SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NASSAU
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
MAXI-AIDS INC.
Index No. 8498-10
Plaintiffs, AFFIDAVIT IN
-against- OPPOSITION
FEIGE ZARETSKY AND HAROLD ZARETSKY,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
Feige Zaretsky, being duly affirmed, deposes and states under penalties of perjury as follows:
In September 2011, the instant action was transferred to Judge Steven M. Jaeger by Judge Ute Wolf Lally, while there was pending at that time two respective motions seeking recusal against both of the said judges, relating to their shameless participation in a criminal scam, that included bribery, and other judicial malfeasance, as described more fully in my letter dated January 10, 2012, and titled, “Open Letter to Judge Steven M. Jaeger”.
In the interests of both convenience and clarity, I have annexed hereto as Exhibit “A” the said letter with its’ attached single exhibit of a one sided pseudo stipulation that was “so ordered” by Judge Jaeger. Because the said open letter is so directly related to the plaintiffs’ instant motion, and so eloquently describes how the instant motion was instrumental in their fraud scheme, and so clearly connects both Judges Jaeger and Lally as crucial participants to same, I shall quote the letter next, followed by further commentary.
The said open states:
AN OPEN LETTER TO JUDGE STEVEN M. JAEGER
Regarding His So Ordering a One Party “Stipulation” Against a Deaf Woman
FEIGE ZARETSKY
c/o AARON BERLIN
1909 NEW YORK AVENUE
BROOKLYN, NY 11210
(917) 803-4155
January 10, 2012
BY FAX & FIRST CLASS MAIL
Judge Steven M. Jaeger
Supreme Court of the State of New York
County of Nassau
100 Supreme Court Drive
Mineola, New York
RE: Unlawful “Stipulation” signed by Judge Steven Jaeger and Plaintiffs’ Counsel, In Matter of Zaretzky, et al. vs. Berlin, et al. Index No. 17869/08
Dear Judge Jaeger,
Attached to this letter, and marked as Exhibit “A”, is a copy of your illegal one party “stipulation”, dated June 2, 2011, that you together with plaintiffs’ counsel entered into in the hope of cutting off the defendants’ rights to their day in court, and in furtherance of a scam by which you together with Judge Ute Wolf Lally in a related ancillary action were shamelessly and fraudulently hoping to have my home sold at a Sheriff’s sale through an unjustifiable default falsely attributed to me. Additionally, your fraudulent scam sought to reduce the homestead exemption by $100,000.00. Your fraudulent conduct in the above referenced matter makes you together with Judge Lally a disgrace and an embarrasssment for the entire New York State judicial system. I may be a woman that is totally deaf from birth and severely learning disabled, but I have more personal experience than both you and Judge Lally combined when it comes to being the target of miscreants and scoundrels trying to prey on me and rip-off what I own. I can assure you both; justice will be served against you.
Your criminally motivated one party “stipulation” reflects judicial misconduct that is so shockingly outrageous and unconscionable that it demands your being immediately defrocked as a judge, as well as your disbarment from law in toto. New York State has no place for corrupt judges that prey on the deaf and handicapped.
In response to our discovering your fraudulent scam, the defendants herein, consisting of my father and I, brought two show cause seeking the recusal of both Judge Lally and yourself based on prima facia evidence of egregious judicial misconduct, and which also included a claim that on plaintiffs’ proffering, Judge Lally and you together shared the one hundred thousand dollar windfall profit that resulted from the aforesaid homestead reduction. The two show cause that we brought seeking recusal never discussed your so ordering the criminal one party “stipulation” because you were careful to never send the defendants a copy. Although it was entered by the clerk a day later, on June 3, it was immediately removed from the file and not made available or found in the clerk’s records until four and a half months later on October 17, 2011. Judge Lally in response to our first show cause issued an order in September that never denied any of our allegations of misconduct, but she did remove herself forthwith from the ancillary case where she had presided. She would have been wiser to have resigned as a judge altogether.
However, Judge Jaeger, you issued an order on December 22, 2011 exactly as we expected in which you denied our motion, and all other relief requested therein. Not surprisingly, at the behest of plaintiffs’ counsel, your latest order also includes prior to its conclusion a provision barring defendants from bringing any further motions or show causes. That last provision is worded against defendants even stronger than your previous unlawful one party “stipulation”. Actually, I should not only focus on just the latter portion of your order, as your entire order consists of lies and distortions of the facts. Out of my great respect for the New York State Supreme Court, where you are currently employed, I will not set forth in these pages what I believe to be a most fitting description of your order. However, you can rest assured that the herein defendants are not loosing even a minute sleep over what we see as nothing more than a wholly impotent order stemming from an overtly corrupt judge. It was never my father’s ambition to be the “Frank Serpico” of the New York State Supreme Court in Nassau County. However, after discovering the one sided criminal “stipulation”, that you and plaintiffs’ counsel so conveniently refer to as an “order”, my father has every intention to see to it that both you and Judge Ute Wolf Lally are defrocked as judges and debarred forever from practicing in the field of law.
However, in the mean time, Judge Jaeger, would you please be so kind to advise the undersigned of any of your more recent illegal one sided “stipulations” that you may have entered into with plaintiffs’ counsel against the herein defendants. I hope you will be quick in responding to this letter as it is very important that I am brought up to date with all of your latest criminal conduct prior to my proceeding further against you at the Appellate Division.
Thank you for giving this matter your undivided attention.
My sincerest thanks is extended to all the members of the community that assisted me with the writing of this letter.
Yours truly,
s/
Feige Zaretsky
cc: Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman – New York State Court of Appeals
Judge Anthony Marano – Nassau County Administrative Judge
Judge Ute Wolf Lally
Defendant Aaron Berlin
Solomon & Herrera
Local & National Media
On January 18, 2012, in another related action commenced by plaintiffs, and during oral argument on another motion likewise seeking Judge Jaeger’s recusal, grounded on conflict of interest, evidenced by his pattern of corrupt conduct and repeated judicial malfeasance, Judge Steven M. Jaeger was shown a letter from the office of Nassau County Administrative Judge, Hon. Anthony Marano, in which Judge Marano suggested, after reading the aforesaid Open Letter that the matter be presented to the District Attorney and the Commission for Judicial Conduct for investigation.
Evidently, Judge Marano, did not dismiss my claim against the two judges in his courthouse as being frivolous and unsubstantiated, as Judge Steven M. Jaeger to his apparent own convenience had suggested in his order dated December 22, 2011, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit “E” . Judge Marano, at the very minimum, detected a criminal odor emanating from Judge Jaeger’s chambers. As I recall, Kings County’s disgraced former Judge Gerald Garson also insisted he was innocent of judicial corruption. And just how far did that get him? I believe that ultimately Michael D. Solomon and/or Susan Rubin, the attorneys for plaintiffs, will ultimately turn state witness in exchange for a reduced sentence or no jail time.
Annexed hereto as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the deliberately falsified Notice of Motion dated May 4, 2011, a crucial element to the unlawful scam in which Judges Jaeger and Lally were acting in concert and conspiracy together with plaintiffs counsel, as clearly described above in my Open Letter to Judge Jaeger. As seen most obvious on the face of the Notice of Motion, it directs me to appear before Judge Steven M. Jaeger on May 25, 2011, although at that time the action belonged to Judge Ute Wolf Lally. Additionally, under said Exhibit “B” is a copy of a letter from Michael Solomon, which accompanied the defective motion. That letter was meant to further assure that I would be deceived in not appearing before Judge Lally.
The instant action was not transferred from Judge Lally to Judge Jaeger until three months later on September 23, 2011. Despite my appearing before Judge Jaeger, and having opposed the motion before Judge Jaeger, I was found in default by Judge Lally. Annexed hereto as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the order of Judge Ute Wolf Lally transferring the action to Judge Steven M. Jaeger on September 23, 2011.
On or about June 16, 2011, my father learned of the perverted motion practice that took place at the courtroom of Judge Lally, and where I was falsely found to be in default. On that same day, Judge Lally despite having been confronted by my father, Defendant Aaron Berlin, and his pointing out to her that the Notice of Motion was defective containing the name of the wrong judge, she refused to rescind her Memorandum and Decision dated June 14, 2011, in which she granted the plaintiffs’ motion to sell my home via the Sheriff, based on Feige’s purported default.
My father received a calculated response from Judge Lally’s chambers after he pointed out the deceptive notice of motion. My father was told; “The judge said you will have to make a motion to re-argue”.
Despite the defendants’ ignorance at the time of the aforesaid communication regarding the colossal judge sanctioned premeditated fraud scam, it was found to be extremely strange to my father to comprehend that Judge Lally, although being made fully aware from the papers before her that Michael Solomon had pulled a fraud on the court, of which the evidence was right there on the face of the defective notice of motion, instead of vacating her decision sua sponte in the interest of justice, she ill-advises the defendant to bring an impotent and fully defeatable motion to reargue the purported default, of which no appeal can be taken, and from which no stay can be obtained at the Appellate Division. Even a deaf and pro se learning disabled litigant without a high school diploma understands you can’t reargue something that you never argued in the first place.
My father was additionally told in the name of the judge, -and because of my handicap they rightfully spoke to him as the communicating agent for me- as follows: “Since Michael Solomon paid for the motion, it’s not his problem, but it’s your problem. Therefore you have to make a motion to re-argue.” Remarkably, how on that day the truth was slipped out of the mouth of her clerk; “Since Michael Solomon paid for the motion, it’s not his problem.. . .”
The instant motion is exactly that very same scam motion that Judge Lally had used for fabricating my default, only at this time Judge Lally is officially on paper off the case. Additionally, it is known today to the defendants and others in the public that Judge Steven M. Jaeger was a direct participant in the fraud scam as well, with the obvious objective and hope that for his rendering outstanding services to plaintiffs he will receive the balance of his share in the $100,000.00 windfall profit that plaintiffs seek via the reduction of the homestead.
Judge Ute Wolf Lally, after deliberating on my recusal motion for two months, and while finally opting out of the case and transferring same to Judge Jaeger, concedes to the allegations of fraud directed against her, evidenced by her carefully written order, in which she presents no denial whatsoever. See annexed Exhibit “C”.
Despite the aforesaid, and not wanting to concede outright that she is a corrupt judge unfit to practice on the bench in any court within the State of New York, Judge Lally refused to deny the plaintiffs’ fraudulent motion on the ground that the Notice of Motion is defective. After all, if Judge Lally were to concede in September 2011to that most obvious defect –wrong judge’s name- found on the face of the motion, than the question arises why didn’t she see that blatant defect on the motion’s return date of May 25, 2011? Or, Judge Ute Wolf Lally, if you concede in September 2011 that the Notice of Motion was defective, why did you give the defendant such a difficult time when her father contacted your chamber’s on June 16, 2011?
Judge Steven M. Jaeger too finds himself in the same quandary. Here is Judge Jaeger, a co-conspirator in a fraud scheme with Judge Ute Wolf Lally, and likewise the subject of a recusal motion for judicial corruption, after receiving the case from Judge Lally, and trying very hard to “cover up” and minimize his roll in the scheme and all the evidence of judicial corruption, likewise doesn’t want to lend credence to defendants insistence that the Notice of Motion is defective, as it was this very same motion on which the fraud scheme was initially hinged. By doing so, he would be conceding that Judge Lally is corrupt, guilty of judicial malfeasance, and unfit to sit as a judge. Then, who knows maybe Judge Lally volunteer to turn against Judge Jaeger.
Moreover, Judge Steven M. Jaeger, in his order dated December 19, 2011, annexed here as Exhibit “F”, was self contradictory in his attempt to cover-up his involvement in the scam relating to the instant motion. From one side, he was forced to vacate my default; but from the other side, he could not concede to me that the Notice of motion was blatantly defective and required dismissal, which would give credence to the defendants’ recusal motions grounded on his corruption and of which he was acting in collusion. Accordingly, after Judge Jaeger spent from September 2011through the next two months contemplating how to respond, he ultimately ordered the instant defective motion to go forward.
It appears from Judge Steven M. Jaeger’s previous order, dated December 19, 2012, that he sees no problem with one party serving a motion on another party and where the Notice of Motion directs the responding party to appear before a different judge acting in another case. It leaves me to wonder if Judge Jaeger would be of the same opinion if a Notice of Motion would cite the wrong courthouse as well, or if it would cite a court in another state. Just where does Judge Steven M. Jaeger draw his line?
Michael D. Solomon, the soon to be state witness, author of the defective Notice of Motion, and mastermind of the fraudulent scam, and bribe payer, is likewise in a confused bind. The instant motion was shamelessly and deliberately drafted by Michael D. Solomon in a defective state, in the hope of pulling off the fraud scam described hereinabove, together with the full cooperation of two state lower court judges. In full support of the court sanctioned scam described herein, Michael Solomon filed an Affirmation, dated August 1, 2011, in opposition to defendants’ show cause seeking the recusal of Judge Lally. Michael Solomon there demanded that Judge Lally not vacate her Memorandum Decision, and should continue finding me in default on his defective notice of motion.
Even more outrageous than the aforesaid, Michael Solomon, in his August 1, 2011 Affirmation, after making numerous depraved statements, overtly concedes that his defective Notice of Motion, which noticed the wrong judge, was calculated on his part, and not an inadvertence. In his Affirmation at ¶6, he states as follows:
“6. The error in noticing the underlying motion before Justice Jaeger was not only wholly innocent, no prejudice whatsoever inured to Defendant as a result of the error. Plaintiff’s motion to confirm was filed under the correct caption and index number; however, the motion was made returnable before Justice Jaeger, This was done under the mistaken belief that Justice Jaeger had all matters before him concerning the parties herein. As the within case is a related case to the underlying post-judgment libel action, it was a logical belief.”
A copy of the aforesaid Affirmation in Opposition, dated August 1, 2011, by Michael Solomon, is annexed hereto as Exhibit “D”.
My rights to due process have been totally usurped by Judge Steven M. Jaeger. I have been barred by Judge Jaeger from bringing any motions or show cause, See Exhibit “E”. The same goes for my father, my co-defendant in the underlying related case. No matter what I write and cogently prove here will be of no value before Judge Steven M. Jaeger.
As just one example, in October 2011, my father and I had brought a motion via show cause to vacate our underlying default judgment grounded on excusable default, pursuant to CPLR 5015(1)(a). The statutory time frame to bring such motion is 12 months from service of the Notice of Entry. We had proven via a certified court copy that plaintiffs’ counsel never served us in the underlying libel case with a Notice of Entry of the initial court’s order granting summary judgment. The said certified court copy that we annexed to our motion as our proof, was nothing better than a defective paper emanating from plaintiffs’ counsel that was wrongly titled “Notice of Entry” together with an annexed copy of the initial court order that granted the summary judgment against us, and where both the said notice and the order were entirely naked and void of any date of entry. The true date of entry of the underlying order was January 14, 2009, but no such date, or any other date of entry, was found on the defective notice or its annexed order. My father obtained the court certified copy of plaintiffs’ void and defective notice from an exhibit to a motion brought by plaintiffs’ counsel in November 2009. The said defective notice contained the rubber stamp markings from the stenographer that had recorded the inquest proceedings in the underlying action, May 2009. That November 2009 motion was hastily withdrawn by plaintiffs counsel about two weeks before its initial return date. Apparently, plaintiffs’ counsel became apprised of their defective notice, (as well as their void inquest proceeding -from where plaintiffs false money judgment was borne; the basis of plaintiffs’ demand in the instant defective motion) and were of the hope that defendants should never discover the plaintiffs’ fatal vulnerability. A copy of plaintiffs’ defective Notice of Motion is annexed hereto as Exhibit “G”.
According to statute and the case law we provided it was unequivocally clear that such a notice is defective and of no validity under law.
Moreover, pursuant to that court’s underlying order service of the Notice of Entry by both certified and regular mail was imperative and conditional for proceeding to the next juncture, namely inquest; while failure to properly serve a copy of said notice was fatal, and accordingly leaving the referee with no jurisdiction to convene or proceed.
In response to defendants’ show cause, plaintiffs’ counsel, Michael D. Solomon, moved by cross-motion, while providing as an exhibit a copy of the very exact same naked and void paper which bears no date of entry, while shamelessly declaring falsely that it was a valid Notice Entry. Michael Solomon, in furtherance of his mendacity insisted that our motion was untimely. Judge Jaeger’s in his subsequent order, dated December 22, 2011, shamelessly played along with his game and wrote that plaintiffs counsel provided a notice of entry, see Exhibit “E”.
While Judge Jaeger may appear as the emperor enthralled over his new clothes, but to say so would be an understatement. Medical and psychiatric personal often measure a patients mental competence by asking them the day of the week, or the day of the month. Failure by a patient to recognize dates is generally proof of mental incompetence. Regarding a judge claiming to see a date when none exists; while it may often prove mental incompetence, in the case of Judge Steven M. Jaeger, at the very minimum it proves he’s a corrupt judge on the take, blinded by the bribes.
Sadly, this case is being decided based solely on value provided and promised to Judge Jaeger by Plaintiff Elliot Zaretsky through his agent Michael D. Solomon. Accordingly, I have prepared these papers and submit same to this court while fully understanding that I will be using them for my lower court record at the Appellate Division.
Furthermore, it was Friday, May 20, 2011 when my father discovered the aforementioned fatal defect on the part of plaintiffs. That day was five days before the date set by Michael Solomon and Judge Jaeger and Judge Lally to begin their fraudulent scamming process of unlawfuly confiscating my home by means of the instant motion. On the following Monday, May 23, 2011, my father had plaintiffs’ counsel served with a valid Notice of Entry of the underlying order granting summary judgment.
Judge Steven M. Jaeger, was apparently infuriated over these unexpected sequent of events. Plaintiffs’ counsel, Michael D. Solomon, and Judge Jaeger, realizing that defendants were legally permitted to move to vacate based on excusable default, were overly concerned to bar my father and me from bringing any motions. At first they believed they could accomplish their goal -stopping us from moving to vacate our default- via their pseudo stipulation. According to their original plan, via the instant defective motion Judge Lally was supposed to order my home sold with a reduced homestead in the amount of $50,000.00 instead of $150,000.00, and where thereafter she and Judge Steven M. Jaeger together with his law clerk, Eric Milgrim, were to unlawfuly share the $100,000.00 windfall.
The instant motion is not about a judge repeatedly making inadvertent errors. The instant motion shouts “fraud, malice and judicial malfeasance”. Disgracefully, Judge Steven M. Jaeger, became set on doing everything possible, including illegal acts, in the false hope of denying our right to protect ourselves and our right of due process. It is for this very reason that Judge Steven M. Jaeger, who is so badly blinded by bribery, cannot any longer recognize between a paper bearing no date of entry, from a paper with a date of entry. Likewise, for the same reason, Judge Jaeger appears to be missing the faculties that make one capable of recognizing that a Notice of Motion bearing the name of the wrong judge is a defective Notice of Motion.
Nothing said here is intended to be disrespectful to the New York State Supreme Court; to the contrary, my father and I hold the Court in very high regard. However, we have witnessed first hand despicable overt corruption, fraudulent scheming, and blatant lying on the part Judge Steven M. Jaeger and Judge Ute Wolf Lally, and believe it is both our duty and legal right to tell the truth in our papers and to defend our rights. We sincerely pray that very soon we will hear of Judge Steven M. Jaeger being criminally indicted and our being asked to testify against him at his trial. If within my papers I were to mask the truth and avoid telling the truth the way it is, I believe I would hurt my credibility and my testimony.
However, notwithstanding the plaintiffs’ defective Notice of Motion; and notwithstanding the fraud scam of which Judges Lally and Jaeger were acting in concert and conspiracy; and notwithstanding the failure by plaintiffs to serve defendants with a proper Notice of Entry; and notwithstanding that the referee at the inquest, in the absence of service upon defendants of a valid Notice of Entry, had no legal jurisdiction to convene and proceed; and not withstanding that in the absence of the referee having jurisdiction to convene and proceed, the money judgments filed against defendants are of no validity; and notwithstanding that as a result of an invalid money judgment the plaintiffs have no claim to defendant Feige’s home; and notwithstanding that as a result of plaintiffs having no claim to Feige’s home, the plaintiffs have no right to seek the sale of Defendant Feige’s home; still in view of the judicial corruption and malfeasance on the part of Judge Jaeger, it is imperative that I make my record here opposing that aspect of the motion, together with the reduction in the homestead.
The reasons why plaintiffs have no valid right to seek the sale of my home is clearly explained above. There was never service of a notice of entry upon the defendants, and additionally, the nonsense paper that Michael Solomon conveniently calls a notice of entry bears no date of entry.
My father, and co-defendant in the underlying action, in opposition to Michael Solomon’s frivolous cross-motion, insisted that Michael Solomon has presented to the court of Judge Jaeger a dead fish while claiming it’s a notice of entry. Well, Judge Steven M. Jaeger via his order of December 22, 2011 converted that dead fish into a legal document, as he insisted there on the top of page 4 that “Plaintiffs have submitted copies of the Order with Notice of Entry . .” Possibly, Judge Steven M. Jaeger believed that via his order he could perform some pseudo baptize on the dead fish and convert it to a valid Notice of Entry.
Clearly, if Judge Steven M. Jaeger, is to take the position that he saw the dead fish as being a valid Notice of Entry, he ought to first abdicate his position with the Court and seek out a mental health professional. On the other hand, if his state of mind is the result of corruption and bribes, which I firmly believe it is, then likewise Judge Jaeger has no place on the court bench.
Regarding, the reduction of the homestead, which is being sought to be used as a bribery provision, by Plaintiff Elliot Zaretsky and Michael Solomon, I say as follows:
I need not make any formal declaration demanding my legal right to a homestead exemption–even if plaintiffs hypothetically had a claim to my property. The homestead exemption is not a debt, or a debt in reverse. It is not a money judgment, or any judgment at all. The public policy behind exemptions is to not to leave a judgment debtor destitute and without basic necessities. The homestead exemption is a state controlled statute. The state law controls and defines the homestead exemption amount, and only the state law. Accordingly it has no connection with res-judicata or collateral estoppel.
By stating the above, I trust it will not be said of me that I had not opposed the homestead reduction or conceded to having my home sold.
WHEREFORE, I pray that the instant motion be denied in its’ entirety.
Dated: February 2 2012
______________________________
FEIGE ZARETSKY
Affirmed to before me this
2rd day of February 2012
Read Next Complaint >>
