|
After 30 Years of Euro-Judaic, Anti-Schvartze Abuse -- Helpless Schvartze's Complaints About Amoral Judge
Jeffrey Sunshine, Amoral Judge Eric Prus, Immigration Attorneys Allen E. Kaye and Harvey Shapiro Still
Unanswered By Uncaring White Appellate Judiciary Question: Can a judge place a case on trial calender if the defendant has never appeared? Answer: Hell no! Without reasonable excuse and meritorious defense, default must be declared! Statutory Law: NYCRR §202.27 -- At any scheduled call of a
calendar or at any conference, if all parties do not appear and proceed or announce their readiness to proceed immediately
or subject to the engagement of counsel, the judge may note the default on the record and enter an order as follows: (a) If
the plaintiff appears but the defendant does not, the judge may grant judgment by default or order an inquest.
Case Law: Ordinarily, where court grants judgment to plaintiff based upon
defendant's default in appearing at conference, default may be vacated only if defendant can demonstrate both reasonable
excuse for default in appearing and meritorious defense. Tragni v. Tragni, 21 A.D.3d 1084, 803 N.Y.S.2d 617 (2d Dep't
2005). Question: Are both parties and attorneys required to attend the preliminary conference during a divorce proceeding? Answer: Hell, yes! Statutory
Law: NYCRR 202.16(f)(1)(vi): (vi) Both parties personally must be present in court at the time of the conference,
and the judge personally shall address the parties at some time during the conference. Case Law: In matrimonial action, court held that pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 202.16(f), parties must
appear with their attorneys at preliminary conference which was required under this section. Qi v. Ng, 166 Misc. 2d
195, 632 N.Y.S.2d 757 (Sup 1995). Question: Can a judge grant an adjournment for a defendant to retain an attorney if defendant's
sole purpose for retaining attorney is to commit a crime or an act of fraud on the court? Answer: Hell, no? Clients cannot retain an attorney to perpetrate a fraud or other crime. Statutory Law: DR §1-102(A)(1)(4) A lawyer or law firm shall not...engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Statutory Law: DR 2-110[C][1][g]: Except as stated
in DR 2-110 [1200.15](A), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if withdrawal can be accomplished...if...the client...has
used the lawyer's services to perpetrate a crime or fraud. Case Law:
Defendant's attorneys were allowed to withdraw from representation where defendant continually questioned attorneys'
work, blamed them for adverse decisions, made threats against firm, and insisted that firm pursue legal theories and arguments
directly contrary to law and attorneys' professional judgment, thereby rendering it unreasonably difficult for attorneys
to carry out representation effectively for purposes of 22 NYCRR § 1200.15(c)(1)(i), (iv). Bankers Trust Co. v. Hogan,
187 A.D.2d 305, 589 N.Y.S.2d 338 (1st Dep't 1992). Question: If New York State statutory law and accompanying case law support Plaintiff's
argument that Judge Sunshine must declare a default against Defendant, why hasn't Judge Sunshine done so? Why
haven't Judge Klonick of New York State's Commission on Judicial Conduct and Judge A. Gail Prudenti of New
York State Supreme Court's Appellate Division prevented him from violating Plaintiff's constitutional rights to due
process and equal protection under the law? Answer: It appears that Judge Sunshine and others of his ethnocentric persuasion are obeying group of
religious laws --Halachic laws (Talmudic legal interpretation) in violation of the First Amendment's
doctrine regarding separation between Church and State.  Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Baba Kamma, 113a
"Where a suit arises
between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: 'This
is our law'; so also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens justify him and say [to the other party:] 'This
is your law'; but if this can not be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him." Stealing or deceiving a Gentile is permitted The error of a Gentile [i.e., property of which he deprived himself due to an
error] is permitted, similar to the case of his lost item.Thus it is explained in Bava Kama 113b: "Shmuel said: and his
error is permitted." However, the Rishonim disagree about whether it speaks of a case where a Gentile erred in his calculation
on his own or if it is permitted to deceive him. In the opinion of Rashi, there (s.v. v'ivla lei zuza) it is permitted
to deceive him, in accordance with Rashi's opinion which was clarified above, that stealing from a Gentile is permitted.
The Tosaphot also wrote there, s.v. ya'chol, that it is permitted to deceive a Gentile, however only if he cannot discover
it and it won't cause a desecration of G-d's name. This is also the opinion of the Tur in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph
348, section 3: "However, his error -- that is, to deceive him in calculations or to raise his loan -- is permitted,
but only if it will not become evident to him -- for in such a situation there is no desecration of G-d's name." Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Abodah Zarah 26b "...informers, and apostates
may be cast in, and need not be brought up." Informing on Jews Whom Commit Crimes "Even though Jewish law expects people to observe the laws
of the land, and even imposes that obligation as a religious duty, the Talmud recounts - in a number of places - that it is
prohibited to inform on Jews to the secular government, even when their conduct is a violation of secular law and even when
their conduct is a violation of Jewish law." Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 108b "Our Rabbis taught: Three copulated in the ark, and they were
all punished — the dog, the raven, and Ham. The dog was doomed to be tied, the raven expectorates [his seed into his
mate's mouth] and Ham was smitten in his skin." Commentary on Artsot Ha-Hayyim, page 52 (by Dov Ber Schwartz) "In 1992 a book was published by a leading member of the Satmar community
entitled Artzot Ha-Hayyim. On p. 52 he explains, and quotes other rabbis, that the reason Abraham Lincoln was killed was because
he freed the blacks. this is also the reason why Kennedy was killed, i.e. because he was good to the blacks. He continues
by saying that this will be the fate of any who adopt a progressive attitude towards blacks, because they are meant to be
enslaved. His source for this is Ham's curse." Question: Plaintiff has all this proof.
Why won't the New York State Judiciary help her? Why does it refuse to see that two years of judges adjourning a
divorce action on behalf of a defendant who has never interposed an answer, submitted a signed document or appeared in person
is illegal? Answer: Because Plaintiff is a poor, worthless nigger.
|
