Wednesday, September 24, 2008

UPDATE ON Uccio v Judge Debra Silber- Louis M. Argenziano

REFRESH - Go to Home-Page

Not sure how many of my 200 + a day readers are familiar with my personal story.. but for those that are here's an update...

First thing this morning (8:06 am) someone from the Troy Courts received an email.

They then opened the email which contained a link to my site (thank you site meter) via this link Disgusted with the system: Westchester Divorce Courts Under Federal Scrutiny.

Apparently they are watching the Feds watch them.. and I'm watching them watch me while I watch them... say that five times fast I dare ya!

I'm also watching Expose Corrupt Courts watch and monitor them....

I'm no longer that naive litigent that believes in our system.. but hey that's not new news...

So.. where is the update?

Here ya go ...

I know at least 5 or 6 of ya have written me telling me that you've had the patience to navagate the pica albums on the right containing my latestArticle 78= (Primer on Article 78's) against Richmond County IDV Judge Debra Silber including my estranged abusive kidnapping husband Mr. Louis M. Argenziano. His name was added by demand of the Appellate Court - to answer the Writ of Habeas Corpus, which is Exhibit 3 (link on the right) in the article 78.

Well.. for those of you that are not familiar with what an article 78 is .. take a look at the link above .. but for now .. all you need to know is that the Attorney General's office represents a Judge sued in this mannor.

It appears (see my reply below on how I deduced that) that Judge Silber got wind of my bringing an article 78 against her... then apparently she scrambled to dismiss my divorce case ASAP I would guess that was done in an attempt to get rid of this case..

RUNNNNN the hell away as far as possible..

Here's how I see it IN MY OPINION I can imagine Judge Silber running frantic...

It makes logical sense to me .. get my co workers (Add new players to the RICO kidnapping-- after all isn't that what Co- conspireres do?) to stall the litigent... don't let her file the article 78 before I get to dismiss the underlying kidnapping/divorce/custody case.

Anywho... back on track here...

So.. Judge Silber thinks she's beat the clock..and is trying to get away with saying it was within her "discretion" to screw me... it appears to the average person reading the Attorney General's "Answer to my Petition" that the Judge got her dismissal in to the Appellate Court before I was able to get the article 78 in.

HOWEVER... in reality....

Please read the reply below (the whole story including this Reply and the Attorney General's Answer that sparked this Reply will be added to the documents on the right later) to find out how that played out.... and give your opinions in the comments section.


Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appellate Division Second Judicial Department
______________________________________
Louise Uccio Petitioner

REPLY AFFIDAVIT
ARTICLE 78

Appellate Division
Docket No:
-against- ___________________

Judge Debra Silber
Louis Argenziano Respondent
_______________________________________
State of New York )
County of Kings ) ss.:

I, Louise Uccio, being pro se and duly sworn, hereby provides this REPLY AFFIDAVIT in
Response to Defendant’s Affirmation in Opposition (“Opposition”) based upon the
following facts recited under penalties of perjury:

FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO VALID NEW JERSEY ORDERS BY NEW YORK COURTS IS MANDATORY AND NOT DISCRETIONARY

1. My children and I have a clear legal right to enforcement of my valid pre-existing Order
of Protection, custody and child support issued by the State of New Jersey.

See Exhibit A- Divorce Summons and Complaint - Order of Protection

2. Our rights under same require the full faith and credit of the courts of the State of New
York. The repeated and shameless disregard and violation of the orders of a sister State by
the courts of Richmond County merit the immediate attention of and enforcement by this
Court.

3. Governing case law from the Second Department upholds the principle that in matters
of two jurisdictions with facts pertaining to matrimonial law, no judge in the latter forum has
the discretion to participate in a fraud on the court or has the discretion to enable the
defrauder to flagrantly subvert the system as Judge Silber has deliberately chosen to do here.
Tamimi v Tamimi 38 A.D. 2d 197 328 N.Y.S. 2d 477, 479, 483 (2Dept., 1972)

4. I have the protected constitutional right to raise my children as the valid holder of the
title of custodial parent with notice and opportunity to be heard for both sides in New Jersey
on February 23, 2001. The process by which the determinations were made fulfill the requirements of due process and validity for enforcement of custody determinations as set forth in the Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction Act (“UCCJEA”) a statutory framework devised and enacted in all fifty states to prevent fraud on the court as has so blatantly been carried out in this case. It is against public policy to enable the fraud by dismissing the subject Article 78 against Judge Silber.

5. Parental kidnapping is a federal violation of my valid Orders issued by the State of New
Jersey.

Exhibit B - New York State Crime Victims Board “Advocates Quick Reference Guide” Domestic Violence

6. Obstruction of Justice is another federal violation given serial failure of the courts of the
State of New York to honor with full faith and credit the orders of the State of New Jersey.

JUDGE SILBER HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE ARTICLE 78

7. Judge Silber had timely actual and constructive notice of the Article 78 I filed with the
Appellate Division on August 22, 2008, three days before she issued the dismissal order on
the divorce.

Exhibit C- Affidavit of Service

8. Judge Silber’s dismissal of the divorce case took place on August 25, 2008. Any manufactured interpretation that my right to an Article 78 has been defeated and that pretends the issues of the underlying fraud in this case have now withered and mooted out on the grounds of
untimeliness would evidence a grotesque and contrived glorification of form over substance
and constitute further enabling of a continuing systematic fraud on the court.

9. Furthermore, it is highly likely that Judge Silber was informed unofficially and given
constructive notice by the Richmond County Supreme Court grapevine and actual notice by
Administrative Judge Philip Minardo of my mistaken efforts to file the Article 78 against
her on August 12, 2008 in the trial court forum of the Supreme Court of Richmond County.

10. I was advised by, Supreme Court Judge Thomas P. Aliotta’s law clerk on
August 14, 2008, that the Supreme Court was not the correct forum and informed that the
Appellate Division was instead the proper venue for an Article 78 when the respondent is a
Judge. My initial attempt to file took place nearly two weeks prior to Judge Silber’s
suspiciously timed dismissal of the divorce. Upon information and belief this dismissal was the
result of Judge Silber’s cynical plan to create a mootness subterfuge and a technical excuse for a
dismissal of the Article 78 by this Court to preclude appellate scrutiny of her conduct?

Exhibit D - refusal to sign the Order to Show Cause for the Article 78- and documented
phone calls to Ellie Diaz - Judge Thomas P. Aliotta’s law clerk


11. I repeat that, notwithstanding the attempt at an end run by Judge Silber to create the
appearance of mootness for consumption by this Court, Judge Silber was in fact timely served prior to the issuance of her dismissal of the divorce.

12. I was instructed by the Appellate Division on August 25, 2008 to serve the Judge and all
interested parties before the OSC was signed because I was asking for immediate relief.

13. It should be noted that after the clerks in Richmond County had possession of my
Article 78 papers for several days, I was told that the delay was due to Judge Aliotta
conferring with Administrative Judge Minardo on how to proceed.

14. When I attempted to file same in the Appellate Court as directed on August 18, 2008. I
was informed by the assistant deputy clerk that an Article 78 proceeding in the Appellate
Division could not be commenced via Verified Petition (as I was attempting to submit
same), but rather needed an Affidavit in support of an Order to Show Cause.

15. Wherein, I returned home to Yonkers to change the original Petition to an Affidavit
only to review the rules for Appellate Division in reference to an Article 78 proceeding and realize that in fact I was right all along in my initial submission as set forth in the web site “Article78.com” a Petition format was indeed satisfactory.

16. It was on August 25, 2008 that the final Petition along with an Order to Show Cause at
the Appellate Court was accepted, inclusive of the original Petition filed on Aug 11, and the
Affidavit I spent the weekend working on in vain prior to my re-filing the original proper
paperwork despite the apparent attempt at obstructing justice.

IF THE COURT FINDS THAT A DISMISSAL OF THE DIVORCE PRECEDED MY FILING OF THE ARTICLE 78, THEN AN EXCEPTION TO MOOTNESS EXISTS.

17. It is well settled that there is an exception to mootness and the elements are fully
satisfied in this case: (1) a likelihood the issue will repeat, either between the same parties or
among other members of the public, (2) an issue or phenomenon typically evading appellate
review, and (3) a showing of significant or important questions not previously passed upon
(see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, supra at 714-715).


18. Failure of Judge Silber to uphold my underlying child custody determination from
2001 and her arbitrary and capricious claim to jurisdiction to recognize the fraudulent usurpation of the authority of the New Jersey court, her failure to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus under article 70 of the CPLR, as well as her refusal to acknowledge the law of the case as the legal baseline, namely my valid and enforceable Orders of child custody and child support and protection that were never validly modified by any court is the basis for this Article 78 proceeding.

19. Judge Silber willfully acted in violation of the law, and was herself acting without
subject matter jurisdiction where the custody of the minor children are concerned, I rely for legal authority on:

“Seven Elements in which a court is without Jurisdiction“- FRAUD committed in the procurement of jurisdiction (Friedman Brothers Furniture v Dept. Of Revenu, 109 Ill 2d 202, 486 N.E. 2d 893 (1985), FRAUD upon the court, in re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill. App. 3d 393 (1962), In Tamimi v Tamimi 38 A.D. 2d 197 328 N.Y.S. 2d 477, 479, 483 (2Dept., 1972) the court allowed an attack on a judgment quoting in pertinent part:

“where by reason of something done by the successful party to a suit, there was in fact
no adversary trial or decision of the issue in this case, Where the unsuccessful party has been
prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his
opponent, as by keeping him away from court,...which show that there has never been a real
contest in [38 A.D. 2d 200] the trial or hearing of the case....In all these cases, and many
others which have been examined, relief has been granted, on the ground that, by some fraud
practiced directly upon the party seeking relief against the judgment or decree, that party
has been prevented from presenting all of his case to the court”.


Tamimi also relied on Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence (vol 3. 5th ed. §919a) which states that:

‘Fraud, whether committed on the court or on the opposite party or on both, may be
extrinsic within the meaning of the rule when its effect is to prevent the unsuccessful party
from having a trial or from presenting his case fully, as, for instance, keeping him away
from court by false promise of compromise, or purposely keeping him in ignorance of the
pendency of the action’.


In Shaw v Shaw, 97 A.D. 2d 403, 467 N.Y.S. 2d 231,234 (2nd Dept., 1983) the court held that:

‘where the movant seeks a judgment to be vacated upon the ground of “fraud,

misrepresentation, or other misconduct” pursuant CPLR 5015(a)(3) for extrinsic fraud, the
movant need not show that he has a meritorious defense or cause because:


“a default judgment obtained through extrinsic fraud should be vacated without any
requirement that the movant show a meritorious defense. Such a judgment is a nullity,
irrespective of the question of merit. (Emphasis supplied)


20. Judge Silber did not follow the law of mandatory arrest as per New York State Victims Board for Mr. Argenziano’s crossing state lines to further his domestic violence by causing a false
indicated Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) report which was then overturned. Which triggered my need to file a Malicious Prosecution and Negligent Misrepresentation lawsuit against the City and ACS and thereby using his manipulative scheme to kidnap my children by fraud on and or with the court under color of law.

Exhibit E- ACS lawsuit


21. Ignoring my Order of Protection and my Writ of Habeas Corpus which includes child custody and child support granted to me, which would prove that custody was procured without subject matter jurisdiction is a fraud. Acting as if custody were given to Mr. Argenziano with jurisdiction, Judge Silber willing ceded authority to the kidnapping father to decide if he was going to allow me Visitation. When the kidnapping father decided in open court not to allow me access to my children, Judge Silber continued her role as Mr. Argenziano’s agent and affirmed his decision to refuse me access to my children.

22. The argument in this case is not whether Judge Silber acted within her discretion: --
she did not. Judge Silber has an obligation to uphold the law. There is no opinion/discretion where the VAWA and the UCCJEA [FN1] laws and violation of constitutional rights are concerned. While there is no sharp line between a court acting in error under substantive or procedural law and a court acting in excess of its powers (matter of Rush v Mordue, supra at 353, quoting La Rocca v Lane, 37 NY2d 575, 580 [1975] cert denied 424. US 968 [1976]; see Town of Huntington v New York State Div, of Human Rights, 82 NY2d 783, 786 [1993] for an Integrated Domestic Violence Courts Judge to refuse to honor a valid Order of Protection being blatantly violated in her court room to the extent of allowing an abuser to torment his victim, then we might as well close the court room doors and tell the public that it’s a “free for all” and no one has the right to be protected or held accountable, and that there is no court of law. CPLR 7003 would not exist if hearing a Writ of Habeas Corpus was discretionary.

[FN1] The UCCJEA also added a uniform procedure to register and enforce child-custody orders across state lines.

24. It is MANDATORY in Statutory law that Judge Silber an IDV Judge, comply with the
VAWA Laws, the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act (28 USC § 1738A) and the "full faith and
credit" requirements of the Violence Against Women Act (18 USC §§ 2265-2266; Legis Mem, Bill Jacket, L 2001, ch 386; 2001 NY Assembly Bill A 420).
New York State, in particular, went
beyond the language proposed by the NCCUSL drafters of the UCCJEA, enacting additional
provisions that confer special protection for victims of domestic violence. In a statement of
legislative intent that introduces the UCCJEA, the Legislature mandated that issuance and
enforcement of child custody and visitation should be accomplished "in a manner that ensures that the safety of the children is paramount and that victims of domestic violence and child abuse are protected." (Domestic Relations Law § 75 [2]; see also Sobie, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law art 5-A, 2004 Pocket Part, at 41.) New York's statutory scheme requires a moving party to indicate, for example, whether "any proceeding has been commenced that could affect the current proceeding, including proceedings relating to domestic violence . . . and, if so, {**2 Misc 3d at 811} identify the court, the case number, and the nature of the proceeding." (Domestic Relations Law § 77-g [2] [c].)

25. I stated in open court and in every motion I have put before Judge Silber that Mr. Argenziano’s custody is a fraud. Neither Hearing Officer Gallet and subsequently Judge McElrath had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain custody of the children which was already awarded to me in another State via an Order of Protection which is still valid. According to Domestic Relations law Title 2 - 76 (g) Jurisdiction should have been declined by reason of Mr Argenziano’s egregious unjustifiable conduct [FN2] in obtaining physical/then legal custody and asking the child support be removed to New York in the first place.

26. Judge Silber’s threat then actual dismissal of my divorce came only after I demanded a Writ of Habeas Corpus and jury trial on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment and refused to be coerced again by either Judge Silber or her Law Secretary. Any person of reasonable intelligence that has all of the facts in this case would deduce that Judge Silber is acting as an agent to my estranged husband, without jurisdiction. Perhaps this is because of Mr Argenziano’s political connections to the Panepintos one of which shares the only other matrimonial seat in Richmond County besides the one Judge Silber sits on.

27. Dismissing this Article 78 proceeding inclusive of the Writ of Habeas Corpus thereby not
granting full faith and credit to my valid Order of Protection that has been ignored by the courts and law enforcement for the last seven years will cause me and my children further substantial harm, and allow Mr. Argenziano to continue to benefit from his fraud.

28. Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal
right, and then only when a court—in cases where judicial authority is challenged—acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers" (Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]).

[FN2] Unjustifiable Conduct-
We are required to consider, in making a determination whether to exercise jurisdiction to modify, whether even though jurisdiction could lie, it should nevertheless be declined "because a person seeking to invoke its jurisdiction has engaged in unjustifiable conduct." (Domestic Relations Law § 76-g [1].) While "unjustifiable conduct" is not affirmatively defined, it does not include instances where a parent left the jurisdiction with a child because of domestic violence:


Judge Silber failed to site Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988] and it’s progeny which supports my position. “In Holtzman, the court held that the trial court does not have the power to terminate a criminal proceeding by default by entering a trial order of dismissal on the merits where no evidence had been presented and the merits of the case had not yet been heard.”

This court correctly ruled in favor of the extraordinary remedy of an article 78 the Matter of Holtzman v Goldman. It is undisputable that the instant case fits the criteria t0 defeat the judge’s dismissal motion and I have fully carried the burden for satisfying this application for an article 78, in spite of Judge Silber’s transparent attempt to disrespect this court by rushing to beat the clock to dismiss my underlying divorce case on the flimsiest of technical grounds.

I ask for such additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Wherefore I pray this Honorable Court not dismiss the article 78 or it’s inclusive Writ of Habeas Corpus, and enforce my valid Order of Protection forthwith.

Respectfully Submitted,

Louise Uccio

Now .. an after thought..

I'm no attorney.. I have no desire to be an attorney.. but I AM A LOVING FIT MOTHER and if I have to learn the law.. to fight these bastards withholding my children from me .. because the attorney's are in it (the corruption) and not working for us ...then so be it.

I know there are things in the above Reply that weren't perefected. I left out some stuff that should have been there such as who I was quoting when... etc .. but ehhh I'm not an attorney I'm a sixth grade uneducated poor ass hole (ask my estranged husband he'll tell ya) and I couldnt afford to pay a paralegal..

So for all you professional attorney's and paralegals out there ... I know you could have done a better job.. but you wouldnt dare go against them or I couldnt afford a paralegal..most of the attorneys I reached out to ran when I tried to hire you.. and Peter Lomtevas who took my case on in the begining..and was doing an amazing job... must have been told to throw me under a bus after a while.. because he was acting like my estranged husbands agent by the time we parted..

For the layman getting screwed.. READ CASES of others that have suffered before you..

I use this site.. New York Official Reports -- Home Page it's the official A.D. decision site for my jurisdiction.. find the same for your jurisdiction and just read and read and read....

So.. with that said .. it is what it is ... and now we wait for a decision.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

You Go Girl!!!

Laser said...

You are to be commended for speaking out against cronyism and corruption.
.
You would be well advised to know - you have No Idea how deep it goes.
-
Government should fear the people long before the People are oppressed by the Government!
.
Hang in there!

Louis S. Argenziano III said...

GREAT GREAT GREAT
Keep fighting scum hates the light keep it sshining