FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/30/ :58 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 505 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2017

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK Index No /2014 JOAN C. LIPIN, Hon. Anil C. Singh, J.S.C., Part 45 v. Plaintiff, DANSKE BANK, DAVID E. HUNT, ULF BERGQUIST, EVELYN F. ELLIS, JOSEPH R. MAZZIOTTI, DANA A. SAWYER, KRAININ REAL ESTATE, ANN SUSAN MARKATOS, ROBERT GARY LIPIN, DAVID A. BERGER, ALLEGAERT BERGER & VOGEL LLP, MARK K. ANESH, AND DEBORAH LOVEWELL, Defendants. PLAINTIFF S NOTICE OF MOTION TO VACATE THE DECISIONS AND ORDERS, RECUSE JUSTICE SINGH UNDER RIPPO V. BARKER, 197 L. ED 2D 167 (MAR. 6, 2017), AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, AND THE RE-ASSIGNMENT OF THE ACTION TO THE HON. SHOLMO S. HALGER, J.S.C., TO WHOM THE ACTION WAS FIRST ASSIGNED, PRIOR TO CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BY ATTORNEY EARLEY, AND THE DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS, AGAINST WHOM SECTION 487 OF THE NEW YORK JUDICIARY LAW CLAIMS ARE ASSERTED (Motion Seq. # 16) Oral argument is requested PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, Joan C. Lipin, the plaintiff herein, will move this Court, under CPLR 5015(a)(3), (d), at Motion Submission Part, Room 130, of the New York Supreme Court, New York County Courthouse, located at 60 Centre Street, in New York, New York, on the 24th day of April, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the parties may be heard, to recuse Hon. Anvil C. Singh under the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Rippo v. Baker, 197 L. Ed. 167, 168 (Mar. 6, 2017), and under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, for egregious bias because the actual bias on the part of Justice Singh is too high to be constitutionally tolerable. Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47, 95 S. Ct. 1456, 43 L. Ed 2d 712 (1975); Williams v. Pennsylvania, 579 U.S.,, 136 S. Ct. 1899, 195 L. Ed. 2d 132, 141 (2016) ( The Court asks not whether a judge harbors an actual, subjective bias, but instead 1 1 of 9

2 whether, as an objective matter, the average judge in his position is likely to be neutral, or whether there is an unconstitutional potential for bias (internal quotation marks omitted)). In support of her motion, plaintiff Joan C. Lipin incorporates by reference herein the entire record, including Motion Sequence Numbers , and her Order to Show Cause to quash the illegal subpoenas that were used by defendants Berger and Allegaert Berger & Vogel LLP to break into her Savings Account at the J.P. Morgan Chase Bank to steal liquid assets belonging to her, as shown in detail by the Record herein, and at the same time her Verified Complaint and the claims that are asserted against them concerning the illegal debt collection proceeding was sub judice before the biased judge. Plaintiff also incorporates by reference herein the Decisions/Orders that were signed by the biased judge and filed on December 13, 2017, and August 26, 2016, incorporated by reference herein. In addition, plaintiff also incorporates each of the identical Decisions/Orders of the same biased judge that are dated October 8, 2014, but were not filed under October 17, 2014, and October 20, 2014, and also the Order dated May 6, 2014, denying all of plaintiff s motions, even motions in which the defendants had defaulted. Each of the aforesaid Decisions/Orders constitute egregious violations by Justice Singh under the Due Process Clause because each was issued without conducting discovery, and without conducting evidentiary hearings, as requested by the Plaintiff, in violation of the Due Process Clause, Equal Protection and Free Speech rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution to which of plaintiff Joan C. Lipin is entitled under the Constitution of the United States and also under the Constitution of the State of New York, under which she also is entitled to receive a jury trial as to her claims, including her claims under Section 487 of the New York Judiciary Law. 2 2 of 9

3 Justice Singh denied every motion, and cross-motion, filed by the Plaintiff, even when such motion was unopposed, and with knowledge that the defendants had defaulted, and granted the illegal, and defective, motions to dismiss the litigation, and imposed a void for vagueness permanent filing injunction against plaintiff, and costs, and disbursements to be assessed against plaintiff, and threatened plaintiff with further sanctions, without ever determining the issues raised by plaintiff under CPLR 322(b), and 22 NYCRR , and also under Section 487 of the New York Judiciary Law, as set forth in the Verified Complaint filed herein on January 30, Defendants Mark K. Anesh, David A. Berger, Allegaert Berger & Vogel LLP, and attorney Francis J. Earley, against whom plaintiff set forth valid claims under Section 487 of the New York Judiciary Law, for dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misconduct. Under the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Rippo v. Baker, 197 L. Ed 2d 167, plaintiff demands the recusal of Justice Anil C. Singh, vacatur of the decisions and orders, and re-assignment of this litigation involving real property of which Joan C. Lipin is recorded to be the legal title owner, and who was in possession of her 3.4 acre real property located on Moose Pond, in the Town of Bridgton, in Cumberland County, in the State of Maine, when defendant David E. Hunt, a New York attorney, who was recently suspended by the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, for the Second Judicial Department, conspired with defendants Evelyn F. Ellis, David A. Berger, a New York attorney, defendant Joseph R. Mazziotti, a real estate attorney in Maine, and defendant Krainin Real Estate, to fabricate two separate documents entitled Personal Representative Deed of Sale, in order to purport to sell plaintiff s real estate and to trespass upon the property of the plaintiff, while plaintiff was in possession of her real property and residential homestead, to defendant Dana A. Sawyer who threatened to kill plaintiff by hanging her upon her property, and stabbing her with a knife, if she remained upon her real 3 3 of 9

4 estate property and homestead, from which defendants Hunt, Markatos, Robert Lipin, and Evelyn Ellis, and other third parties received the illegal sales proceeds therefrom, in collusion with defendant Mazziotti, who is a real estate attorney, and who is sued in his individual capacity. This real property litigation also concerns the real property belonging to the estate of Kathe Lipin, the mother of the plaintiff, who was a member of the Bar of the State of New York, that is located on Highland Lake, in the Town of Bridgton, in Cumberland County, in the State of Maine, concerning which defendant Ann Susan Markatos, who is a citizen and resident of the State of New York, conspired with defendants Ulf Bergquist, David A. Berger, Robert Gary Lipin, and Deborah Lovewell to steal the assets of the Estate of Kathe Lipin, and entitlements to which plaintiff, as an heir, beneficiary, and creditor thereto, was entitled to receive under New York law, on the basis of the unauthorized practice of law by defendant Ulf Bergquist in the State of New York. In addition, defendant Bergquist conspired with defendants Danske Bank, Hunt, Berger, Allegaert Berger & Vogel LLP, and attorney Earley, to engage in the unauthorized practice of law in the State of New York concerning the theft by Danske Bank of the extremely valuable gold and silver numismatic collection belonging to plaintiff that was in situ in the high security safe deposit box that was located at the main office of the Danske Bank in Copenhagen, Denmark. Defendant Danske Bank previously had admitted that it was subject to liability under New York law. Since there is no evidence in the record that defendant Mazziotti has ever authorized defendant Anesh, a New York attorney, or his agent attorney Jordon A. Ehrlich, or his law, to appear on his behalf, as mandated under NYCPLR 322(b), or that defendant Danske Bank has ever authorized Francis J. Earley, Esq., a New York attorney, or his agents, or his law firm, to appear 4 4 of 9

5 on its behalf, as mandated under NYCPLR 322(b), or that defendants Hunt, Bergquist, Ellis, Krainin Real Estate, Robert Gary Lipin, and Deborah Lovewell have ever authorized defendants Berger and Allegaert Berger and Vogel LLP, New York attorneys, or their agents, including attorneys Lauren J. Pincus, Dennis Rambaud, and Ronald Busloff, to appear on their behalf, as mandated under NYCPLR 322(b), they had no standing to appear in this litigation, Justice Singh is required to recuse himself under the Due Process Clause and Rippo v. Baker, supra, and all decisions and orders are required to be vacated because they are null and void. Further, Justice Singh is required to recuse himself, and this action reassigned to the Hon. Shlomo S. Hagler, J.S.C., to which the litigation was initially assigned prior to the tortious interference by the defendant attorneys herein, and attorney Earley, for the further reason that he issued his decisions and orders without every conducting discovery, and evidentiary hearings, as required under controlling law concerning that undisputed fact that retainer agreements/engagement letters, 22 N.Y.C.R.R , as required under New York law, have never been produced by defendants Anesh, Berger, Allegaert Berger & Vogel LLP, and attorney Earley that would authorized them to represent the defendants herein. With knowledge that he had irreparably injured plaintiff by failing and refusing to conduct discovery, and evidentiary hearings as requested by plaintiff, Justice Singh engaged in a continuing and systematic pattern and practice of biased and unlawful misconduct against plaintiff, by violating her rights under the Due Process Clause, as set forth in Rippo v. Baker, 197 L. Ed. 2d 167 (Mar. 6, 2017), and under the Constitutions of the United States and the State of New York, and by violating her right to a jury trial, as requested in the unanswered Verified Complaint filed herein by the plaintiff on January 30, of 9

6 Justice Singh also violated 22 NYCRR 100.1, 100.2(A), (C), and 100.3(A)(7), (9)(a), (B)(1), (4), (6), (7), (C)(1)-(2), (D)(2), (3), and (E)(1)(a)(1), (f) of the Judicial Conduct Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge, and New Island Investors v. Wynne, 251 A.D.2d 560 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep t 1988), which invalidates each of his Decisions and Orders, as shown by the Record herein, which is incorporated by reference herein. The violation of the Due Process Clause and jury trial rights of the plaintiff by the biased judge also is shown by his cookie-cutter Decisions/Order involving twelve separate decisions and orders dated October 8, 2014, and filed on October 17, 2014 and October 20, 2014 (Doc ## 364; ), incorporated by reference herein, which fabricate the record by falsely and fraudulently stating All of the defendants have moved to dismiss the verified complaint for the exception of David E. Hunt has not appeared in this matter [sic], which this court grants dismissal sua sponte, contrary to the NYSCEF record in the above entitled in rem litigation that states: NYSCEF has no record of opt out or participation recorded for defendant David E. Hunt. The record shows that the misconduct of Justice Singh also is shown by his dismissal of the unanswered Verified Complaint in which the defendants had defaulted without leave to re-plead, at pages 2, 5, 9 of the each Decision and Order dated October 8, 2014, and filed on October 17, 2014 and October 20, 2014 (Doc 364; Docs ), on the basis of his null and void Decisions/Orders each of which he falsely and fraudulently stated that he had decided them in accordance with the order in motion sequence 003, the motion to dismiss by defendants Berger and Allegaert Berger & Vogel LLP under a fabricated provision of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, and contrary to his own decision in Armstrong v. Blank Rome LLP, Norman S. Heller, Dylan S. Mitchell, 2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 978 (Mar. 6, 2014), aff d, Armstrong v. Blank Rome LLP, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1739 (N.Y. App. Div. 1 st Dep t, Mar. 3, 2015). 6 6 of 9

7 See also Chevron Corp. v. Steven Donziger, The Law Offices of Steven R. Donziger, Donziger & Associates, PLLC, et al., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS (2d Cir. Aug. 8, 2016), Ambac Assurance Corporation, et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al., 2016 N.Y. LEXIS 1649 (June 9, 2016), CDR Créances S.A.S. & c. v. Cohen, et al., 23 N.Y. 3d 307 (May 8, 2014), Melcher v. Greenberg Traurig LLP, et al., 2016 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 275 (Jan. 19, 2016), Amalfitano v. Rosenberg, 12 N.Y.3d 8, 903 N.E.2d 265 (2009), Mazel 315 W. 35th LLC v. 315 W. 35th Assoc. LLC, 120 A.D.3d 1106, 992 N.Y.S.2d 402, 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6207, 2014 NY Slip Op (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2014), Guardian Life Insurance Company of America v. Handel, et al., 190 A.D.2d 57 (App. Div. 1st Dept. 1993), and Chang v. Chang, 190 A.D.2d 311, 597 N.Y.S.2d 692 (App. Div. 1 st Dept 1993). Defendants Anesh, Berger, Allegaert Berger & Vogel LLP, and attorney Earley have personal knowledge of their contempt of the Preliminary Conference Order that was issued by Hon. Shlomo S. Hagler, J.S.C., on February 14, 2014, directing all parties to appear in his Courtroom on March 24, 2014, in Joan C. Lipin v. David E. Hunt, Danske Bank, Ulf Bergquist, Bergquist Advokatbyrå AB, Evelyn F. Ellis, Francis J. Earley, David A. Berger, Allegaert Berger & Vogel LLP, Mark K. Anesh, and Catherine O Hagan Wolfe, NYSC Index No /2014. The aforesaid Preliminary Conference Order issued by Justice Hagler on February 14, 2014, which was served upon each of the aforesaid defendants on February 18, 2014, states as follows: Preliminary Conference; A preliminary conference will be held before the Hon. Shlomo Hagler on March 24th, 2014 at 11:00 a.m., in Part 17,located at 111 Centre St., New York. N.Y. Room 581. ONLY COUNSEL FULLY FAMILIAR WITH AND AUTHORIZED TO SETTLE, STIPULATE. OR DISPOSE OF ACTIONS SHALL APPEAR AT THE CONFERENCE [Caps in original; emphasis added.] 7 7 of 9

8 On February 20, 2014, defendants Earley, Anesh, Berger, and Allegaert Berger & Vogel LLP conspired to commit a fraud upon the Supreme Court, New York County, by illegally removing Joan C. Lipin v. David E. Hunt, Danske Bank, Ulf Bergquist, Bergquist Advokatbyrå AB, Evelyn F. Ellis, Francis J. Earley, David A. Berger, Allegaert Berger & Vogel LLP, Mark K. Anesh, and Catherine O Hagan Wolfe, NYSC Index No /2014, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and steering it to Richard J. Sullivan, U.S.D.J., and thereby engaged in misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in this Court, and also by this Court, in view of the direct knowledge of the foregoing by Anvil C. Singh, a biased judge whose recusal is required under the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Rippo v. Baker, supra. No court has ever ruled upon the mandatory issues under NYCPLR 322(b) and 22 NYCRR in the context involving attorneys against whom claims are asserted under Section 487 of the New York Judiciary Law, or involving attorneys against whom claims are asserted under Section 487 of the New York Judiciary Law who themselves are defendant parties. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, plaintiff will move this Court for the entry of an Order recusing Hon. Anvil C. Singh under the Due Process Clause, and the recent decision in Rippo v. Baker, 197 L. Ed. 2d 167, vacating the resulting Decisions/Orders because they are null and void, re-assigning the litigation to the Hon. Shlomo S. Hagler, J.S.C., to who the action was initially assigned prior to the false and fraudulent misconduct by attorney Francis J. Earley, and defendants Mark K. Anesh, David A. Berger, and Allegaert Berger & Vogel LLP, all of which are New York attorneys against whom plaintiff asserts claims under Section 487 of the New York Judiciary Law in the Verified Complaint filed herein on January 30, 2014, and granting such other and further relief, as may be just and equitable, including costs. 8 8 of 9

9 9 of 9