial domination over the law guardian so instructed or intimated to the law guardian to aid and abet the malicious prosecution. The law guardian who shares similar values and beliefs as well as having a personal financial gain of government funds, was only to happy to be accommodating.
5. The plaintiff is filing In Propria Persona. The plaintiff is not a lawyer or student of United States law. Therefore, in accordance with District court procedure, the plaintiff's complaint must be liberally construed and if some claim has been stated, no matter how inarticulately, the court should address the matter. For brevity's sake, the plaintiff respectfully refers this court to the section of the original complaint, titled IN PROPRIA CONSIDERATIONS, for case citations as precedents and substantiating this claim.
6. In the defendant's motion to dismiss she admits in paragraph 5, that the defendant was appointed by Judge Karen S. Burstein and that this is pursuant to New York State law. A law guardian's appointment by an individual judge in an individual case IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE with New York State law. The establishment of the need of a law guardian in a case by a judge is New York State law and the appointment of the law guardian by a judge AFTER SELECTION BY LOTTERY is proper procedure as stated in the Court Rules of the Office of Court Administration. In family court, the procedure is that the CLERK'S OFFICE is to select by lottery: both the judges and law guardians for an individual case. Should this matter be contested, the plaintiff requests that pursuant to 28 USC 2201, this matter of fact in dispute be put to trial by jury. The plaintiff refers the court to paragraph 15 of the plaintiff's reply to Rabbis Mendel Epstein and Herschel Kurzrock for substantiating citations of 28 USC 2201. This admission on the part of the law guardian of being appointed by Judge Burstein as opposed to a proper, unbiased and fair procedure clearly indicates a connection between the Judge Karen S. Burstein and the law guardian Stella Arsenakos.
7. Furthermore, be it known to this court that the law guardians are paid by the state, by being reimbursed for vouchers issued/approved by the judge. As such, the law guardian has a very strong pecuniary interest in favoring the parties the judge favors as in plain English, "The judge signs the law guardian's check." The defendant alludes to this in paragraph 21 of her motion to dismiss by stating, "The relationship between a court appointed attorney and his client is no different that any other attorney-client relationship except for the source of payment." In addition pursuant to the Office of Court Administration's Court Rules, sections 679.4 - 679.9, the eligibility and competency of an attorney to be on the panel of law guardians, is determined by JUDICIAIL committee of the Appeallate Division (The significance of the Appeallate Division will become apparent in further replies.). It is quite clear that JUDICIAL recommendation employs or terminates employment of a law guardian. As such, the law guardian is beholden to the judge and not the clients; and with children misrepresentation can very easily occur without remand or complaint as it did in the family court case under question.
A. The pecuniary motive of the defendant is sufficient to include her in the conspiracy even if the defendant had no other motive,
B. Even if there was no discussion about actions to be taken the mere fact that the law guardian's action would be in tandem with the judge's unconstitutional and bigotted actions -- for whatever reason -- is sufficient cause of action for a 42 USC 1985 action. Complaint, paragraphs 146-149. The plaintiff maintains that this assessment of the acts that transpired is a serious issue that must be put to a jury before dismissal as per 28 USC 2201.
C. The fact that there is no known record to the defendant of any law guardian in the State of New York ever appealling a judge's decision is proof in and of itself that no law guardian of the 18B panel will ever make a statement or recommendation contrary to a judge's wishes.
8. While the defendant maintains in paragraph 6 - 8 in her motion to dismiss that her job, function and JURISDICTION is to be objective and furnish the court with objective third party information; that her job and JURISDICTION is to represent the children; and that the defendant did so zealously; and that the defendant never EXCEEDED HER JURISDICTION by representing the wife in the proceedings. These statements are half truths and misrepresentations: It is the law guardian's job and JURISDICTION to represent the children and provide an objective opinion which carries much wieght on the judges decision. The law guardian did NOT do so at all. The only zealousness possessed by the law guardian was her antagonistic manner to the father, the plaintiff in this case; her jihad to defame the father; her aiding and abetting the wife in the brainwashing of the children; her conspiring with Nick Chimienti and Naftoli Berill to produce false forensic reports for which they will be paid for by government funds; her attempts to coerce, trick and lure the father by unethical and other means into situations whereby false forensic reports could be produced; her outright lies to the court about the children's wishes and other matters of fact with absolute derilicition of duty, fraud and misrepresentation to the court; and while the law guardian did not represent the wife, the law guardian did co-counsel the case with the wife and the wife's attorney, Mark A. Feldman on numerous occasions. The co-counseling of the wife was witnessed by Dr. Monty Weinstein who has submitted an affidavit to this court about the matter. Exhibit 1. All the above are a matter of serious and grevious fact in dispute that the plaintiff must insist be put to jury trial for determination pursuant to 28 USC 2201 before dismissal of this case.
9. The defendant sought and received an ex-parte order for "supervised visitation" by Nick Chimenti at Mapleton-Midwood and forensic evaluations by Dr. Naftoli Berrill. Exhibit 2. Nick Chimenti's impropriety is discussed in paragraph 25 of this motion and will be discussed at length in a reply to his motion to dismiss or answer when the plaintiff receives such papers. Dr. Berrill's impropriety is discussed in paragraph 24 of this motion and will be addressed in reply to his motion to dismiss.
10. The defendant attempted to violate procedure and ethical conduct by writing to this plaintiff directly even though the plaintiff was represented by counsel at the time. Furthermore, this action was brought to the attention of the disciplinary committee of the 2nd Dept. Exhibit 3. The plaintiff was never informed of any investigation and/or the outcome of an investigation. The plaintiff was merely told by his lawyers that the defendant said, "She could not contact the father, and the father had dropped his attorney, and because the father's new attorney had not responded to her letters and phone calls, she assumed that the father did not in fact have a new attorney." In plain English, the defendant said the father had lied and did not have a new attorney.
11. The court should note that my wife's lawyer also wrote to the plaintiff; also secured ex-parte "supervised visitation" and forensic evaluation orders; also wrote directly to the plaintiff demanding that the plaintiff comply with EX-PARTE orders for which no hearing was ever held: Not upon issue nor upon contest of ex-parte issuance; also had a complaint filed with the disciplinary committee against him; also the plaintiff was never notified of any investigation or the outcome of an investigation; and that my wife's lawyer, Mark A. Feldman, Esq. USED THE SAME EXACT EXCUSE AS THE LAW GUARDIAN. This gives the illusion that the law guardian and the wife's lawyer were working together and that this is a matter of fact in dispute that should be put to a jury pursuant to 28 USC 2201.
12. As to the defendant's contention that the plaintiff has recourse in state courts and/or agencies is so ludicrious that that statement is in and of itself a fraud and misrepresentation upon the federal court. THE DEFENDANT IS THE PARDIGM OF NO RECOURSE IN NEW YORK STATE COURTS: The recusal motions concerning the defendant were never heard.
A. In front of Judge Burstein by a trick of law the recusal motion never came to trial (Judge Burstein rightfully agreed with the father's request for a hearing on the matter as he had witnesses to bring.) due to a trick of law as Judge Burstein resigned to run for public office and thereby caused a mistrial. The plaintiff maintains that Judge Burstein was fully aware PRIOR to commencement of trial that it would be a "long and bloody" trial as well as the fact that she would be running for public office and might not be able to complete the trial as all of this was reported to his attorney, Carole Zimmerman; and the plaintiff maintains that Judge Burstein made unnecessary and/or lengthy adjournments in order to not complete the trial before her resignation.
B. Complaints to the disciplinary committee were never investigated.
C. After Judge Burstein resigned from the case, the case was referred to Judge Segal. Again, another recusal motion was brought forth against the law guardian and Judge Segal refused the motion WITHOUT ANY TRIAL OR HEARING WHAT-SO-EVER IN SPITE OF WITNESSES THE FATHER HAD TO TESTIFY as to the law guardian's disparaging remarks to the children; and exceeding her jurisdiction and co-counseling the case with the wife. Complaint, Exhibit 1 & 8.
D. When the order denying the law guardian's recusal was issued. The plaintiff made an appeal to the appeallate division to rescind the order as it was issued without due process. Concurrently, the plaintiff appealled other matters and the law guardian, defendant, asked to be removed from the case "because she is has a large caseload and no experience with appeals". The plaintiff's attorney submitted a motion in opposition to the appeallate division, stating that the plaintiff is in a unique position of having to ask the appeallate to not remove law guardian in order that she may be held accountable for actions which have tremendous and significant bearing on the case as the defendant has tainted any statements and/or testimony the children may make. Without stating a reason the appeallate division granted the law guardian's request and removed her from the case. The law guardian is now totally off the hook without any opportunity within New York State to seek redress what-so-ever, of any kind.
13. The circumstances of paragraph 12 clearly demonstrate that THE PLAINTIFF HAS EXHAUSTED ALL HIS STATE REMEDIES AND HAS NO RECOURSE WITH NEW YORK STATE AGENCIES AND COURTS IN REGARDS TO THE LAW GUARDIAN; IS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SEEK FEDERAL REMEDIES AND CAN ONLY SEEK FEDERAL REMEDIES DUE TO MASSIVE CORRUPTION IN NEW YORK STATE COURTS AND AGENCIES, PARTICULARLY THE JUDICIAL AGENCIES OF THE SECOND DEPARTMENT. It would be a farce of justice to contend that the plaintiff can now enter the courts of the 2nd Dept, Kings County, New York, request in forma pauperas status and actually get a trial. Furthermore, to initiate such action at this time while the plaintiff is a resident of New Jersey, involves the issue of diversity of citizenship.
14. Quasi-judicial immunity can be no greater than judicial immunity itself. Therefore, the defendant is not entitled to immunity in this case because:
A. Judge Burstein who initiated the case did so without jurisdiction by attempting to make a divorce in family court which is for FAMILIES and not in divorce court which is for DIVORCES. Therefore, any and all subsequent actions stem from this lack of jurisdiction; and any and all government officials, agents, etc. are likewise outside their jurisdiction. The court should note that the law guardian never refuted this claim of the plaintiff.
B. As Judge Burstein acted with malice and in an unconstitutional manner by denying the plaintiff his rights to trial, especially when Judge Burstein extended a temporary order of protection beyond six (6) months WITHOUT ANY TRIAL OR ANY HEARING OF ANY KIND, any and all agents of the court are likewise liable for violations of civil rights.
C. The law guardian never refuted the plaintiff's claim that pursuant to New York State Family Court Act 145, judges that act in bad faith in family court are liable. As such, the plaintiff maintains that the law guardian acted in bad faith and is liable just as Judge Burstein and Judge Segal are liable.
The plaintiff refers the court to the original Complaint, paragraphs 127 - 145, 150, and 151 for substantiating case citations as well as:
There is a right to relief for unlawful actions of state officials. 50 ALR Fed 773.
Intentional affliction of emotional distress warrants a 42 USC 1983. 38 ALR 4th 998.
Unconstitutional conduct voids immunity. 12 L Ed 2d 1110. Plaintiff maintains that denial of parental rights without due process is unconstitutional as stated in the Complaint, paragraphs 100 - 118 and therefore the defendant has no immunity. Without any objection of any kind, the defendant allowed the denial of due process before Judge Burstein, when Judge Burstein extended the Temporary Order of Protection beyond its limits defined by New York State law without any trial or hearing of any kind; and before Judge Segal who never held a trial or hearing of any kind what-so-ever on any matter put before him and issued ALL orders without any hearing or trial of any kind in the case in question. In fact, the defendant secured ex-parte orders which by definition preclude due process. The court should note that the defendant never denied that the right to parent is a constitutional right and that said right can not be terminated without due process.
Immunity for judges does not extend to acts which are clearly outside of their jurisdiction. Bauers v. Heisel, C.A. N.J. 1966, 361 F 2d 581, Cert. Den. 87 S. Ct. 1367, 386 U.S. 1021, 18 L. Ed. 2d 457 (see also Muller v. Wachtel, D.C. N.Y. 1972, 345 F. Supp. 160; Rhodes v. Houston, D.C. Nebr. 1962, 202 F. Supp. 624 affirmed 309 F. 2d 959, Cert. Den 83 S. Ct. 724, 372 U.S. 909, 9 L. Ed. 719, Cert. Den. 86 S. Ct. 1282, 383 U.S. 971, 16 L. Ed. 2nd 311, Motion denied 285 F. Supp. 546).
15. As to the defendant's claim that a law guardian is like a Guardian Ad Litem who has immunity, the plaintiff concedes that while a Guardian Ad Litem may have immunity under certain circumstances similar to the law guardian, a Guardian Ad Litem is remarkablely different from a law guardian in that a Guardian Ad Litem is appointed by the court to investigate and determine matters of fact for the court while a law guardian's primary duty is TO REPRESENT THE CHILDREN. The plaintiff avers that at no time was the law guardian representing the interest of the children but rather her own livelihood, interests and Judge Burstein's religious prejudice; misrepresented the case; perpetrated fraud upon the court; displayed professional misconduct; and instituted or pursued improper legal procedures and as such is liable. I wish to remind the court that she did these acts TO TENDER MINOR CHILDREN who have no knowledge of how to complain or to whom to complain; children who do not what 'legal recourse' and 'legal redress' means, let alone how to pursue legal recourse and legal redress.
A. The law guardian exceeded her jurisdiction by co-counseling with the wife which is a matter of fact that is in dispute and must go before a jury pursuant to 28 USC 2201.
B. The law guardian acted as Judge Burstein's agent, "gopher", and lackey harbinger for punitive, outrageous and unnecessary orders.
C. The law guardian knowingly misrepresented her clients: the children and their wishes, ESPECIALLY THEIR WISHES TO SEE THEIR FATHER and making contradictory statements to the court about the need for supervised visitation: one set of statements on the record and one set of statements off the record in camera as affirmed by the plaintiff's attorney, Carole Zimmerman, in an appeal and; by defaming the father to the court with outright lies that the father was calling his children at ten (10) o'clock at night, and that the father took the children off premises while visiting the children, supervised, as per court order at Nissim Mizrahe's apartment.
D. The law guardian perpetrated fraud upon the court.
Attorneys are liable for misrepresentation. 112 ALR Fed 141.
Court appointed attorneys are liable for 42 USC 1983 actions for misrepresentation. 36 ALR Fed 594.
Lawyers appointed for the children by the court in matters of termination of parental rights can be sued by the parents for malpractice. 18 ALR 5th 902.
Guardian Ad Litems are liable for negligence. 14 ALR 5th 929.
16. As to the defendant's claim to the immunity generally afforded lawyers, such immunity does not apply when the attorney takes a malicous course of action. The defendant cited Briscoe v. LaHue. This is the matter of a witness having immunity. The plaintiff concedes to the analogy that just as a witness has immunity so that there can be trials, for if there were no trials, there would be no justice and there would be anarchy. However, the plaintiff extends the analogy that when a witness commits perjury, especially documentable perjury no such immunity applies and that the witness is liable for criminal and civil lawsuits. So to Stella Arsenakos is liable for criminal and civil lawsuit.
Attorneys are liable for misrepresentation. 112 ALR Fed 141.
17. In general, immunity is afforded because there is redress. "Three separate reasons, however, may be discerned from the opinion. The first of these is that a judges decision is appealable and therefore, the party need not sue the judicial officer to vindicate his rights. (See Jennings, Note 11, at 272; E. Jennings, Tort Liability of Administrative Officers, 21 Minn. L. Rev.) (Civil law)
As, the plaintiff maintains that there is no real redress but merely the appearance of redress by "rubber stamping appeals" in New York State for those involved in family/matrimonial litigation, there should be no immunity. Furthermore, while "on the books" there is redress for a judicial order by appeal to a higher court, there is no appeal process for wrongful actions of law guardians, such as parental alienation by a law guardian.
18. As further demonstration of the lack of redress in New York State for illegal and unconstitutional actions taken by state officials in child abuse cases, the plaintiff will expand on the Neustein v. Orbach case cited by the defendant. The plaintiff is not arguing any matters of law in the case cited as the plaintiff concurs that repeated false child abuse allegations by one parent against another in order to secure custody is wrong and grounds for removal of custody, however the plaintiff strongly disputes the matters of fact in the case. The plaintiff lived for quite some time in the area where the incident occurred, is familiar with some of the parties and agencies involved. The case involved Dr. Amy Neustein, her husband and her daughter. The husband brought false child abuse charges against the mother pursuant to a divorce action in an attempt to secure custody of their daughter. The child was evaluated by Ohel Children's Home which based upon information and belief is the largest foster care facility in New York State. The foster care home sided with the father. Subsequently, the mother Dr. Neustein claimed the agencies employees abused the child and used the child as a rental child for child pornography and prostitution. Dr. Neustein's repeated claims and attempts at justice in New York State only achieved her being labeled a crazed woman whom was bringing false abuse charges against her husband to secure custody.
In a separate, totally unrelated incident, a horrific scandal arose concerning Ohel Children's Home circa March 1987. Ohel Children's Home, which took care of foster children referred by court order, sent children to a clinic run by a Dr. Mondrovitz for counseling and evaluations. Dr. Mondrovitz's clinic came under investigation by the FBI which in the period of six (6) months documented over 250 cases of child abuse and pedophilia by Dr. Mondrovitz, himself. In twenty-eight (28) of those cases, the children had been infected with AIDS and some of the children died. The FBI had found that the children being sent to Dr. Mondrovritz, complained to social workers at Ohel Children's Home that they did not like having to take their clothes off when they went to Dr. Mondrovitz and that they did not want to go to Dr. Mondrovitz. The children were forced to continue to go to Dr. Mondrovitz for counseling, in spite of the children's complaints. As the FBI ascertained, Dr. Mondrovitz was receiving medicaid funds for "evaluating" these children and giving kickbacks to senior officials at Ohel Children's Home. Dr. Mondrovitz fled the country three (3) hours before the FBI were ready to arrest, therefore there could be no prosecution. Had there been prosecution, Ohel Children's Home would have been closed, many of its employees and NEW YORK STATE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WOULD BE IN JAIL TODAY! All this was reported in the media by Reuters, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, etc. In addition, it was rumored that the Brooklyn Borough President, Howard Golden, himself, personally telephoned Dr. Mondrovitz three (3) hours before the FBI were going to arrest and told Dr. Mondrovitz to flee the country because the FBI are coming to arrest.
The plaintiff asks the court the following questions:
A. Only the FBI can investigate medicaid fraud and child abuse by New York state officials?
B. Where were the state investigators? The New York State attorney general? The Brooklyn district attorney?
C. Why was the federal government seeking prosecution when the New York State government sought no prosecution at all?
D. How can there possibly be recourse in New York State which such a corrupt public mental health, foster care, and family court system?
E. Was Dr. Neustein really crazy and repeatedly making FALSE ALLEGATIONS of child abuse?
F. Was custody removed from Dr. Neustein as a justified punitive measure for false allegations or as a means of coercion against someone exposing grotesque corruption among New York State and City officials and agencies?
The plaintiff maintains that he too is being persecuted by the State of New York and its agents because he too is a capable, talented, vocal, active leader of a parental civil rights movement attempting to expose and stop these nefarious activities and kidnappings under the color of state law by the state and its agents.
In the Ankerbrandt decision it is clearly stated that the Younger abstention doctrine is predicated partly on the assumption that the states have an infrastructure for dealing with cases of custody and visitation which the federal courts do not have e.g. mental health facilities, child psychologists, etc. The happenings around Ohel's Childrens Home and many other similar and documented occurances clearly indicate that the State of New York DOES NOT HAVE A VALID INFRASTRUCTURE for custody/visitation evaluation. Therefore, the Bad Faith exception of the Younger Abstention applies and the plaintiff has entree to federal court.
19. Yet another example of discrimination, on the part of all the defendants but especially the law guardian, during a court proceeding, where the plaintiff was refusing to attend supervised visitation at various locations because of his knowledge, information and belief that these locations and persons were nothing more than ruses to lure the plaintiff into a compromising position where he could be found guilty and/or false forensics could be produced, Stella Arsenakos recommended that the plaintiff see his children at Victim Services and that the Victim Services Agency has a nursery in the courthouse where the plaintiff may go.
20. Victim Services is a federally funded organization that provides various services to 'victims of domestic violence' as well as education about 'domestic violence'. These services are federally, state, and privately funded. (This can be proven by examination of their yearly financial statement.) In spite of the legal necessity NOT to discriminate by a federally funded organization and the laws against fraud and hate advertising, Victim Services in concert with the City of New York maintains advertising campaigns with false statistics maligning men and fathers. These advertisements portray men and fathers as brutal animals reeking untold violence against an immense segment of the population with innocent women and children as the victims. While domestic violence is real, the magnitude as portrayed by Victim Services is a gross misrepresentation. It is no wonder that when queried, Victim Services can not produce any reports or studies to substantiate their claims and statistics in their ads, particularly for their ad titled "HIP OR HIT". Exhibit 3. Even the uncited reports available, are of a very dubious nature and primarily propoganda of the radical subversive feminist movement. This subject is discussed in depth by Dr. Christina Hoff-Summers in her book "Who Stole Feminism".
21. The plaintiff has requested PUBLIC INFORMATION from Victim Services. Victim Services has not yet complied. Exhibit 4. This information would substantiate the claim that the State of New York, particularly Chief Justice Judith Kaye, who is responsible for awarding Victim Services their contract with the courts, (Exhibit 5) is fully cognizant of Victim Services prejudices, yet awards the contract anyway; and uses the bigoted agency's bigoted reports in unlawfully taking away custody from fathers.
22. Based upon information and belief and reports by eye-witnesses and other victims such as Mr. John DeVito, Victim Services has a modus operandi of performing supervised visitation and then sending in the 'supervisors' to testify against fathers. These 'supervisors' testify ad verecundum as they lack credentials and some have no more of an education than a G.E.D.
23. The plaintiff maintains that the defendant is fully aware of the substance of paragraphs 19 - 22 of this reply and attempted to use Victim Services to produce false forensic reports against the plaintiff for her own motives against the plaintiff (pecuniary and prejudice) as well as Judge Burstein's motives of prejudice.
24. It should be noted that based upon information and belief, Dr. Naftoli Berrill also testifies ad verecundum. That based upon information and belief, while Dr. Berrill may have the proper training, he does not have the proper clinical experience as his main source of livelihood is that of a child psychologist in the school system. Such a position specificly precludes engaging in the kind of therapy necessary for the appropiate observations and subsequent evaluations needed for family court.
25. The Law Guardian, Stella Arsenakos, has never directly or indirectly; explicitly or implicitly denied my allegations about her discussing the case with the children; or telling the children, "You will never ever see your father again" prior to a hearing, trial or determination of any kind; or telling the children, "You can not testify on your father's behalf because then he will have too many witnesses". This is because:
A. She is aware of an affidavit from Dr. Monty N. Weinstein, a family therapist that observed the children. This affidavit was attached to a recusal motion brought before Karen S. Burstein's court. In his affidavit Dr. Weinstein states clearly that the children in a totally unprompted situation, asked Dr. Weinstein "if it is true what Stella told us that we will never ever see our father ever again?". Exhibit 6.
B. She is fully aware from her conversations with the children that the plaintiff has been recording many of his conversations and telephone conversations with the children and that the children have repeated to the plaintiff repeatedly over the telephone lines incriminating conversations that the children had with Stella Arsenakos. The children made such statements as:
i. "Stella showed us the court papers."
ii. "Stella said the judge said..."
iii. "Nick Chimenti said we should tell you that if you don't go to supervised visitation at Mapleton-Midwood you will never ever see us again." The court should be aware that the children were crying at the time when they were saying this and pleaded with the plaintiff to go to the supervised visitation. This is a most diabolical type of extortion and abuse of children of the Nth degree on the part of Nick Chimenti.
iv. "Stella told us that you said that Nick Chimenti is a bad man and that he beats up little kids and that's why you don't want to go there. It isn't true. Nick Chimenti is a nice man and he has nice toys over there."
25. Transcript of some of the above conversations are attached Exhibit 7.
26. Any pertinent claims or matter of law in any or all of the other replies apply to this defendant also.
27. The defendant contradicts herself when she cites Neustein v. Orbach in that the defendant claims the Younger Abstention; and asks for other relief; and avers that the plaintiff is making repeated, frivolous, false allegations; and implies that this FEDERAL COURT should therefore intercede in a matter of custody and remove the plaintiff's parental rights!
28. While the Eleventh Amendment provides immunity for judges which is extrapolated to the states, it does not provide such immunity when the state or judges act out of jurisdiction. Furthermore, the intent of the law as adjudicated is that "states" does not mean just states but also municipalities, and agents of the state. In addition, the Eleventh Amendment can not be construed as to rescind the Fourteenth Amendment; and when a judge and/or state and/or agent of the state exceeds jurisdiction and/or violates civil rights without malice that entity (judge or state, etc.) is liable for damages; and if the violation of civil rights was with malice, especially in a premeditated fashion by abuse of process then the entity (judge or state, etc.) would be liable for punitive damages.
Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170, 2 Cranch 170, 2 L. Ed. 243 (1804); Wise v. Withers, 7 U.S. 331, 3 Cranch 331, 2 L. Ed. 457 (1806); Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 U.S. 115, 13 How. 115, 14 L. Ed. 75 (1852); Bates v. Clark, 95 U.S. 204, 5 Otto 204, 24 L. Ed. 471 (1877); Belknap v. Schild, 161 U.S. 10, 40 L. Ed. 599, 16 S. Ct. 443 (1896); Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U.S. 204, 42 L. Ed. 137, 17 S. Ct. 770 (1897); Scully v. Bird, 209 U.S. 481, 52 L. Ed. 899, 28 S. Ct. 597 (1908); Siler v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 213 U.S. 175, 53 L. Ed. 753, 29 S. Ct. 451
(1909); Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U.S. 605, 56 L. Ed. 570, 32 S. Ct. 340 (1912); Greene v. Louisville & I. R. Co., 244 U.S. 499, 61 L. Ed. 1280, 37 S. Ct. 673 (1917); Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Greene, 244 U.S. 522, 61 L. Ed. 1291, 37 S. Ct. 683 (1917); Sloan Shipyards Corp. v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp., 258 U.S. 549, 66 L. Ed. 762, 42 S. Ct. 386 (1922); Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 91 L. Ed. 1209, 67 S. Ct. 1009 (1947); Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L. Ed. 440 (1793); Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 52 L. Ed. 714, 28 S. Ct. 441 (1908).
29. That at any and all other issues raised by the defendant that are rebutted in any and all other pleadings, motions, etc. to other defendants applies to this defendant.
Wherefore, the plaintiff, Harlow Zirkind, respectfully requests that this court:
1. Deny the defendant's answer and motion to dismiss and,
2. Issue orders of discovery and set a tentative trial date OR,
3. In the alternative, convene a trial by jury to determine from testimony of witnesses, the evidence submitted and in the plaintiff's possession, if the circumstances and coincidences cited by the plaintiff warrant a 42 USC 1983 & 1985 action.
4. If appropriate, sanctioning the defendants for requesting sanctions when sanctions are inappropriate and unwarranted.
5. Any other relief deemed just and proper by the court.
Sworn to and signature executed before me this
____ th day of the month of __________ 199__.
_______________________
County of HARLOW ZIRKIND 547 Wyndham Road NOTARY Teaneck, NJ 07666 201-836-7557 TO: Carolyn Cairns Olson, Assistant Attorney General Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney General, New York State 120 Broadway NYC, NY 12071 for: New York State defendants, "NYS", "OCA", Judges E. Leo Milonas, Burstein and Segal. Brigitte M. Duffy, Assistant Corporation Counsel Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel NYC Law Dept 100 Church St. NYC, NY 10007 for: New York City defendants: Bernadette Cadore, Commissioner of Social Services, Department of Social Services of the City of New York, Human Resources Administration of New York, Michael Infranco, Deputy Commissioner of the Office of Child Support Enforcement, Child Support Enforcement Unit Micheal Devereaux, Esq. D'Amato & Lynch 70 Pine Street NYC, NY 10270-0110 for: Nicholas Chimienti Mary E. Pearson, Esq. Kopff, Nardelli & Dopf 440 Ninth Avenue NYC, NY 10001-1688 for: N.G. Berrill, Ph.D. Mark A. Feldman, Esq. defendant pro se 1717 East 18th St. Brooklyn, NY 11229 Stella Arsenakos, Esq. defendant pro se 26 Court St. Suite 606 Brooklyn, NY 11242 Mazal Zirkind defendant pro se 652 Leffers Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11203 Tomas Greenberger, Esq. 5105 New Utrecht Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11219 for: Herschel Kurzrock, Mendel Epstein, and The Rabbinical Alliance of America Joseph E. Macy, Esq. Speno, Goldberg, Steingart & Penn PC 300 Old Country Road Mineola, NY 11501-4116 for: Mapleton-Midwood and Cyd Martori
Exhibits
Exhibit 1 - Monty's affidavit Exhibit 2 - Ex-parte visitation order Exhibit 3 - Ad "Hip or Hit" Exhibit 4 - Letters to Commission about Victim Services contract. Exhibit 5 - Parts of OCA press release Exhibit 6 - Monty's letter about Stella maligning the children. Exhibit 7 - Transcripts