On August 7, 2009, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, presently Governor of NY State , commenced a judicial action against Dr.

Mircea Veleanu who at that time had a hobby business entitled Objets D'Art Uniques dealing exclusively on antiques and antiquities on the Internet. The legal suit started following a complaint with Attorney General by a Winsted, Connecticut resident who alleged that she was def rauded by Veleanu by selling her 7 Sino-Tibetan jadeite rosary named mala that t he complainant submitted to a defunct gemological laboratory named AGTA and dete rmined to be constituted of "natural species quartz". AGTA Lab went out of busin ess a few weeks after the gemological testing of the mala. The legal case had no standing to sue as there was no aggrievement (injury or damage) of the single c omplainant. Secondly, this frivolous and vexatious legal case was based on alleg ations by the Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of statutory fraud according to Gene ral Business Law 349 (GBL 349) in 2 causes of action that were identical that fa iled to prove the existence of any fraudulent activity. Thus, Attorney General f ailed to state a reasonable cause of action upon which relief could be granted. Thirdly, Attorney General fraudulently requested penalties, court cost based on GBL 350 (d) in the absence to state a cause of action or claim under GBL 350 tha t is based on allegations of fraud by false advertising. Nonetheless, Veleanu di d not advertise in any form for his Internet store business and Attorney General failed to allege or prove that any misrepresentation occurred by Veleanu doing false advertising. Accordingly, all penalties, court cost, interest of 9 % are n ull and invalid for failure to state a cause of action. Fourthly, the complainan t mislabeled the 7 rosary mala as "carved head necklaces" in order to submit the ornamental jadeite carvings to a gemological examination that is reserved exclu sively to jewelry grade jade. The complainant rather than submitting the mala by registered mail, used the services of an apparent close friend jeweler to submi t the mala to AGTA. He came from his jewelry store in Massachussetts to the comp lainant home in Connecticut, transported the mala to New York City and picked th e mala from NY City back to his store in Massachussetts. While his relationship top AGTA is unknown, the fact that the reports were provided at the request of V eleanu to the complainant named Janet Spiridonakos after more than 6 weeks follo wing the request (at a time that according to Spiridonakos provided evidence, al l 7 mala were in her possession), is a proof of wrong-doings that later on was d iscovered to be a conspiracy to defraud and extort Veleanu. The conspiracy of t he complainant to extort Veleanu was evidenced by the perjury of her affidavit w ith false declaration under oath that contradicted her former 2 statements. Fina lly, the judgment was obtained by legal fraud as was based on summary judgment t hat is inapropriate when numerous triable issues of material fact are present. T his legal case started and continued despite clear evidence of exculpatory evide nce, being frivolous at extreme and in prosecutorial conspiracy with 4 judges of the Supreme Court that rendered a summary judgment that was not only biased and unfair, but revealed legal fraud, unconscionable abuse of discretion of judges and violations of the statutes and laws of NY State as well as violations of the Code of Professional Conduct of the officers of the Court. Following a service of subpoena, Veleanu was requested to produce documents and appear at the AG Off ice in Poughkeepsie, NY. for a deposition under oath. Veleanu, complied with the subpoena and appeared for the interrogation by the Assistant Attorney General G . Nicholas Garin AKA Nick Garin, at the AG office in Poughkeepsie. Following the deposition in June 2009, Veleanu was notified that within 5 days is entitled to respond to a Proposed Action pursuant to Article 22 A and GBL 349 c, 350 c. Vel eanu responded within 5 days and denied the false accusations of AG. Veleanu has shown in his response that the gemological reports of AGTA were tampered and fo rged as identification reports photos of 2 different rosary mala sold more than one year apart were found to be identical. In addition to the forgery, all 7 mal a were labeled as "carved head necklaces", terminology never used by Veleanu in the description of mala of the Internet store. On August 7, 2009, AAG Garin call ed Veleanu on the phone and notified him that in about 3 hours, he is going to a ppear in the court to ask a judge to issue a temporary restraining order to prev ent Veleanu of selling jade items. Obviously, Veleanu made the effort to appear in court on time and upon his appearance, AAG Garin handed him a large bundle of

documents that Veleanu learnt later on that represented a petition which reques ted from the court a permanent injunction, penalties, cost, etc. Veleanu complai ned to judge James Brandt who presided the court that the documents were handed a few minutes prior the appearance and did not have time even to read the first page. As such, AAG Grin violated the due process of Veleanu's right under 14th a mendment of US Constitution by failure to serve the complaint (petition or summo ns). AAG Garin requested the TRO based on allegation without probative value as presenting numerous pages of the inventory of the Internet store without any all egations of misrepresentations, also Amazon.com negative reviews of books for co llectors written by Veleanu and hearsay of the sole complainant of a wild imagin ation that 2 Chinese calligraphy jadeite brushes were made of glass rather than jadeite. Nevertheless, the jadeite brushes were returned by the complainant mont hs prior the legal action, the complainant did not consult with anybody about au thenticity and even wanted to re-purchased them when was confirmed by Veleanu th at the brushes were indeed made of jade. Veleanu contested the authenticity of t he AGTA gemological reports and brought the attention to the court about the ill egality of offering prima facie evidence of forged and mislabeled documentary ev idence. Judge James Brands suggested evaluation of the mala by another gemologic al lab., GIA, that Veleanu did not oppose. As a collector and hobby dealer, Vele anu never heard about the rationality of using gemological testing for examinati on of non-jewelry jade items as such notion is un-scientific and absurd. Jadeite is a rock composed of several minerals and chemical elements and not a single m ineral. Ornamental jadeite carvings as the Tibetan rosary mala are composed of s everal minerals and rocks and thus are not prone to be examined by gemological t esting that is reserved to exquisite jewelry grade jadeite that has a compositio n close to 100 % jade (Jd100). Jade is represented not only by jadeite, but more commonly found in ornamental jade carvings as nephrite with a different chemica l formula and different physical appearance. It is well established by all jade merchants that authentication of jade (either nephrite or jadeite) is done by mi neralogical testing consisting in examination under magnification, determination of hardness (Moh's test) and occaionally by specific gravity test. Ornamental j ade carving are not prone to be examined by gemological testing as such examinat ion would yield to different results due to the presence of the multiple mineral components in the rock. As such, a finding of a specific mineral in one area co uld be found to be different when the examination is done in a different area wh ere a different mineral could be found. This might explain AGTA finding of "natu ral species quartz" refuted by GIA testing that found "species quartzite" and no finding of "species quartz". Quartz is not the same as quartzite; quartz is a s ingle mineral, while quartzite is a rock with a composition of several minerals. The review of mineralogical literature revealed that jadeite originates from mi neral albite that under ultra-high-pressure and relative moderate temperature, y ields to jadeite and quartz. A vast numbers of scientific articles point that bo th jadeite and quartzite are metamorphic rocks with a variable composition and a re found together in areas of the globe where the prehistoric conditions of very high pressure and relative low temperature resulted in the genesis of a composi tion of a mixed jadeite and quartzite named jadeite-quartzite or jadeitite. The genesis of jadeite was demonstrated to take place from albite that through metam orphic changes yields to jadeite and quartz. It is simplistic and moronic to att empt to authenticate ornamental jade carvings using gemological examination due to unpredictable and variable results. The complainant falsely accused Veleanu t hat deceived her and she relied on such deception when one mala described as fei tsui, she fraudulently attributed to represent "imperial jade". Fei tsui in Man darin Chinese represents ordinary jadeite and not a superior form of jadeite as alleged by the complainant named Spiridonakos. The standard of selling jade item s by any ethical jade merchant is the use of mineralogical examination and the g emological examination was never used in the non-jewelry grade jade. The main ev idence in support of the fraudulent acts of the complainant, Spiridonakos, is he r submission as proof of injury, of an invoice of the jewelry company her jewele r friend Tim McClellan is a co-owner. The invoice is unsigned and claims $1540 f or "Testing and Reports". However, the jewelry firm did not perform any such tes

ting or reports. The invoice amount is again claimed in Spiridonakos' affidavit as paid by her contradicting 2 previous statements that she paid $1000 for the gemological examination. According to statute R4514, Spiridonakos impeached hers elf as a witness by prior inconsistent statements and committed the crime of per jury. The amount of $1540 shown in the invoice is almost 3 times higher than the customary charge of about $80 per test charged by GIA in 2009. The most incrimi nating element of evidence other than forgery by mislabeling, blackmail, fraud a nd extortion is represented by the unsigned invoice that shows evidence of forge ry by counterfeit by Spiridonakos. A graphological examination shows that the in voice was written by Spiridonakos herself as her handwriting below and above the invoice as well as her handwriting in other submitted documents, shows without any doubt that all were written by the same person who wrote the invoice. Anothe r indication of fraud and conspiracy to extortion is the fact that Spiridonakos saved all the email correspondence with Veleanu over a period of more than 2 yea rs, correspondence used by the Attorney General for the prosecution. It is unhe ard that a customer would save dozens of email correspondence with a merchant, i n absence of premeditated evil intention to defraud the merchant. Judge James Br ands granted the TRO with full knowledge that the evidence was fraudulent, forge d and mislabeled (misbranded). In his statement in lieu of stenographic transcri pts, judge Brands stated that there were no hearings, rather calendar calls for issuing the TRO. Thereafter, judge Brands recused himself invoking conflict of i nterest as his Chief Court Attorney represented the adversary party in a divorce proceeding against Veleanu. As the legal documents for TRO were probably prepar ed and submitted by the Chief Court Attorney, judge Brands should decree a nolle prosequi (renounce of prosecution or judicial acts resulting from such prosecut ion) due to the conflict of interest, and this was not done. Veleanu considered the entire legal process as frivolous by any standards and being sure that the l egal proceedings would end for lack of reasonable cause, opted to represent hims elf as the Internet antiques business was a hobby business with negligible profi ts and the allegations of Spiridonakos were ridiculous, as he believed at that t ime. After the recusal of judge Brands, judge Thomas Dolan was assigned to this legal case without any notice to Veleanu. He granted an ex-parte (without notice to the opposing party) summary judgment without any hearings, conferences or ca lendar calls. His order/judgment granted to Attorney General a permanent injunct ion interdicting Veleanu to sell or transfer jade without a gemological examinat ion by AGTA (at the time of decree of judgment, AGTA company was out of business for more than 4 months!!!). Judge Dolan violated constitutional rights of due p rocess of Veleanu for an unbiased and fair trial by not instituting any hearings prior the decree of judgment. Even more egregious, judge Dolan did not accept V eleanu's answer to petition and reply (pleadings) and the motions for dismissal by invoking the unconscionable and illegal characterization that the pleadings a nd the motions to dismiss were not "sworn". Judge Dolan knew or should have know n that the declaration under penalty of perjury (as done by Veleanu in his plead ings) is accepted and can substitute the antiquated affidavit under notary seal. NY statute R105 (u) provides that the declaration under penalty of perjury can be used in any legal proceedings where affidavit is required. The arbitrary, cap ricious and unconscionable abuse of confidence by judge Dolan is considered a mi scarriage of justice due to legal fraud. When the judge denies the defense by il legal acts,it is considered a mockery of justice in a "kangaroo court" or show t rial where the constitutional rights under 14th amendments are brutally violated by a biased and corrupt court. In bad faith, judge Dolan advised Veleanu to ret ain legal services "to learn about his rights and responsibilities". Soon, Velea nu learnt that he had no rights whatsoever in a biased and corrupt court of just ice and the advise to hire a lawyer was intended rather to cause large pecuniary damages due to tremendous cost of litigation against an adversary party with un limited power and unlimited financial means under the color of the "Peple of the State of New York". Veleanu retained an attorney and as being innocent and naiv ely believed that the court overlooked or misapprehended the documentary evidenc e presented in the pleadings, reargued through his attorney's memorandum of law and own affidavit, irrefutable exculpatory evidence that made the summary judgme

nt inapropriate. Attorney General requested from judge Dolan and obtained from V eleanu a list of customers that purchased jade items for the past 6 years prior the legal action. As an incentive to attract more former customers to request re funds, Attorney General promised not only a full restitution, but also a retroac tive interest of 9 % starting from the day of purchase. No customer claimed misr epresentation of any purchased item, but 3 former customers requested a refund. However, all these 3 customers who requested refunds, did not purchase the jade items from Veleanu, rather at auctions where the seller was the auction company and Veleanu was only the consignor. The commission of 27.5 % , Paypal fees of 3 % and shipping charges were assessed to Veleanu as part of restitution . In addi tion, the fraudulent interest of 9 % that was not provided by any statute or law , was assessed from the day of purchase that almost doubled the amount of money assessed to Veleanu, even when he was not the seller of the purchased items. As the customers were entitled to lifetime guarantee of refund secured by the condi tions of sale that provided refund for lifetime even including the Paypal fees t hat are not more refundable by Paypal after 60 days, the lifetime guarantee prov ides credit for an exchange with any item from the Internet store inventory. 2 o f the Spiridonakos rosary mala were also won at auctions where Veleanu was not t he seller, rather the consignor. Spiridonakos was not required to show any misre presentations of the items she purchased for securing the refund according to th e contract's conditions of sale. However, she opted to have the gemological test ing done at her own expense. The evidence in email correspondence clearly indica tes that she was offered a refund according to the contract's conditions of sale , even including the items she purchased at auctions. Recklessly, she turned dow n Veleanu's offer of refund as she premeditated the extortion of Veleanu aided b y the jeweler Tim McClellan. The frivolous and vexatious suit instituted by Atto rney General is demonstrated by the fact that GBL 349 under which it was prosecu ted, did not apply as it was not "oriented at consumers at large", rather repres ented a private and unique commercial dispute between a disgruntled customer pro ved in reality that committed fraud, perjury, blackmail, extortion, forgery by c ounterfeit, and on the other side, a merchant acting under the conditions of sal e of the contract that offered a lifetime guarantee. Nonetheless, Spiridonakos t urned down the offer of refund and as such she is guilty of breach of contract w ith subsequent legal responsibility for Veleanu's legal expenses and punitive da mages. In a malicious and libelous action in an investigative and non-advocate a ction, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and his counsel, G. Nicholas Garin AKA Nick Garin, released to media in two separate occasions while the judicial proceedin gs were active, false and libelous statements that Veleanu sold items made of qu artz or glass claiming that were made of jadeite. The evidence showed without am biguity that the ridiculous allegations of selling items made of glass rather th an jadeite were confabulations of the single complainant Spiridonakos, based on unconfirmed wild mind speculations. The allegation that items were made of quart z were disproved by GIA lab findings that refuted the allegations as no quartz w as identified by GIA. The releases to media represented a malicious act, complet ely false and made with intention to damage the professional reputation, moral c haracter of Veleanu and frighten former customer, and by solicitation, attract f ormer customers to request refunds by encouraging and aiding them to breach comm ercial contracts. The court failed to acquire jurisdiction upon Veleanu by lack of service and as such, the orders and judgments decreed are considered by Ameri can jurisprudence null and void from the onset. The appearance in the court by V eleanu for TRO was unrelated to serving of summons and petition and according to statute CPLR 320 do not constitute legal service in order to achieve jurisdicti on on the person. The court failed to achieve territorial jurisdiction based on common law of precedent cases decided by the Court of Appeals, that is the highe st court in NY State, and can't be overthrown by a lower court. Subsequently, al l orders and judgments decreed by the Supreme Court of New York, Dutchess County are null and invalid for lack of jurisdiction ab initio. Accordingly, the court failed to achieve juridiction on subject matter according to the pleadings of r espondent Veleanu and consequently, all orders and decrees are null and invalid. Assistant Attorney General Garin committed perjury in his Statement in lieu of

stenographic records as he stated that he became aware of the forged and mislabe led gemological findings of AGTA only until respondent Veleanu submitted his ple adings. The evidence consisting in Veleanu's response to the pretrial Proposal f or Action shows clearly that Attorney General knew that his prima facie evidence was forged and invalid as probative evidence for prosecution under GBL 349 and Executive Law 63 (12) as early as 2 months prior start of legal action. Accordin gly, he prefered to commit perjury in hope that the perjury would not be detecte d, rather than admit that he started a frivolous and vexatious legal action base d on criminal forged evidence and mislabeled (misbranded). AAG Nick Garin commit ted the criminal act of uttering when he knowingly and wilfully presented the fo rged and mislabeled evidence to the Court in order to obtain the TRO and the per manent injunction. Attorney General petition shows 2 obliterated pages by interp osing photograph over text that was exculpatory to the respondent Veleanu. This act committed in the investigative function of the prosecutor represents suppres sion of evidence, obstruction of justice and criminal concealment of evidence do ne knowingly and willingly. AAG Garin threatened judge Thomas Dolan in his plead ing to ignore respondent Veleanu's answer to the petition. Judge Dolan in his Or der/Judgment stated that Attorney General has to show injury in order to be enti tled to relief. Nevertheless, the undisputed evidence shows that complainant Spi ridonakos was not injured in any form, rather she breached the contract of sale and she is legally liable for such act. Judge Dolan in post judgment conferences with Veleanu's attorney was willing to forego all penalties and court cost towa rd an acceptance of a guilty plea and subsequent acceptance of the permanent inj unction. Veleanu refused such plea as against the moral principle that a person who is innocent should not yield to illegal and unethical manipulation of law. A pparently, judge Dolan retired and the order and judgment was never entered and docketed, as such, the permanent injunction became null due to abandonment of le gal action by lack of prosecution and invalid by default. Another judge was assi gned and apparently she ethically refused the assignment. More than 10 months af ter the decree of judgment of Judge Dolan, judge James Pagones was assigned and again, without any notice to Veleanu or his lawyer, judge Pagones biased and pro -prosecutorial, decreed again an ex-parte Order/Judgment without any hearing, co nference or calendar call. As a matter of fact, Veleanu's attorney did not see j udge Pagones and Veleanu did not see any of the judges assigned after judge Bran ds. In an egregious miscarriage of justice, judge Pagones ruled that the reargum ent was rather a renew and he "adhered to the previous judgment of judge Dolan t hat was abandoned by default. The misinterpretation of the laws was fraudulent a s judge Pagones as a lawyer admitted to the Bar knew or should have known that r eargument can not be a renew action. Judge Pagones did not institute any hearing s as this represented a new suit (de novo) due to previous suit abandoned by def ault and did not allow a defense based by legal representation of Veleanu's lawy er in the court. In a typical "kangaroo court" fashion, judge Pagones acted in a biased and anti-constitutional act in denying the due process of respondent Vel eanu. Confident on merit and and supposed unbiased American justice, Veleanu app ealed to the Appellate Court Second Department as a right. Unfortunately, and t o the shame of an unbiased justice in United States of America, Veleanu discover ed that the judges of the Appellate Court were as much biased and anti-constitut ional as the judges of the Supreme Court Dutchess County. 4 judges of the Appell ate Court as follows: Reinaldo Rivera, JP, Daniel D. Angiolillo, Ariel E. Belen and Sherri S. Roman JJ, committed extrinsic fraud defined as occurring when dece it is employed to keep someone from exercising a legal right, (as in this case,) preventing a fair trial by misleading a party in a lawsuit. The 4 judges of the Appellate Court failed to perform their duty of reviewing the trial court error s, answer to the questions posed by appellant and be unbiased toward the weaker party of pro se opposing the party representing the People of the State of New Y ork. The evidence shows that the decisions of the Appellate Court were pre-deter mined. As an example, the leave for reargument and permission to appeal with the Court of Appeals was denied in a decision dated February 2, 2012, while a motio n dated January 24, 2012 for a leave of protection order and stay of enforcement was still pending and placed on motion calendar for February 24, 2012!!!. Both

the Supreme Court Dutchess County and Appellate Court violated CPLR 2219 that pr ovides that the motion of emergency action (order to show cause) should be answe red and decided within 20 days, while the regular motions should be answered and decided within 60 days. In another instance, the Supreme Court Dutchess County failed to make a decision that could antagonize the Attorney General by not deci ding to respondent's motion for leave to stay of enforcement dated November 12, 2010. This motion was not opposed by the Attorney General and according to law N YCRR 670.5 was granted by default. The Appellate Court irresponsible and biased, ignored the request of the appellant enclosed in the brief to vacate the summar y judgment based on CPLR 5704 (a) review of ex-parte orders that provides that a ny judge of the Appellate Court may vacate any order granted without notice to t he adversary party (in this legal case, the orders and decisions of 2 different judges of the Supreme Court Dutchess County). Mircea Veleanu is a person with im maculate professional reputation, served the community of Hudson Valley area as a physician for more than 20 years, is known nationally and internationally for his professional writing of 4 books for collectors and also as a scholar and res earcher in the oriental arts. Mircea Veleanu served as a major in US Army, is a decorated Vietnam var veteran and hihly respected person with high morals and re putation. Attorney General through malicious prosecution and abuse of process de stroyed professional and personal life by malicious acts of libel of releasing f alse and misleading information to media in more than one occasion. Attorney Gen eral conspired with complainant Spiridonakos to violate Veleanu's constitutional rights, supported her to commit fraud and extortion by aiding facilitation and encouraging perpetration of fraud. When was made aware of Spiridonakos criminal acts, Attorney General failed to exercise dilligent due care to investigate Spir idonakos conspiracy to defraud Veleanu and also investigate AGTA for fraud and f orgery prior its closure. Attorney General act of encouraging fraud by solicitat ion, aiding and facilitating former customers to breach the contract, induced a former customer from San Antonio, Texas to commit felony acts of fraud, theft of property and substitution of precious property with valueless fake. This former customer was instructed by the Attorney General to ask for a refund with just a proof of purchase. She substituted a high value nephrite carved jade in shape of a mutton with offspring she bought at an auction where Veleanu was a consigno r, with a recently manufactured fake carving in shape of a horse, made of a less hard material than jade. Her crime was not discovered until Attorney General wh o was the custodian of the returned items for refund, sent all the returned jade items to Veleanu after cashing the undertaking from county clerk. The 2 persons who defrauded Veleanu were aided by facilitation, aid and support of conspirac y to defraud Veleanu and without his intervention, the crimes would not be made possible. Both perpetrators of fraud committed the crime of perjury by false dep osition under oath. Attorney General committed the crime of subornation of perju ry by submitting Spiridonakos' affidavit with full knowledge of the falsity of a ffidavit's depositions. Spiridonakos' affidavit contains intimate knowledge of e xhibits content (and their numbers) of the Petition with information that only t he Attorney General knew, unless Spiridonakos wrote the petition herself, eventu ality that is less plausible. Attorney General in his non-judicial investigative role interfered and violated the constitutional rights under 4th amendment of U S Constitution by issuing 4 subpoenas, 3 of them not related to the judicial mat ter and representing an ulterior purpose of abuse of process and malicious prose cution. Attorney General in his non-advocate investigative role, interfered,cons pired and violated civil rights and constitutional rights under 5th, 6th, 7th. 8 th. and 14th amendment of US Constitution for a fair and unbiased trial as: "nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law (5th amendm ent); "shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury o f the State, be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations, to confront the the witness against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor" (6th and 7th amendments); "nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted" (8th amendment); "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due processof law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws' (14th amendmen

t".) Attorney General in his investigative role counseled and assisted the sole complainant Janet Spiridonakos, in a conduct that the lawyer knew or should have known is illegal and fraudulent. Attorney General willingly and knowingly viola ted the court order of release of information pertaining to TRO and committed co ntempt of court by releasing false statements of fact and information to the med ia with full knowledge of their falsity, representing them as valid, legitimate and true. The judges of the Supreme Court Dutchess County James Brands, Thomas D olan, James Pagones and Peter Forman violated the due process of respondent Vele anu and his rights to defend himself when facing false charges, rights secured b y the 14th amendment of US Constitution. The above 4 judges violated NY laws NYC RR 100.3 (E) (1) ; NYCRR 100.3 (D) (2) which provide that a judge has an obligat ion to report to the attorneys disciplinary committeee, lawyers who knowingly su bmitted altered documents to the court, lawyers involved in a deliberate decepti on intended to prpetrate fraud and deceive a party; and duty of judges that rece ive information indicating a likelihood that a lawyer committed a substantial vi olation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, should take apropriate actio n. Judge Peter Forman acted in obstruction of justice by fraudulently impersonat ing the Administrative Judge of the Supreme Court and quashed a motion for Relie f of Judgment upon the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, misconduct of the ad verse party, lack of jurisdiction to render the judgments.Upon a showing by an a pplication to the administrative judge that judgments were obtained by fraud, mi srepresentation, illegalities, lack of due service, violation of law where such judgments were obtained in cases in which the defendant would uniformly be entit led to interpose a defense. The officers of the Supreme Court Dutchess County an d the Appellate Court Second Department conspired to suppress, oppress and injur e defendant Veleanu by violating federal law Title 18, section 19 that provides: "making a crime to conspire, to injure or oppress any citizen in the face of ex ercise of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution". Also, the officer s of the above mentioned courts violated Mircea Veleanu's constitutional rights provided by Federal Title 42, Section 1983 for a fair trial and due process. God Bless United States of America! God save United States of America! Mircea Veleanu