Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
2101(f) has a clear legal right to object, not to waive any defect in form if his substantial right
would be prejudiced. Accordingly, 1 am returning, rejecting and treating as nullity the attached
TO THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION for cause, which consists ofthe following grounds:
1. For starters, AAG Charles F. Sanders willfully edited without my permission the style of
my Petition by dropping off the phrase "UNDER DURESS". This is jurisdictional and
substantive issue in this matter- not a matter of the form to ignore as 1 continue to be the
political prisoner and hostage of State under color of law. There was no and could not be any
constitutional, lawful criminal proceeding in civil family court with remedy by appeal. As such,
it was pure tyranny, harassment and conquest. By this editing, Mr. Sanders creates a record,
wickedly pretends to be blissfully ignorant ofcriminality of his alleged clients, and creates
presumption of my guilt as in TWELVE PRESUMPTIONS OF THE COURT,with which he
was served at least a year ago. He failed to rebut them, and by operation of law, they deem
admitted by him. In fact, 1 did not voluntarily attend this special proceeding, presumably, to beg
the court to reverse good faith errors in judgments of his clients. Nothing can be farther from the
truth.
2. To add more to the lack of trust, public embarrassment of your office and create an
deliberate disregard of Unified Court Rules. CPLR and attorney's disciplinary rules, he
intentionally fails to attach clients' affidavits to his affirmation. He intentionaly fails to sign his
personal affirmation "under penalty of perjury" so that he could be prosecuted in criminal court
for peijury.
3. Mr. Sanders intentionally failed to address the issue ofjurisdiction over me per my
demand in order to mislead the public and the court, in violation ofethics rules and Judiciary
Law 487, which is a crime of misdemeanor and moral turpitude. This makes him lose his
5. This document is neither Responsive Pleading, nor a Notice of Motion. I filed and served
Verified Petition, which respondents must answer by Responsive Pleading styled Verified
Answer or by Motion, with attached respondents' affidavits signed under penalties of perjury.
This is not Responsive Pleading per CPLR 3018, which says,"a party shall deny..." No party
appeared and verified with signature, per CPLR 3021(D), under penalty of perjury above-
mentioned document presumably concocted and signed by Mr. Sanders, but now, presumably,
never read by Respondents. As such, neither this court nor I should be compelled to move on this
6. AG Office is generally disqualified in this matter as the interested party, beneficiary and
enabler ofcorruption. Additionally, Mr. Sanders is disqualified from appearing in this matter by
operation of law, which he violated by failing to self-disqualify. Admitted by him in this writing,
he was a party to this matter before contempt proceeding illegally resulted in Milsap's absurd,
7. Not without any knowledge of Mr. Sanders and of your office generally, Mr.
Shneiderman, some deep stale entity promoted respondent Milsap from support magistrate to
judge of Bronx County Family Court to continue destroying families, but on much larger scale.
Unfortunately, I did not know this when I filed this appeal, and therefore Sanders name is not on
the caption of my petition, which now I will seek to amend. I will call Sanders my adverse
witness, wrongdoer and enabler of crimes against me. 1 believe he coordinated criminal
confesses and admits to that by this writing. Accordingly, I made an inference that he was bribed
or somehow blackmailed into such attorney's misconduct and violation of Judiciary Law 487,
9. Alternatively, if Mr. Sanders' willfulness, intent and mens ria is not found after your due
diligence investigation, he then must be removed by you from his job as AAG and from this
matter per CPLR 321 for mental incapacitation or for professional incompetence.
10. As you know, Mr. Shneiderman. obstruction ofjustice and conquest does not result in res
judicata. In fact, it called travesty and genocide. In order to avoid unnecessary litigation and in
good faith, 1 stipulate and agree to give you some time to investigate and clear the grounds to this
Objection out of court so that this matter will be resolved lawfully on the merits rather by
conquest and war, which your office is currently conducting against me.