09-MC-95 (LB) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2009)

From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Igartua

United States District Court, E.D. New York

Dec 30, 2009

09-MC-95 (LB) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2009)

Opinion

09-MC-95 (LB).

December 30, 2009

ORDER

LOIS BLOOM, Magistrate Judge

These ten pro se submissions were received by the Court from October through December, 2009. The Court's Pro Se Office informed each litigant in writing that the complaint or petition could not be filed as received because the litigant failed to include the filing fee, failed to request to proceed in forma pauperis, failed to request leave to file or for some other deficiency. Each litigant was specifically instructed to correct their submission within 14 days in order for the complaint or petition to be filed. More than 30 days have elapsed and the litigants listed on the caption above have not responded to the Court's instructions.

Accordingly, no further action will be taken on these ten submissions. The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively close these pro se submissions (attached hereto).

SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PRO SE OFFICE U.S. COURTHOUSE 225 CADMAN PLAZA EAST BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201

Date: October 28, 2009 Dear Litigant: Ms. Igartua,

The Court's Pro Se Office received the enclosed papers on October 9, 2009 . The papers are being returned to you for one or more of the following reasons checked below. Please read this list carefully to correct any mistakes or omissions in your papers. If you decide to proceed with your action, you must return the enclosed papers WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER for processing (together with this letter). 11 28 U.S.C. § 1914 in forma pauperis in forma pauperis in forma pauperis Please specity what you would like this clocument to be constendas. If it is a new complaint, please fille "Complaint" and we need an informa parperis motion fill out and submitted to us. If it is as an Amencled Complaint, please fille this document as such, and indicate the case number. and cesubmit all clocuments back to the court.

Plaintiff Edna Igartua, resides at 2805 Snydon Ave Bkign N4. 11226.

Defendant DSS, resides at Go Chareles Lindbergh Blvd. STE 160. Uniondal E. N4. 11553

Defendant _______________, resides at ___________________________________.

II. The jurisdiction of the Court is invoked pursuant to ______________________________.

III. Statement of Claim. [give a clear and concise statement of facts: where the claim arose, the date of each relevant event, a description of what occurred and how each defendant named was involved in the claim]

IV. Remedy. State what relief, such as money damages, you seek from each defendant.October 7, 2009 signature (718) 469-1217

Date Sign Your Name Telephone Number

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PRO SE OFFICE U.S. COURTHOUSE 225 CADMAN PLAZA EAST BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201

Date: October 29, 2009 Dear Litigant: Mr. Knight,

The Court's Pro Se Office received the enclosed papers onOctober 26, 2009. The papers are being returned to you for one or more of the following reasons checked below. Please read this list carefully to correct any mistakes or omissions in your papers. If you decide to proceed with your action, you must return the enclosed papers WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER for processing (together with this letter). 11 28 U.S.C. § 1914 in forma pauperis in forma pauperis in forma pauperis

PROOF OF SERVICE

Said service was made by depositing the Complaint, Memorandum Of Law, and application for Forma Pauperis correctly addressed to:

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

225 CADMAN PLAZA

BROOKLYN, NEW YORK, 11201.

"It's not one party's government. It's America's government. Those entrusted with great power have a duty to answer to Americans what they are doing," said Sen. Patrick Leaky of Vermont. (Buffalo Newspaper May 12, 2006 page A 2).

Very truly yours /S/ _________________________________________ ALFONSO SPRINGER KNIGHT General Delivery Calidonia Panama City, The Republic of Panama 0816 —

CHANGE OF ADDRESS

I HEREBY REQUEST A CHANGE OF ADDRESS, TO CALIDONIA GENERAL DELLIVERY, PANAMA CITY, THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA, 0816 WHICH IS THE CORRECT ADDRESS. Oct, 13, 2009 /S/ _________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ALFONSO SPRINGER KNIGHT, Plaintiff, WAIVER OF SERVICE — against — Docket no. THE PEOPLE OF CITY OF NEW YORK. Respondents. _________________________________________x : : : : ________________ : _________________________________________x

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

ALFONSO SPRINGER KNIGHT.

I waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you. I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case. I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court's jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within

60 days from, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date _________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ALFONSO SPRINGER KNIGHT, Plaintiff, COMPLAINT — against — Docket no. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondents. _________________________________________x : : : : ________________ : _________________________________________x

1. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.

This is a civil action seeking relief and damages to defend and protect the rights guaranteed to the Constitution of the United States. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Court has jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, 1343(3) and (4) and 2201.

2. PARTIES TO THIS ACTION

Plaintiff is: Alfonso Springer Knight, mailing address: General Delivery, Calidonia Panama City, The Republic of Panama. 0816 E Mail ASK.NIGHT@HOTMAIL.COM.

The Respondents: The People of The City of New York, attorney is the Corporation Counsel, Michael Cardozo located at, 120 Broadway.

New York, New York, 10005, Tel. no. 212 788 0303

3. FACTS FIRST FELONY CLAIM

1. On April 15, 1974, the respondent (Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department) determined that the plaintiff 3 year sentence of imprisonment was "excessive," and "modified" his judgment of conviction to time served in the "interest of justice."

2. Plaintiff believes this judgment alleged by the respondents unconstitutionally denied him due process and equal protection of laws, prejudicial on the grounds that he had already served more than the time required by law when the trial court committed a reversible error by failing dismiss indictment with prejudice (Plaintiff's Exhibit A, See People v. Springer-Knight, 354 N.Y.S. 2d. 996).

3. The New York Court of Appeals claimed;

"Appropriate remedy, where trial court committed reversible error in case in which defendant (or plaintiff) had already served his sentence, was order dismissing indictment (Plaintiff's Exhibit B, See People v. Flynn,

581 N.Y.S. 2d. 160, 161).

4. No purpose would be served by respondent's retrial for reversible error where plaintiff had already completed his sentence, and proper remedy was to reverse conviction and to dismiss information with prejudice.

SECOND FELONY CLAIM.

5. The respondents failed to dismiss the indictment (No. 6888/71) on April 15, 1974 and without fair warning, due process and equal protection of laws, they used the Newly Second Offender law, Penal Law 70.06 and CPL 400.21 which became effective September 1, 1973, effectively against the plaintiff in 1985 under the 1972 alleged conviction, and the Appellate Division Second Department failed to mentioned in their opinion on appeal that he was sentenced as a predicate offender which was part of the appeal a prejudicial error, and his sentence should have been considered, and corrected (Plaintiff's Exhibit "C" People v. Springer, 545 N.Y.S.2d 766 in Evidence herein, Please find a copy attached hereto.)

6. This Court and the respondents here should agree that, the 1973 Second Offender ex post facto law was used unconstitutionally against the plaintiff denied him due process and equal protection of laws, since there was not any fair notice in 1971 by Legislature passing the current law in 1973 was intended to be used against him in 1972. The current law increased his minimum punishment to one half of 9 years of imprisonment for a crime allegedly consummated in 1971 before the consequences of the act completed and it's effective date by the respondents deliberate indifference, and prejudicial errors.

7. The respondents failed to reduced plaintiff's sentence within the statue of limitation or resentence him to the appropriate time and he served out his excessive sentence, consequently, requiring a dismissal of the indictment with prejudice on the grounds it's the only remedy.

8. Moreover, upon the respondents failure administer due diligence to the plaintiff he served out a 4 1/2 to 9 years unconstitutional sentence illegally obtained under color of state and federal law and the interest of justice requires that the indictment to be dismissed.

THIRD FELONY CLAIM.

In 2003 the respondents introduced against the plaintiff, the prior unconstitutionally obtained convictions of 1985 under the similar acts at trial in order to impeach his credibility which was a prejudicial error on the grounds that both prior felonies denied him due process and equal protection of laws, and were unconstitutionally obtained (Plaintiff Exhibit A, and C=D, in Evidence herein).

10. Respondents direct projections are the results of prejudicial errors occurred at plaintiff's trial and sentence of imprisonment on the grounds the two alleged felonies induced an harsher sentence as an aggregated felon and it allegedly unconstitutionally denied him due process and equal protection of laws.

11. Respondents failed to reduce harsher sentence within the statute of limitation or retry plaintiff on said charges and the appropriately, where trial court committed reversible errors sentencing him to a harsher term of imprisonment on the grounds of the his alleged prior convictions, therefore, by them failing to retry or re-sentence him within the required time prescribed by law for time he already served, the order should be to dismiss the indictment with prejudice.

4. FOURTH CLAIM AND STRIKE. RESPONDENTS SHIFTED THEIR BURDEN.

12. Respondent with autistic certainty and animistic thinking shifted their burden of proof Technically, Knowingly, Openly (TKO) and Common Sense Investigation (CSI) on each felony unconstitutionally obtained (" the backdoor mechanism ") against the plaintiff, consequently, depriving him of due process by reducing the alleged sentences within the statutory limitations on each claim and the time he already served excessively under color of state and federal laws by prejudice in the interest of justice, due process, equal protection of laws in each of the following elements:

1^st Felony and Strike Claim.

13. In 1974 the respondents (Appellate Division, Second Department) ruled that the plaintiff's 3 year sentence to imprisonment was excessive, but failed to dismiss the indictment for more than the time he already served, it was a prejudicial error by modifying it in the interest of justice with deliberate indifference to the question of state and federal laws under the indictment and the indifference to the New York Court of Appeals in Flynn, supra.

2nd Felony and Strike Claim.

14. In 1985 respondents used the new Second Offender law against the plaintiff unconstitutionally when it became effective September 1, 1973, and under the 1972 alleged conviction without any fair warning to enhance his sentence as predicate offender and sentencing him to 4 1/2 to 9 years of imprisonment which he served and under normal circumstances could have been probation or 1 1/2 to 4 1/2 and failed to reduce his sentence within the statutory time limit required by law and failed to mentioned on appeal that he was sentence as a predicate even though it was argued and that he already served a sentence beyond the law prescribed when the trial court committed a reversible error sentencing him as a predicate offender, and that the indictment should have been dismissed with prejudice.

3rd Felony and Strike Claim.

15. In 2003 respondents at trial referred the plaintiff's previous alleged convictions and invited the Jury unconstitutionally to determine his guilt and impeach his credibility under color of state and federal law with this prejudice at the trial. In the chain of events and the indictment (No. 9445/01) should be dismissed on the grounds both previous convictions alleged were unconstitutionally obtained under their "backdoor mechanism," and was used unfavorably to draw inferences to the prejudice trial and sentence him an aggregated felon by failing to reduce his sentence within the statutory time limits required by law, and then later he was put under a removal order from the United States to Panama as an aggregated felon.

At this point we need to get the Record straight and justify whether or not the laws of the U.S. was applied equally with the protection and due process to this plaintiff as it stands or was Unconstitutionally applied under the "backdoor mechanism", color of state and federal laws by the respondents. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that the aforementioned complaint be granted declaratory judgment on 3 felony charges accrued and incurred over the past 38 years from Statement 1 throughout 15 on the grounds alleged that the he had been unconstitutionally denied due process, equal protection of state and federal laws under color by the respondents by their shifted TKO, CSI further reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum of Law, and in the interest of the of justice upon this immediate demand for a jury trial on all these triable issues. Very Truly Yours, ALFONSO SPRINGER-KNIGHT. /S/ _________________________________________ I'm the undersigned in this complaint and cause of action and make this application Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. section 1746 based upon information, I Believe is true and exact under the penalties of perjury on this 13^th , of October in the Year of Our Lord 2009. /S/ _________________________________________ Exhibit

PROOF OF SERVICE

Said service was made by depositing the Complaint, Memorandurn Of Law, and application for Forma Pauperis correctly addressed to:

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

225 CADMAN PLAZA

BROOKLYN, NEW YORK, 11201.

Oct, 13, 2009 Very truly yours Alfonso Springer Knight _________________________________________ ALFONSO SPRINGER KNIGHT General Delivery Calidonia Panama City, The Republic of Panama 0816 —

CHANGE OF ADDRESS

I HEREBY REQUEST A CHANGE OF ADDRESS, TO CALIDONIA GENERAL DELLIVERY, PANAMA CITY, THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA, 0816 WHICH IS THE CORRECT ADDRESS. Alfonso Springer Knight _________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ALFONSO SPRINGER KNIGHT, FORMA PAUPERIS Plaintiff, — against — Docket no. THE PEOPLE OF CITY OF NEW YORK. Respondents. _________________________________________x : : : : ________________ : _________________________________________x ALFONSO SPRINGER KNIGHT, deposes and says:

1. That I am the plaintiff in this cause of action, and make this application in forma pauperis as a person who is unable to prepay the filing fee because I am without any finance or job or money in Panama as a disable person pursuant 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 and 1915A.

2. While I was in the United States, I received SSI payments (095 36 6940) for over 30 years after being seriously wounded by a City employee (respondent).

3. I have been to the American Counsel at Clayton, and was told that SSI payments does not extend beyond the U.S. Borders, therefore, the hardship unable to support one self has been imposed by the accumulative negative effect upon me.

4. Therefore, I hope that this Court grants this application to be filed without the per-payment fee in this just cause in the interest of justice.

Oct, 13, 2009 Very Truly Yours, Alfonso Springer Knight _________________________________________ ALFONSO SPRINGER KNIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ALFONSO SPRINGER KNIGHT, Plaintiff, WAIVER OF SERVICE — against — Docket no. THE PEOPLE OF CITY OF NEW YORK. Respondents. _________________________________________x : : : : ________________ : _________________________________________x

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

ALFONSO SPRINGER KNIGHT:

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within

60 days from, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date Oct 13, 2009 Alfonso Springer Knight _________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ALFONSO SPRINGER KNIGHT, FORMA PAUPERIS Plaintiff, — against — Docket no. THE PEOPLE OF CITY OF NEW YORK. Respondents. _________________________________________x : : : : ________________ : _________________________________________x ALFONSO SPRINGER KNIGHT, deposes and says:

1. That I am the plaintiff in this cause of action, and make this application in forma pauperis as a person who is unable to prepay the filing fee because I am without any finance or job or money in Panama as a disable person pursuant 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 and 1915A.

2. While I was in the United States, I received SSI payments (095 36 6940) for over 30 years after being seriously wounded by a City employee (respondent).

3. I have been to the American Counsel at Clayton, and was told that SSI payments does not extend beyond the U.S. Borders, therefore, the hardship unable to support one self has been imposed by the accumulative negative effect upon me.

4. Therefore, I hope that this Court grants this application to be filed without the per-payment fee in this just cause in the interest of justice.

Oct 13th, 2009 Very Truly Yours, ALFONSO SPRINGER KNIGHT _________________________________________ ALFONSO SPRINGER KNIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ALFONSO SPRINGER KNIGHT, Plaintiff, COMPLAINT — against — Docket no. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondents. _________________________________________x : : : : ________________ : _________________________________________x

1. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.

2. PARTIES TO THIS ACTION

Plaintiff is: Alfonso Springer Knight, mailing address: General Delivery, Calidonia Panama City, The Republic of Panama. 0816 E Mail ASK.NIGHT@HOTMAIL.COM.

The Respondents: The People of The City of New York, attorney is the Corporation Counsel, Michael Cardozo located at, 120 Broadway, New York, New York, 10005, Tel. no. 212 788 0303

3. FACTS

FIRST FELONY CLAIM

1. On April 15, 1974, the respondent (Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department) determined that the plaintiff 3 year sentence of imprisonment was "excessive," and "modified" his judgment of conviction to time served in the "interest of justice."

2. Plaintiff believes this judgment alleged by the respondents unconstitutionally denied him due process and equal protection of laws, prejudicial on the grounds that he had already served more than the time required by law when the trial court committed a reversible error by failing dismiss indictment with prejudice (Plaintiff's Exhibit A, See People v. Springer-Knight, 354 N.Y.S. 2d. 996).

3. The New York Court of Appeals claimed;

"Appropriate remedy, where trial court committed reversible error in case in which defendant (or plaintiff) had already served his sentence, was order dismissing indictment (Plaintiff's Exhibit B, See People v. Flynn,

581 N.Y.S. 2d. 160, 161).

4. No purpose would be served by respondent's retrial for reversible error where plaintiff had already completed his sentence, and proper remedy was to reverse conviction and to dismiss information with prejudice.

SECOND FELONY CLAIM.

5. The respondents failed to dismiss the indictment (No. 6888/71) on April 15, 1974 and without fair warning, due process and equal protection of laws, they used the Newly Second Offender law, Penal Law 70.06 and CPL 400.21 which became effective September 1, 1973, effectively against the plaintiff in 1985 under the 1972 alleged conviction, and the Appellate Division Second Department failed to mentioned in their opinion on appeal that he was sentenced as a predicate offender which was part of the appeal a prejudicial error, and his sentence should have been considered, and corrected (Plaintiff's Exhibit "C" People v. Springer, 545 N.Y.S.2d 766 in Evidence herein, Please find a copy attached hereto.)

7. The respondents failed to reduced plaintiff's sentence within the statue of limitation or resentence him to the appropriate time and he served out his excessive sentence, consequently, requiring a dismissal of the indictment with prejudice on the grounds it's the only remedy.

8. Moreover, upon the respondents failure administer due diligence to the plaintiff he served out a 4 1/2 to 9 years unconstitutional sentence illegally obtained under color of state and federal law and the interest of justice requires that the indictment to be dismissed.

4. FOURTH CLAIM AND STRIKE. RESPONDENTS SHIFTED THEIR BURDEN.

12. Respondent with autistic certainty and animistic thinking shifted their burden of proof Technically, Knowingly. Openly (TKO) and Common Sense Investigation (CSI) on each felony unconstitutionally obtained (" the backdoor mechanism ") against the plaintiff, , consequently, depriving him of due process by reducing the alleged sentences within the statutory limitations on each claim and the time he already served excessively under color of state and federal laws by prejudice in the interest of justice, due process, equal protection of laws in each of the following elements:

1^st Felony and Strike Claim.

13. In 1974 the respondents (Appellate Division, Second Department) ruled that the plaintiff's 3 year sentence to imprisonment was excessive, but failed to dismiss the indictment for more than the time he already served, it was a prejudicial error by modifying it in the interest of justice with deliberate indifference to the question of state and federal laws under the indictment and the indifference to the New York Court of Appeals in Flynn, supra.

2^nd Felony and Strike Claim.

14. In 1985 respondents used the new Second Offender law against the plaintiff unconstitutionally when it became effective September 1, 1973, and under the 1972 alleged conviction without any fair warning to enhance his sentence as predicate offender and sentencing him to 4 1/2 to 9 years of imprisonment which he served and under normal circumstances could have been probation or 1 1/2 to 4 1/2 and failed to reduce his sentence within the statutory time limit required by law and failed to mentioned on appeal that he was sentence as a predicate even though it was argued and that he already served a sentence beyond the law prescribed when the trial court committed a reversible error sentencing him as a predicate offender, and that the indictment should have been dismissed with prejudice.

3^rd Felony and Strike Claim.

15. In 2003 respondents at trial referred the plaintiff's previous alleged convictions and invited the Jury unconstitutionally to determine his guilt and impeach his credibility under color of state and federal law with this prejudice at the trial. In the chain of events and the indictment (No. 9445/01) should be dismissed on the grounds both previous convictions alleged were unconstitutionally obtained under their "backdoor mechanism," and was used unfavorably to draw inferences to the prejudice trial and sentence him an aggregated felon by failing to reduce his sentence within the statutory time limits required by law, and then later he was put under a removal order from the United States to Panama as an aggregated felon.

At this point we need to get the Record straight and justify whether or not the laws of the U.S. was applied equally with the protection and due process to this plaintiff as it stands or was Unconstitutionally applied under the "backdoor mechanism", color of state and federal laws by the respondents. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that the aforementioned complaint be granted declaratory judgment on 3 felony charges accrued and incurred over the past 38 years from Statement 1 throughout 15 on the grounds alleged that the he had been unconstitutionally denied due process, equal protection of state and federal laws under color by the respondents by their shifted TKO, CSI further reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum of Law, and in the interest of the of justice upon this immediate demand for a jury trial on all these triable issues. Very Truly Yours, ALFONSO SPRINGER-KNIGHT. ALFONSO SPRINGER-KNIGHT _________________________________________ I'm the undersigned in this complaint and cause of action and make this application Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. section 1746 based upon information, I Believe is true and exact under the penalties of perjury on this 13th, of October in the Year of Our Lord 2009. Alfonso Springer-Knight _________________________________________ Exhibit UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _________________________________________x : ALFONSO SPRINGER KNIGHT, : Plaintiff, : — against — : Docket no.________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondents. : _________________________________________x

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

ALFONSO SPRINGER KNIGHT

Mailing address: General Delivery,

Calidonia, Panama City, The Republic

of Panama, 0816

E Mail ASK.NIGHT@HOTMAIL.COM

TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages STATEMENT OF THE CASE ARGUMENTS POINT I POINT II POINT III How do you define Prejudice? POINT IV POINT V POINT VI POINT VII CONCLUSION ......................................................... 1 FEDERAL QUESTIONS OF LAWS ..................................................... 3 THE DOUBLE STANDARDS BY THE RESPONDENTS APPLYING THE RULES OF LAWS .................................................... 3 FAILURE TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ......................................... 3 THE RESPONDENTS USED THE SECOND OFFENDER LAW UNCONSTITUTIONALLY AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF ...............................4 .............................................. 6 THE EXAMPLE OF LAW AND THE ORDER .......................................... 6 PREJUDICIAL ERRORS occurred AT TRIAL AND SENTENCING REQUIRED THE INDICTMENT TO BE DISMISSED ............................................ 7 RESPONDENTS SHIFTED TKO AND CSI ........................................... 8 JUDICIAL DISCRESION, INTEGRITY FOR FAIRNESS IN PROCEEDINGS AND PUBLIC REPUTATIONS IS NEEDED HERE ......................................... 9 ................................................................ 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ALFONSO SPRINGER KNIGHT, Plaintiff, — against — Docket no. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondents. _________________________________________x : : : : ________________ : _________________________________________x

MEMORANDUM OF LAW STATEMENT OF THE CASE

(T)his is a Cold case dating back to March 3^rd, 1971 when the respondents with autistic certainty, mentally confused evidence of their opinion of the plaintiff, with the physical evidence of facts and the Laws, Rules, Regulations, Procedural Safeguards, and their Oath of Office. Consequently, respondents are under this Illusion and the plaintiff has been their Scapegoat, allegedly convicted of 3 underhanded felonies, under "the backdoor mechanism."

The respondent, the People of the City of New York gave district attorney Eugene Gold and his officers this Blank check to go Madoff against the accused plaintiff, Technically, Knowingly, Open (TKO), they operated independently from basic Common Sense Investigation (CSI), the established state and federal Rules of laws, and the wishes of the People of the City of New York.

This malicious prosecution by the respondents did irreparable damages to the plaintiff, the Cover-up, Frame-up, The Stress, the twist, turns, curves by the underhanded indictment, the false imprisonment, the fork in the road of justice, their decisions are the increments here under color of state and federal laws. Their office should be sufficient to determine what unlawfully that comes out of it.

This case deals with the ambiguous decisions made by the respondents (Appellate Division, Second Department, the District Attorney, and the City of New York) with deliberate indifference to the plaintiff in the interpretation of State and Federal laws which was in direct contradiction with the First Department Appellate Division on the same issues, and New York State Highest Court, the Court of Appeals.

It shows how the respondents continued deliberate indifference plan to the plaintiff well thought-out and nothing "spontaneous" about their reactions unconstitutionally to enhance his time of imprisonment and on 3 separate occasion without fair warning put him down on facts he was not upon (prejudice) and the laws Blindsided by the Backdoor Justice Mechanism that contributed to his cruel and usual punishment each time which already served and the indictment should have been dismissed according to the Rules, and procedures of law with prejudice.

It was a prejudicial error for the respondents to used the two alleged prior convictions at trial in 2003 which they obtained unconstitutionally against the plaintiff and to sentence him to an higher sentence not prescribed by law.

In all these 3 alleged felonies against plaintiff resulted in an sentence "excessive" time of imprisonment which had to be reduce and within the statute of limitation by the respondents failure to make the necessary timely adjustment, he already served more than his time imprisoned, which as a result denied him unconstitutionally, due process and equal protection of the laws.

The respondents then shifted their burden of proof on to the plaintiff, but that burden remains with them to prove every elements of their charges TKO and CSI beyond a reasonable doubt Point 1 in 7, infra.

FEDERAL QUESTIONS OF LAWS.

1. The respondent (App. Div. 2^nd Dept.) determined that the plaintiff sentence of was imprisonment was excessive, why the indictment wasn `t dismissed?

2. September 1, 1973 Second Offender Law used against the plaintiff alleged 1972 conviction, was it used unconstitutionally?

3. In 2003 was the plaintiff unconstitutionally depraved him of the right to a fair trial and sentence by respondents introducing his alleged prior convictions?

4. Was there any shifting of burden by the respondents' unto the plaintiff unconstitutionally under any of these alleged felonies, and his removal from the Country?

ARGUMENT. ***THE DOUBLE STANDARDS BY THE RESPONDENTS APPLYING THE RULES OF* LAWS. POINT I *FAILURE TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT***

"Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, April 15, 1972, Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered October 2, 1972, convicting him of possession of a dangerous weapon, on a plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term not to exceed three years. Judgment modified, as matter of discretion in the Interest of justice, by reducing the sentence to the time served. as so modified, judgment affirmed. In our opinion, the sentence was excessive to the extent indicated herein."

Plaintiff's Exhibit A, in Evidence herein, please find a copy attached hereto People v. Springer-Knight, 354 N.Y.S. 2d. 996,

The federal question, after the respondent determined that the plaintiff's sentence was excessive and he already served more than the time which amounted to cruel and unusual punishment reducing the sentence was not the proper remedy it should have been an order dismissing the indictment with prejudice.

The New York Court of Appeals held that:

"Appropriate remedy, where trial court committed reversible error in case in which defendant had already served his sentence, was order dismissing indictment.

See Plaintiff's Exhibit B in Evidence herein. People v. Flynn, 581 N.Y.S. 2d. 160, 161,

It has been the consensus of every State court, when the trial court committed a reversible error and the defendant or plaintiff already served his or her time was an order dismissing the indictment. See People v. Flynn, supra.

In People v. Murphy, 586 N.Y.S. 2d. 716, 717 ("No purpose would be served by retrial for reversible error where defendant had already completed his sentence, and proper remedy was to reverse conviction and to dismiss criminal information with prejudice.").

In People v. Bleau, 718 N.Y.S. 2d. 453 ("No basis existed for ordering new trial on reversal of defendant' conviction, where defendant (or plaintiff) had already served his sentence.").

POINT II ***THE RESPONDENTS USED THE SECOND OFFENDER LAW UNCONSTITUTIONALLY* *AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF.***

The respondents used the second offender law unconstitutionally against the plaintiff, Penal Law 70.06 and CPL 400.21 became effective September 1, 1973, and the ex post facto law was used by the respondent in 1985 under the alleged 1972 conviction.Plaintiff's Exhibit "C" People v. Springer, 545 N.Y.S.2d 766 in Evidence herein, Please find a copy attached hereto. See People v. Thompson, 389 N.Y.S. 2d. 104,105:

"Where crime of assault to which defendant entered guilty plea occurred on May 27, 1973, defendant could not be Sentenced under second felony offender Statute which became effective September 1, 1973. Penal Law section 70.06.

Respondents here should agree that, the 1973 second offender law never gave plaintiff fair notice in 1971 or 1972 when Legislature passed the current law in 1973, and used it against him in 1985 which was unconstitutionally obtained, using the current law to increased his punishment to 4 1/2 to 9 years of imprisonment for a crime alleged in 1971 and consummated before the consequences of the act was completed before it's effective date. See People v. Barbour, 443 N.Y.S. 2d. 815,

817. The consequences of respondents imposing the second offender law against Plaintiff required

2 elements: (a) Fair notice when the legislature increased punishment beyond what was prescribed when the crime was allegedly consummated.

(b) The law change the legal consequences of acts completed before It's effective date.

[T]he ex post facto prohibition . . . is not an individual's right to less punishment, but the lack of fair notice and government restraint when the legislature increases punishment beyond what was prescribed when the crime was consummated. . . . The critical question is whether the law changes the legal consequences of acts completed before its effective date." SeeBarbour, supra, at 818.

See People v. Taylor, 382 N.Y.S. 2d. 688 (Burden of proving constitutionality of previous conviction is on the People. CPL 400.21, subd. 7[a]).

In other words, it was cruel and usual punishment for the respondents to apply 4 1/2 to 9 years imprisonment against petitioner as a predicate offender. See People v. Martinez, 595 N.Y.S. 2d. 39 ("While sentence within statutory limits is ordinarily not cruel and unusual punishment, in some rare cases statute can be unconstitutionally applied."). Plaintiff's case at bar, the reversible error by enhancing his sentence that was never corrected by the respondents and he completed his 9 year sentence, which should have been dismissed with prejudice on the ground that he had served more than the law aloud, denied due process, and equal protection of laws under the United States Guarantees.

POINT III How do you define Prejudice?

"A wit define prejudice when a person put you down on something that you are not up on.".

An example of prejudice in this case at bar are:

(a) An April 15, 1974, when the Appellate Division, Second Department was up on the fact that the plaintiff's sentence was excessive and failed to put him down by dismissing the indictment, it was a prejudicial error;

(b) Plaintiff's Exhibit C, supra, after the App. Div. 2^nd Department (respondent) failed to even mentioned that plaintiff was sentenced as a predicate which was a prejudicial error, even though the matter was preserved and unconstitutionally a prejudicial error.

(c) And for the respondents to put the plaintiff down at trial with previously alleged felonies unconstitutionally obtained to get a conviction, it was also a prejudicial error.

POINT IV THE EXAMPLE OF LAW AND THE ORDER.

Compare Point I to People v. Robles, infra, the Appellate Division also claimed: ". . . because illegal sentence was imposed for defendant's prior conviction, it could not serve as predicate felony conviction and, thus, defendant's adjudication as a second felony offender had to be vacated."

Inasmuch, in the Springer-Knight situation the respondents failed to apply the law correctly, and to make matters worst, they applied a 1973 ex post facto law by using it against plaintiff's alleged 1972 conviction:

". . . The Supreme Court, Appellate Division [First Department] held that:

(1) although issue was not preserved for appellate review, defendant's conviction for fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon had to be vacated, in the interest of justice, and (2) because illegal sentence imposed for defendant's prior conviction, it could not serve as predicate felony conviction and, thus, defendant's adjudication as a second felony had to be vacated." See People v. Robles, 673 N. Y. S. 2d. 654, 655. Plaintiff's Exhibit "E" in Evidence, herein.

The Supreme Courts, Appellate Division (respondent Point I),supra, both agreed in the interest of justice and defendants conviction for possession of a weapon was "excessive" but disagreed, when the First Department did the right thing and vacated the defendant's sentence, and the Second Department Appellate Division (respondent) failed to remedy the Common Sense Investigation (CSI) did not serve the interest of justice when the trial Court admittedly committed a reversible error under color of state and federal laws.

POINT V ***PREJUDICIAL ERRORS occurred AT TRIAL AND SENTENCING REQUIRED THE* *INDICTMENT TO BE DISMISSED.***

Because of the failures in the interest of justice (Point I to IV) the respondents used in 2003 prejudicial errors at the trial under Sandoval which it tainted the proceedings unconstitutionally and deprived plaintiff the right to due process at trial and sentencing under the equal protection of laws, See Plaintiff's Exhibit D, supra in the Complaint . . .

(a) If this Court determine that plaintiff's alleged prior convictions were unconstitutionally obtained by respondents, it should also find that they were used unconstitutionally at trial and prejudice the proceedings against him to have fair trial, and sentencing.

(b) Plaintiff was sentence to an enhanced term of imprisonment because of said felonies discussed and the respondents failure to reduce his sentence or a new trial within the statute of limitation appropriately, therefore, the indictment should be dismissed with prejudice.

(c) If procedures were being followed lawfully plaintiff probably would never have been convicted of any crime or sentenced.

POINT VI RESPONDENTS SHIFTED TKO AND CSI.

Respondents shifted Technically, Knowingly, Openly (TKO), their burden of proof of the Common Sense, Investigation (CSI) into the backdoor mechanism and justice to plaintiff which required them to come forward with evidence within their knowledge in this criminal case that raises 4^th and 5^th Amendments questions.

See Patterson v. New York, 97, S. Ct. 2319 (holding the government "must prove every ingredient of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt," and "it may not shift the burden of proof to the defendant (plaintiff) presuming that ingredient upon proof of the other elements of the offense.")

The respondents failed to prove the TKO in each felony, they stroked the ingredient of CSI in their favor beyond a reasonable doubt, and then shifted their burden of proof onto the plaintiff to prove under CSI the following:

POINT I, III, IV.

The respondents shifted their burden TKO and CSI to dismiss the indictment after they determined that plaintiff had already excessive time imprisoned on the grounds that the trial court committed a reversible error. See People v. Robles, Springer, supra.

POINT II, III, IV

Respondents used a new September 1^st, 1973 unconstitutionally against the plaintiff's alleged 1972 conviction in 1985 without fair warning to enhance his sentence TKO and CSI beyond that prescribed by law, which he already served and the indictment should be dismissed in the interest of justice, and prejudice. See People v Springer, Thompson, Babour, Robles, Taylor, supra.

POINT V, VI

(a) On one hand the respondents should agree that they Technically, Knowingly, Openly (TKO), shifted their burden upon the plaintiff to prove that the alleged 2003, 1972 and 1985 conviction were unconstitutionally obtained, and as a result of the (CSI) prejudicial error were introduced at trial in 2003 to impeach plaintiff's credibility which required a reversal of judgment, and conviction. See for example, Taylor, Patterson, supra.

(b) On the other hand, the plaintiff was adjudged a aggregated felon and sentenced as such which required that his sentence be reduce within the statute of limitation required by law.

(c) As a result of the respondents multiple failures, they failed to prove that plaintiff was guilty of any of the felonies unconstitutionally obtained and was put under a Removal Order from the United States to Panama by the Immigration Department, which in sum all these errors amounted to malicious prosecution, cruel unusual punishment, a denial of due process, and equal protection of under color of federal laws in the United States Guaranteed!.

POINT VII JUDICIAL DISCRESION, INTEGRITY FOR FAIRNESS IN PROCEEDINGS AND PUBLIC REPUTATION IS NEEDED HERE.

"We're really flying blind on the subject, and that's not a good way to approach the Fourth Amendment and constitutional issues involving privacy."

"It's not one party's government. It's America's government. Those entrusted with great power have a duty to answer to Americans what they are doing," said Sen. Patrick Leaky of Vermont. (Buffalo Newspaper, May 12, 2006 page A 2).

The Backdoor Mechanism.

The respondents has applied a Double Standards and the backdoor mechanism of justice to rules and procedures because of their one party politics, social class, their management, company rules they serve which as nothing to do with law and order being employees in government who they should be serving the People of the City of New York.

`In certain times like this when you are being conned, robbed, rapped, under minded of what supposed to be your Bill of Rights Guaranteed by the United States Constitution, it's probably best not to cry out for help — you run the risk of attracting the district attorney with animistic thinking and autistic certainty:

"He (the plaintiff) commenced with his customary assumption of legal knowledge which he does not possess, this product of wasted effort, wasted, wasted, wasted, we are certain for him, wasted to the extent that it involves the time and attention of this Court and of the district attorney is — to be expected (Assistant D.A. William I. Segiel for Eugene Gold, on Appeal before the 2^nd Dept. App. Div. 1974)."

(T)his district attorney permit himself contradictions which is hard to reconcile with one another, first he begin by saying a piece of paper like his is quite harmless, no believer would let himself be robbed of his fate by consideration of a sought put forward in it, he believes that he can change a believer into a unbeliever, nevertheless we the believers are asking him, why are you in fact publishing your materials which is very dangerous indeed, that people like you no longer believe in God, now that he throws off his disobedience to you.

(T)his type of misery, oppression, deviant behavior is being practice in Countries of One Party System like Russia, North Korea, China, Iraq, etc, etc.,. The question here is what substitute the district attorneys have for the truth, religion or a conscience (The Book on the subject is THE FUTURE OF AN ILLUSSION by Sigmund Freud).

(a) These errors go into the internal affairs of the district attorney's office, grossly unsupervised by the publics scrutiny on a local level, the office should be sufficient for the Public Eyes to See what goes on in it or comes out. Those entrusted with great power have a duty to answer to Americans what they are doing.

(b) Increasingly, the respondents (district attorney and the City of New York) here are operating independently from State Laws and in the name of the People, claiming it's for their benefit, while all the time carrying-on their own agenda, and expropriating powers Reserved to the States in deliberate indifference to the People they should be working for, and the 10^th Amendment.

The respondents gave the District Attorneys a Blank Check and at some Points therein, they went Mad off with Laws and convictions coming out their office against the plaintiff and there is no CSI into Internal Affairs questioning the politics or what comes out their office.

When your erst-while friends shoots you in the Back (Spinal Cord) from behind causing you to be paralyzed, denies they did it, calls it friendly fire, and then put you down under a Removal Order from the U.S. — I believe it show you who your real-friends (respondents) are!

Say it ain't so Joe (Eugene, Elizabeth, Charlie)!

CONCLUSION

`If a man's-word, Laws, Public Records, Rules, Scrutiny, cannot withstand the pressure of these times — the man, his words, the Laws, Rules, are Mad off, and Woorthless!

Aforementioned, all 3 felonies were unconstitutionally obtained by the respondents alleged Backdoor mechanism of justice which systematically denied the plaintiff, due process and equal protection of laws, Rules, Regulations governing the values, Principles, Respect of justice in the would-be Justice System and for the reasons stated in the attached Complaint and this Memorandum of Law (Point I to VII) (t)his application requesting Declaratory Judgment for the respondents malicious prosecution should be granted on the grounds that:

"I've frankly acknowledge to you my conviction(s) and have laid down the grounds which they are founded, the consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguities, my arguments are open to all and may be judge by all at least it is not being offered in the spirit which will disgrace the cause of truth (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers)."

Finally, the record hereinafter indicates that the plaintiff was wrongly and unconstitutionally convicted of these felonies alleged by the respondents and should be dismissed in the interest of justice and for such other and further relief this court may deem just and proper. Respectfully Submitted, _________________________________________ ALFONSO SPRINGER-KNIGHT.

I'm the undersigned in this cause of action and make this application Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. section 1746 based upon information, under the penal ties of perjury based upon information and belief to be true and exact by filing this Complaint, Memorandum of law, and application to proceed in forma pauperis on this _____ of October, in the Year of Our Lord 2009.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ALFONSO SPRINGER KNIGHT, Plaintiff, WAIVER OF SERVICE — against — Docket no. THE PEOPLE OF CITY OF NEW YORK. Respondents. _________________________________________x : : : : ________________ : _________________________________________x

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

ALFONSO SPRINGER KNIGHT:

I waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you. 1, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case. I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court's jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within

60 days from, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date Oct 13, 2009 Alfonso Springer Knight _________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _________________________________________x : ALFONSO SPRINGER KNIGHT, : Plaintiff, : — against — : Docket no.________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondents. : _________________________________________x

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

ALFONSO SPRINGER KNIGHT

Mailing address: General Delivery,

Calidonia, Panama City, The Republic

of Panama, 0816

E Mail ASK.NIGHT@HOTMAIL.COM

TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages STATEMENT OF THE CASE ARGUMENTS POINT I POINT II POINT III How do you define Prejudice? POINT IV POINT V POINT VI POINT VII CONCLUSION ......................................................... 1 FEDERAL QUESTIONS OF LAWS .................................................... |3 THE DOUBLE STANDARDS BY THE RESPONDENTS APPLYING THE RULES OF LAWS .................................................... 3 FAILURE TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ......................................... 3 THE RESPONDENTS USED THE SECOND OFFENDER LAW UNCONSTITUTIONALLY AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF .............................. 4 .............................................. 6 THE EXAMPLE OF LAW AND THE ORDER .......................................... 6 PREJUDICIAL ERRORS occurred AT TRIAL AND SENTENCING REQUIRED THE INDICTMENT TO BE DISMISSED ............................................ 7 RESPONDENTS SHIFTED TKO AND CSI ........................................... 8 JUDICIAL DISCRESION, INTEGRITY FOR FAIRNESS IN PROCEEDINGS AND PUBLIC REPUTATIONS IS NEEDED HERE ......................................... 9 ......................................................... 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _________________________________________x : ALFONSO SPRINGER KNIGHT, : Plaintiff, : — against — : Docket no.________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondents. : _________________________________________x

MEMORANDUM OF LAW STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The respondent, the People of the City of New York gave district attorney Eugene Gold and his officers this Blank check to go Madoff against the accused plaintiff, Technically, Knowingly, Open (TKO) , they operated independently from basic Common Sense Investigation (CSI), the established state and federal Rules of laws, and the wishes of the People of the City of New York.

FEDERAL QUESTIONS OF LAWS.

1. The respondent (App. Div. 2^nd Dept.) determined that the plaintiff sentence of was imprisonment was excessive, why the indictment wasn't dismissed?

2. September 1, 1973 Second Offender Law used against the plaintiff alleged 1972 conviction, was it used unconstitutionally?

3. In 2003 was the plaintiff unconstitutionally depraved him of the right to a fair trial and sentence by respondents introducing his alleged prior convictions?

4. Was there any shifting of burden by the respondents' unto the plaintiff unconstitutionally under any of these alleged felonies, and his removal from the Country?

ARGUMENT. ***THE DOUBLE STANDARDS BY THE RESPONDENTS APPLYING THE RULES OF* LAWS. POINT I *FAILURE TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT***

"Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, April 15, 1972, Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered October 2, 1972, convicting him of possession of a dangerous weapon, on a plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term not to exceed three years. Judgment modified, as matter of discretion in the Interest of justice, by reducing the sentence to the time served. as so modified, judgment affirmed. In our opinion, the sentence was excessive to the extent indicated herein."

Plaintiff's Exhibit A, in Evidence herein, please find a copy attached hereto People v. Springer-Knight, 354 N.Y.S. 2d. 996,

The federal question, after the respondent determined that the plaintiff's sentence was excessive and he already served more than the time which amounted to cruel and unusual punishment reducing the sentence was not the proper remedy it should have been an order dismissing the indictment with prejudice.

The New York Court of Appeals held that:

"Appropriate remedy, where trial court committed reversible error in case in which defendant had already served his sentence, was order dismissing indictment.

See Plaintiff's Exhibit B in Evidence herein. People v. Flynn, 581 N.Y.S. 2d. 160, 161,

It has been the consensus of every State court, when the trial court committed a reversible error and the defendant or plaintiff already served his or her time was an order dismissing the indictment. See People v. Flynn, supra.

In People v. Bleau, 718 N.Y.S. 2d. 453 ("No basis existed for ordering new trial on reversal of defendant' conviction, where defendant (or plaintiff) had already served his sentence.").

POINT II ***THE RESPONDENTS USED THE SECOND OFFENDER LAW UNCONSTITUTIONALLY* *AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF.***

"Where crime of assault to which defendant entered guilty plea occurred on May 27, 1973, defendant could not be Sentenced under second felony offender Statute which became effective September 1, 1973. Penal Law section 70.06.

Respondents here should agree that, the 1973 second offender law never gave plaintiff fair notice in 1971 or 1972 when Legislature passed the current law in 1973, and used it against him in 1985 which was unconstitutionally obtained, using the current law to increased his punishment to 4 1/2 to 9 years of imprisonment for a crime alleged in 1971 and consummated before the consequences of the act was completed before it's effective date. See People v. Barbour, 443 N.Y.S. 2d. 815,

817. The consequences of respondents imposing the second offender law against Plaintiff required

2 elements: (a) Fair notice when the legislature increased punishment beyond what was prescribed when the crime was allegedly consummated.

(b) The law change the legal consequences of acts completed before It's effective date.

[T]he ex post facto prohibition . . . is not an individual's right to less punishment, but the lack of fair notice and government restraint when the legislature increases punishment beyond what was prescribed when the crime was consummated. . . . The critical question is whether the law changes the legal consequences of acts completed before its effective date." See Barbour, supra, at 818.

See People v. Taylor, 382 N.Y.S. 2d. 688 (Burden of proving constitutionality of previous conviction is on the People. CPL 400.21, subd. 7[a]).

POINT III How do you define Prejudice?

"A wit define prejudice when a person put you down on something that you are not up on.".

An example of prejudice in this case at bar are:

(a) An April 15, 1974, when the Appellate Division, Second Department was up on the fact that the plaintiff's sentence was excessive and failed to put him down by dismissing the indictment, it was a prejudicial error;

(b) Plaintiff's Exhibit C, supra after the App. Div. 2^nd Department (respondent) failed to even mentioned that plaintiff was sentenced as a predicate which was a prejudicial error, even though the matter was preserved and unconstitutionally a prejudicial error.

(c) And, for the respondents to put the plaintiff down at trial with previously alleged felonies unconstitutionally obtained to get a conviction, it was also a prejudicial error.

POINT IV THE EXAMPLE OF LAW AND THE ORDER.

Inasmuch, in the Springer-Knight situation the respondents failed to apply the law correctly, and to make matters worst, they applied a 1973 ex post facto law by using it against plaintiff's alleged 1972 conviction:

". . . The Supreme Court, Appellate Division [First Department] held that:

(1) although issue was not preserved for appellate review, defendant's conviction for fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon had to be vacated, in the interest of justice, and (2) because illegal sentence imposed for defendant's prior conviction, it could not serve as predicate felony conviction and, thus, defendant's adjudication as a second felony had to be vacated." See People v. Robles, 673 N. Y. S. 2d. 654, 655. Plaintiff's Exhibit "E" in Evidence, herein .

POINT V ***PREJUDICIAL ERRORS occurred AT TRIAL AND SENTENCING REQUIRED THE* *INDICTMENT TO BE DISMISSED.***

(c) If procedures were being followed lawfully plaintiff probably would never have been convicted of any crime or sentenced.

POINT VI RESPONDENTS SHIFTED TKO AND CSI.

POINT I, III, IV.

POINT II, III, IV

Respondents used a new September 1^st, 1973 unconstitutionally against the plaintiff's alleged 1972 conviction in 1985 without fair warning to enhance his sentence TKO and CSI beyond that prescribed by law, which he already served and the indictment should be dismissed in the interest of justice, and prejudice . . . See People v Springer, Thompson, Babour, Robles, Taylor, supra.

POINT V, VI

(b) On the other hand, the plaintiff was adjudged a aggregated felon and sentenced as such which required that his sentence be reduce within the statute of limitation required by law.

POINT VII JUDICIAL DISCRESION, INTEGRITY FOR FAIRNESS IN PROCEEDINGS AND PUBLIC REPUTATION IS NEEDED HERE.

"We're really flying blind on the subject, and that's not a good way to approach the Fourth Amendment and constitutional issues involving privacy."

"It's not one party's government. It's America's government. Those entrusted with great power have a duty to answer to Americans what they are doing," said Sen. Patrick Leaky of Vermont. (Buffalo Newspaper, May 12, 2006 page A 2).

The Backdoor Mechanism.

"He (the plaintiff) commenced with his customary assumption of legal knowledge which he does not possess, this product of wasted effort, wasted, wasted, wasted, we are certain for him, wasted to the extent that it involves the time and attention of this Court and of the district attorney is — to be expected (Assistant D.A. William I. Segiel for Eugene Gold, on Appeal before the 2^nd Dept. App. Div. 1974)."

(T)his type of misery, oppression, deviant behavior is being practice in Countries of One Party System like Russia, North Korea, China, Iraq, etc, etc., . . . The question here is what substitute the district attorneys have for the truth, religion or a conscience (The Book on the subject is THE FUTURE OF AN ILLUSSION by Sigmund Freud).

When your erst-while friends shoots you in the Back (Spinal Cord) from behind causing you to be paralyzed, denies they did it, calls it friendly fire, and then put you down under a Removal Order from the U.S. — I believe it show you who your real-friends (respondents) are!

Say it ain't so Joe (Eugene, Elizabeth, Charlie)!

CONCLUSION

`If a man's-word, Laws, Public Records, Rules, Scrutiny, cannot withstand the pressure of these times — the man, his words, the Laws, Rules, are Mad off, and Woorthless!

"I've frankly acknowledge to you my conviction(s) and have laid down the grounds which they are founded, the consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguities, my arguments are open to all and may be judge by all at least it is not being offered in the spirit which will disgrace the cause of truth (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers)."

Finally, the record hereinafter indicates that the plaintiff was wrongly and unconstitutionally convicted of these felonies alleged by the respondents and should be dismissed in the interest of justice and for such other and further relief this court may deem just and proper. Respectfully Submitted, Alfonso Springer-Knight _________________________________________ ALFONSO SPRINGER-KNIGHT.

I'm the undersigned in this cause of action and make this application Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. section 1746 based upon information, under the penal ties of perjury based upon information and belief to be true and exact by filing this Complaint, Memorandum of law, and application to proceed in forma pauperis on this 13^th of October, in the Year of Our Lord 2009.

Alfonso Springer Knight _________________________________________ Exhibit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PRO SE OFFICE U.S. COURTHOUSE 225 CADMAN PLAZA EAST BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201

Date: November 17, 2009 Dear Litigant: Mr. Shephard,

The Court's Pro Se Office received the enclosed papers onNovember 12, 2009. The papers are being returned to you for one or more of the following reasons checked below. Please read this list carefully to correct any mistakes or omissions in your papers. If you decide to proceed with your action, you must return the enclosed papers WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER for processing ( together with this letter). 11 28 U.S.C. § 1914 in forma pauperis in forma pauperis in forma pauperis Upon completion, please ce-submit all paperwork back to the Court.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44 Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I. (a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title.

(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)

(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section "(see attachment)".

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.C.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.

United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.

United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.

Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.

Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerks in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most definitive.

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.

Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.

Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date.

Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.

Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers.

Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.

Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judge's decision.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. 47 USC 553 Unauthorized reception of cable service

Example: U.S. Civil Statute: Brief Description: VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.

Demand. In this space enter the dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) being demanded or indicate other demand such as a preliminary injunction.

Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Exhibit Alonzo Dean Shephard (In the space above enter the full name(s) of the plaintiff(s)/petitioner(s).) REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (In the space above enter the full name(s) of the defendant(s)/respondent(s).)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BROOKLYN OFFICE ________________________________ __ Civ. ____ (__) (__) — against — I, Alonso Dean Shephard, (print or type your name) am the plaintiff/petitioner in the above entitled case and I hereby request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and without being required to prepay fees or costs or give security. I state that because of my poverty I am unable to pay the costs of said proceeding or to give security therefor, and that I believe I am entitled to redress.

The issues I desire to present on appeal are the following:None At Time None At Time None At Time None At Time None At this Time None At Time None At Time None At Time None At Time None At Time None At Time None At Time None At Time None At Time

1. If you are presently employed: a) give the name and address of your employer b) state the amount of your earnings per month 2. If you are NOT PRESENTLY EMPLOYED: a) state the date of start and termination of your last employment b) state your earnings per month YOU MUST ANSWER THIS QUESTION EVEN IF YOU ARE INCARCERATED. 3. Have you received, within the past twelve months, any money from any source? If so, name the source and the amount of money you received. a) Are you receiving any public benefits? [] No. [] Yes, $_____. b) Do you receive any income from any other source? [] No. [] Yes, $_____. None At Time 4. Do you have any money, including any money in a checking or savings account? If so, how much? [] No. [] Yes, $ None At Time 5. Do you own any apartment, house, or building, stock, bonds, notes, automobiles or other property? If the answer is yes, describe the property and state its approximate value. [] No. [] Yes, $ 6. Do you pay for rent or for a mortgage? If so, how much each month? [] No. [] Yes, 7. List the person(s) that you pay money to support and the amount you pay each month. 8. State any special financial circumstances which the Court should consider.

I understand that a false statement or answer to any question in this declaration shall subject me to the penalties for perjury.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 8th Nev, 2009. date month year Signature

Signed this day of Let the applicant proceed on appeal without prepayment of cost or fees or the necessity of giving security therefor. __________________________________ United States District Judge DATED: ________ ____, 20__ __________, New York Exhibit

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44 Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section "(see attachment)".

United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.

United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party.

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.

Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date.

Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.

Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers.

Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judge's decision.

Example: U.S. Civil Statute: Brief Description: VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.

Demand. In this space enter the dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) being demanded or indicate other demand such as a preliminary injunction.

Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PRO SE OFFICE U.S. COURTHOUSE 225 CADMAN PLAZA EAST BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201

Date: Nov 17, 2009 Dear Litigant: Mr. Stavola,

The Court's Pro Se Office received the enclosed papers on Nov 6, 2009. The papers are being returned to you for one or more of the following reasons checked below. Please read this list carefully to correct any mistakes or omissions in your papers. If you decide to proceed with your action, you must return the enclosed papers WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER for processing (together with this letter). 11 28 U.S.C. § 1914 in forma pauperis in forma pauperis in forma pauperis Kindly, provide the Court a correct name case number. If the paperwork is a new action, an IFP/PLRA letter is required and included with the paperwork returned to you. Upon completion please resubmit all paperwork

To whom this may concern:

Enclosed their are statements that need judicial review. I need some type of relief involving this situation peetaining the inproper arrest and subsequent demise of my veliche. At the present time I am a immate at Nassau County correctional facility. Robert Stavola

CC#09008678 Location EI L39 100 Carman Ave East Meadow NY 11554-1146 Thank you Robert Stavola

The purpose of this letter is to prove mitigating circumstances in some type of offensive litigation. Besides my rights have been violated I also underwent police abuse assault, fraud and harassment. Being a disabled middle class construction worker injured in the profession by no mean's I will accept these uncontrolable actions at any teams. Due to these actions taken by the fifth precinct, Nassau County Police department. Detective Schilling has charge me with aggeavated harassment.

On October 19, 2009 I am presently seeking Legal Aid Attorney, one helen Kellee way 3rd floor, Hempstead N.Y. 11550. On August 16, 2008 my first acquantence with detective Schilling fifth precinct was on his cell phone calling my phone number which is 516 476-4703 saying he had a pool that needed to be dismantled and carted away at 41 Coolige street in West Hempstead which is no such address. When I arrived at the supposed appoximate location at ten o'clock Monday evening using spot light to find address my driver side door opened up and a revolver with trigger cocked was on my head I said don't shoot. He shut the engine off and not saying a word, notified himself as a police officer still with gun pointed agains my head threw me out of my 1998 GMC dumptruck. Approximate 2 minutes later an S.U.V. showed up. During that time I asked what is this all about knowing my wallet wasn't taken and a deadly assault was not carried through. Over hearing on S.U.V. radio I asked if they were in fact police. They said your involved with a hit and run and you have to be seen by detective in fifth precinct

When I arrived at the fifth precinct desk dectective Braun showed me picture's of soda machine being loaded on my dump truck which my 8ft signs with phone number 516 476-4703 was displayed. Where did I as in business severely break work ethics to be apprehend to this extent. Besides the prank calls, officer Brown writes on his statement that the soda machine was operating with 20 cases of cold soda and money, that claim is completely falsified and are trying to prop up a charge for their police action's, violating my rights by calling my business up and not identifying themselves as police authority.

The charge of grand larceny ie. Opperating soda machine that was remove from property is false. #1 There is no six foot fence surrounding that corner peice of property #2 In Freeport the year 2003 a child suficate in refrigerator unit with door on in back yard. State law is an order and are obligated to follow these procedures or charge with felonies if these units are found on property. #3 If detective Brown police statement is true then their should be an vending permit number to retail soda from Pat's farm's located on Hempstead turnpike Franklyn Square New York 11010. Which could not be produced by the county.

Since this is occuring and my truck is in pound the department of Nassau Police refuse the releasal to two assoiates and at several times saying veliche is under police investigation. When I was released of convicted pety larceny The department from the fifth precinct had releasal from that I signed and charge me $3500 which is exorbitanit amount

This enormous fee for towing and storage and violating my civil rights to due process of retaining my properly and possession's from their confiscation. In refusal of payment the Nassau County police department took authority with out documentation dispose my 1998 GMC dumptruck to junk yard.

My charge of agravated harassment on a police officer is because the phone number that dial my phone was on caller I.D. In February I called the phone number and left two messages saying I apoligize for not showing up for estimate. The third call is when I spoke to the alledge customer and he said you will get the next job, don't worry we will do business again. Still not identifying himself he than said I got to get off the phone and interrupted me As a result of my head injuries and post traumatic stress brought on by repeated attempts on my life I was very much antagonized into making a foolish telephone call.

In the year July 5 2000 I was struck in the head by a rock while driving a dump truck. In September 29 2000 with the same company my right ankle and foot was crushed by machine on jobsite. The owner of the company denied my medical claim. My friend and co worker joe established injury in may of 2001. I finally received medical attension for foot injury. To this day I still wear cast and still have neeve damage in skill and both physicians declared me partially disabled. I move to west wempstead in January of 2001. In June I received a death threat in the mail from my employer. I went to fifth precinct and with

Later that month the situation got out of hand when three gunman rushed my friends used car office on Malta and Linden Blvd in Bedford Syvesant. My friend Joe was the witness from job injury. I witnessed the shooter's leaving car lot and rushed Joe to the hospital. With my testmany and description the three gunman were arrested. Since Joe survived 5 gun shots and brutal assault, the three individuals received 5 years for manslaughter which I testified in Kings County Brooklyn Courts. During this serious circumstances my friend Joe's life was attempted again in his presence this time they suceeded killing his friend. Bill abramson in a van in Brooklyn. That homicide is still not solved.

In clasing I just want to remind you of my post dramatic stress head injury and state of mind at the time the gun was place at my head not knowing they were police because they never identified themselves

The purpose of this letter is to establish my innocence. Their are three district attorney complaint reports and fraud and also police harassment. In June of 2008 Officer Crawford wrote four tickets as my truck was parked on James st, Franklyn Square, New York, 11010. Besides stating veliche was not inspected, he ticketed me on coverplate, no parking and for sale sign in truck. These are all false tickets. On August 16 2008 Officer Schilling called my cell phone stating he needs a pick up of debries from residence in West Hempstead, never that he identify himself as police officer. The address was not correct and two plain clothes officers rush me one was with revolver pointed at skull with force took me out of my 1998 GMC dumptruck and accuse me of hit run. When I reached the fifth precinct desk detective Brown showed me a picture of a soda machine that was removed from Pats farms which has been closed for one year and half. The ownership has just change from J.A. Farms and now its called Columbia farm stand which is located in commercial zone on Hempstead turnpike, Franklin Square, New York 11010. The statement that officer Brown wrote were false. His police report said there was twenty cases of cold soda with money outside premise. At that time what they are doing as changing ownership's and remodling that property they also used that corner as a transport station by dropping off other debries from other properties. Their was junk cars, large amount of wood, metals and also a broken down boat tuned there. I admitted taking the soda machine but while their transactions, the property owner did not fence off area. The sode machine has no vending permit number for retailing out side that property.

State law prohibits that no refrigiration units are left outside with door on Note 2003. In Freeport N.Y. 11520 a child suffocated by playing hide and seek in neighborhood yard. Six foot fence is the proprety owners responsibility or at least temporary construction fence. This property was left like a junk yard for one year and half.

When I was release from Nassau County correction facility and charge with pety larceny. I filed 2nd complaint to district attorney complaint oriminal office and also human rights department claiming police brutality on arrest. When I was incarcerated my veliche was impounded On August 23, 2009. two associates in business went to pay for impound and were denied veliche because of police investigation. They called twice and A-1 Autobody said that the veliche was still under police investigation. A-1 Autobody never contacted my assoiates after that.

The bill was about $3500 dollar's for parking from August 16 2008 to December 8 2008. I refuse to pay and contacted county excutive offices to explain my situation.

On September 20 2009. I written third complaint to District Attorney on neglect of my rights and never gave me update on my other two complaints. At this time A-1 autobody released veliche to junk yard. I was already notified by assciates that my 1998 GMC dumptruck was dismantle and still deprive me of releasal at the time of arbitration

On September 24 2009 I went to Joly Junk yard off of Denton ave and ask for documents that signed truck to be released to them. I show up with my title of 1998 GMC dumptruck with 40.000 original miles. The secretary said their is no paper work and I asked to remove signs from vehicle.

Police officers shown up and detained me stating Detective Shilling charge me and has warrant of arrest. Detective Schilling charges are aggravated harrasment pertaining to phone calls in February 2009. His phone # is on my caller I.D. and when I returned call he still claim to be a customer that needed debries removed from an exaggerated address. Even talking to him he still would not identify himself as a police officer

Officer Schilling obviously doesn't know any conctruction laws and the claim of grand larceny is exaggerated also. The soda machine was retail and junked for 28 dollars. The police procedures on this matter intrapped me by claiming soda machine was opperating outside of property. They should of identified themselves as police officials when contacted me at 516 476-4703. For instance if so happen that I was riding with off duty official and these procedure continue to be allowed when they Rush my 1998 GMC dump truck could had gun fire in return

I ask for a complete examination on officer involved dealing with my veliche. These paper have already file in Nassau County executive office.

Thank you Robert Stavola Exhibit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PRO SE OFFICE U.S. COURTHOUSE 225 CADMAN PLAZA EAST BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201

Date: Nov. 19, 2009 Dear Litigant: Mr. Brown,

The Court's Pro Se Office received the enclosed papers on Nov, 14, 2009. The papers are being returned to you for one or more of the following reasons checked below. Please read this list carefully to correct any mistakes or omissions in your papers. If you decide to proceed with your action, you must return the enclosed papers WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER for processing ( together with this letter). 11 28 U.S.C. § 1914 in forma pauperis in forma pauperis in forma pauperis

[] Papers, including complaints, petitions, motions or any other document, cannot be filed without an original signature pursuant to Rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Your original signature is needed wherever an "X" appears. [] A filing fee of $350 [in cash if submitted in person] or by certified check or money order made payable to the Clerk of Court, U.S.D.C., E.D.N.Y. is required in order to commence a civil action other than an application for a writ of habeas corpus. . You may request to waive the filing fee by submitting an application (also known as IFP). 28 U.S.C. § 1915. If you are a prisoner, you must also submit the Prisoner Authorization form along with the IFP application. An IFP and/or Prisoner Authorization form is enclosed. [] Each plaintiff named in the caption must sign the complaint and each plaintiff must submit a separate (IFP) application and/or Prisoner Authorization form, if applicable. [] Your (IFP) application does not contain enough information for the Court to consider your request. Please fill out the enclosed IFP application. If you are presently incarcerated, please complete the enclosed Prisoner Authorization form as well as the IFP application. [] Other: Kindly be advised a signed IFP PLRA letler is neaded from Alex Brown Individual IFPs signatures are also required from each plaintiff in the complaint, Please find enclosed your original paperwork, three IFPm stions, including one with a PLRA letler. Upon completion, please resubmst all paperwork back To the Court Sincerely, Pro Se Writ Clerk (718) 613-2665 Enclosure(s) 42 USC § 1983 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHRISTINE BROWN, mother of ALEX BROWN; ALEX BROWN; JOVI WINT, Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT — against — CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION ALTON; BROWN; HENSON; BYRD; JOHNS; PURSUANT TO JOHNSON; KAZMIERCZAK; LEWALSKI; MITCHELL; BURNS; OROUKE; WRIGHT, NO._______________ Police Officers of the New York City Police Department, Stationed at the 106 Precinct Queens County, New York are Sued in their individual Capacity jointly and Severally Defendants 1. This is an action to redress the deprivation eby the defendants of rights Secured to the plaintiffs by the Constitution of the United States, laws there of, and of the State of New York. The defendants entered plaintiffs home without Consent or Search warrant, arrested plaintiff ALEX unlawfully, with a warrant or probable Cause, to panish the plaintiffs for exercising their right to privacy, among others. In the Course of the arrest, the defendants used unreasonable force against plaintiff ALEX and deprived him of medical treatment. as part of a cover-up.

2. Jurisdiction of this Court is Invoked under the provisions of sections 1331, 1343(3) and 1367 and 2201 of Title 28, and §§ 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code.

3. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the plaintiffs were, and are still, citizens of the United States residing in the City of New York.

4. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendants and pach of them were duly appointed officers in the police department of Queens, New York, acting in their official Capacities. They are sued, however, in their individual Capaeities.

5. During all times mintioned in this Complaint, the defendants were acting under Color of law, that is, under Color of the Constitution, Statutes, laws, charters, ordinag CPS, rules, regulations, Customs and Usages of the state of New York and the City of New York.

6. At all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendants acted jointiy and in Concert with each other. Each defendant had the duty and opportunity to protect the plaintiffs from the unlawful actions of the other defendant but pach defendant failed and refused to perform Such duty, there by proximately Causing the plaintiffs' irrepairable injuries.

7. At around 9:00 PM on November 8, 2006, in the home of the plaintiffs, they attempted to exercise their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by not Consenting to giving the defendants entry in their home after which the defendants forcefully entered the plaintiffs home.

8. The defendants responded to the plaintiffs' said exercise of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by physically and Verbally harassing plaintiffs' CHRISTINE and WINT and attesting plaintiff ALEX on a Charge of illegal drug possession and with in tent to distribute in Violation of Artiele 220 of the New York Penal Law.

9. The said arrest was made to puhish the plaintiff ALEX for exereising his rights to Privary, equal proteetion, and due process, the exercise of which rights is assured to the plaintiffs by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitutiona The plaintiff ALEX Committed no Crime and the defendants knew plaintiff ALEX Committed no crime.

10. The arrest was made without a warrant and without probable cause. The search of the plaintiffs' home was made without a warrant also.

11. The defendants there upon forced their way into the premises, forced plaintiff WINT out of the immediate area, and assaulted plaintiff ALEX, Knocking him to the floor from pistol whipping him in the head and face with their weapons and their fists, kicking plaintiff ALEX and Cursing and Calling plaintiff ALEX degrading hamps. During the assault plaintiff ALEX was Scteaming From the damage being inflieted and he loss Conseiousness.

12. In an attempt to Cover-up their Said beating of plaintiff ALEX, the defendants did not procure any medical treatment for his injuries and Charged him with resisting arrest and interfering with a police officer, despite him being out numbered 12 to 1 and held at gun point.

13. The defendants there upon prepared false police reports, that they knew and intented would be forwarded to a prosecating attorney and felied upon by the prosecuting attorney in deciding whether to prosecute the plaintiff ALEX and, if so, the manner in which plaintiff ALEX's prosecution should be handled. In pre paring the said reports, the defendants acted maliciously and will fully.

14. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the defendants herein described, the plaintiffs were unlawfully detained within their home for several hours, was required to spend money to retain the Services of an attorney to defend against the said false charges, was caused to suffer great physical pain and agony and deprived of medical care and freatment, to their economic loss, suffered bruises, contusions and lacerations over the upper portion of plaintiff ALEX's body and a possible fracture, and Suffered loss of blood, pain, dizziness, loss of Consciousness, and Plaintiffs were in fear, and have been chilled in their exercise of their rights to privacy, equal protection, and due process Under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and in addition has suffered the loss of all the Constitutional rights described herein.

15. The defendants knew or should have known that their actions would or probably would infliet extreme emetiona I distress upon the plaintiffs.

16. The defendants actions described above were extreme and Outrageous.

17. As described herein, the defendants defrived the plaintiffs of their rights to privacy, equal protection, and due process, Freedom from unrea Sonable arrist, Jearch And Seizure, Freedom From warrantless arrest, Freedom From arrest with out probable cause, and Freedom From excessive force by the detectins and police officers together. Rights secured to the plaintiffs by the provisions of the 1st, 9th, 5th, 8th, and 19th Amendments and Title 42 USC § 1983.

18. As described herein, the de fendants deprived the plaintiff ALEX of his rights to be Free From assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs Claims judgment against the defendants and each of them, jointly and Severally as Compersatory and punitive damages in the amount of $20,000,000 delbards in U S Currency.

DATED: November 6, 2009 THE PLAINTIFFS /S/ ALEX BROWN CHRIST PNB BROWN JOVI WINT

VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF CAYUGA ) ss.: CITY OF AUBURN ) Plaintiffs' ALEX, CHRISTINE, WINT, duly sworn under penalty of perjury: "I am the Deponent and litigant in the instant proceeding, and have read the foregoing documents, and all other papers submitted by me, and in my behalf, and know the contents therein; that the same is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief, except as to those matters cited as based upon `information and belief,' and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true, based upon what is presently known and understood by me, as true and accurate." NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF NEW YORK Dated: November 6, 2009 /S/ ALEX BROWN, CHRISTIVE BROWN At: Auburn, New York x JOVI WINT # Auburn State Correctional Facility 135 State Street — POB 618 Auburn, New York 13024-9000 ATTESTED TO BY: ________________________

DECLARATION OF SERVICE

STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF CAYUGA ) ss: ALEX BROWN, ET. AL., daly declares Under penalty of perjury:

That we served on the defendants and the court the foregoing Civil Rights Complaint and attachments under 42 USC § 1983 on this 6th day of November 2009, pursuant to Rule A FRCP, Service is effectuated by U.S. mail postal Services Over Night Express First Class Service To:

Clerk of the Court Without Prejudice, United States District Court ALEX BROWN, ET. AL., Eastern Distriet of New York CHRISTINE BROWN, 225 Cadman Plaza East JOVI WINT, Brooklyn, New York 11202 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHRISTINE BROWN, mother of ALEX BROWN; ALEX BROWN; JOVI WINT, Plaintiffs, SUMMONS — against — AND COMPLAINT ALTON; BROWN; BURNS; BYRD; HENSON; JOHNS; JOHNSON; KAZMIERCZAK; LEWALSKI; No. MITCHELL; O'ROUKE; WRIGHT Detectives and police offices New York Police Dept. 106 Precinct Queens County, New York are hereby Sued in their individual Capacity jointly and Severally, Defendants. TO: DEFENDANTS.

You are hereby Summoned and required to serve upon Plaintiffs, whose address is So meationed, an answer to the Complaint which is here with served upon you, within 20 days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint.

Plaintiffs Defendants Attorney _______________ 135 State Street BOX 342 Clerk of Court Auburn, NY 13024 Allany, New York 12224

Graph

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ALEX BROWN, ET. AL., (/plaintiff) — v — ALTON, ET. AL., (/defendant(s)) I, ALEX BROWN, ET. AL., am the /plaintiff in the above entitled case. In support of my motion to proceed without being required to prepay fees or costs or give security therefore, I state that because of my poverty I am unable to pay the costs of said proceeding or to give security therefore, that I believe I am entitled to redress.

I. declare that the responses which I have made below are true. YOU MUST ANSWER THIS QUESTION EVEN IF YOU ARE INCARCERATED. Not employed NOT PRESENTLY EMPLOYED, Never had employment about $ 20.00 None N/A

1. If you are presently employed, state the amount of your salary wage per month, and give the name and address of your last employer. 2. If you are state the date of last employment and amount of the salary per month which you received AND how long the employment lasted. YOU MUST ANSWER THIS QUESTION EVEN IF YOU ARE INCARCERATED. IF YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN EMPLOYED, SAY SO. 3. Have you ever received, within the past twelve months, any money from any of the following sources? a. Business, profession, or form of self-employment? YES___ NO b. Rent payments, interest, or dividends? YES___ NO c. Pensions, annuities, or life insurance payments? YES___ NO d. Gifts or inheritances? YES___ NO e. Any form of public assistance? YES___ NO f. Any other sources? YES___ NO If the answer to any of the questions in part three is yes, describe each source of money and state the amount received from each during the past months. _____________________________________________________________________ 4. Do you own any cash or do you have money in a checking or savings account? YES NO._____ (Including any funds in prison accounts) If the answer is yes, state the total value owned. 5. Do you own any real estate, stock, bonds, notes, automobiles, or other valuable property (including ordinary household furnishings and clothing)? YES_____ NO. If the answer is yes, describe the property and state its approximate value. _____________________________________________________________________ 6. List the person(s) who are dependent upon you for support, state your relationship to those person(s), and indicate how much you contribute toward their support at the present time. 7. If you live in a rented apartment or other rented building, state how much you pay each month for rent. Do not include rent contributed by other people. 8. State any special financial circumstances which the court should consider in this application. If plaintiffs are not granted poor person status, they will have No other remedy at law to achlieve redress for their civil rights. I understand that a false statement or answer to any questions in this declaration will subject me to the penalties for perjury.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct.

signed this 6th day of November, 2009.

/S/ ALEX BROWN, CHRISTINE BROWN JOVI WINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PRO SE OFFICE U.S. COURTHOUSE 225 CADMAN PLAZA EAST BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201

Date: November 24, 2009 Dear Litigant:

The Court's Pro Se Office received the enclosed papers onNovember 23, 2009. The papers are being returned to you for one or more of the following reasons checked below. Please read this list carefully to correct any mistakes or omissions in your papers. If you decide to proceed with your action, you must return the enclosed papers WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER for processing (together with this letter). 11 28 U.S.C. § 1914 in forma pauperis in forma pauperis in forma pauperis Upon completion, please re-submit all paperwork back to Court

ALESANDRO CASTRO Reg. No. 03468-049 Metropolitan Detention Center P.O. Box 329002 Brooklyn, New York 11232

CLERK OF THE PRO SE OFFICE Re: WRIT OF MANDAMUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1361 November 18, 2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 225 CADMAN PLAZA EAST BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201 DEAR CLERK:

Enclosed you will find the Original and a courtesy copy of my Writ of Mandamus. Please file this for me. The application contains an affidavit of poverty and authorization statement for withdrawal of funds in compliance with the requirements of the PRLA. (see; Page 3 of motion)

I am also enclosing the front page of my own copy and asking you to please file stamp it with the date the motion was received and filed so that I may have it for my records. Enclosed herein for your convenience is a SASE, too. I thank you for your assistance in this matter.Alesandro Castro

Sincerely yours, Alesandro Castro EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WRIT OF MANDAMUS 28 U.S.C. § 1361 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the ALESANDRO CASTRO, Petitioner, v. MDC WARDEN, DUKE TERRELL, Respondent. __________________________

MOTION

I, ALESANDRO CASTRO, the petitioner in the above captioned matter hereby move this Honorable Court for an Order to Compel an Officer of the United States, MDC Warden, Mr. Duke Terrell to perform his duties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361.

THE STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED

I am an inmate in federal custody at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. I am indigent and proceeding in pro se.

I have made an official Request to the Warden for Final Disposition of my Detainers in accordance with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. (see attached)

This Request was improperly rejected and the Warden and MDC Staff stated that I must exhaust administrative remedies before I can ask for final disposition of my detainers. This is false, there is no provision in the Act that requires such a condition upon the applicant. The complete exhaustion of Administrative remedies can result in an extra 6 month delay in bringing me to trial which is contrary to the purposes of the statute.

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT

In accordance with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, an inmate shall make a written request to the Warden for final disposition of said detainers and the warden shall promptly forward the request by registered mail to the proper authorities etc. Thus, this is all it takes to activate the rights afforded under the I.A.D.

The extra requirement being imposed upon me by the Warden to exhaust administrative remedies is an abuse of authority and violates the provisions of the I.A.D. statute.

The language of the statute known as the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act is mandatory and the warden's failure to comply gives this Court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 to compel the warden to perform his duties. Therefore, this action is exempt from the Prison Litigation Reform Act's Requirement to exhaust Administrative Remedies. Nothing in the language of the statute requires such a condition on the inmate before requesting to invoke his rights under the I.A.D. Act.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, I respectfully request that the Warden be compelled to perform his duties in accordance with the act and properly be instructed on how to follow the mandatory language of the statute.19 Alesandro Castro DATED: November , 2009. SIGNED: Alesandro Castro THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN SIGNED AND SUBMITTED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY IN ACCORDANCE WITH 28 U.S.C. § 1746.

AFFIDAVIT OF POVERTY

I, ALESANDRO CASTRO, hereby state and declare under penalty of perjury that I am too poor to afford the filing fee of this application and that I believe the issues have merit. In addition, If money must be withdrawn from my account for this exercise of my rights, I agree to the amount required by the statute for the monthly payments. Please be advised, that if the Court determines I am right I expect the Warden to reimburse me the full amount of the filing fees for this action under the Tort Claims Act because as a Warden he should know his responsibilities under the IAD Act and not try to circumvent my rights in order to avoid paperwork.

AUTHORIZATION

I authorize the MDC to calculate the percentage authorized and required to be withdrawn from my account on a monthly basis and forward to the Clerk of the Court for the Eastern District of New York at 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY 11201 in order to cover the filing fees of this action.19 Alesandro Castro

DATED: November , 2009 SIGNED: Alesandro Castro U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY Type or use ball-point pen. If attachments are needed, submit four copies. Additional instructions on reverse. CASTRO, Alesandro 03468-049 J-71 MDC Brooklyn, N.Y. Part A — INMATE REQUEST Federal Bureau of Prisons __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From: __________________________________ ____________ ______________ _____________________ LAST NAME, FIRST, MIDDLE INITIAL REG. NO. UNIT INSTITUTION __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

This is an official request for Final Disposition of my Detainers accordance with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. Therefore, in accordance with the Statute I am officially submitting this Request to the Warden to Initiate the process and exercise my rights. Informal Resolution of this matter is not required because this Request: is made under IAD Act. Therefore please commence the process. November 9, 2009 Alesandro Castro DATE SIGNATURE OF REQUESTER Part B — RESPONSE ORIGINAL: RETURN TO INMATE CASE NUMBER: 564738F1 Part C — RECEIPT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________ _______________________________ DATE WARDEN OR REGIONAL DIRECTOR If dissatisfied with this response, you may appeal to the Regional Director. Your appeal must be received in the Regional Office within 20 calendar days of the date of this response. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CASE NUMBER: ___________________ Return to: _________________________________________ ________________ ____________ ____________________ LAST NAME, FIRST, MIDDLE INITIAL REG. NO. UNIT INSTITUTION REJECTION NOTICE — ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2009 FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY COORDINATOR BROOKLYN MDC TO : ALESANDRO CASTRO, 03468-049 BROOKLYN MDC UNT: J QTR: J02-728L P.O. BOX 329001 BROOKLYN, NY 112 32 FOR THE REASONS LISTED BELOW, THIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY REQUEST IS BEING REJECTED AND RETURNED TO YOU. YOU SHOULD INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE WITH ANY FUTURE CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE REJECTION. REMEDY ID : 564738-F1 ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY REQUEST DATE RECEIVED : NOVEMBER 13, 2009 SUBJECT 1 : DETAINERS, PRODUCTION ON WRIT SUBJECT 2 : INCIDENT RPT NO: REJECT REASON 1: YOU DID NOT SUBMIT YOUR REQUEST THROUGH YOUR COUNSELOR, OR OTHER AUTHORIZED PERSON. REJECT REASON 2: YOU DID NOT ATTEMPT INFORMAL RESOLUTION PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY, OR YOU DID NOT PROVIDE THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE OF YOUR ATTEMPT AT INFORMAL RESOLUTION. REJECT REASON 3: YOU MAY RESUBMIT YOUR REQUEST IN PROPER FORM WITHIN 5 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS REJECTION NOTICE. EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WRIT OF MANDAMUS 28 U.S.C. § 1361 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the ALESANDRO CASTRO, Petitioner, v. MDC WARDEN, DUKE TERRELL, Respondent. __________________________

MOTION

THE STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED

I am an inmate in federal custody at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. I am indigent and proceeding in pro se.

I have made an official Request to the Warden for Final Disposition of my Detainers in accordance with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. (see attached)

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT

The extra requirement being imposed upon me by the Warden to exhaust administrative remedies is an abuse of authority and violates the provisions of the I.A.D. statute.

CONCLUSION

AFFIDAVIT OF POVERTY

AUTHORIZATION

DATED: November , 2009 SIGNED: Alesandro Castro U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY Type or use ball-point pen. If attachments are needed, submit four copies. Additional instructions on reverse. CASTRO, Alesandro 03468-049 J-71 MDC Brooklyn, N.Y. Part A — INMATE REQUEST Federal Bureau of Prisons __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From: _________________________________ ____________ ______________ _____________________ LAST NAME, FIRST, MIDDLE INITIAL REG. NO. UNIT INSTITUTION __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

This is an official request for Final Disposition of my Detainers accordance with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. Therefore, in accordance with the Statute I am officially submitting this Request to the Warden to Initiate the process and exercise my rights. Informal Resolution of this matter is not required because this Request: is made under IAD Act. Therefore please commence the process. November 9, 2009 Alesandro Castro DATE SIGNATURE OF REQUESTER Part B — RESPONSE If dissatisfied with this response, you may appeal to the Regional Director. Your appeal must be received in the Regional Office within 20 calendar days of the date of this response. ORIGINAL: RETURN TO INMATE CASE NUMBER: 564738F1 Part C — RECEIPT __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________ _______________________________ DATE WARDEN OR REGIONAL DIRECTOR __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CASE NUMBER: ___________________ Return to: _________________________________________ ________________ ____________ ____________________ LAST NAME, FIRST, MIDDLE INITIAL REG. NO. UNIT INSTITUTION REJECTION NOTICE — ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2009 FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY COORDINATOR BROOKLYN MDC TO : ALESANDRO CASTRO, 03468-049 BROOKLYN MDC UNT: J QTR: J02-728L P.O. BOX 329001 BROOKLYN, NY 112 32 FOR THE REASONS LISTED BELOW, THIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY REQUEST IS BEING REJECTED AND RETURNED TO YOU. YOU SHOULD INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE WITH ANY FUTURE CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE REJECTION. REMEDY ID : 564738-F1 ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY REQUEST DATE RECEIVED : NOVEMBER 13, 2009 SUBJECT 1 : DETAINERS, PRODUCTION ON WRIT SUBJECT 2 : INCIDENT RPT NO: REJECT REASON 1: YOU DID NOT SUBMIT YOUR REQUEST THROUGH YOUR COUNSELOR, OR OTHER AUTHORIZED PERSON. REJECT REASON 2: YOU DID NOT ATTEMPT INFORMAL RESOLUTION PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY, OR YOU DID NOT PROVIDE THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE OF YOUR ATTEMPT AT INFORMAL RESOLUTION. REJECT REASON 3: YOU MAY RESUBMIT YOUR REQUEST IN PROPER FORM WITHIN 5 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS REJECTION NOTICE. EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WRIT OF MANDAMUS 28 U.S.C. § 1361 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the ALESANDRO CASTRO, Petitioner, v. MDC WARDEN, DUKE TERRELL, Respondent. __________________________

MOTION

THE STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED

I am an inmate in federal custody at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. I am indigent and proceeding in pro se.

I have made an official Request to the Warden for Final Disposition of my Detainers in accordance with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. (see attached)

This Request was improperly rejected and the Warden and MDC

Graph

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PRO SE OFFICE U.S. COURTHOUSE 225 CADMAN PLAZA EAST BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201

Date: DECEMBER 4, 2009 Dear Litigant:

The Court's Pro Se Office received the enclosed papers on DEC. 1, 2009. The papers are being returned to you for one or more of the following reasons checked below. Please read this list carefully to correct any mistakes or omissions in your papers. If you decide to proceed with your action, you must return the enclosed papers WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER for processing (together with this letter). 11 28 U.S.C. § 1914 in forma pauperis in forma pauperis in forma pauperis

[] Papers, including complaints, petitions, motions or any other document, cannot be filed without an original signature pursuant to Rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Your original signature is needed wherever an "X" appears. [] A filing fee of $350 [in cash if submitted in person] or by certified check or money order made payable to the Clerk of Court, U.S.D.C., E.D.N.Y. is required in order to commence a civil action other than an application for a writ of habeas corpus. . You may request to waive the filing fee by submitting an application (also known as IFP). 28 U.S.C. § 1915. If you are a prisoner, you must also submit the Prisoner Authorization form along with the IFP application. An IFP and/or Prisoner Authorization form is enclosed. [] Each plaintiff named in the caption must sign the complaint and each plaintiff must submit a separate (IFP) application and/or Prisoner Authorization form, if applicable. [] Your (IFP) application does not contain enough information for the Court to consider your request. Please fill out the enclosed IFP application. If you are presently incarcerated, please complete the enclosed Prisoner Authorization form as well as the IFP application. [] Other: ON OCTOBER 25, 2005 THE COURT ISSVED AN ORDER IN 05-CV-4440 THAT BARS YOU FROM FILING FURTHER IN FORMA PAUPERIS COMPLAINTS UNLESS YOU DEMONSTRATE IN YOUR PAPER WORK THAT YOU ARE IN EMINENT DANSER. (SEE ATTACHED COPY OF ORDER JUDGMENT). PLEASE FIND ENCLOSED A SECTION 1983 COMPLAINT FORM Sincerely, WITH THE FILING FEE WAIVER REQVEST THAT YOU MUST FILL OUT AND RETURN TO OUR OFFICE. Pro Se Writ Clerk (718) 613-2665 Enclosure(s) CIVIL JUDGMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MR. CARLOS A. BAILEY PARKS, Petitioner, — against — 05-CV-4440 (JG) N.Y.S. EXECUTIVE DEPT. DIVISION OF PAROLE, MS. DAIZZEE BOUEY: COMMISSIONER, MR. ROBERT DENNISON: COMMISSIONER, Respondents. Pursuant to the memorandum and order issued October 25, 2005, by the Honorable John Gleeson, United States District Judge, denying Parks' petition for a writ of mandamus in the above-entitled action, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That the above-entitled action is hereby dismissed, and that Parks is barred by operation of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from filing further in forma pauperis complaints unless he can demonstrate that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal.

JOHN GLEESON United States District Judge Dated: Brooklyn, New York October 25, 2005 THIS DOCUMENT WAS ENTERED ON THE DOCKET ON OCTOBER 25, 2005.

MIME-Version: 1.0

From: ecf_bounces@nyed.uscourts.gov

To: nobody@nyed.uscourts.gov

Bcc: Mary_Weisgerber@nyed.uscourts.gov,

Evette_Soto-Maldonado@nyed.uscourts.gov,Intern1_Bloom@nyed.uscourts.gov, Vivian_Klein@nyed.uscourts.gov, Eva_Temkin@nyed.uscourts.gov, David_Sarratt@nyed.u

Message-Id: 1839567@nyed.uscourts.gov

Subject: Activity in Case 1:05-cv-04440-JG-LB Parks v. N.Y.S. Executive Dept. et al "Order"

Content-Type: text/html

NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.

U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was received from Gleeson, John entered on 10/25/2005 at 11:41 AM EDT and filed on 10/25/2005 Case Name: Case Number: 1:05-cv-4440 Filer: Document Number: 4

Parks v. N.Y.S. Executive Dept. et al Docket Text:

ORDER the petition for a writ of mandamas is denied as frivolous. Moreover, since Parks has filed at least two prior actions which have been dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, Parks is barred from filing further in forma pauperis complaints unless he can demonstrate that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Ordered by Judge John Gleeson on October 25, 2005. (Gleeson, John)

The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:

1:05-cv-4440 Notice will be electronically mailed to:

1:05-cv-4440 Notice will be delivered by other means to:

Carlos A. Parks

00R4342

Arthur Kill Corr. Fac.

2911 Arthur Kill Road

Staten Island, NY 10309 MOTION: NYSID#3334380-H # 200911160654900.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK requesting a total bill TO: from the clerks office Mr. RALPH VEGA, Jr. in order to discharge the the clerk of the court poblic debt. EXEMPTION ID: Dear Clerk Vega Jr., KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS

That I, Mr.CARLOS A.BAILEY-PARKS a SECURED PARTY/CREDITOR, whom respectfully petition this honorable UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT/the clerks office pursuant to the mandates of the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, sincerely requesting that your office immediatelly send me the BILL of Acceptance for value and honor so that I may discharge the Debt. Regarding all Criminal offenses that exist against me on your records in the EASTERN DIST Jurisdiction, so that I may discharge the Debt.

The intent is to DISCHARGE THE COMMERCIAL CRIMINAL CHARGES.

"I have ACCEPTED the criminal charges, I return them, I offered my exemption in exchange for the discharge of the BILL and release of that personal property to me."

IT IS DIRECTED, for use (priority) for the REPUBLIC (Article 1V, section 4 of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION) in accord with public policy HJR-192, to discharge the debtor's portion of the public debt.

Enclosed you'll find copies of my commitment and sentence certificate also the Rap sheet full of Misdemeanors.

The Hon. _____ and the UNITED STATES Attorney OFFICE have been notified of the same.

ch other and further relief as this honorable state rt/clerks office/Eastern District, may deem just and

ALEXEI:

Q: ANY IDEA AS TO WHAT TO DO W/THIS?

AM: ROSE 14-DAY LTR send 1983 PACKET BAR ORDER (12/2/2009)

Without Prejudice, Carlos A. Bailey Parks UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EIN: # F16465451. pre-paid-preferred stock priority-exempt from levy AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION NYSID# 3334380-H # 200911160654900. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TO: MR.RALPH VEGA, JR. clerk of the Court: EXEMPTION ID: COMES NOW, Mr. CARLOS A. BAILEY-PARKS-SECURED PARTY/CREDITOR, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

I am the petitioner herein and make this affidavit in support of motion.

Requesting the bill to discharge the Commercial Criminal Charges that exist against me on your records (past-present) pursuant to the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE.

"All that government does and provides legitimately is in pursuit of it's duty to provide protection for private rights, see WYNHAMMER V. People 13 NY 378, which duty is a debt owed to it's creator, WE THE PEOPLE and the private unenfranchised individual; which debt and duty is never extinquished nor discharged, and is perpetual.

No matter what the government/state provides for us in manner of convenience and safety, the un-enfranchised individual owes nothing to the government." see, HALE V.HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43.

A security interest is possessory if the secured party has possession of the collateral. For example, a pawn shop may hold a ring as collateral for repayment of a loan, or a Bank may hold grain to secure repayment of a loan to a farmer by holding anegotiable warehouse receipt issued by a storage facility in which the grain is stored.

For all collateral other than certificated securities, if the security interest is possessory, the security agreement can be enforceable in the absence of an authenticated record if the secured party has possession pursuant to the agreement between the parties.

Possession by the secured party is thought to be sufficient confirming evidence of the existence of the security agreement. UCC-9-203(b)(3)(B).

If the collateral consist of a certificated security in registered form, the security agreement will be enforceable if the security has not been delivered to the secured party pursuant to the debtor's security agreement. see, UCC-9-203(b)(3)(c).

Sincerely, Without Prejudice, Carlos A. Bailey Parks UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EIN#F16465451. pre-paid-preferred stock priority-exempt from levy AFFIRMATION: NYSID# 3334380-H # 200911160654900. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TO: MR.RALPH VEGA, JR., Clerk of the Court: EXEMPTION ID: I, Mr. CARLOS A.BAILEY-PARKS, a SECURED PARTY/CREDITOR, being duly sworn deposes and says:

I am the petitioner herein and make this affirmation in support of my motion. I testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation, awaken in conscience and impress in mind with duty to do so, under penalty of purjury, pursuant to 28 USCA 1476.

Sincerely, Without Prejudice, Carlos A. Bailey Parks UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EIN# F16465451. pre-paid-preferred stock priority exempt from levy

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

STATE OF NEW YORK ss.: COUNTY OF JEFFERSON I, Mr. Carlos A.Bailey-Parks being duly sworn deposes and says: That on this day I submitted in a mail box maintained at Cape Vincent Correctional Facility the original or copies of the following papers:

"EXEMPTION LETTER"

to be mailed via United States Postal Service to the following concerned parties:

Mr.Ralph Vega Jr.

Clerk of the Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

225 CADMAN PLAZA EAST

BROOKLYN, NEW YORK, 11201

Respectfully submitted, Carlos A. Bailey Parks Sworn to before me Cape Vincent Correctional Facility Route 12E, P.O. Box 739 this 23 day of November Cape Vincent, N.Y. 13618 2009 Jacquelyn M. Clark Notary Public Exhibit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PRO SE OFFICE U.S. COURTHOUSE 225 CADMAN PLAZA EAST BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201

Date: DECEMBER 4, 2009 Dear Litigant:

The Court's Pro Se Office received the enclosed papers on DEC. 1, 2009. The papers are being returned to you for one or more of the following reasons checked below. Please read this list carefully to correct any mistakes or omissions in your papers. If you decide to proceed with your action, you must return the enclosed papers WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER for processing ( together with this letter ). 11 28 U.S.C. § 1914 in forma pauperis in forma pauperis in forma pauperis CIVIL JUDGMENT

[] Papers, including complaints, petitions, motions or any other document, cannot be filed without an original signature pursuant to Rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Your original signature is needed wherever an "X" appears. [] A filing fee of $350 [in cash if submitted in person] or by certified check or money order made payable to the Clerk of Court, U.S.D.C., E.D.N.Y. is required in order to commence a civil action other than an application for a writ of habeas corpus. . You may request to waive the filing fee by submitting an application (also known as IFP). 28 U.S.C. § 1915. If you are a prisoner, you must also submit the Prisoner Authorization form along with the IFP application. An IFP and/or Prisoner Authorization form is enclosed. [] Each plaintiff named in the caption must sign the complaint and each plaintiff must submit a separate (IFP) application and/or Prisoner Authorization form, if applicable. [] Your (IFP) application does not contain enough information for the Court to consider your request. Please fill out the enclosed IFP application. If you are presently incarcerated, please complete the enclosed Prisoner Authorization form as well as the IFP application. [] Other: ON OCTOBER 25, 2005 THE COURT ISSUED AN ORDER IN 05-CV-4440 THAT BARS YOU FROM FILING FURTHER IN FORMA PAUPERIS COMPLAINTS UNLESS YOU DEMONSTRATE IN YOUR PARERWORK THAT YOUARE IN EMINENT DANGER. (SEE ATTACHED COPY OF THE ORDER JUPGMENT). PLEASE FIND ENCLOSED A SECTION 1983 COMPLAINT FORM Sincerely, WITH THE FILING FEE WAIVER REQUEST THAT YOU MUST FILL OUT AND RETURN TO OUR Pro Se Writ Clerk OFFICE. (718) 613-2665 Enclosure(s) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MR. CARLOS A. BAILEY PARKS, Petitioner, _____ — against — 05-CV-4440 (JG) N.Y.S. EXECUTIVE DEPT. DIVISION OF PAROLE, MS. DAIZZEE BOUEY: COMMISSIONER, MR. ROBERT DENNISON: COMMISSIONER, Respondents. Pursuant to the memorandum and order issued October 25, 2005, by the Honorable John Gleeson, United States District Judge, denying Parks' petition for a writ of mandamus in the above-entitled action, it is

Dated: Brooklyn, New York October 25, 2005 MIME-Version: 1.0

From:ecf_bounces@nyed.uscourts.gov

To:nobody@nyed.uscourts.gov

Bcc:Mary_Weisgerber@nyed.uscourts.gov, Evette_Soto-Maldonado@nyed.uscourts.gov, Internl_Bloom@nyed.uscourts.gov, Vivian_Klein@nyed.uscourts.gov, Eva_Temkin@nyed.uscourts.gov, David_Sarratt@nyed.uMessage-Id:1839567@nyed.uscourts.gov

Subject:Activity in Case 1:05-cv-04440-JG-LB Parks v. N.Y.S. Executive Dept. et al "Order"

Content-Type: text/html

NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.

U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was received from Gleeson, John entered on 10/25/2005 at 11:41 AM EDT and filed on 10/25/2005 Case Name: Case Number: 1:05-cv-4440 Filer: Document Number: 4

Parks v. N.Y.S. Executive Dept. et al Docket Text:

ORDER the petition for a writ of mandamas is denied as frivolous. Moreover, since Parks has filed at least two prior actions which have been dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, Parks is barred from filing further in forma pauperis complaints unless he can demonstrate that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Ordered by Judge John Gleeson on October 25, 2005. (Gleeson, John)

The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:

1:05-cv-4440 Notice will be electronically mailed to:

1:05-cv-4440 Notice will be delivered by other means to:

Carlos A. Parks

00R4342

Arthur Kill Corr. Fac.

2911 Arthur Kill Road

Staten Island, NY 10309F16465451. 200911160654900. Discharging of the Prison Bond.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK To: Hon.J.MCLAUGHLIN (UNSDJ) United States District Court EIN# Eastern District of New York EXEMPTION# United States Courthouse 225 Cadman plaza East Federal Ind.#CR-89-00599-01 Brooklyn, New York, 11201 NYSID#3334380-H From: Mr.Carlos A.Bailey-Parks #00R4342 Cape Vincent Correctional Facility Cape Vincent, New York, 13618 (route 12 E. P.O. Box 739) Subject:

Dear Hon. J.MCLAUGHLIN,

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That I, CARLOS A.BAILEY-PARKS, the Debtor, a Corporate entity, and `ens legis' the undersigned hereby make constitute and appoints. Carlos A.Bailey-Parks, herein the flesh and blood man, a living soul, the Secured Party/Creditor, as my true and iawfully Attorney-in-fact for me and in my Corporate capacity (LLC), place and stead and for my personal and Commercial use and benefit.

To ask, demand, request, file, Sue, recover, register, collect and recieve each and every Sum of money, credit, account legacy, bequest, interest, dividend, annuity and demand (wich now is or hereafter shall become due, Owing or payable or dischargable) belonging to or accepted or claimed by me, or presented to the Debtor: CARLOS A.BAILEY-PARKS, (a Corporate entity) and to use and take any lawful and/or Commercial means necessary for the recovery thereof by legal or Commercial process or otherwise, and to execute and deliver or receive a satisfaction or release thereof, together with the right and power to settle, compromise compound and or Discharge any claim or initiate any Administrative claim for damages or make any necessary demands.

Your Honor, I request that you discharge the Bond to me immediately so that I may discharge the debt. I want you to;ORDER MY IMMEDIATE RELEASE FROM FEDERAL SUPERVICED PAROLE THAT IS CURRENTLY IN EFFECT.

"I want to exchange the consideration in substance of my exemption for the release or discharge of the Bond to me.

I give you the exemption; you discharge the Bond, and exchange it with me for my exemption, and order my instant release from Federal custody."

Please, send me the Bill so that I may Discharge the Debt in accord with HJR-192, to be presented to the Federal window, for Settlement within tree days truth-in-lending time.

If any further questions or information regarding this request is needed, please feel free to contact me at the address above, I shall await a reply from your office within ten (10) working days otherwise Ill resort to NOTARIAL PROTEST and get remedy for dishonor.BILL Carlos A. Bailey Parks F16465451. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

Sincerely, Without Prejudice, Please send me the so that I may Discharge the Debt in accord with HJR-192, to be presented to the Federal window,for UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Settlement within three days truth-in-lending EIN# time. pre-paid-preferred stock priority-exempt from levy STATE OF NEW YORK ) )ss.: COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ) I, Mr. Carlos A. BaileyParksbeing duly sworn deposes and says: That on this day I submitted in a mail box maintained at Cape Vincent Correctional Facility the original or copies of the following papers:

"EXEMPTION LETTER"

to be mailed via United States Postal Service to the following concerned parties:

Hon. J. MCLAUGHLIN (UNSDJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

U S.COURTHOUSE

225 CADMAN PLAZA EAST

Brooklyn, New York, 11201

Carlos A. Bailey Parks 23 November Jacquelyn M. Clark 11

Without Prejudice Respectfully submitted, Sworn to before me Cape Vincent Correctional Facility Route 12E, P.O. Box 739 this day of Cape Vincent, N.Y. 13618 2009 Notary Public JACQUELYN M. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York Qualified in Jefferson County 01CL6169900 Commission Expires on July 2, 20 Exhibit Defendant (1) Carlos A. Bailey TERMINATED: 12/19/1989 Pending Counts Disposition Highest Offense Level (Opening) Terminated Counts Disposition Highest Offense Level (Terminated) Complaints Disposition Plaintiff USA Dave S. Hattem LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Date Filed # Docket Text Assigned to: Judge Joseph M. McLaughlin None None None None None _____________________________________________________________________________________________ represented by United States Attorney's Office Criminal Division 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201 (718) 254-7000 09/05/1989 Added Government Attorney Dave S. Hattem (Conte, Daniela) (Entered: 09/30/1992) 09/30/1992 1 TRANSCRIPT of sentencing filed in case as to Carlos A. Bailey for dates of 12/1/89; Court Reporter/ESR: Carmella Jannuzzi. AUSA Dave Hattem and defense counsel Robert Dorf, present. (Conte, Daniela) (Entered: 09/30/1992) 05/05/1993 2 ENDORSED ORDER (see ltr. dtd 4/15/93) as to Carlos A. Bailey, that the motion is denied, I have no power to modify the sentence. (Signed by Judge Edward R. Korman, dated: 4/26/93) (Roker, Michelle) (Entered: 05/12/1993) 09/11/2002 3 AFFIDAVIT by Carlos A. Bailey, requesting that the federral probation dept send a copy of his federal inmate progress report to him, in order rthat this proper decisions concerning his release status can be made. (Dobkin, David) (Entered: 09/11/2002)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PRO SE OFFICE U.S. COURTHOUSE 225 CADMAN PLAZA EAST BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201

LOVELL L. BELTON GENERAL DELIVERY NEW YORK, NY 10001-9999 Date: DECEMBER 2, 2009 Dear Litigant:

The Court's Pro Se Office received the enclosed papers on NOVEMBER 17, 2009 *. The papers are being returned to you for one or more of the following reasons checked below. Please read this list carefully to correct any mistakes or omissions in your papers. If you decide to proceed with your action, you must return the enclosed papers WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER for processing ( together with this letter). 11 28 U.S.C. § 1914 in forma pauperis in forma pauperis in forma pauperis YOUR SUBMISSION DOES NOT INCLUDE A MOTION FOR LEAVE OF THE COURT TO FILE A COMPLAINT; PLS.SEE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSVED ON 8/3/2007 IN 07-CV-2731. PLEASE FILL OUT THE ENCLOSED MOTION FORM AND RETURN IT TO OUR OFFICE WITH

2. The defendants In

1a. DDS. Renrick C. Benn. Whoose last known Place of business — place of malpractice occurence. Is 185 Kingston Avenue. (Brooklyn, N.Y.)

1b. (Attorney) — Mr. Lance Earenburg's Last Known Place of business. Is In the Manhattan — District/(Southern.) I-C., Siben-Siben's Last Known Place of business w/plaintiff. Is some where of New Jersey w/office(s.) In, Eastern District.

1-d. Susan Hunter's last known place of business: — Albany Avenue, (Eastern District.) Off. Kingston Avenue.

I-e. Medicaid's place of business: Albany New York.

3. Benn neglected and did enact a reckless extraction of plaintiff's teeth, (eighteen.) Fabricating a need despitean allergenic-procedure of denture-material(s) need by patient — (the plaintiff.) As well the. Informance of stability enacted much earlier of plaintiff's teen years. Which provided stablization disrupted by. His own, Susan Hunter's negligence of noted. Informance, But mainly by Family Dental care (Marcy Avenue (Brooklyn, N.Y.) Placing allergenic fibered Material — (Acrylic.) to repair a broken front-tooth defendants actions are still Statuted from. July 31st 2007. Where, Medicaid. Madean. Insistence to have all teeth pulled for pallets or approval would be denied. to plaintiff's person and believably to DDS's. Lawyer(s.) Mr. Lance earenberg did have plaintiff gather pertainable — records of case. Opted-out giving no reason for such, of a perfectly liable case due to lack of allergenic-adherence. By all, DDS's. Involved, . . . that also warded to refuse treatment that came under by two teeth knocked loose. In brawlat. Riker's Island CIFM (Intake C 76.) 2007. Siben + Siben refused to accept case as well, Stating long-suffered fabricating a/some dental. List's.) Fabricated — need, "I may go blind/have a heart attack/lose a limb or-so (forbid.) One-day. But Certainly may shall. I Chop them out of their sockets. Nor bose that any legalitylies.) Be denied,") Correct? Or not? ("Still no dentures properly.")

4. Relief Sought will be a NON-DEDUCTABLE SHARED Amount of: — FIVE — HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS. w/anyother judgement this court may deem just and proper.

5. Jurisdiction and relief will incept this court, If venue alone shall partake.

11/17/09 mr. Lovell L. Belton. 1-(646)-781-6373 IN FORMA PAUPERIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ____________________________________________ LOVELL L. BELTON Plaintiff, — vs — DDS. RENRICK C. BENN/(ATTORNEY.) — REQUEST TO PROCEED LANCE EARENBURG/SIBEN-SIBEN/ DDS. SUSAN HUNTER/MEDICALD/THE STATE OF NEW YORK. Defendant(s). ____________________________________________ I, Mr. Lovell L. Belton, am the plaintiff in the above entitled case. I hereby request to proceed without being required to prepay fees or costs or give security therefore. I state that because of my poverty I am unable to pay the costs of said proceeding or to give security therefore, and I believe I am entitled to redress.N/A YOU MUST ANSWER THIS QUESTION EVEN IF YOU ARE INCARCERATED. January 3rd 1991. $300.00 Per month. Social Security Disability 682,00 N/A Personal/Entertainment Equip. N/A Undomiciled Homeless. 1. If you are presently employed: a) give the name and address of your employer b) state the amount of your earnings per month _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 2. If you are NOT PRESENTLY EMPLOYED: a) state the date of start and termination of your last employment b) state your earnings per month. 3. Have you received, within the past twelve months, any money from any source? If so, name the source and the amount of money you received. a) Are you receiving any public benefits? [] No [] Yes, $ b) Do you receive any income from any other source? [] No [] Yes, $ _____________ 4. Do you have any money, including any money in a checking or savings account? If so, how much? 5. Do you own any apartment, house or building, stocks, bonds, notes, automobiles or other property? If the answer is yes, describe the property and state its approximate value. [] No [] Yes, 6. List the person(s) that you pay money to support and the amount you pay each month. 7. Do you pay for rent or for a mortgage? If so, how much each month? 8. State any special financial circumstances which the Court should consider. _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ I uncerstand that the Court shall dismiss this case if I give a false answer to any questions in this declaration. In addition, if I give a false answer I will be subject to the penalties for perjury.

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Lovell L. Belton Dated: 11/7/09 __________________________ (signature)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PRO SE OFFICE U.S. COURTHOUSE 225 CADMAN PLAZA EAST BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201

Date: DECEMBER 3, 2009 Dear Litigant:

The Court's Pro Se Office received the enclosed papers on NOVEMBER 20, 2009*. The papers are being returned to you for one or more of the following reasons checked below. Please read this list carefully to correct any mistakes or omissions in your papers. If you decide to proceed with your action, you must return the enclosed papers WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER for processing ( together with this letter). 11 28 U.S.C. § 1914 in forma pauperis in forma pauperis in forma pauperis YOUR SUBMISSION DOES NOT INCLUDE A MOTION FOR LEAVE OF THE COURT TO FILE A COMPLAINT. PLEASE SEE ENCLOSED COPY OF THE ORDER ISSVED ON 8/3/2007 IN 07-CV-2731. PLEASE FILL OUT THE ENCLOSED MOTION FORM AND RETURN IT TO OUR OFFICE WITH THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO WAIVE THE FILING-FEE (IN FORM PAUPERIS) BELTON V. SOCIAL SECURITY

2. Of African — American descent, Born: — December 20th, 1960, (Williamsburg 279 S. 1st Street, then taken to green point hospital. Where said to have Pnuemonnia, rather than an allergenic — symptom. Inherited from father's — Side.

3. At Said-dating/time vaccines were needed given. "Onto my belief as of November 14th, 2009." Will Ward, that one/more Were not administered. In prompt selective — fashion. Adding more and further permanent. Irreversible-severity of allergenic-reaction(s) of Which hindered the straight through completion toward High — school/some other a cademic — schooling, employment a other matters. that led to. SSD. Benefit after tenyears, . . . Sixong ding before certified/declorated, Paid by only one year. Back-Issue and presently drawing since. October 2001. Since first-file of left — eye blindness. Due-to Police — brutality within the same year, January 3rd 1991, (Manhattan — Fulton Street/Broadway-Nassau Red-line Subway. "While In Custody and hand-cuffed".(FOS.)

4. Defendants are city employed with/of 100 Centre street. N.Y.C 10012 to Knowledge, re-established w/woodhull Hospital. (Flushing Avenue.) (Brooklyn, New York,) from Greenpoint Hospital

5. This lese.) Matters have resulted suspicion(s) Of wrongful death (s.) Of one/more of my wives of eriminal attempt/undertakings upon plaintiff's one or more wives — (Plague/fammon.) To With a Seperation/Parting through misrepresented clairvoyance Bias notes of. Illrepute from, N.Y.P.D to yet other Criminal aspects of theft(s.) Led by lack of ability to with-hold a daily routine of employment and some Leisure. Possibly a Knowingly pursuit to/of reckless endangerment by ("City doctorls.) As well (Immunizations Clinics".) Where by; — NYCHA has become derelict to need of medical — emergency — housing — need of stablization/wellness of plaintiff(s.) Request(s.)

6. Relief/damages are sought of: ONE — BILLION DOLLARS/NO LESS THAN A NON DEDUCTIBLE FIVE — HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS, With What ver rule/judgement this court may deem just and proper. w/discovery of this (ese) claims of facts on 11/14/09.

7. This court will stand as proper venue/means for this action heretofore, Where and upon defendants are perfectly liable for this action herein.

mr lovell L. Belton L.B. 11/20/09 1-(646)-781-6373 Complaint UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT of NEW YORK ____________________________________________ LOVELL L. BELTON Plaintiff, — Against — SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION/ THE STATE OF NEW YORK/GREEN- Jurytrial POINT (WOOD HULL.) HOSPITAL/ Demanded. IMMUNIZATION-CENTER(s.) (EASTERN DISTRICT-HHC.)/ THE STATE (CITY) OF NEW YORK N.Y.P.D./N.Y.C.H.A. defendant(s.)

Claim of Facts

1. I Lovell L. Belton. Am the plaintiff. In this action, using the undomiciled address of;-General Delivery. New York, N.Y. 10001-9999.

2. Of. African-American descent. Born, December 20th, 1960 (Williamsburg. 279 s, 1st street, then taken to greenpoint hospital Where said to have. Pnuemonnia, rather than an allergenic-sympton, Inherited from father's-side.

3. At said dating/time vaccines Were needed/given. "Onto my beliefas of November 14th, 2009." Will Ward that one/more Were not administered. In prompt Selective-fashion. Adding more and permanent. Irreversible.

Severity, of allegenic-reaction(s) of Which hindered the straight-through completion toward high-school/some other academic — schooling, employment and other matters that led to SSD. Benefit after ten years, . . . Six on-going before certified/declorated. Paid by only one-year. Back-Issueand presently drawing since october 2001. Since first-file of left eye blindness. Due-to police — brutality with in same year, January 3rd, 1991. (Manhattan — Fulton street/Broadway-Nassau Red-line subway. "While In custody and hand-cuffed." (TDS)

4. Defendants are city employed with/of 100 Centre Street, N.Y.C. 10012 to knowledge w/Green-Point Hospital. Re-establish to Woodhull Hospital. (Flushing Avenue Brooklyn, New York.)

5. these(is) Matter(s.) Have resulted. In Suspicion(s.) of Wrongful-deaths of one or more of my wives. Of criminal-Intent/Undertakings upon plaintiff's one/more wives (plague/fammon) To with a seperation/parting through misrepresentated Clairvogance. Bias notes of. Illrepute from. N.Y.P.D. to-yet other criminal aspects, of theft(s.) Led by lack of ability to to with hold a daily coutine of employment and some Liesure Possibly a knowingly, pursuit to/of reckless endargerment by (city doctor(s.)) As well (Imm Whereby;-N.Y.C.H.A. Has become derelict to to medical-emergency-housing-need of stablization/wellness of plaintiff's request(s.))

6. Relief sought/damages. Are requested of. A NON-DEDUCTABLE ONE BILLION DOLLARS. With Whatever rule/judgement this Court may deem just Proper. w/discovery of this (ese.) claim(s) of facts on. 11/14/09.

7. this court will stand as proper venue/means for this action here to fore. Where and upon defendants are perfectly liable for this action.

Mr. Lovell L. Belton 11/20/09 L.B. 1-(646)-181-6373 IN FORMA PAUPERIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ____________________________________________ MR. LOVELL L. BELTON Plaintiff — vs — SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION/ THE STATE OF NEW YORK/ GREEN POINT (WOOD HULL HOSPITAL/IMMUNIZATION- REQUEST TO PROCEED CENTER(S.) (EASTERN-DISTRICT HHC.)/THE CITY of NEW YORK/ N.Y.P.D/N.Y.C. HA Defendant(s) ____________________________________________ I, Mr. Lovell L. Belton, am the plaintiff in the above entitled case. I hereby request to proceed without being required to prepay fees or costs or give security therefore. I state that because of my poverty I am unable to pay the costs of said proceeding or to give security therefore, and I believe I am entitled to redress. NOT PRESENTLY EMPLOYED: YOU MUST ANSWER THIS QUESTION EVEN IF YOU ARE INCARCERATED. January 3rd, 1991 (01/03/91.) SSD./Social Security Administration. 682.00 (mnthly.) No. Home/entertainment-equipment `Self' None — presently. Homeless-exspense/cell phone/Innovation fee(s) ("On-going".) — (since 05/01/09.) 1. If you are presently employed: a) give the name and address of your employer b) state the amount of your earnings per month ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ 2. If you are a) state the date of start and termination of your last employment b) state your earnings per month. _______________________________________________ 3. Have you received, within the past twelve months, any money from any source? If so, name the source and the amount of money you received. a) Are you receiving any public benefits? [] No [X] Yes, $ b) Do you receive any income from any other source? [X] No [] Yes, $ _________________ 4. Do you have any money, including any money in a checking or savings account? If so, how much? _________________________________________________________________________ 5. Do you own any apartment, house or building, stocks, bonds, notes, automobiles or other property? If the answer is yes, describe the property and state its approximate value. [] No [] Yes, 6. List the person(s) that you pay money to support and the amount you pay each month. ______________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ 7. Do you pay for rent or for a mortgage? If so, how much each month? ___________________________________________________________ 8. State any special financial circumstances which the Court should consider. ____________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ I understand that the Court shall dismiss this case if I give a false answer to any questions in this declaration. In addition, if I give a false answer I will be subject to the penalties for perjury.

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.11/20/09 Mr. Lovell L. Belton

Dated: (signature)

In re Igartua

Opinion

ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PRO SE OFFICE U.S. COURTHOUSE 225 CADMAN PLAZA EAST BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PRO SE OFFICE U.S. COURTHOUSE 225 CADMAN PLAZA EAST BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201

PROOF OF SERVICE

CHANGE OF ADDRESS

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

ALFONSO SPRINGER KNIGHT.

1. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.

2. PARTIES TO THIS ACTION

3. FACTS FIRST FELONY CLAIM

4. FOURTH CLAIM AND STRIKE. RESPONDENTS SHIFTED THEIR BURDEN.

PROOF OF SERVICE

CHANGE OF ADDRESS

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

1. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.

2. PARTIES TO THIS ACTION

4. FOURTH CLAIM AND STRIKE. RESPONDENTS SHIFTED THEIR BURDEN.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

MEMORANDUM OF LAW STATEMENT OF THE CASE

FEDERAL QUESTIONS OF LAWS.

ARGUMENT. THE DOUBLE STANDARDS BY THE RESPONDENTS APPLYING THE RULES OF LAWS. POINT I FAILURE TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT

It has been the consensus of every State court, when the trial court committed a reversible error and the defendant or plaintiff already served his or her time was an order dismissing the indictment. See People v. Flynn, supra.

POINT II THE RESPONDENTS USED THE SECOND OFFENDER LAW UNCONSTITUTIONALLY AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF.

POINT III How do you define Prejudice?

POINT IV THE EXAMPLE OF LAW AND THE ORDER.

POINT V PREJUDICIAL ERRORS occurred AT TRIAL AND SENTENCING REQUIRED THE INDICTMENT TO BE DISMISSED.

POINT VI RESPONDENTS SHIFTED TKO AND CSI.

POINT I, III, IV.

POINT II, III, IV

POINT V, VI

POINT VII JUDICIAL DISCRESION, INTEGRITY FOR FAIRNESS IN PROCEEDINGS AND PUBLIC REPUTATION IS NEEDED HERE.

The Backdoor Mechanism.

CONCLUSION

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

MEMORANDUM OF LAW STATEMENT OF THE CASE

FEDERAL QUESTIONS OF LAWS.

ARGUMENT. THE DOUBLE STANDARDS BY THE RESPONDENTS APPLYING THE RULES OF LAWS. POINT I FAILURE TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT

It has been the consensus of every State court, when the trial court committed a reversible error and the defendant or plaintiff already served his or her time was an order dismissing the indictment. See People v. Flynn, supra.

POINT II THE RESPONDENTS USED THE SECOND OFFENDER LAW UNCONSTITUTIONALLY AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF.

POINT III How do you define Prejudice?

POINT IV THE EXAMPLE OF LAW AND THE ORDER.

POINT V PREJUDICIAL ERRORS occurred AT TRIAL AND SENTENCING REQUIRED THE INDICTMENT TO BE DISMISSED.

POINT VI RESPONDENTS SHIFTED TKO AND CSI.

POINT I, III, IV.

POINT II, III, IV

POINT V, VI

POINT VII JUDICIAL DISCRESION, INTEGRITY FOR FAIRNESS IN PROCEEDINGS AND PUBLIC REPUTATION IS NEEDED HERE.

The Backdoor Mechanism.

CONCLUSION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PRO SE OFFICE U.S. COURTHOUSE 225 CADMAN PLAZA EAST BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44 Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44 Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PRO SE OFFICE U.S. COURTHOUSE 225 CADMAN PLAZA EAST BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PRO SE OFFICE U.S. COURTHOUSE 225 CADMAN PLAZA EAST BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201

VERIFICATION

DECLARATION OF SERVICE

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PRO SE OFFICE U.S. COURTHOUSE 225 CADMAN PLAZA EAST BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201

ALESANDRO CASTRO Reg. No. 03468-049 Metropolitan Detention Center P.O. Box 329002 Brooklyn, New York 11232

MOTION

THE STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT

CONCLUSION

AFFIDAVIT OF POVERTY

AUTHORIZATION

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

MOTION

THE STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT

CONCLUSION

AFFIDAVIT OF POVERTY

AUTHORIZATION

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

MOTION

THE STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PRO SE OFFICE U.S. COURTHOUSE 225 CADMAN PLAZA EAST BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.

ARGUMENT. ***THE DOUBLE STANDARDS BY THE RESPONDENTS APPLYING THE RULES OF* LAWS. POINT I *FAILURE TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT***

POINT II ***THE RESPONDENTS USED THE SECOND OFFENDER LAW UNCONSTITUTIONALLY* *AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF.***

POINT V ***PREJUDICIAL ERRORS occurred AT TRIAL AND SENTENCING REQUIRED THE* *INDICTMENT TO BE DISMISSED.***

ARGUMENT. ***THE DOUBLE STANDARDS BY THE RESPONDENTS APPLYING THE RULES OF* LAWS. POINT I *FAILURE TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT***

POINT II ***THE RESPONDENTS USED THE SECOND OFFENDER LAW UNCONSTITUTIONALLY* *AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF.***

POINT V ***PREJUDICIAL ERRORS occurred AT TRIAL AND SENTENCING REQUIRED THE* *INDICTMENT TO BE DISMISSED.***

NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.

NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.

Citations