From - nyc attorney said...
"Oh Yes! you got it right the DICTATORS in BLACK ROBES! As an attorney I have learned the hard way to keep my mouth shut. What a judge wants he gets one way or the other. This is the case even if I have to throw the client under the bus. As far a the pay raise goes, screw them! Remember about pay back judges!"
So tell me what do I tell my children?
I could say ... Although I always adored and wanted you in my life since the day you were born, your father Mr. Louis M Argenziano through his political connection- to JOSEPH PANEPINTO and Joseph's wife JUDGE BARBARA PANEPINTO, Supreme Court Judge in the Matrimonial part in Richmond County, probably told every one of my attorneys to throw me under the bus so that you kids could be [il]legally kidnapped. So far mommy cant get Due Process and our civil and constitutional rights have been eradicated.
One has to wonder if that's why you guys are being raised by AGGIE PANEPINTO and told your mother abandoned you and didn't love you, and not by your loving and very able REAL MOTHER who will fight the panepinto connection until someone ends this fraud and abuse of power, and gives you guys back to me.
THEY (anyone involved in the [il]legal kidnapping of my children) SHOULD ALL GET HIT BY BUSES AND BE PERMANANTLY MANGLED THEN LIVE AGONIZING LIVES LIKE I DID BECAUSE OF THEM!
Below is my Opposition to My latest Attorneys Motion to be Relieved "Due to confidential reasons- because of attorney client privilege" The Opposition is to be heard on May 21, in Judge Silbers court room in the homeport in Richmond County, anyone that want's to see this drama play out contact me and I'll tell you what time you can watch this live...
SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF RICHMOND
-------------------------------------------------------x
LOUISE UCCIO INDEX#: 50822/2007
Plaintiff
-against-
AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION OF
MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS
COUNSEL
LOUIS M ARGENZIANO,
Defendant
-------------------------------------------------------x
JUSTICE DEBRA SILBER
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) SS:
COUNTY OF RICHMOND)
I, LOUISE UCCIO, am asking that the court deny Mr. Peter C. Lomtevas Esq. his motion to be relieved as counsel. I have reason to believe that Mr. Lomtevas has been frightened off this case. The alleged breakdown in communication as a pretext for asking to be relieved is in fact a realistic fear of reprisal on Mr. Lomtevas’ part should he accurately relay to this court the underlying malfeasance and misconduct by officers of the court which resulted in the court condoning obstruction of justice and interference with custodial relationship under color of law since 2001.
1. Mr. Lomtevas was aware that I was denied a full and fair opportunity to keep custody of my children.
1. Mr. Lomtevas was aware that I was denied a full and fair opportunity to keep custody of my children.
2. Mr Lomtevas was aware that I was labeled a dangerous drug addict yet denied drug testing on numerous occasions. My voluntary negative hair drug test was precluded.
Exhibit- A(1) A(2) A(3) A(4)
3. Mr. Lomtevas was aware that I was unlawfully kept from my children by the Richmond County Family Court with no contact for eighteen months in 2003 leading up to a coerced change in custody. Exhibit- B (Pages 1-7)
4. Mr. Lomtevas knew the coerced stipulation of the custody change was due to a combination of deceptive preclusion of critical evidence # as well as my trusting Mr. Acunzo who was not ethically representing an innocent mother unaware of the fraud being perpetrated to legally kidnap her children. Exhibit- C(1), C(2), C(3)
5. Mr. Lomtevas was aware that the deceptively precluded false “indicated” ACS was over- turned in my favor in 2006, yet he refused to add any of the above information into the motion to modify custody. Exhibit - D
6. The alleged breakdown in communication Mr. Lomtevas may be referring to began when Mr. Lomtevas adamantly refused to use the over-turned ACS case to show that the conditions have changed substantially since the last custody order.
7. Mr. Lomtevas insisted that was not a substantial change in circumstance worthy of modified custody. Mr. Lomtevas stated that he would be sanctioned for “spouting bull” if he were to use that in the motion.# Pursuant to CPLR 5015 Mr. L. M Argenziano’s fraudulent custody order need only be vacated as it is and has been void ab initio. Exhibit- E
8. I assured Mr. Lomtevas I was positive an overturning of a false abuse case is an overwhelming substantial change in circumstances. I told Mr. Lomtevas that information, was confirmed in a conversation I had in August of 2006 with Ann Marie Jolly esq.#
9. Mr. Lomtevas refused to add the continued breaking of a valid order of protection by Mr. L. M Argenzinao’s using our children, ACS, the courts, the computer/stalking with proof and inconsistent child support calculations, rendering me incarcerated numerous times as his weapons to further destroy me. Mr. L. M Argenzinao did not like the order of visitation for me, from the court, minimal as it was Mr. L M Argenziano has been in contempt of that order for the last five years. Exhibit F - F7
10. Mr. Lomtevas told me that Domestic Violence was only a factor considered in initial custody orders, not in modified custody orders which is contrary to case law and DRL §240. “any other factor deemed relevant to a particular custody dispute; e.g., domestic violence, substance abuse, and/or proposed relocation and its impact on the children.” In this ( K.D. v J.D. (2004 NY Slip Op 50814(U)) case to modify custody) the domestic violence occurring in mother's home and its impact on the children is a most significant factor which the court must consider in reaching a determination as to which outcome would most likely serve the children's best interests.” DRL §240; Samala v. Samala, 309 AD2d 798, 765 NYS2d 523 (2d Dept., 2003); Wissink v. Wissink, 301 AD2d 36, 749 NYS2d 550 (2d Dept., 2002); Bishop v. Livingston, 296 AD2d 602, 745 NYS2d 588 (3d Dept., 2002). Matter of J.G. v B.G. (2005 NY Slip Op 51413(U)) In any custody matter, it is incumbent upon the trier of the facts to consider any alleged acts of domestic violence committed by one parent against the other, and the failure to do so generally is reversible error. Finkbeiner v Finkbeiner, 270 AD2d 417 2d
11. Mr. Lomtevas attempted to file a motion in Westchester for Pendente Lite asking for Joint Custody. In the case of Anonymous AB v Anonymous DB (2005 NY Slip Op 51730(U)) “Joint custody should not be imposed on parents who do not communicate (see Matter of Diana W. v. Jose X, 296 AD2d 614; Matter of Heintz v. Heintz, 275 AD2d 971; who are unwilling or unable to cooperate (see Bliss v. Ach, 56 NY2d 995; Amari v. Molloy, 293 AD2d 431; who are unwilling or unable to set aside their personal differences (see Webster v. Webster, 283 AD2d 732; Matter of Meres v. Botsch, 260 AD2d 757, and work together for the good of the children.” Exhibit - G
12. Mr. Lomtevas did not zealously litigate on my behalf to keep the Divorce case in Westchester by exposing the fraud that has taken place thus far in my custody case in Richmond County Family Court.
13. Mr. Lomtevas suggested that I voluntarily give up custody of my children “They will come running back to you if they think you gave up, Ms. Bridge will jump all over that (as he placed his hand upon the phone) do you want me to call her now?”
14. Mr. Lomtevas is himself an alienated parent, and is very familiar with Parent Alienation as what is recommended and what is bad advice.
15. Mr. Lomtevas, Ms. Catherine Bridge esq., and Judge Barbara Panepinto agreed behind closed doors not to consolidate the custody case into the Divorce via a motion to modify custody, against my wishes, and against Chief Judge Judith Kaye‘s phrase “One Family, One Court, One Judge.”
16. Mr. Lomtevas tried desperately to get me to agree to allow Judge Panepinto to hear the case, after I adamantly refused. It was in violation of Judicial Cannons. #
17. Mr. Lomtevas refused to add Mr. L. M. Argenziano’s live in girl-friend Aggie Panepinto to the motion for Judge Panepinto to recuse herself. Exhibit- H
18. Mr. Lomtevas did not object to Ms. Bridge putting a 2001 withdrawn “O” petition onto the record in this court, contrary to the court rules . Mr. Lomtevas refused to entertain my request to file a motion for collateral estoppel. "The equitable doctrine of collateral estoppel is intended to reduce litigation and conserve the resources of the court and litigants." (Matter of Juan C. v Cortines, 89 NY2d 659, 667 [1997]) Exhibit B “withdrawn” Order of Protection in Ms. Bridges own words.
19. Mr. Lomtevas wrote a motion to be sent to this court. In the motion dated 1/21/08 draft Pendente Lite Motion, page 12 (b) “The Plaintiff shall have supervised visitation with the unemancipated children of the marriage (children’s names) and that the father shall participate in all supervised visits.” That would have been in direct conflict of my order of protection. Mr. Lomtevas spent a week arguing this issue with me.
20. Mr.L. M. Argenziano is a physical and emotional abuser, supervised visits for the family given Mr. Argenziano’s relentless Domestic Violence and Parent Alienation would only make the situation worse. “When therapy was instituted without a change of custody, however, the alienation often became more severe and the situation deteriorated.” From Father What Father, Parent Alienation and it’s effects on Children.
21. In an attempt to compromise with Mr. Lomtevas I suggested that if we just remove Mr. L. M. Argenziano from the supervised visits, I would reluctantly agree. Exhibit I
22. Mr. Lomtevas then forewarned me that we would lose that motion. He then asked me to sign a waiver before he would entertain removing Mr. L. M. Argenziano from “family therapy” I agreed and sent an email forgiving Mr. Lomtevas if that motion failed.
Exhibit - J
23. Expecting a modified motion without Mr. Argenzinao included in the “family therapy” Mr. Lomtevas instead sent me the motion that was before this court on March 19, 2008.
24. Mr. Lomtevas refused to ask Mr. Argenziano in Discovery for the Order that voided Mr. Argenziano’s back child support of over $38K owed to me which disappeared behind closed doors.
25. Mr. Lomtevas stated “I’m not going to ask for a four year old F case in discovery.”
26. Said four year old F case and the final Child Support Order against me entered while Mr. Argenziano had an open Child Support Case owed to me is in stark contrast to the law. Matter of Frances W. v Steven M. (2007 NY Slip Op 27117) (Riggs v Palmer, supra at 512.) In Riggs, the Court was confronted with a situation in which a grandfather, who had left his grandson a substantial portion of his estate in his last will and testament, was murdered by that grandson. (Id. at 511-513.) Invoking the maxim that "[n]o one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime" (id. at 511)
27. Mr. Lomtevas in his latest order has still not asked for Supervised visitation for Mr. Argenziano in contrast to case law. Matter of Frances W. v Steven M. (2007 NY Slip Op 27117) The judge presiding over that action, apparently concluding that the allegations of sexual abuse were baseless, eventually adjourned the case in contemplation of dismissal, granted the respondent supervised visitation with his [*4] daughter, and issued a temporary order of protection on Melissa's behalf.
28. Mr. Lomtevas is a brilliant attorney, he is well aware of the laws not only in New York but in numerous States. It makes no sense why he was advising me against case law CPLR and DRL. Mr. Lomtevas must have been pressured to get me to agree to advice
contrary to the law, that was in fact, in favor of Mr. Argenziano, perhaps because of Mr. Argenziano’s political and romantic connections to the Panepintos.
29. I believe that Mr. Lomtevas and Dr. Monty Wienstein are asking to be relieved because of excessive internal pressure. Exhibit- K
30. Mr. Lomtevas must have been pressured to keep the circumstances of the fraudulent custody change off the record in a modified custody order to show cause.
31. Mr. Lomtevas is efficient and meticulous yet the last motion filed by him was 15 days late. I noted that Ms. Bridge was excused for her not filing an answer yet to the Summons and Complaint she received over a year ago, by Mr. Lomtevas due to his being 15 days late.
32. Mr. Lomtevas has failed at getting me to agree to go along with the contradictory to law advice. I firmly believe he is asking to be relieved because he was either encouraged or warned not to win this case, return my children, or expose the fraud.
33. In November 2008 I sent a letter to The Office of Judicial Conduct as well as the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, forewarning that if this case were to stay in Richmond County I will not get justice. I have asked for a review of the complaint sent to the FBI of alleged child pornography in my estranged husband’s home and a striking appearance of corruption thus far in the Uccio v Argenziano legal kidnapping disguised as a custody case.
34. I stated in those letters that I feel the Uccio v Argenziano Divorce/Custody case has been pre decided, because of internal political connections as the Garson cases were.
35. I asked Hon. Philip Minardo to please have this case transferred to a special judge. I stated that this case being heard in Richmond County was a conflict of interest.
36. I asked the Richmond County District Attorney to refer this case to special counsel.
37. Mr. Lomtevas and Dr. Monty are aware of these letters, yet advised me against asking this honorable court to recuse itself instead of having the preliminary conference despite my fears of having the Divorce heard in Richmond County.
38. I forewarned Mr. Lomtevas in June 2007, that having this case heard in Richmond County was feeding me into the belly of the beast. To grant Mr. Lomtevas’ motion to be relieved after his securing exclusive continued jurisdiction with this honorable court would be a further miscarriage of justice.
39. The Uccio v Argenziano case has surpassed the appearance of impropriety and has entered into the realm of a scandal. Relieving Mr. Lomtevas at this point would only confirm this in the eye of any person of reasonable mind.
40. If this honorable court grants Mr. Lomtevas’ motion to be relieved as counsel, I will be at a total disadvantage as I have for years, through no fault of my own.
41. The fault lies in Mr. Lomtevas’ seeking to advise me to agree to strategies that not only contradict what has been well settled in the courts and are in opposition of rules and procedures but were contradictory to judicial canons as well.
42. I suffer from Complex PTSD from years of Domestic Violence, including the legal kidnapping of my children, and can not work, therefore I can not obtain new counsel.
43. I hired Mr. Lomtevas on borrowed money so that I could regain custody of my children and get a divorce from my abusive husband. I do not have access to borrow any other monies to hire new counsel. Mr. Lomtevas’ withdrawal would have a materially adverse effect on me, not only by further delaying justice, but by leaving me without the financial means to retain new counsel.
44. Mr. Lomtevas strongly suggested that I hire Dr. Weinstien as well, so that Dr Weinstein could explain to the court that I suffer from Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and not Bi Polar disorder.
45. I had to borrow money to hire Dr. Weinstein as well. He did not get on the stand once, or debunk any forensic evaluations.
46. It now appears that Dr. Weinstein’s wife being a Judge in Richmond County has cost me a professional evaluator as well. I am now at a disadvantage and $3,000 in debt. I believe this is because of co counsels pressure and or other internal pressure. However I had retained Dr. Wienstien before his wife became a judge.
47. I respectfully ask that this honorable court consolidate Mr. Lomtevas’ Pendete Lite motion dated to be heard March 19, 2008, modified Pendete Lite motion dated to be heard May 21, 2008, and this motion, as one motion for an order to show cause to modify custody in opposition of Mr. Lomtevas’ request to be relieved,. I then pray this honorable court will address the over-turned ACS case, the continued domestic violence, the Parent Alienation, the child support arrears both owed to me that vanished in 2004,
as well as the child support that was procured by fraud and awarded to Mr. Argenziano.
I further pray this court addresses the need for Mr. Argenziano to have supervised visitation with the children after the children have been deprogrammed and Mr. Argenziano has had therapy/counseling/classes to address Domestic Violence and his
Alienating behaviors. Mr Argenziano has profited from his fraud at the expense of me and my children’s emotional/physical health long enough.
48. As for the allegation that Mr. Lomtevas was attacked by me and my entourage outside Supreme Court on March 19, 2006. That statement is outrageous. Mr. Lomtevas, Dr Weinstein and myself did discuss my wanting an Emergency Order to Show Cause, and the continued misleading tactics attempted by Ms. Bridge that day in court, but there was never anything that could have been construed or twisted into one thinking there was an attack on anyone. Exhibit (s) L 1- 3
49. Mr. Lomtevas has submitted quite a volumous summons and complaint for this Divorce and to have me litigate that pro se would not only be an abdication of justice but a waste of the courts time as I fumbled through trying to understand what Mr. Lomtevas has laid out before this honorable court.
50. None of the above requests can be construed as frivolous, on the contrary, omitting any one of them would be further preclusion of critical evidence.
Therefore I respectfully request this honorable court deny Mr. Lomtevas’ motion to be relieved and allow Mr. Lomtevas the opportunity to zealously litigate this case as I am positive he can without fear of being sanctioned.
I pray this honorable court puts an end to the continued eradication of my and my children’s constitutional rights, the Domestic Violence, the Parent Alienation and destruction of innocent children lives. Starting today, by denying Mr. Lomtevas’ motion to be relieved as counsel and ending the, apparent corruption, obstruction of justice and fraud that this case has been based on for years.
EXHIBITS -
1. A critical false Administration of Children’s Services indicated case was deceptively precluded from the record.
2. The over turned deceptively precluded “indicated” ACS case should render Mr. Argenziano’s fraudulent
custody void ab initio and in need of being vacated according to CPLR 5015, it was insulting to have Mr.
Lomtevas insist it wasn’t worthy of modified custody.
3. On July 12, 2006 I wrote a letter to Sherill Spatz about the difficulties I was having obtaining access to my children.
Ms. Spatz directed me to Ann Marie Jolly Esq., whos experience consists of :
Legal counsel to the Office of Children and Family.
Deputy chief court attorney serving under Judge Joseph Lauria The Administrative Judge of Family Courts within New York City.
Assisting the Chief Court Attorney in supervising, developing policy and administering the operations of the Court Attorney law department.
Her responsibilities also include providing initial and ongoing legal training and education for court attorneys.
*Court Attorney Referee.
When I explained the trouble I was having getting my case heard in Family Court despite my including the over turned ACS case. She suggested that if I had to staple it to the motion to modify custody for it to be seen then that was what I should do.
4. Canon 1. A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in
establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should personally observe, high standards of conduct so that the
integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and
applied to further that objective.
Canon 2. A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities
Judicial Cannon 2a
The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds, with knowledge of
all the relevant circumstances that a reasonable inquiry would disclose, a perception that the judge's ability to carry
out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality, and competence is impaired.
Judicial cannon 2b
A judge should avoid lending the prestige of judicial office for the advancement of the private interests of the judge or others. For example, a judge should not use the judge's judicial position to gain advantage in litigation involving a
friend or a member of the judge's family. In contracts for publication of a judge's writings, a judge should retain control over the advertising to avoid exploitation of the judge's office.
Commentary: Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge
must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety and must expect to be the subject of constant public
scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on personal conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the
ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.
# Originally published in volume 38, issue 1 of the Family Law Review (Spring 2006), a publication of the Family
Law Section of the New York State Bar Association. Ellis, Clawar, Dunne & Hedrick & Ranskopetski supra n.55.
Respectfully submitted,
Louise Uccio
No comments:
Post a Comment