Petition — Terner v. Hopkins

Supreme Court brief1977

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Supreme

PILE DY

ts Tie FEB 141977

Supreme Court of the Hrubted “Sea a om

October _— 1976

‘i 40" 116

WILLIAM Pac hy Pro Se,

Petitioner,

-against-

Hon. JAMES D. HOPKINS, Justice of the Appellate Div. of

the State of N.Y.; Hon. LEONARD RUBENFELD, J.S.C. of

the State of N.Y.; JAMES DEMPSEY, Esq.; Hon. ALVIN R.

RUSKIN, J.S.C. of the State of N.Y.; Hon. HAROLD L.

WOOD, J.S.C. of the State of N.Y.; N.Y. State Sen.

BERNARD G. GORDON, Chairman, N.Y.S. Judiciary

Comm.; Hon. MARTIN B. STECHER, J.S.C. of the State of

N.Y.; Hon. WM. A. WALSH, JR., J.S.C. of the State of N.Y.;

JERALD S. KALTER, M.D.; Hon. JOHN C. MARBACH,

J.S.C. of the State of N.Y.; MILDRED TERNER; KRAFTCO

CORP., and MFG. HANOVER TRUST CO. (Transfer Agents

for Kraftco Corp.),

Respondents.

PETITION (WITH APPENDICES) FOR A WRIT. OF

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

WILLIAM TERNER, Pro Se

575 Madison Avenue (Rm. 1006)

New York, New York 10022

(212) 759-6700

9880 LUTZ APPELLATE PRINTERS, INC.

Law and Financial Printing

South River, N.J. New York, N.Y. Philadelphia, Pa. § Washington, D.C.

(201) 257-6850 (212) 563-2121 (215) 563-5587 (202) 783-7288

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Opinion BELOW. cc ccccccccceseeseseees

Preliminary Statement.cccsccccccecee

Constitutional and Broad Authorities

Involved Including Comment,......>.

1. Code of Judicial Conduct:

Canon Bia neoes cecesceseoce

Canon 5 C(4)(a).cccccccce

2. Federal Judicial Code, 28

U.S.C.A. 3455 (Supp. 1976)..

Be Fifth Amendment. .ccccccccceses

4, Fourteenth Amendment, Sections

1 and » PTT TTTTTI TTT TTT TTT

5. Civil Rights.Act of 1871, $1,

42 U.S.C. $1983 (1970). cceee

6, Civil Rights Act of 1871, 82,

42 U.S.C. 81985 (3) (1970)..

Statement of the Case@.,.ccccccveccsecs

Page

Appendices:

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

Submitted to District

Court (S.D.N.Y. 1975). Al

Appendix II--Opinion of Knapp, J.. A44

Appendix III-Opinion of Second

CEPOUMERs cooccecesecocs A53

Appendix IV--Affidavit of Private

Investigator Listing

Names of Judges At-

tending Party Given By

Attorney James De

sey on June 22, 1974.. A55

Appendix V--Adverse Decision To

Petitioner Rendered By

Justice James D. Hop-

kins as Acting Pre-

siding Justice in the

Appellate Department

of the Supreme Court

of the State of New

York, Second Judicial

Department and Judge

Hopkins Was A Guest At

Attorney James Demp-

7 Me Party on June 22,

TIT TTITITiTTririTn li

Appendix VI-Adverse Decision To

Petitioner Rendered By

Justice Leonard Ruben-

feld of the Supreme

Court, State of New

iii

Page

York, Westchester

County and Judge

Rubenfeld Was A

Guest At Attorney

James Dempsey's

Party on June 22,

Bee seecaseesccecececs A69

Appendix VII-Letter From Con-

gressman Peter W,

Rodino, Chairman,

House Committee on

the Judiciary. eeeeeeee A72

Appendix VIII-Petitioner'’s Ap-

Plication To Extend

Time To File Writ

of Certiorari By 21

DOYBecccccccecseseecece A74

Appendix [X--Order of Justice

Marshall Extending

Time To File Peti-

tion For Writ of

Certiorari..cecececcee AID

Appendix X--Reason For Appli-

cation To Extend

Time To Submit Writ

of Certiorari Being

Late By 32 Minutes.... A92

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases:

Carr v eee 384 F. Supp. 544

(Ww, D.N.Y. 1 74) eeeeesveeeeeeeene

Erdmann v. ann. 35 svens, 458 F. 2d Cert.

U e 889 (1972) eeee

Gren erty Thompson, 500 F, 2d 59

1 74) eeeeeveeaeae eee eeeeeeeeeeeee

In Re SES 349 U.S. 133

n Re Sacher, 306 F. 2d 358, 365

(2d Cir. 1953) . » nom.

Sacher v. tion of th

ct ee U.S.

Jacobson v. Schaefer, 441 F. 2d

1 (7th Cir. 1 71) eeeoeveeveeeer

iavits v. Stevens, 382 F. Supp.

131 (S.D.N.Y. 1974)

Law Students Civil Rights Resee-

count is" v. Wadmonc

F. Supp. 11 123-124 (S.D.N.Y.

1969), aff'd 401 U.S. 154

(1971)

Lynch v. Household epee Corp.,

05 U.S. l ° rev 's.

318 F. Supp. 1111 (D. Conn,

1970)

Page

Mart algels v. Kelley, 349 F, Supp.

» 293 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)

McNeese v. MGS) Renee 373

U.S. 6 1

“hidner v. Gulotta, 405 F, Supp.

182 (E.D.N.Y. 1975), aff'd.

U.S. 96S. Ct. 1489

ipa

Page

t Foster, 407 U.S. 225

1972)

e, 365 U.S. 167

1961 Je”

me ited States, 348 U.S.

ees St — <piaenaan

helley v. Kraemer, 34 U.S. 1

1948) ’

Tang v. anoel\ais ties. of

yegar tment, d 138

Be Bet ade denied

416 U.S. 906 ACL

Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510,

532

White v. Fleming, 374 F, Supp. 267

fice c. Wis 1974)

ame Lc MS CLTS einem 404 U.S.

wickl Vv. 389 U.S. 241

mee eyo Koota, ’

Page

vii

Other Authorities:

Civil Rights Act of 1871:

§1, 42 uU.S.C., 81983

t. , ) ee @eeeeeeeeeeseeeee

§2, 42 U.S.C., $1985 (3)

(197O) cc cocccecccccceooccoce

Code of Judicial Conduct:

Canon ein ate @eeeeseeeeeee eee?

Canon 5 C(4)(a)

vedere} Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A.

455 (Supp. | a er

Fifth Hee EE aS

Flack, H., The Adoption of the

Fourteenth Amendment (1908)....

Fourteenth Amendment :

Section i PPYYTITITITITITrrrirry

Section 3o00dseesecceasses ooocs

tenBroek, J., The Anti-Slavery

Origins of the Fourteenth

Amendment 4, } reer

Page

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATE

No, *e@eeeseenvee#e-

WILLIAM TERNER, Pro Se,

Petitioner,

against

Hon. JAMES D. HOPKINS, Justice of the

Appellate Div. of the State of N.Y.s Hon.

LEONARD RUBENFELD, J.S.C. of the State of

N.Y.s JAMES DEMPSEY, Esq.; Hon. ALVIN R.

RUSKIN, J.S.C. of the State of N.Y.s Hon.

HAROLD L, WOOD, J.S.C. of the State of

N.Y.3 N.Y. State Sen, BERNARD G. GORDON,

Chairman, N.Y.S. Judiciary Comm,; Hon,

MARTIN B, STECHER, J.S.C. of the State of

N.Y.3 Hon. WM. A. WALSH, JR., J.S.C. of

the State of N.Y.; JERALD S. KALTER, M.

D.s Hon, JOHN C. MARBACH, J.S.C. of the

State of N.Y.:; MILDRED TERNER; KRAFTCO

CORP., and MFG, HANOVER TRUST CO,

(Transfer Agents for Kraftco Corp.),

Respondents,

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

The petitioner, William Terner, re-

spectfully requests that a writ of certio-

rari be issued to review the final judg-

ment of the United States Court of Appeals

for the Second Circuit entered in the

office of the clerk on October 27, 1976

(See Appendix III A53-A54).*

OPINION BELOW

The opinion of Judge Whitman Knapp of

the United States District Court for the

Southern District of New York is repro-

duced here (See Appendix II A44-A52),.

* References A-- are to the Appendix pages

conta together with this Writ;

“efereuce: A. are to the pages of the

Joint Appendix submitted to the Second

Circuit and are to be delivered to this

Court along with this Writ for refer-

ence in the files of this Court;

Chad Gere iia e 2 2 peeuba- are the

spec c pages in the complete Amended

Complaint together with supporting Af-

fidavits and Exhibits that are to be

delivered to this Court along with this

Writ for reforence in the files of this

Court.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

* * * *

What certain New York State Courts did

to me, the petitioner, reads like a

political exposé smuggled out of a country

run by dictatorship.

I carefully avoided presenting to the

District Court any issues to be retried

on any of the merits of the New York

State litigation. The only issues pre-

sented to Federal Court involved the

overt Court irregularities including

judicial misconduct which denied my

Constitutional rights.

I understand that this Court is mainly

concerned with broad issues involving

questions of law. I also understand that

all of our Courts may take Judicial notice

of the facts and practical consequences

of the issues presented. Therefore, I

respectfully submit the following.

I requested the District Court to tem-

porarily halt all New York State judgments

in various matters until the Federal Courts

had had an opportunity to examine and make

a final determination upon my most serious

charges. This was to put a temporary stop

to my being “skinned alive” since the

damages caused to me in all facets of my

life were and would continue to be irre-

ve.sible even if the Federal Courts found

in my favor. The District Court refused

my request.

My dozens of allegations were documented

by either third party affidavits, court

minutes or other court records. The docu-

mentation is contained in some 50 Exhibits

which were part of the Amended Complaint

presented to the District Court. I

inquired of the Clerk's office of this

Court whether pertinent court records too

voluminous to be practically made a part of

the bound writ of certiorari, could be

included for reference in the file of this

case, The answer was yes and reference

papers are being submitted to this Court

along with this writ.

The memorandum and order of the Dist-

rict Court accepted my allegations as fact.

My adversaries did not dispute any of my

documentations presented to the District

Court. Yet, the District Court ruled

against me,

Since that original request to the

Federal District Court, the New York State

Westchester County courts continued to

endorse the illegal plunderings involving

hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars of the

financial fruits of my life‘’s work,

* o * “~ .

CONSTITUTIONAL AND BROAD AUTHORITIES

INVOLVED INCLUDING COMMENT

Code of Judicial Conduct:

Canon 2

Canon 5 C(4)(a)

The canons of the Code of Judicial

Conduct are to govern a judges behav-

ior. For instance, the commentary on

Canon 2 explains that a judge must not

only avoid all impropriety but also all

appearances of impropriety: "%*...Pub-

lic confidence in the judiciary is

eroded by irresponsible or improper

conduct by judges. A judge must

avoid all impropriety and appearance of

impropriety. He must expect to be the

subject of constant public scrutiny.

He must therefore accept restrictions

on his conduct that might be viewed as

burdensome by the ordinary citizen and

should do so freely and willingly.”

Although a judge may “attend a bar re-

lated function or activity devoted to

the improvement of the law, the legal

system, or the administration of just-

ices...” (Canon 5 C(4) (a)), this does

not mean that he is free to attend such

extravaganzas as those which attorney/

respondent Dempsey gives and not make

this fact a matter of record as Judge/

respondent Hopkins and Judge/respondent

Rubenfeld did not disclose, Nor did

respondent/attorney Dempsey, petition-

er’s adverse attorney, reveal in open

Court of his social and personal re-

lationship with presiding judges in

petitioner's matters to make this fact

a matter of record so that an ordinary

litigant like petitioner can choose a

judge which in his eyes is impartial

and will give him equal justice, privi-

leges and immunities under law, a

requirement of the due process and

equal protection clauses of the Four-

teenth Amendment and the Civil Rights

Acts of 1871.

Federal Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A.

8455 (Supp. 1976)

The Federal Government has seen fit to

clarify and expand our code of ethics.

and sense of morality in government

since Watergate. Compare a 1974 addi-

tion to the Federal Judicial Code, 28

US.C.A. 3455 (Supp. 1976) which pro-

vides in (a) that any judge “shall

disqualify himself in any proceeding

in which his partiality might be

questioned"; and then adds in (e) that

“Waiver may be accepted provided it is

preceeded by a full disclosure on the

record of the basis for disqualifica-

tion,” (A72-A73),

Fifth Amendment:

* * * nor shall any person * * *

be deprived of life, liberty, or

property, without due process of

law * * x,

Fourteenth Amendment, Sections 1

and 5:

SECTION 1. All persons born or

naturalized in the United States,

and subject to the jurisdiction

thereof, are citizens of the United 6.

States and of the State wherein they

reside. No State shall make or

enforce any law which shall abridge

the privileges or immunities of

citizens of the United States; nor

shall any State deprive any person

of life, liberty, or property,

without due process of law; nor deny

to any person within its jurisdiction

the equal protection of the laws,

we * oa

SECTION 5. The Congress shall

have the power to enforce, by

appropriate legislation, the

provisions of this article.

Civil Rights Act of 1871, 81, 42.

U.S.C, $1983 (1970):

Every person who, under color of

any statute, ordinance, regulation,

custom, or usage, of any State or

Territory, subjects, or causes to be

subjected, any citizen of the United

States or other person within the

jurisdiction thereof to the depriva-

tion of any rights, privileges, or

immunities secured by the Constitution

and laws, shall be liable to the party

injured in an action at law, suit in

equity, or other proper proceeding

for redress,

Civil Rights Act of 1871, 82, 42

U.S.C. 81985 (3) (1970)

If two or more persons in any State

or Territory conspire * * * for the

purpose of depriving, either directly

or indirectly, any person or class of

persons of the equal protection of

the laws, or of equal privileges and

immunities under the laws * * * if

one or more persons engaged therein

do, or cause to be done, any act in

furtherance of the object of such

conspiracy, whereby another is in-

jured in his person or property, or

deprived of having and exercising any

right or privilege of a citizen of the

United States, the party so injured

or deprived may have an action for

the recovery of damages, occasioned

by such injury or deprivation,

against any one or more of the

conspirators.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The basic facts of this case are con-

tained in the Amended Complaint submitted

to the District Court (Al-A43). The

specific Counts of that Complaint are

contained in Al6-A43. The accompanying

Affidavit and more detailed proofs and

documentations to back up the Complaint

should be in this Court’s files for fur-

ther reference since they were to be

delivered along with this writ.

Should this Court elect to hear this

matter, it will provide a unique oppor-

tunity to examine and expose the con-

sequences that were actually suffered by

petitioner, over a seven year period

because of judicial misconduct in a State

Court.

There was not one single denial by any

of the respondents herein of any of peti-

tioner's most serious documentations of

overt Court irregularities and judicial

misconducte,

tHéFaeves eR, are narrow,

Is it proper for a presiding State judge

to withhold the fact that he has a

personal and social relationship with one

of the attorneys before him? Is it proper

for that same presiding judge not to dis-

qualify himself? Do manifold Court

irregularities and judicial misconducts

add up to denial of due process, including

“looking away” from documented proof of

subornings of evidence and witnesses and

refusals to hear vital newly discovered

evidence?

Are the Canons of Judicial Ethics to

be complied with or can a State judge be

permitted to violate the most basic con-

cepts supposedly inherent in our judicial

system which is even-handed justice that

is guaranteed by our Constitution?

Petitioner herein could not understand

why the New York State, Westchester Courts

were rendering decisions adverse to him

despite carefully prepared and carefully

presented documented evidence warranting

a favorable decision to petitioner,

It was only after many devastating

legal defeats that a pattern appeared for

a possible answer, This pattern con-

sisted of State courts permitting judicial

prejudice, neglect, intolerance, inten-

perance, prejudgment and otherwise allow-

ing gross inequities against petitioner

to flourish,

Petitioner's sense of justice was so

outraged that he began to investigate.

He felt that as a citizen of a free

country he was entitled to equal treat-

ment. His investigations brought to

light the circus tent extravaganzas of

his former spouse’s attorney, James Demp-

sey, where many judges were lavishly

entertained without either host or judge

revealing their personal and social re-~

lationship in open court. At one of these

bashes, held on June 22, 1974, there were

present these judges, among others:

JAMES D. HOPKINS, Associate Justice, Ap-

pellate Division, Second Judicial Dept.;

LEONARD RUBENFELD, Justice Supreme Court,

Ninth Judicial District;

DAVID N, EDELSTEIN, Chief Judge, Southern

District; United States District Court;

ANN T, MIKOLL, Justice Supreme Court,

Eighth Judicial District;

ROBERT J. TRAINOR, Justice Supreme Court,

Appellate Division, Second Judicial Dept.;

GEORGE BEISHEIM, JR., Justice Supreme

Court, Ninth Judicial District;

VINCENT GURAHIAN, Judge Family Court,

Westchester County;

MORRIE SLIFKIN, Justice Supreme Court,

Ninth Judicial District;

RAYMOND C. BARATTA, Surrogate, Dutchess

County;

EVANS V. BREWSTER, Surrogate, Westchester

County;

DOROTHEA DONALDSON, Judge, New York

State Court of Claims;

BERNARD G, GORDON, New York State Senator,

Chairman of the N.Y. State Judiciary

Committee, (A 55-466)

Even in the beginning -- indeed even

before the beginning -- of the divorce

litigation, the one who led petitioner's

former spouse to defendant attorney

Dempsey was none other than petitioner's

own lawyer, New York State's Senator

Bernard G. Gordon, Petitioner had con-

sulted with him and discussed with

defendant Gordon the marital problems

petitioner and his former spouse were

experiencing. Yet it was Senator Gordon,

with whom petitioner himself had dis-

cussed his marital difficulties, who

subsequently took petitioner's former

wife to attorney Dempsey probably hoping

for a referral fee from the $15,000.00

that petitioner's former spouse already

paid to attorney Dempsey plus the

$50,000.00 which the New York Courts

have ruled he is additionally to receive

from petitioner, State Senator Gordon is

chairman of the New York State Senate

Judiciary Committee,

Judge Knapp's decision focuses

attention on the degree of proof of state

judges having allegedly accepted a corrupt

contribution to prejudice their decisions

in favor of the donor, Petitioner/

plaintiff never made such charges unless

one wishes to construe that a state judge

in the habit of being lavishly entertained

by a host/attorney litigating before him

could naturally be beholden to the host/

attorney for a standard of living not

otherwise possible on a state judge's

present salary,

Political “backscratching” is an old

game, The financial killings that have

been made by some of the parties are

motive enough for risking the unliklihood

of exposure while under the shielding

umbrellas of politicians like James

Dempsey and Bernard G. Gordon,

The major point is not what either

entertained judges or host/attorney gained

from their personal and social relation-

ship, but rather if the petitioner was

denied equal justice under the law because

of such a social and personal relationship

not having been revealed by judges or

attorney to afford petitioner the oppor-

tunity to request another judge who was

not lavishly entertained by the adversary

attorney (A67-A68, A69-A70-A71).

The question of whether a judge re-

ceived a corrupt contribution while not

disclosing his personal and social re-

lationship with one of the parties con-

nected with the litigation being

adjudicated by that judge is likewise

immaterial. Petitioner submits that an

act of judicial omission in not notifying

all parties in open court that a personal

and social relationship exists between

the presiding judge and the adversary

attorney is no different than the act of

commission of perjury by a juror who is

expected to not perjure himself when

normally asked if he knows any of the

parties connected with the pending liti-

gation. Should that juror not disclose a

personal or social relationship with one

of the parties and if this fact is docu-

mented -- even after a decision is

rendered -- then that decision most surely

would be held null and void on the afore-

mentioned ground,

The reason for that juror withholding

information critical to an impartial trial

is not the criteria. There are countless

possible reasons why a juror might before-

hand favor one side or the other, One

cannot brand that juror with having ac-

cepted a corrupt contribution as the

exclusive motivating force for the juror's

dishonesty. Nor is it reasonable to

defend that juror'’s dishonesty by stating

that since there was no evidence of a

corrupt contribution to that juror by his

friend -- that the juror is not guilty of

per jury.

In fact, the juror could possibly

claim personal ignorance of the serious

legal implications and consequences that

could result from his withholding the fact

of a personal or social relationship be-

tween himself and one of the parties con-

nected with the litigation in the dential

of equal protection under the law. A

state judge cannot and should not claim

such igmorance of the basic concept of

equal protection under the law,

The motivation and/or motivations for

a judge's prejudice are unimportant. The

fact of and/or the appearance of prejudice

is reason enough for the setting aside of

such decisions,

Point II of this writ is centered in

depth on the United States Supreme Court's

justification for the Federal court

guaranteeing constitutional rights de-

prived by a state court. The Court cites

specific state abuses that are the obli-

gation of Federal courts to rectify: --

“prejudice, neglect, intolerance or

otherwise,” Petitioner submitted to the

District Court manifold documentation of

his having been subjected indeed, by the

state court to each and every one of

these quoted abuses (JA 90, 93-95, 146,

176-177, 179, 181). Petitioner's amended

complaint and supporting papers to the

ren ager tee TP

District Court comprised fifteen hundred

pages including some fifty exhibits (Record)

Respondent Justice Marbach submitted a

motion via the New York State Attorney

General allegedly supporting the conten-

tion that the allegations submitted by

petitioner should be dismissed, The State

Attorney General produced minutes of the

hearing held before Justice Marbach on

April 24 and April 25, 1974 (JA 73-147).

The relevant portion of those court min-

utes reveal that Judge Marbach indeed had

permitted himself to first be influenced

by respondent attorney Dempsey to the ex-

tent of checking with the Appellate |

Division, Second Department as to the

authenticity of attorney Dempsey's

derogatory allegations against petitioner,

The report received by Judge Marbach from

the Appellate Division, Second Department

was derogatory and colored the credibility

of petitioner. Respondent attorney Demp-

sey asserts to Judge Marbach as follows:

“kt * * IT have had this not only

in this Court your Honor. I had the

same situation in the past few weeks

in the Appellate Division, where

without any notice act all, when I

got there, Mr. Terner said the same

thing about this same Mr, Gottlieb

and the Appellate Division said:

"Not a bit of it. You go on,° * * *

(JA 93-94),

Judge Marbach stated as follows:

“THE COURT: I now learn, Mr.

Terner, not that Mr. Gottlieb was re-

tained the day before yesterday, but

that you made that statement to the

Appellate Division. I learned it not

only from Mr, Dempsey, but I checked

what happened on that appeal and

learned that Mr, Gottlieb was being

retained several weeks ago.

THE PLAINTIFF: Not on this case

your Honor, * * *" (JA 93)

Only nine days before, on April 15,

1974, an order was signed by the Appellate

Division, Second Department with respond-

ent Justice James D. Hopkins presiding,

which denied petitioner's appeal for a

motion for a new trial based upon court

irregularities, perjuries, and newly dis-

covered evidence in the New York State,

Westchester County Court divorce litiga-

tion, Petitioner's amended complaint

submitted to the District Court contains

evidence of a personal and social rela-

tionship between respondents attorney

James Dempsey and Judge Hopkins which was

never revealed at that hearing nor did

Judge Hopkins disqualify himself to

provide petitioner the option of request-

ing a presiding state justice that did

not have a social and personal relation-

ship with respondent attorney Dempsey

(A29-A30-A31-A32, A56-A57, A80).

This chain reaction bias of one court

influencing another has nothing to do

with retrying the case or insulating a

judge from a lawsuit as a result of an

alleged unfair decision. The clear issue

presented here is deprivation of peti-

tioner’s constitutional rights because of

prejudice and intolerance, Judge Knapp

in his decision states:

“ * * * Without being bound by the

Ninth Circuit's ‘primary objective’

analysis, we find that Terner is

earnestly here pursuing such federal

rights as he may have, * * * ™ (A448)

Justice Marbach relieved the former

counsel for petitioner and yet refused a

few days of requested grace in order to

have him represented by counsel of his

choice, It is abundantly clear that

respondent Judge Marbach admittedly con-

cedes that he would have permitted peti-

tioner the few days grace requested if

' Judge Marbach had not been negatively pre-

judiced by the New York State Appellate

Division, Second Department with respond-

ent Judge Hopkins presiding. Judge

Marbach states:

“THE COURT: I have been given no

affidavit of engagement, I have no

proof that you even have an attorney

-- outside of your word -- and while,

under ordinary circumstances, I would

accept your word, it is not enough

for the record of this Court.” (JA90)

Except for the examinations of the

judicial patterns that denied petitioner

his constitutional rights in New York

State -- it would have made no difference

whether Judge Marbach’s prejudice emanated

from Judge Hopkins, from attorney Dempsey

or from a court maintenance worker, The

fact is that Judge Marbach was indeed

prejudiced and he has readily admitted

that prejudice in the court minutes of

subject case.

In furtherance of petitioner's claim

of being subjected to state courts’: --

“prejudice, neglect, intolerance or other-

wise,” -- many instances occurred wherein

the respondent New York State judges

acted in the aforesaid mariner.

Respondent Justice Walsh on numerous

occasions in open Court exhibited pre-

judice, neglect and intolerance toward

petitioner, to wit:

" * * * THE COURT: No. It'sa

lot of nonsense -- no let it stand,

I want the Appellate Court to see

THE FOLLOWING IS AN. ATTEMPT TO PREVAIL UPON

THE SENSE OF JUSTICE OF THIS COURT DESPITE

THE FACT THAT PETITIONER*S PRESENT STATE OF

HEALTH, CAUSED BY COURT PRESSURES, DID NOT

PERMIT HIM TO PROCEDURALLY PRESENT HIS

WRIT TO THIS COURT. BUT RATHER, PETITIONER

MUST NOW RELY UPON THIS COURT'S SENSE OF

JUSTICE BY ITS EXAMINATION OF THE HUNDREDS

OF PAPERS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO THE

FEDERAL COURTS BELOW AND COPIES OF WHICH

ARE PRESENTED ALONG WITH THIS ADMITTEDLY

INCOMPLETE WRIT FOR THE FILES OF THIS

COURT.

This is as far as I have been able to

proceed on this Writ because certain seg-

ments of the New York State Courts have

debilitated my health to a point where

they have made it impossible for me to

properly function as a healthy human being

because of their proven and documented

campaign to silence forever my carefully

researched and documented exposures of

State Court malpractices as documented in

my Court papers now being presented to the

Supreme Court of the United States.

I ask that this Court judge the merits

of this Writ not upon strength of argument

contained in this Writ, but rather upon the

reasonable conclusion to be arrived at as

a result of a close examination of the

papers being submitted to this Court as

part of the Appendix herein and as part of

the lower Court records being submitted

together with this incomplete Writ -- in-

complete because certain segments of the

New York State Courts have indeed suc-

ceeded in finally “grinding out" a liti-

gant who dared to “buck the establish-

ment,”

This is all I have to offer,

The Appendices to this Writ were sub-

mitted to the printer beforehand with the

anticipation that a proper and complete

complimenting argument could be included

in time. Unfortunately, this is impos-

sible and petitioner is presenting these

papers as is for whatever they are worth,

The case law and index herein do not con-

tain page mumbers. However, all of the

case law referred to is contained in the

papers to the Federal Courts below includ-

ing several cases cited in the Answering

Brief of the Attorney General which can

be seen in the Record of this case being

delivered along with this incomplete Writ

and which will hopefully substantiate that

the proper place for review of my matters

are indeed with this Court (See Attorney

General's Brief For Appellee State Judges

to the United States Court of Appeals for

the Second Circuit, page 7.).

Unfortunately, I am only one man, I

do not have the resources at my beck and

call that my adversaries have. However,

I believe that an honest reading of the

papers being presented to this Court and

submitted to the files of this Court will

necessarily warrant a full review of the

Constitutional issues contained within

subject files. :

Should this Court grant to me the

right of reviewing what I feel has been

an extreme injustice not only to petition-

er but to millions of other Americans --

Petitioner trusts that between now and

the time of official review <-- that his

health shall be sufficiently recovered to

properly present his case not only for

some partial redress of what I have been

subjected to, but also to perhaps eventu-

ally prevent other honest citizens from

being utilized merely as “fair game” by

the legal parasites who feed off the flesh

of human sufferings.

Respectfully submitted,

William Terner, Pro Se

575 Madison Avene (Rm, 1006)

New York, New York 10022

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

Amended Complaint

(S.D.N.Y. 1975)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Southern District of New York

75 Civ. 3673 W.K.

WILLIAM TERNER,

Plaintiff,

against

Hon JAMES D. HOPKINS, Justice of the

Appellate Div. of the State of N.Y.3 Hon.

LEONARD RUBENFELD, J.S.C. of the State of

N.Y.s JAMES DEMPSEY, Esq.: Hon. ALVIN R.

RUSKIN, J.S.C. of the State of N.Y.s Hon.

HAROLD L. WOOD, J.S.C. of the State of

N.Y.s N.Y. State Sen. BERNARD G, GORDON,

Chairman, N.Y.S. Judiciary Comm,; Hon.

MARTIN B. STECHER, J.S.C. of the State of

N.Ye3 Hon, WM, A. WALSH, JRe, J.S.C. of

the State of N.Y.:; JERALD S. KALTER, M.D.3

Hon JOHN C. MARBACH, J.S.C. of the State

and MFG, HANOVER TRUST CO. (Transfer

Agents for Kraftco Corp.),

Defendants,

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

Plaintiff alleges:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff is a citizen of the

Unixced States and resides in the Southern

District of New York,

2. On information and belief, at all

times herein the defendant Kraftco Corp.

(*Kraftco") is a foreign public corpora-

tion and transacts business within the

Southern District of New York,

3. On information and belief, at all

times herein the defendant Manufacturers

Hanover Trust Co. (“Manufacturers”) is

a national banking corporation with its

principal place of business within the

City of New York and more particularly

within the Southern District of New York,

and is the transfer agent for the publicly

traded stock and securities of the

defendant Kraftco,.

4, At all times herein, the defendant

Hon, John C, Marbach (“Judge Marbach") is

a Justice of the Supreme Court of the

State of New York and a citizen and resi-

dent of the Southern District of New York.

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

5. At all times herein, defendant

Hon, Justice William A. Walsh, Jr.,

("Judge Walsh") was and is a resident of

Westchester County, State of New York and

a duly elected Judge of the Supreme Court

of the County of Westchester, State of

New York,

6. At all times herein, defendant

Hon, Justice Leonard Rubenfeld ("Judge

Rubenfeld") was and is a resident of

Westchester County, State of New York and

a duly elected Judge of the Supreme Court

of the County of Westchester, State of

New York,

7. At all times herein, defendant

Hon, Justice Alvin R, Ruskin (“Judge

Ruskin") was and is a resident of West-

chester County, State of New York and a

duly elected Judge of the Supreme Court of

the County of Westchester, State of New

York,

8. At all times herein, defendant

Hon, Justice Harold L. Wood (“Judge Wood")

was and is a resident of Westchester

County, State of New York and a duly

elected Judge of the Supreme Court of the

County of Westchester, State of New York,

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

9. At all times herein, defendant

Hon, Martin B, Stecher ("Judge Stecher")

and upon information and belief, was and

is a resident of New York County, State of

New York and a duly elected Judge of the

Supreme Court of the County of New York,

State of New York,

10, At all times herein, defendant

Hon, James D, Hopkins (“Judge Hopkins") was

and is a resident of Westchester County,

State of New York and a duly appointed

Justice of the Appellate Division, Second

Judicial Department.

ll. At all times herein, defendant

James Dempsey ("Dempsey") was and is a

resident of Westchester County, State of

| New York, is an attorney at law duly ad-

mitted to practice in the State of New

York and a member of the law firm of

Dempsey and Spring, P. C., White Plains,

New York, and was retained by defendant

Mildred Terner to represent her ina

matrimonial litigation in New York State

Supreme Court, Westchester County under

Index Number 7920/1970,

12. At all times herein, defendant

Bernard G, Gordon (“Gordon”) was and is a

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

resident of Westchester County, State of

New York, is a duly elected New York State

Senator, an attorney at law duly admitted

to practice in the State of New York,

maintaining an office for the practice of

law in Peekskill, New York, is the former

counsel for plaintiff William Terner and

upon information and belief, referred de-

fendant Mildred Terner to defendant Dempsey

who represented her in the matrimonial

litigation referred to hereinabove,

13. At all times herein, defendant

Jerald S, Kalter ("Kalter") was and is a

resident of New York County, State of New

York, is a medical doctor duly licensed to

practice in the State of New York, and was

named by plaintiff herein as the co-

respondent in a divorce action between

plaintiff William Terner and his former

wife defendant Mildred Terner, and in due

course said divorce action was tried in

New York Supreme Court, Westchester County

by defendant Judge Walsh without a jury.

14, At all times herein, defendant

Mildred Terner was and is a resident of

Westchester County, State of New York, and

is the former wife of plaintiff William

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

Terner,

JURISDICTION

15. This action arises under the

United States Constitution, particularly

under the provisions of the Fourteenth

Amendment ot the Constitution of the

United States, and under Article VI of the

Constitution of the United States. The

matter in controversy exceeds the sum of

$10,000,00 exclusive of interest and

costs,

16. The jurisdiction of this Court is

invoked under the provisions of Title 28

of the United States Code, Sections 1331,

1343, 2201 and 2202.

FACTS ,

17. An action for divorce was insti-

tuted by defendant Mildred Terner, former

wife of plaintiff William Terner, in July,

1970, under index number 7920/1970,

Supreme Court of the State of New York,

County of Westchester, Defendant James

Dempsey appeared of counsel for defendant

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

Mildred Terner and defendant Judge Walsh

presided.

18. A trial of that action before

defendant Judge Walsh was commenced on

December 18, 1970 and after many trial

dates spread over an extensive period of

time and was concluded on November 29,

1972.

19, Defendant Judge Walsh rendered a

judgment of divorce which was entered for

Mildred Terner on May 24, 1973, and withe-

out the benefit of any financially sup-

ported testimony directed the payment of

interim alimony of $300.00 per week, and

an allowance to her counsel, defendant

James Dempsey, of $15,000.00 as interim

counsel fees and in addition, exclusive

occupancy of the jointly held marital

residence at 17 Cornell Street, Scarsdale,

New York, to defendant Mildred Terner,.

20, An appeal to the New York Supreme

Court, Appellate Division, Second Depart-

ment, was taken by plaintiff and was de-

cided by said Appellate Court on Decen-

ber 31, 1973, affirming the decision of

the lower Court, but expressly striking

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

the interim awards of alimony and counsel

fees because no financial testimony was

adduced at the trial in the lower Court,

These issues were referred to Special Tern,

Part V, Westchester County Supreme Court

for a hearing and final determination,

21. Financial hearings were held to

determine alimony awards on May 29, 1974;

May 31, 1974; June 24, 1974; June 25,

19743; and July 16, 1974, and a final order

by defendant Judge Walsh was entered on

October 31, 1974.

22. Said order directed that plaintiff

herein pay his former wife Mildred Terner

$300.00 per week alimony and that he pay

her retroactive alimony awards of $300.00

per week as of May 24, 1973, aggregating

$18,750.00 and retroactive child support

of $50.00 per week as of May 24, 1973 to

October 15, 1974 (the date when the one

minor child at issue attained his majority

of 21 years), aggregating $3,628.00; for a

total of $22,378.00,

23. The above mentioned retroactive

awards of alimony and child support were

in addition to the amounts of monies

plaintiff herein gave for support (upon

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

the advice of his counsel and the demands

of the Court) either directly to or on be-

half of his former spouse and his then

minor son Andrew,

24, The amounts of monies given di-

rectly to or on behalf of plaintiff's

former spouse and his then minor son over

the period from July, 1970 to October 31,

1974, are in excess of $100,000.00,

25. During the summer of 1970, defend-

ant Mildred Terner gave her attorney

defendant Dempsey, the sum of $15,000.00

as a retainer to represent her in her

forthcoming divorce action,

26. On June 30, 1975, a hearing was

held in Westchester County Supreme Court,

State of New York, before defendant Judge

Walsh, on the issue of counsel fees.

27. On September 12, 1975, a judgment

was rendered by defendant Judge Walsh

awarding defendant James Dempsey a counsel

fee of $50,000.00 to be paid by plaintiff

herein on his former wife's behalf.

28, The above referred to counsel fee

award was in addition to the original

$15,000.00 paid to defendant Mildred

Terner's attorney by defendant herself as

A10

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

hereinabove stated,

29. The aggregate total of alimony

awards both current, retroactive and pre-

viously paid (as of July, 1970), child

support both paid and retroactive and

counsel fee awards paid by defendant

Mildred Terner herself to her attorney

James Dempsey and subsequently ordered by

defendant Judge Walsh for additional pay-

ments by plaintiff William Terner to

defendant Mildred Terner's attorneys, is

somewhere in excess of $200,000.00 of

which amount, plaintiff was ordered to pay

all but $15,000.00 which had already been

paid by his former wife to her attorney,

30. In said divorce action, defendant

Kalter was named as the co-respondent and

ever since an admitted clandestine rendez-

vous date on September 11, 1970, and up

until the very present, defendant Kalter

continues to have an ongoing intimate and

meretricious relationship with defendant

Mildred Terner,.

31. Defendant Kalter in his open and

notorious relations with Mildred Terner

humiliates, mortifies and mentally dis-

tresses plaintiff William Terner in front

All

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

of his family, neighbors and friends by

constantly being present and seen at the

subject former marital residence and which

residence plaintiff maintained a long time

office, Plaintiff had been compelled by

the Courts of New York State to support the

former marital residence and his former

office for the comfort and pleasures of

plaintiff's former wife and defendant

Kalter. There are no children under the

age of 21 years.

32. Defendant Mildred Terner has now

sought to have the New York State West-

chester County Supreme Court sequester

plaintiff William Terner's assets.

33, Plaintiff herein cross-moved the

Court to determine if Mildred Terner and

defendant Kalter were either married or

notoriously holding themselves out as

husband and wife living intimately and

travelling together within the State of

New York, out of the State, and out of

the Country,

34, In an order dated September 3,

1975, defendant Judge Rubenfeld granted

defendant Mildred Terner'’s application for

a sequestration hearing and denied plain-

Al2

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

tiff William Terner's application for sub-

mission of evidence and the taking of

testimony regarding the relationship be-

tween his former spouse and her aforenamed

constant companion defendant Kalter,

35. A hearing on defendant Mildred

Terner’s application for sequestration was

held before Judge Harold L. Wood on Novem-

ber 10, 1975, with William Terner appear-

ing pro se, The Judge directed the Dempsey

firm to submit a proposed order in connec-

tion with an order to show cause to

sequester all of the property and assets

of the plaintiff herein. That proposed

order had been submitted to Judge Wood on

November 19, 1975, which called for entry

on November 24, 1975. The short form or-

der of Judge Rubenfeld entered on Sept-

ember 3, 1975 stated -- “Upon the fore-

going papers it is ordered that this

motion shall be set down for a hearing on

the issues of the amount of the alleged

arrears and the plaintiff's alleged delay

of the sale of the marital home, and for

determination upon the filing of a note

of issue, payment of appropriate fees and

the service of a copy of the note of

Al3

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

issue and of this order upon the clerk of

Special Term, Part V.

The defense predicated upon Section 248

of the Domestic Relations law is dismissed

for failure to supply sufficient factual

support to warrant a hearing on the issue,”

35. a. Defendant Judge Wood refused to

hear the house issue, a part of the Judge

Rubenfeld order; refused to grant to me

a few days time to answer an ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE that I received the Saturday

before the scheduled Monday morning hear-

ing despite that ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

calling for modification in the sequest-

ration hearing and those modifications

had never been before Judge Rubenfeld prior

to his signing subject order; refused to

accept my own ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE dealing

with sequestration which defendant Judge

Ruskin had also refused to accept or to

even look at over a month before; refused

to accept documentary proof including an

attorney's affidavit as to the improprie-

ties in Judge Ruskin‘’s Court; refused to

give any consideration to the fact that

my adversaries had acknowledged receipt

of service of my ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE a

Al4

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

month before -- and this was confirmed

before Judge Wood at that sequestration

hearing; refused to give any consideration

to my having advised him that Judge Ruskin

told me to go to Federal Court if I wanted

a stay -- which I did; refused to give me

the right to examine or to cross-examine

my adversaries; refused to grant to me any

opportunity for me to get an attorney's

opinion on the agenda of said hearings

which was before Judge Wood at the time

and upon which a vital interpretation dis-

agreement existed; refused my request to

have an attorney examine the minutes of

that sequestration hearing in order that

an attorney could prepare and submit upon

my behalf a Memorandum of Law predicated

upon the minutes,

b. About a week after that se-

questration hearing the Dempsey firm sub-

mitted a proposed order which called for

entry on November 24, 1975, and which was

actually filed on December 1, 1975. This

order was signed by Judge Wood exactly as

presented to him by the Dempsey firm and

the signed order is obviously a photocopy

of that proposed order except for a counsel

A1L5

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

fee having been added for that approxi-

mately half-day Court hearing that was

abruptly concluded by Judge Wood. That

order calls for my total sequestration,

The Dempsey firm took immediate positive

steps based upon said order.

36. No practical relief can be had

other than to utilize the Federal Court

as a tribunal for the serious allegations

being made here, In the New York State

1974 Legislative Manual (“The Blue Book")

on page 927, members of the Temporary

State Commission on Judicial Conduct are

listed. A paragraph defining that Com-

mission's function is as follows:

"The Commission is empowered to receive

and investigate complaints against any

Judge of a unified Court system: to com-

mence investigations on its own initiative,

and where appropriate, to recommend dis-

ciplinary action including the convening

of the Court of the Judiciary.” It is

shown on said page that the two members

appointed to that Commission by the Chief

Judge, of the Court of Appeals of the

State of New York are:

| Al6

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

Judge James D. Hopkins;

and

Judge Ann T, Mikoll

Both of these Judges, who were espe-

cially appointed to look into Judicial

misconduct, have a personal and social re-

lationship with attorney/politician James

Dempsey. This is supported by documented

evidence, To ask a Judge to rule upon his

own misconduct or upon the misconduct of

close associates is, to say the least,

naive,

FIRST COUNT

37.(a) Defendant Judge Hopkins was the

Appellate Division, Second Department

Presiding Judge and signed an order deny-

ing plaintiff a motion for a new trial

on April 15, 1974. Defendant Judge Marbach

cites derogatory comments made to hin

about plaintiff by the Appellate Division,

Second Department only a week later, The

motivation for Judge Marbach's checking

with the Appellate Division, Second De-

partment concerning plaintiff's credibility

was brought about by derogatory comments

made by defendant James Dempsey concerning

Al7

Appendix I-Amended Complaint

that Appellate Division's opinion of

plaintiff. Judge Marbach permitted him-

self to be influenced and biased by the

Second Department's report to him of their

opinion of plaintiff. Only a few weeks

later, Judge Hopkins as well as Judge Mi-

koll were lavishly entertained by defend-

ant James Dempsey at Mr. Dempsey's Peeks-

kill, New York estate, Neither James

Dempsey, who argued against plaintiff

before the Appellate Division, Second

Department on plaintiff's motion for a new

trial nor Judge Hopkins revealed any

personal or social relatianship which is

required by the Canons of Judicial Ethics

in order to not conceal possible influenc-

ing factors on Court decisions and/or

Court procedures, In fact, it was Judge

Hopkins who denied plaintiff counsel ef

his choice and in effect, although proper

application was made in accordance with

accepted procedures - plaintiff herein was

forced to either go pro ge or to be rep-

resented by a young man barely out of law

school, Plaintiff's adversary, indeed, at

that Appellate hearing was the seasoned

and influential attorney/politician

Al8

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

James Dempsey.

(b) Judge Hopkins should either

have disqualified himself or revealed in

open Court his personal and social re-

lationship with attorney Dempsey to give

plaintiff an opportunity of requesting

a presiding Justice without a personal

and social relationship with any inter-

ested party; one who would not be subject

to possible bias or influenced by sympa-

thetic leanings. This would include

friendly associate justices who might have

personal or political interests in common

with any of the litigating parties and/or

trial attorneys before then,

favorable decisions and/or favorable

counsel fee awards which, in effect, con-

trol that attorney's financial fortunes,

When an attorney lavishly entertains

Judges (no doubt declaring same as busi-

ness deductions), that attorney is misus-

ing the basic concepts of Judicial ethics.

(d) The net result is to unfairly

burden unsophisticated taxpayers for a

larger than equitable tax liability. The

I.R.S. codes certainly should not be

Al9

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

stretched even by “Judicial discretion"

for a practicing attorney to deduct busi-

ness expenses by entertaining Judges he

practices before and who control his fee

awards. A lawyer ertertaining clients or

prospective clients is one thing; a lawyer

entertaining Judges is different. Prac-

tically, this neat procedure makes plain-

tiff and countless other taxpayers and

litigants pay for unfavorable decisions to

them,

(e) It has taken plaintiff five

years to discover the magic of attorney

Dempsey’s stunning legal victories and one

can only speculate as to how many "less

probing victims” have had to simply “grin

and bear it."

SECOND COUNT

38, Defendant Judge Rubenfeld by his

decision dated September 3, 1975, preclu-

ded plaintiff William Terner from question-

ing defendant Mildred Terner at a seques-

tration hearing about her alleged re-

marriage to defendant Kalter, Judge

Rubenfeld was also a guest at defendant

A20

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

Dempsey's tent party on June 22, 1974, and

did not reveal his personal and social re-

lationship with attorney Dempsey. Despite

that relationship, defendant Judge Ruben-

feld decided an order to siiow Gause brought

on by Mildred Terner in the case of Terner

v. Terner, Index Number 7920/1970 (West-

chester County Supreme Court) and ordered

a hearing for a sequestration of plain-

tiff's assets as well as denying plain-.

tiff*s request for the hearing to include

the intimate and ongoing relationship be-

tween defendants Mildred Terner and Kalter w

which could have negated any alimony and

support awards. Defendant Judge Rubenfeld,

in deciding this motion, never disclosed

his personal and social relationship with

defendant Dempsey, attorney for defendant

Mildred Terner.

HIRD CO

39. Defendant attorney James Dempsey

improperly had not revealed his role as a

lavishly entertaining host of Judges before

whom he practices. Nor did he refuse to

undertake the assignment of representing

a aS satiiielilies ~~

A21

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

defendant Mildred Terner while full well

knowing that his close personal and poli-

tical ally, N.Y.S. Senator Bernard G,

Gordon, who led her to him, had been coun-

sel to plaintiff herein, Dempsey full

well knew before hand the intimate legal

details of the impending litigation and

therefore, should properly have declined

this referral client. In fact, the legal

professional Codes of Ethics not only

dictate that he should have refused coun-

sel under those conditions -- but he was

and is not entitled to some $65,000.00 of

legal fees of which $50,000.00 is pre-

sently Court awarded for which he is look-

ing forward to receiving via sequestration

of the assets of plaintiff herein.

FOURTH COUNT

40. Judge Alvin R, Ruskin was hearing

motions at Special Term, Part V. N.Y.

Westchester County Supreme Court on Octe-

ober 6, 1975. An ex-parte application was

attempted to be submitted to him upon

plaintiff's behalf which Judge Ruskin re-

fused to receive and/or even consider --

A22

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

although the adversary party had been pre-

viously served -- merely as a courtesy <--

which Judge Ruskin was aware, Judge Ruskin

refused to even look at the motion papers,

commenting that if plaintiff herein wished

relief -- he would have to go to the Fed-

eral Court -- which plaintiff herein did,

in fact, do. Judge Ruskin refused a pro-

perly made beforehand request to have a

Court reporter transcribe the proceedings

before him, Judge Ruskin complied with

the Dempsey firm's various requests while

assuming an intemperate posture towards

plaintiff's interests presented at that

time,

FIFTH COUNT

41.(a) On November 10, 1975, plaintiff

appeared pro se at a scheduled sequestra-

tion hearing at Special Term, Part V

N.Y.S. Westchester County Supreme Court

and Judge Wood was presiding. I advised

Judge Wood that I had made an oral appli-

cation to your Honor in Federal Court for

a stay of the sequestration hearing that

was denied. I requested of Judge Wood

A23

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

that he accept my ex-parte order to show

cause application for a stay that had been

previously refused to be received by Judge

Ruskin, Judge Wood refused. Judge Wood

asked plaintiff what the Federal action

was about and plaintiff so advised hina,

(b) Plaintiff then requested that Judge

Wood accept documentations including an

affidavit of the happenings that had taken

place before Judge Ruskin, Judge Wood

refused,

he had received an order to show cause

from the Dempsey firm by mail only two days

before and that that order referred to

issues not contained within the Judge

Rubenfeld sequestration hearing order.

(d) Plaintiff further requested that

the new issues should not properly be

heard without Judge Wood ruling on the

propriety of hearing the new issues that

same day or more properly at a later time,

(e) Judge Wood denied this application.

(f) Plaintiff asked Judge Wood if he

would instruct the Dempsey law firm to now

respond to my ex-parte order to show cause

that I had tried unsuccessfully to submit

A24

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

to Judge Ruskin -- especially since the

Dempsey firm had acknowledged service over

a month before and they were completely

familiar with all of the facts, Judge

Wood refused this request.

(g) Plaintiff advised Judge Wood that

there could be no financial harm to my

adversaries by the granting of a short ad-

journment to consider the merits of the

issue since my ex-parte application papers

contained proof that James Dempsey had

received upon defendant Mildred Terner's

behalf instantly negotiable checks and

liquid assets amounting to approx.

$30,000.00 while both defendant's Dempsey

and Mildred Terner in sworn to affidavits

after having received such funds -- stated

that Mildred Terner was indigent.

(h) Paragraph #35 hereinabeve contains

the exact wording of the Judge Rubenfeld

order which was to be the subject of the

sequestration hearing. Judge Wood

acquiesced to the Dempsey firm's request

to not give in to the house issue although

clearly defined as part of the agenda for

the sequestration hearing. In fact, the

record of that hearing clearly shows that

A25

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

the Dempsey firm confirmed my previous

contention that my appraisers access to

the house was harassingly being frustrat-

ed. The Dempsey firm further stated that

they would only grant my appraisers access

to the former marital residence only if I

agreed to drop litigation wherein I con-

tend that I am the full owner of subject

house,

(1) Judge Wood further refused to grant

me the option of securing counsel to de-

fine the intent of Judge Rubenfeld‘s order

and also denied me the right to submit a4

memorandum of law prior to his rendering

a decision.

(j) fhe proceedings that day were

concluded by Judge Wood without my having

had an opportunity to cross-examine or

even to rebut adversary allegations,

(k) Judge Wood instructed the Dempsey

firm to submit a proposed order based upon

their “surprise” order to show cause which

in fact they did submit on November 19,

1975, which was to be submitted to Judge

Wood according to the Dempsey firm “back"

on Novembér 24, 1975.

A26

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

SIXTH COUNT

42.(a) Defendant N.Y. State Senator

Gordon violated his attorney/client re-

lationship with me, He had previous know-

ledge of the domestic problems and was

aware that an imminent divorce was ap-

parent. Gordon, as my attorney, had known

intimate details of my domestic problems

and wished to refer me to attorney Denmp-

sey. I advised Gordon that I had another

attorney in mind by the name of I, Erd-

heim, Gordon then led my then wife to

Dempsey. There is evidence of several

violations by Gordon of an attorney/

client relationship. Additionally, it

was revealed that the coerespondent --

whose identity was finally ascertained a

month or two after the official divorce

proceedings were instituted against plain-

tiff herein that the co-respondent <-- Dr.

Kalter -- had been a long time family

physician, It appears that aside from

referral fee considerations -- which

Gordon knew he could not engrandize him-

self from me -- that there may have been

other personal considerations for

A27

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

co-respondent Kalter, motivating him to

“throw his political clout" behind my ad-

versaries,

(b) There were other “Strange

Happenings” concerning Gordon which will

be dealt with at a later time,

SEVENTH COUNT

43.(a) Judge Martin B, Stecher pre-

cluded plaintiff William Terner from making

any motions in New York County Supreme

Court in a related case without first

obtaining Judge Stecher's permission. He

also excused Mildred Terner from answering

detailed interrogatories concerning her

attorney/client relationship with New York

State Sen, Gordon, Chairman of the New York

State Judiciary Committee. Prior to the

submission to Mildred Terner of the

approximately fifty (50) detailed questions

to be answered -- that conspiracy case

(Index Number 22772/72, New York County

Supreme Court) progressed in an orderly

fashion,

(b) Additionally, Judge Stecher

rendered a decision which I am advised is

A28

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

in violation of my Federal Constitutional

rights -- in which he required me to

“clear with him" before submitting any

further motions,

Judge Stecher further referred to let-

ters that he had received from ay

adversaries in his decision and accepted

the contents of those letters as facts

since he did not even bother to give

plaintiff herein the courtesy of being

made aware of the contents of subject

letters -- although he cited his end

result conclusion in his decision predica-

ted upon those letters.

EIGHTH COUNT

44, a. Defendant Judge Walsh was the

trial Judge at the divorce litigation in

Westchester County Supreme Court, Terner

v. Terner, Index Number 7920/1970, That

trial spanned well over two years and it

consisted of seventeen days broken up in

small pieces. There was over 2,300 pages

of testimony. Judge Walsh received from

plaintiff herein at the end of the divorce

litigation a 106 page Memorandum of Law

A29

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

aiong with a 530 page motion for a new

trial or in the alternative a reopening

of the litigation. Despite the approxi-

mately 700 pages (including exhibits)

that were presented to Judge Walsh for

his consideration in adjudicating the

issues, Judge Walsh rendered a lengthy

decision in four (4) working days after

his receipt of the approximately 700

pages of the motion for a new trial or

to reopen and brief of plaintiff herein.

Logic dictates that it would take longer

than that just to read the papers aside

from deciding and dictating the lengthy

decision rendered.

b. In that motion for a new trial,

issues were presented that included Judge

Walsh having excused without notice to

plaintiff herein at least two subpoenaed

witnesses who would have confirmed charges

of alleged per juries committed by

adversary witnesses. In addition, there

was a presentation of newly discovered

vital evidence. Also, there was evidence

presented that strongly supported my con-

tentions that actual adversary testimony

A30

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

was not only perjurious, but that that

per jurious testimony had actually been

cited by Judge Walsh as fact in his render-

ed decision. Judge Walsh denied without

any explanation that motion for a new trial

or to reopen, Considerable collateral

litigation was required to document the

evidence presented at that time. Judge

Walsh was oftentimes intemperate. He

constantly referred to making a record for

an appeal which indicated that he must

have had his mind made up ahead of time

that he was going to rule against me,

Judge Walsh awarded attorney Dempsey a

~$15,000,00 legal fee without the benefit

of a financial hearing of plaintiff herein.

c. Judge Walsh expressed a complete

lack of consideration for my extensive

financial liabilities including substan-

tial I.R.S. taxes made necessary by vast

liquidations to comply with his astronomical

awards both to my ex-spouse defendant

Mildred Terner and to attorney Dempsey.

In fact, when I attempted to present the

extent of I.R.S. obligations brought about

by these litigations -- Judge Walsh stated

that he was not interested in the I.R.S.

A31

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

I requested permission to have the I.R.S.

explain in Court the extent of subject

liabilities brought about by litigation

spawned forced sale of assets and Judge

Walsh flatly refused to even entertain

that matter,

d. Judge Walsh was presented with

conclusive evidence that my former spouse

had been stealing my financial records

since she actually presented my own origin-

al records to Court as her evidence,

Judge Walsh refused to give any considera-

tion whatsoever to the complicated problems

that Plaintiff was beset with because of

that stealing and tens of thousands of

dollars of fraudulent divorce oriented

charges run up by my former spouse,

e. It is curious, to say the least,

that Judge Walsh awarded attorney Dempsey

a $50,000.00 legal fee (on top of Dempsey

already having received an additional

$15,000.00) and the $50,000.00 was exactly

the same figure that attorney Dempsey re-

quested in Judge Walsh's chambers as his

price for not holding counsel fee award

hearings.

f. Judge Walsh state apologetically on

A32

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

the Court record to attorney Dempsey that

he (Judge Walsh) had (unsuccessfully)

tried to get him a fee earlier.

@. Defendant Judge Walsh denied me

access to my former place of business which

was contained in a portion of the residence

set aside for that purpose and was where

I kept all of my records thereby causing

serious complicated burdens upon me in

addition to extra unnecessary financial

encumberances,

h, There were numerous contradictions

and inconsistencies in Judge Walsh's de-

cisions which usually were practically

verbatim to requests made by attorney

Dempsey.

NINTH COUNT

45. a. Defendant Kalter, the named co-

respondent in the divorce litigation, com-

mitted clear vital perjuries, suborned

evidence, and engaged in conspiracy, all

of which was clearly documented in col-

lateral litigation. That evidence was

made a part of a motion for a new trial

or in the alternative to reopen, that was

A33

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

submitted both to defendant Judge Walsh and

to the Appellate Division, Second Depart-

ment when defendant Judge Hopkins was the

presiding Judge. Defendant Kalter made a

substantial contribution to my having been

denied equal protection under the laws in

certain segments of the New York State

Courts,

TENTH COUNT

46. a. Defendant Judge Marbach was the

presiding Judge in N.Y.S. Supreme Court,

Westchester County in an action entitled

William Terner against Mildred Terner and

Kraftco Corp,, Index Number 1309/71. De-

fendant Judge Marbach permitted himself to

first be influenced by attorney Dempsey to

the extent of checking with the Appellate

Division, Second Department as to the

authenticity of attorney Dempsey'’s deroga-

tory allegations against plaintiff. The

report received by Judge Marbach from the

Appellate Division, Second Department was

derogatory to plaintiff William Terner,

Only nine days before, on April 15, 1974,

an order was signed by the Appellate

A34 | A35

Appendix I--Amended Complaint Appendix I--Amended Complaint

Division, Second Department with defendant counsel for plaintiff and yet refused a

Judge Hopkins presiding, which denied few days of requested grace in order to

William Terner’s appeal for a motion for have plaintiff represented by counsel of

a new trial based upon Court irregularities, his choice,

per juries, and newly discovered evidence b. More complete details of this are

in the New York State, Westchester Court contained within the original action in

divorce litigation entitled Terner v. this Court entitled William Terner, plain-

Terner, Index Number 7920/1970. This tiff, against KRAFTCO CORP., MANUFACTURERS

Amended Complaint contains evidence of a HANOVER TRUST CO. (Transfer Agents for

personal and social relationship between KRAFTCO CORP.), HON. JOHN C. MARBACH,

attorney Dempsey and Judge Hopkins which Justice of the Supreme Court of the State

was never revealed at that hearing nor did of New York, and MILDRED TERNER, defend-

defendant Judge Hopkins disqualify himself, ants, bearing this same docket number and

Defendant Judge Marbach permitted the more particularly plaintiff's AFFIDAVIT IN

Appellate Court presided over by defendant OPPOSITION submitted to this Court on

Judge Hopkins to color the credibility of December 10, 1975, contains all the

plaintiff William Terner., This is clearly pertinent facts in addition to my NOTICE

reflected in subject minutes. This chain OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WITH PAPERS

reaction bias of one Court influencing AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF which was

another has nothing to do with retrying submitted to and denied by the N.Y.S. Court

the case or insulating a Judge from a of Appeals.

lawsuit as a result of an alleged unfair c. Judge Marbach deprived me of my

decision, The issue here is deprivation Constitutional rights, due process of law

of plaintiff's Constitutional rights be- and equal protection of the laws -- in

cause of bias. Judge Marbach relieved this case, fair and unbiased hearings,

attorney Irving I. Erdheim of Erdhein,

Shalleck and Falk of N.Y.C., the former

A36

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

ELEVENTH COUNT

47. a. Defendant Mildred Terner en-

gaged in conspiracies, subornings of evi-

dence and the attempted subornings of a

witness, in addition to per juring herself

at trial. She engaged in larcenous acts

of stealing my financial records and

indiscriminate divorce oriented pledgings

of my credit involving tens of thousands

of dollars. She engaged in fraudulent

acts designed to enrich herself and to

pauperize me such as charging substantial

purchases and having her relatives return

those purchases for cash credits. This

was all documented at trial. The harass-

ing effect of those acts along with the

literally dozens of resulting litigations

has made a major contribution to the

overall denial of my Constitutional rights

in certain segments of the New York State

Courts.

TWELFTH COUNT

48. a. Defendant Kraftco Corp. had

been advised in writing on at least four

A37

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

occasions not to release any accrued divi-

dends and assets in connection with the

shares represented by the Kraftco stock

certificates V99742; V0O111460; V11079;

V0125446 and certificates reissued for

same, Kraftco‘s counsel, Sullivan and

Cromwell as well as Kraftco‘s Transfer

Agent, Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co,

were duly served on July 28, 1975, with a

copy of the within actian and were put on

further notice to comply with previous

correspondence on this same subject. Yet,

on July 31, 1975, accrued dividends and

subject common stock shares were turned

over to defendant Dempsey for the account

of defendant Mildred Terner. The covering

letter from Manufacturers Hanover for that

transfer of some $30,000.00 of cash and

liquid assets was included as an Exhibit

in the Order To Show Cause motion that

defendant Judge Ruskin denied and even

refused to read, Therefore, both Kraftco

Corp, and Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co,

(as Transfer Agents) made a contribution

to my denial of Constitutional rights in

N. Y. State,

A38

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

THIRTEENTH COUNT

49. a, Defendant Manufacturers Han-

over Trust Co, had been advised in writing

on at least four occasions not to release

any accrued dividends and assets in con-

nection with the shares represented by the

Kraftco stock certificates V99742;

V0O111460; V11079; V0125446 and certificates

reissued for same, Manufacturers Hanover

Trust Co, as well as Kraftco‘s counsel,

Sullivan and Cromwell were duly served on

July 28, 1975, with a copy of the within

action and were put on further notice to

comply with previous correspondence on

this same subject, Yet, on July 31, 1975,

accrued dividends and subject common stock

shares were turned over to defendant Demp-

sey for the account of defendant Mildred

Terner. The covering letter from Manu-

facturers Hanover for that transfer of

some $30,000.00 of cash and liquid assets

was included as an Exhibit in the Order To

Show Cause motion that defendant Judge

Ruskin denied and even refused to read.

Therefore, both Manufacturers Hanover

Trust Co, (as Transfer Agents) and

A39

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

Kraftco Corp, made a contribution to my

denial of Constitutional rights in N. Y.

State,

FOURTEENTH COUNT

50. a. Defendants herein have denied

plaintiff his Constitutional rights as

guaranteed to him in the Constitution of

the United States,

FIFTEENTH COUNT

51. Plaintiff alleges that in doing

the acts and things above complained,

defendants became part of a conspiracy to

deny and deprive him of his Constitutional

rights,

SIXTEENTH COUNT

52. That the said acts of the defend-

ants irreparably damaged, impaired,

deprived the plaintiff's Constitutional

rights and remedies and that the said acts

continue in the case of Terner v. Terner

and the plaintiff has no adequate remedy

at law in the Courts of New York State,

A40

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

SEVENTEENTH COUNT

53. That in addition to the flagrant

Constitutional violations, that there were

serious violations of the Canons of

Judicial Ethics and flagrantly unethical

professional conduct all of which contribu-

ted to the denial of plaintiff's Consti-

tutional rights including the Fourteenth

Amendment.

EIGHTEENTH COUNT

54. Plaintiff alleges that as the

direct consequences and result of the acts

of the defendants hereinabove complained

of, plaintiff suffered serious injuries

both physical and mental, and will in the

future suffer great pain and has sustained

severe nervous shock with resultant

nervous injuries and certain of said

injuries are of a permanent nature.

NINETEENTH COUNT

55. Plaintiff has suffered great humi-

liation and embarrassment; severe injury

to his reputation and business affairs;

A41

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

all of which have required and will

require the expenditures of large sums of

money as and for medical care and treatment

and his attempts to re-establish his

business profits and prestige.

TWENTIETH COUNT

56. Each of the defendants, individu-

ally and in effective concert with the

others, acted under pretense and color of

law in their official and otherwise

capacities, but said acts were without

authorization of law and in abuse of their

powers, and each defendant acted wilfully,

knowingly and with specific intent to

deprive plaintiff William Terner of his

equal protection under the laws and

procedural due process and which rights

are secured to him by Article VI and the

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution

of the United States.

TWENTY-FIRST COUNT

57. By reason of all of the foregoing,

plaintiff has been deprived of a full

A42

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

and fair hearing on the merits and his

rights under the Gonstitution of the

United States have been substantially

infringed and violated.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully

requests judgment against defendants, and

each of them as follows:

l. Granting injunctive relief to

plaintiff and therefore enjoining both

temporarily and permanently any of the

defendants from enforcing or effectuating

any of the orders or judgments entered or

to be entered in the case of Terner v.

Terner, in the Supreme Court, Westchester

County, N.Y.S., Index Number 7920/1970 and

enjoining any further proceedings therein

until the completion of this action.

2. Granting a judgment declaring all

prior proceedings in the said case of

Terner v. Terner null and setting same void

and granting unto plaintiff a new trial in

the above action in a venue outside the

Courts of the State of New York.

3. Granting unto the plaintiff a money

judgment in an amount to be determined by

A43

Appendix I--Amended Complaint

this Court as compensatory damages.

4, Granting unto the plaintiff a money

judgment in an amount to be determined by

this Court as punitive damages,

5. Granting unto the plaintiff reason-

able legal and legal related fees includ-

ing disbursements, together with all Court

costs and expenses,

6. Granting unto the plaintiff such other

other and further relief as the Court may ~

deem proper.

/S/_ WILLIAM TERNER,

WILLIAM TERNER,

Pro Se

575 Madison Avenue

New York, New York

10022

(212) PLaza 9-6700

Dated: New York, New York

December 30, 1975

A44

APPENDIX II

Opinion of + J.

(S.D.N.Y. 1976)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Southern District of New York

75 Civ. 3673 W.K.

WILLIAM TERNER,

Plaintiff,

against

KRAFTCO CORP., MANUFACTURERS HANOVER

TRUST CO. (Transfer Agents for

Kraftco Corp. ), HON. JOHN C. MARBACH,

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

STATE OF NEW YORK, and MILDRED TERNER,

Defendants.

A45

Appendix II--Opinion of Knapp, J.

Appearances:

WILLIAM TERNER, Pro Se

N.Y. State Attorney General,

Attorney for Respondent State Judges

A46

Appendix II--Opinion of Knapp, J.

KNAPP, D.J,

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has

brought this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. $1983, alleging a denial of

due process in various state court pro-

ceedings concerning his divorce from

Mildred Terner. The action is for money

damages and for injunctive relief staying

the state court proceedings. One of the

defendants, Hon. John C. Marbach, Justice

of the New York Supreme Court, moves to

dismiss the complaint for failure to state

facts entitling plaintiff to any relief,

Plaintiff cross moves for leave to file an

amended complaint.

Plaintiff's motion to file an amended

complaint is hereby granted. In sum, the

amended complaint expands the number of

defendants to include seven additional

members of the New York State judiciary,

the co-respondent in the divorce action

and the attorney who represented the ex-

wife, The new factual allegations simi-

larly amplify the underlying claim,

A47

Appendix II--Opinion of Knapp, J.

Justice Marbach argues that the com-

plaint should be dismissed on any of the

following grounds: that judicial immun-

ity protects him from suit, that 81983

was not intended to permit collateral

attack on state court judgment, res

judicata and the Rooker doctrine. Each

of these grounds is inapposite,

Plaintiff has requested an injunctive

relief as well as money damages, and to

that extent the doctrine of judicial

immunity is inapplicable. Law Students

Civil Rights Research Council, Inc, v.

Wadmond (S.D.N.Y. 1969) 299 F.Supp. 117,

affd. 401 U.S. 154 (1970). Other courts

have commented in passing that $1983

should not be used to provide collateral

review of state court judgments, However,

we have found no authority suggesting

that as a matter of law a well-supported

Claim of denial of due process could not

be brought under 81983. Defendant relies

on Pierre v. Jordan (9th Cir. 1964) 333

F.2d 951, where the court found that the

plaintiff‘s primary objective was to

A48

Appendix I[--Opinion of Knapp, J.

obtain collateral review of a state court

decision rather than to obtain redress of

a deprivation of federal rights, Without

being bound by the Ninth Circuit's “pri-

mary objective” analysis, we find that

Terner is earnestly here pursuing such

federal rights as he may have, With re-

spect to defendant's contentions concern-

ing res judicata and Rooker v. Fidelity

Trust Co, (1923) 263 U.S. 413, we simply

observe that plaintiff's essential claim

is the alleged corruption of judicial

officers before whom he appeared. In view

of the ultimate disposition of this mo-

tion, it is unnecessary for us to deter-

mine whether and to what extent such a

Claim is appropriately litigated in state

court,

Plaintiff has applied for a stay of

the state court sequestration order

against him, and in support of that

application he has submitted a detailed

statement of his claim supported by

voluminous documentation of his various

state court proceedings. As a result we

A49

Appendix II--Opinion of Knapp, J.

have an ample record upon which to examine

his claim that he was denied due process

of law, and we have treated defendant's

Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss as a Rule

56 motion for a summary judgment,

Accepting as true all the facts set

forth in plaintiff's four-part affidavit,

we are constrained to conclude that they

do not establish that plaintiff has been

deprived of due process of law or any

other right cognizable under the Consti-

tution of the United States, Plaintiff's

affidavit describes a matrimonial dispute

of exceeding bitterness even by the

standards we have unhappily come to treat

as normal in that type of controversy. As

usual in such situations, each side

accuses the other of perjury and over-

reaching. The claims of the plaintiff in

this federal litigation (the unsuccessful

husband in the state courts) can be

grouped under the following heading (as

nearly as possible in chronological order,

not necessarily in plaintiff's order of

A50

Appendix II --Opinion of Knapp, J.

importance);

a) In the basic divorce action, the

trial judge unreasonably rejected the

husband’s counterclaim of adultery;

b) The court unreasonably and with-

out adequate consideration rejected

various applications for rehearing

and a new trial;

c) The court granted the excessive

allowance to the wife and excessive

counsel fees to her lawyers;

d) Various courts - including the

Appellate Division - unreasonably

refused adjournments to permit him to

substitute new lawyers of his choice;

e) All the foregoing events can be

explained by the circumstances that

the wife's lawyer's friendship with

various judges was so close as to

suggest corruption,

As plaintiff himself appears to real-

ize, it would be almost impossible to

envisage claims (a) through (d) - either

singly or in combination - assuming

constitutional proportions unless the

A51

Appendix II--Opinion of Knapp, J.

facts marshalled under claim (e) were

sufficient to support a charge of official

corruption, Examination of those facts

discloses that they are simply insufficient

to support such a charge. These accusa-

tions boil down to the following: the

wife’s lawyer is in the habit of lavish

entertainment and his parties are fre-

quented by judges, among others; he is on

a first name basis with many judges; the

Governor has appointed him to a committee

to screen candidates for the bench (a

fact which presumably might influence

judges hoping for promotion); and,

finally, that he is known as a political

lawyer with close friends in all segments

of the political system, However, there

is no fact alleged to suggest that the

lawyer ever made a corrupt contribution

to any judge, or that he - with the

Claimed exception of the instant litiga-

tion - ever obtained a judicial decision

to which the law and the facts did not

entitle him,

All in all, the record satisfies us

A5S2

Appendix II--Opinion of Knapp, J.

that plaintiff has alleged no colorable

claim under the Constitution of the

United States. His complaint - as

amended - &s accordingly dismissed.

Since the foregoing considerations in-

validate the complaint as to all defend-

ants, it is dismissed as to all.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: Jarwary 7, 1976

/s/ Whitman Knapp

U.S.D.J.

A5S3

APPENDIX III

Opinion of Second Circuit

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For The Second Circuit

(Argued October 27, 1976..

Decided October 27, 1976)

Docket No, 76-7091

WILLIAM TERNER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

Vv.

HON. JAMES D. HOPKINS, et. al.,

Def endants-Appellees,

Before:

LUMBARD, VAN GRAAFEILAND and BONSAL,

Circuit Judges.

AS4

Appendix iIl--Opinion of Second Circuit

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District of New

York,

This is an appeal from an order of the

District Court granting summary judgment

in favor of the defendants under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56. Appellant, an unhappy, un-

successful litigant in a New York State

matrimonial action, aiieges a conspiracy

among the defendants to deprive him of

equal protection and due process, The

District Court found appellant’s claims

to be conclusory and without factual

support,

We affirm. See Powell v. Workmen's

Compensation Board, 327 F.2d 131, 137

(2d Cir. 1964),

ASS

APPENDIX IV

AFFIDAVIT of Private Investigator John V.

Esposito dated November 7, 1975, which is

the result of extensive investigation

based upon automobile registration plates

recorded on June 22, 1974 on the James

Dempsey estate in Peekskill, New York

during a party. The first AFFIDAVIT was

sworn to by Mr. Esposito on July 26, 1974,

and is contained along with this AFFIDAVIT

in the Joint Appendix pages 55 thru 57.

The AFFIDAVIT comprising APPENDIX IV

is the result of extensive follow up

investigation based upon subject license

plates recorded and is also in Joint

Appendix pages 45 thru 54,

SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN V. ESPOSITO

Dated Novembér 7, 1975

STATE OF NEW YORK )

COUNTY OF ULSTER ) S.S.

TOWN OF MARLBOROUGH )

JOHN V. ESPOSITO, being duly sworn,

deposes and says,

I am employed as President of Intra-

AS6

Appendix IV--Affidavit of John V. Esposito

State Investigation Services, Inc., a New

York State licensed private investigation

firm located at Old Court House Building,

Marlboro, New York.

On June 22, 1974, I was parked on

Crompond Road, Peekskill, New York in the

vicinity of the James Dempsey estate, with

William Bomba, an investigator also em-

ployed by Intra-State Investigation Ser-

vices, Inc.

I observed that a large tent was

erected an a portion of the Dempsey estate

which was partially screened from my view

by trees and hedges.

Between the hours of 4:40 p.m. and

8:00 p.m., vehicles bearing the following

listed New York State registration plates

were observed parking on the street near

the entrance to the Dempsey estate and

entering and leaving the property.

(#1. ) JSC-9

(#2. ) USJ-8

(#3.) JSC-269

(#10, a 38

(#11.

(#12. ) EMA

2 & HSL«

~) VW

(#28. ) 60-VVx

(#29, )399-PLP

(#30, )404-NRC

(#37. )238-WTQ

(#38. )274-YKC

(#4.) JSC-193

(#5. ) JSC-220

(#6.) FCJ-96

(#13. on

(#14, ) MFG-6

(#15. ) CHW

(#22. ) MJ-399

(#23. ) MAC-18

(#24. ) 63-PUP

(#31. )982-VVB

og Aen

(#33. 914-QTK

(#40, )430-OGT

(#41. )289-KZU

(#7.) JSC-174

(#8. ) SCJ-36

(#9. ) JSC-237

(#16. » ae 3 -34

(#17. )RAE-34

(#18, ) CD-87

) R

)

(#25.

(#26. SO-RC

(#27. ) TD-22

(#34, )MD36976

(#35, )282-WIN

(#36, )290-ALB

(#43. )193-RJS

(#44, )890-WKM

AS7

Appendix Iv--Affidavit of John V. Esposito

(#39, )303-YKD

(#46, )140-DFO

(#47, )383-RTQ

(#48, )323-WPZ

(#55. )193-NQB

(#56. )561-PUQ

(#57. )512-BCR

(#64, )809-WPC

(#65. )212-QAZ

(#66. )740-YUH

On June 24,

(#42. )627-KSW

(#49, )120-YKF

(#50. ) 645-KFG

(#51. )FC-1128

(#58. )595-WKK

(#60, )542-ZGI

(#67. )129-PKM

(#68, )345-PKH

(#69, )281-WJU

(#45. )614-WHY

(#52. )941-TAF

(#53. )334-PUY

(#54, )95-KYX

(#61. )754-KZD

(#62. )486-OFC

(#63. )164-DHX

(#70, )924-PKF

Ore Someas

(#72. )JD-21

1974, I started preliminary

investigation and subsequently learned some

of the names of the persons to whom the

license plate registrations were issued.

Those names are as follows:

(#1.) JSC-9, Appellate Division -- James

D. Hopkins, 9 Sterling Road, Armonk,N.Y.

(#2. ) USJ-8 -- David N, Edelstein, 1040

Park Avenue, New York, N.Y.

(#3. ) JSC-269 -- Robert J. Trainor, 50

Overlook Avenue,

Eastchester, N.Y.

(#4, ) JSC-193 -- Leonard Rubenfeld, 400

‘Nelson Avenue, Peekskill, N.Y.

(#5. ) JSC-220 -- George Beisheim, Jr.,

31 Iroquois Road, Ossining, N.Y.

(#6, ) FCJ-96 -- Vincent Gurahian, RFD

#2, MacAuley Road, Katonah, N.Y.

A58

Appendix IV--Affidavit of John V. Esposito

(#7. ) JSC-174 -- Morrie Slifkin, 45

Rosehill Avenue, Tarrytown, N.Y.

(#8. ) SCJ-36 -- Raymond C, Baratta, 30

Thornwood Drive, Poughkeepsie, N.Y.

(#9, ) JSC-237 -- Ann T. Mikoll, 35

Burke Drive, Buffalo, N.Y.

(#10. ) 59 -- Dorothea E, Donaldson,

65 Brookside Place, New Rochelle, N.Y.

(#11,.) WP-13 -- Evans V. Brewster, 26

Harvard Court, White Plains, N.Y.

(#12. ) EMA -- Emery M,. Anderson, 22

Chedworth Road, Scarsdale, N.Y.

(#13.) 17 (N.Y.) += New York State Sen-

ator Bernard G. Gordon, Chairman of the

State Judiciary Committee, office 1019

Park St., Peekskill, N.Y. (initial in-

formation had been confused with New

York 17 which was an official car of

N.Y.S. Dept. of Agric. and Markets).

(#14, ) MFG-6 -- Mary F. Gagliardi, 207

Larchmont Avenue, Larchmont, N.Y. (not

determined if connected with Judge

Gagliardi).

(#15. ) CHW -- Charles H, Wackerle, 793

Merchants Road, Rochester, N.Y.

(#16. ) FRR-34 -- Identification of

ownership not retrievable from the

Motor Vehicle Bureau at this time,

AS9

Appendix IvV--Affidavit of John V. Esposito

(#17. ) RAE-34 -- Identification of own-

ership not retrievable from the Motor

Vehicle Bureau at this time,

(#18) CD-87 -- Calvin D. Dale, 1399

Longview Avenue, Peekskill, N.Y.

(#19, ) HSL-7 -- Transportation, 1133

York Avenue, New York, N.Y.

(#20, ) VV=8 -- George Fanelli, 30

Clinton Place, New Rochelle, N.Y. (be-

lieved to be a Judge George Fanelli).

(#21. ) 30-MN -- Mildred Nacke, 308

Ringgold Street, Peekskill, N.Y.

(#22. ) MJ-399 -- (New Plate #479MMB)

Walter P, Hempfling, 476 Glen Ellyn

Way, Rochester, N.Y.

(#23. ) MAC-18 -- Leroy A. Camp, 950

Phoenix Avenue, Peekskill, N.Y.

(#24, ) 63-PUP -- William McDonald, 17

Crescent Court, Peekskill, N.Y.

(#25. ) RHH -- Samuel B, Hickman, North

Lake Boulevard, Mahopac, N.Y.

(#26, ) 50-RC e@ William R, Sichol, 10

Viola Road, Suffern, N.Y.

(#27, ) TD-22 -- Diana Bwyer, Box #214,

Orchard Road, Mahopac, N.Y.

(#28, ) 60-VVX oo George Longwell, 1234

Brook Street, Peekskill, N.Y.

A60

Appendix [V--Affidavit of John V. Esposito

(#29. ) 399-PLP -- Identification of

ownership not retrievable from Motor

Vehicle Bureau at this time,

(#30. ) 404-NRC -- County Trust Company,

235 Main Street, White Plains, N.Y.

(#31. ) 982-VVB -- The County Trust Com-

pany, 64 North Broadway, Tarrytown, N.Y.

(#32. ) 577-WPP -- County Trust Company,

235 Main Street, White Plains, N.Y.

(#33, )} 914-QTK «= Pace College, 41 Park

Row, New York, N.Y.

(#34. ) (MD)-36976 -- Stuart S. Pines,

12 Dorsey Drive, Peekskill, N.Y.

(#35. ) 282-WIN -- Firemans Fund Insur-

ance Co,, 1 North Broadway, White

Plains, N.Y.

(#36. ) 290-ALB -- Thomas R. Ryan, 929

Phoenix Avenue, Peekskill, N.Y.

(#37, ) 238-WIQ -- Antonio Santoiemma,

601 Roosevelt Avenue, Peekskill, N.Y.

(#38. ) 274-YKC -- Lawrence A, Behrman,

107 Bannon Avenue, Buchanan, N.Y.

(#39. ) 303-YKD -- Joseph Sint, 20

Bonnie Meadows, Scarsdale, N.Y.

(#40. ) 430-OGT -- Pat Crisipi, 61

South Main Street, New City, N.Y.

A61

Appendix IV --Affidavit of John V, Esposito

(#41, ) 289-KZU -- John J. Harm, RFD, 3

Highland Drive, Peekskill, N.Y.

(#42, ) 627+KSW -- Guardsman Lease Plan,

80 Sherwood Avenue, Farmingdale, N.Y.

(#43, ) 193-RJS -- Wilbert Queen, 1849

Sedgwick Avenue, Bronx, N.Y.

(#44, ) 890-WKM -- Denise Hein, 198

Richard Court, Pamona, N.Y. (Plate

surrendered 4/9/74, )

(#45, ) 614-WHY -- Evelyn B, Stewart,

2401 Pine Grove Court, Yorktown

Heights, N.Y.

(#46, ) 140-DFO -- Ruth Moschiano, 130

Hudson Avenue, Peekskill, N.Y.

Bergelund Avenue, Staten Island, N.Y.

(#48, ) 323-WPZ -- Lawrence Marro, Jr.,

RFD 8 Brookside Avenue, Peekskill, N.Y.

(#49, ) 120-YKF -- O'Neil J. Kelly,

Woodmont Road, Hopewell Junction, N.Y.

(#50, ) 645-KFG -- Leroy Earle, 40 Clyde

Avenue, Hempstead, N.Y.

(#51. ) FC-1128 --(New plate 784-PUA)

(Plate Surrendered 6/22/73) Frank Cole-

man, Oregon Corner, Putnam Valley, N.Y.

A62

Appendix IV--Affidavit of John V. Esposito

(#52. ) 941-TAF -- Joseph L. Gerneck,

Box 141, Seymart Place, Mohegan Lake,

N.Y.

(#53. ) 334-PUY -- Kevin B. O'Connor,

Strawberry Road, Lake Mohegan, N.Y.

(#54. ) 95-KYX -- Edward F, Melville,

Strawberry Road, Mohegan Lake, N.Y.

(#55. ) 193-NQB -- Henry Fernandez, 2

Soundview Avenue, White Plains, N.Y.

(#56. ) 561-PUQ -- Serge P. Hermann,

Indian Brook Road, Garrison, N.Y.

(#57, ) 512-BCR -- Nancy Dubovsky, 433

Arcady Road, Ossining, N.Y.

(#58. ) 595-WKK -- Alexander Weir, 36

Sterling Avenue, Harrison, N.Y.

(#59, ) 477-WPJ -- John P, Brophy, 352

Union Avenue, Peekskill, N.Y.

(#60, ) 542-ZGI -- National Car Rental,

CE Hancock Airport, Syracuse, N.Y.

(#61. ) 754-KZD -- Murray Halperin, 18

Conklin Avenue, Peekskill, N.Y.

(#62. ) 486-OFC -- James A. Shampine,

304 Lyman Avenue, Fulton, N.Y.

(#63. ) 164-DHX -- Ruth H. Borbely, 806

Oakwood Drive, Peekskill, N.Y.

(#64, ) 809-WPC -- Andrew R,. Kansky, Apt.

5L, Rolling Way, Peekskill, N.Y.

A63

Appendix IV--Affidavit of John V. Esposito

(#65. ) 212-QAZ -- Carol A. Shann, 87-14

80th Street, Woodhaven, N.Y.

(#66. ) 740-YUH <- Jack A. Somers, 19

Stuyvesant Oval, New York, N.Y.

(#67. ) 129=PKM oe Barbara A. Burke, 12

Whittier Avenue, Peekskill, N.Y.

(#68, ) 345-PKH eo Ralph A. Hermesch, 64

Montrose Point Road, Montrose, N.Y.

(#69, ) 281-WJU -- Dolores N, Davis,

College Hill Road, Montrose, N.Y.

(#70, ) 924-PKF -- Walter D, Henneke,

2731 Quaker Road, Yorktown Heights, N.Y.

(#71.) W19 -- (New Plate #494KZG)

(Plate change 10/24/73). David C. Dem-

psey, 109 West Lake Drive, Valhalla,

oY.

(#72. ) JD-21 -- James Dempsey -- Crom-

pond Road, Peekskill, N.Y.

Occupations of the owners of record are

being researched through various sources,

Some of those now available are listed

here:

(#1. ) JSC-9 Appellate Division, James

D. Hopkins, Associate Justice --

Appellate Division, Second Judicial

Department; Judge -- Supreme Court,

Ninth Judicial District.

(#2,) USJ-8 David N, Edelstein, Chief

Judge -~- Southern District, U.S.

A64

Appendix IV--Affidavit of John V. Esposito

District Court.

(#3. ) JSC-269 -- Robert J. Trainor,

Judge -- Second Department,

(#4, ) JSC-193 -- Leonard Rubenfeld,

Judge -- Ninth Judicial District.

(#5. ) JSC-220 -- George Beisheim, Jr.,

Judge -- Ninth Judicial District.

(#6. ) FCJ-96 -- Vincent Gurahian,

Judge -- Family Court, Westchester

County.

(#7.) JSC-174 -- Morrie Slifkin,

Judge -- Ninth Judicial District.

(#8. ) SCJ-36 -- Raymond C, Baratta,

Judge -- Surrogate, Dutchess County.

(#9. ) JSC-237 -- Ann T. Mikoll, Judge --

Eighth Judicial District.

(#10. ) 59 -- Dorothea Donaldson, Judge --

New York State Court of Claims,

(#11. ) WP-13 -- Evans V. Brewster,

Judge -- Surrogate, Westchester County.

(#12. ) EMA -- Emery M, Anderson,

Chairman -- Supreme Court Library,

White Plains, N.Y.

(#20. ) VV-8 -- George Fanelli -- be-

lieved to be Judge, Ninth Judicial

District,

A65

Appendix IV--Affidavit of John V. Esposito

Most of the automobiles contained, in

addition to the driver, three or four

additional passengers. Therefore, consid-

erably more guests were in attendance than

would be reflected by merely the count of

actual automobiles. The identity of the

guests in the category of “passengers” are

presently unknown, as are certain other

guests who may have arrived or left before

the surveillance started and after the

time of surveillance ended.

Some of the license plates appear to

have unidentifiable ownerships. There

exists in certain special circumstances

involving high Government officials, a

special courtesy extended to these offi-

cials by the Motor Vehicle Bureau which

does not require ownership identification

which could be traceable to registration

plates, There is some possibility that

certain unidentifiable registration plates

fall into this category but this cannot be

stated as a certainty now,

There appeared to be considerable help

required in connection with this large

party, and since some of the above stated

license plates were on older and less ex-

pensive automobiles, the possibility that

this list includes at least some of the

help attending to this affair is probable.

Voluminous and ongoing research had to

be resorted to in order to develop above

information, Ongoing research is still

now underway by both my office as well as

another private investigative agency co-

operating with me, Fidelifacts, 25 Broad

Street, New York, New York. We have had

a noted lack of cooperation in many efforts

A66

Appendix IV--Affidavit of John V. Esposito

to determine the ownership of certain of

the registration plates including some

rental companies and the motivation for

such lack of cooperation ts undetermined

at this time, It is suggested that Court

subpoena powers be invoked in those cases,

This affidavit is updated from my

original affidavit on this same subject

sworn to on the 26th day of July, 1974,

which consisted of the best information

available at that time,

I have read the foregoing statements

consisting of ten (10) pages and it is

true and correct to the best of my know-

ledge and belief,

Ls/_ John V, Esposito

JOHN V. ESPOSITO,

President

Sworn to before me this

7th day of November, 1975

Notary Public

= 3 B

A67

APPENDIX V

APPELLATE DEPARTMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Order on Appeal

from Order

At a Term of the Appellate Department

of the Supreme Court, of the State

of New York, Second Judicial Depart-

ment, held in Kings County on

April 15, 1974,

HON. JAMES D. HOPKINS ) Acting Presiding

HON, HENRY J, LATHAM ' Justice

HON, J. IRWIN SHAPIRO

HON, ARTHUR D. BRENNAN Associate Justices

HON, FRED J. MUNDER

Mildred Terner,

Respondent,

Order on

v. Appeal

> from

William Terner, Order

Appellant.

A68

APPENDIX V -- Order of Appellate Department

In the above entitled cause, the above

named William Terner, defendant,

having appealed to this court from an

order of the Supreme Court, West-

chester county, dated May 31, 1973,

which, inter alia, denied his motion for

a new trial on the grounds of newly dis-

covered evidence and alleged trial

irregularities;

and the said appeal having been argued

by Donald Frank, Esq. of counsel for

the appellant, and argued by James

Dempsey, Esq., Of counsel for the

respondent, and due deliberation having

been had thereon: and upon this court's

decision slip heretofore filed and made a

part hereof, it is:

ORDERED that the order appealed from is

hereby unanimously affirmed, with

$23.00 costs and disbursements.

Enter: IRVING N. SELKIN

Clerk of the Appellate Division

A69

APPENDIX VI

SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK

SPECIAL TERM, PART WESTCHESTER COUNTY

SHORT FORM ORDER

Present:

Hon, .«e«e«+LEONARD RUBENFELD....ccece

Justice,

MILDRED TERNER,

Plaintiff,

-- against --

WILLIAM TERNER,

Defendant,

Index

Number. 0.002 279779, od ., ee

Motion

|) \< PPPrererereerrrrerrrrrr |,

Motion

Cal, PEP co ceoesceoeeeecoesce

Trial

Cal. ee

A70 .

Appendix Vi--Hon, Leonard Rubenfeld Order

The following papers numbered 1 COrereces

read on this motion ,by Plaintiff for an.

order of sequestration and for related

relief

Notice of Motion/ Papers

Order to Show Cause - Numbered

Es ik ei casecceuntel eece

Answering e

Terres S.A

Replying 4<5

Af TidavitsS.cccccccccccccccccedccecececes

Filed PaPETSeccccccccccccccece

’

SEESEETE Be ccccsocevesegeocoeses

Pleadings-Exhibits-

Stipulations-Minutes...cccccesececeece

Upon the foregoing papers it is ordered

that this motion shall be set down for a

hearing on the issues of the amount of the

alleged arrears and plaintiff's alleged

delay of the sale of the marital home, and

for determination, upon the filing of a

note of issue, payment of appropriate fees

and the service of a copy of the note of

issue and of this order upon the Clerk of

Special Term, Part V.

The defense predicated on 8248 of the

Domestic Relations Law is dismissed for

failure to supply sufficient factual sup-

port to warrant a hearing on the issue,

A71

Appendix VI--Hon, Leonard Rubenfeld Order

Sept. 3, 1975

‘Datedecccccecesvcccos Entered. ccccccccce

Je S. Ce

Briefs: Plaintiffs - Defendants -

Petitioners - Respondents -

A72

Letter From Congressman Peter W,. Rodino,

Chairman, Committee on the Judictary

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

Telephone: 202-225-3951

Other Congressional Counsel and Staff

MembersS.-cececes MemberSe.cecececes

August 13, 1976

Mr. William Terner

575 Madison Avenue

Room 1006

New York, New York 10022

Dear Mr. Terner:

Thank you for your letter of July 31

and the accompanying materials. Public

input is an integral aspect of the proper

functioning of government; necessary both

to the operation of a responsive and ef-

ficient government as well as to insuring

the public's confidence. I commend you

for your efforts in this regard.

An nonorable judiciary is indispensable

to justice in our society. Your concerns

with respect to the issue of judicial

A73 .

Appendix VII--Letter from Congressman

Peter W. Rodino

reform are shared by many interested lay-

men, dedicated and capable members of the

Bar, members of the Bench, legislators and

legal scholars. Reform in government is

very often a slow process, However, it is

also true that our system of government

does work, As recently as December of

1974, the Federal statute was amended to

substantially expand the grounds for which

a justice or judge might be disqualified

for bias. (See, Title 28 United States

Code, section 455). And continuous efforts

are being made to improve the Federal sys-

tem and insure its future betterment, I

feel confident that as concerns are made

pub.ic, government, at the Federal and

State levels, will become more responsive,

Again, thank you for expressing your

concerns and making available to the

Committee on the Judiciary materials that

might aid us in our efforts to maintain

the public's confidence in the integrity

of the judicial system,

With best regards,

Sincerely,

/S/ Peter W. Rodino, Jr,

PETER W. RODINO, JR.

Chairman

PWR/t1b

A74

APPENDIX VIII

APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME

TO FILE WRIT OF CERTIORARI

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

WILLIAM TERNER, Pro Se,

Petitioner,

against

Hon, JAMES D. HOPKINS, Justice of the

Appellate Div. of the State of N.Y.; Hon,

LEONARD RUBENFELD, J.S.C. of the State of

N.Y.s JAMES DEMPSEY, Esq.: Hon. ALVIN R,.

RUSKIN, J.S.C. of the State of N.Y.; Hon,

HAROLD L. WOOD, J.S.C. of the State of

N.Y.t N.Y. State Sen. BERNARD G. GORDON,

Chairman, N.Y.S. Judiciary Comm,; Hon,

MARTIN B. STECHER, J.S.C. of the State of

N.Y.s Hon, WM, A. WALSH, JR., J.S.C. of

the State of N.Y.s; JERALD S. KALTER, M.D.3

Hon, JOHN C. MARBACH, J.S.C. of the State

of N.Y.s MILDRED TERNER; KRAFTCO CORP.,

and MFG, HANOVER TRUST CO. (Transfer

Agents for Kraftco Corp.),

Defendants.

ane ck nn ona od

A75

Appendix VIII-Application to Extend Time

STATE OF NEW YORK )

5 ) SS.3

COUNTY OF NEW YORK)

WILLIAM TERNER, being duly sworn, de-

poses and says:

I am the petitioner in the above en-

titled action, This is the only applica-

tion that I have made to this Court to

request an extension of time to file a

writ of certiorari, The due date now is

January 25, 1977, I respectfully request

an extension to file my writ of certiorari

to February 14, 1977, a period of twenty-

one additional days.

There are two basic reasons why I have

been unable to file on time:

1. I am preparing subject writ pro

se (and I am not an attorney).

I have already devoted many

dozens of hours preparing same

and require the additional

twenty-one days to complete and

finalize the draft and print

same in accordance with the

rules of this Court. Attached

hereto as Exhibit I are five

A76

Appendix VIII-Application to Extend Time

pages from the draft of my pro-

posed writ to document that I

have been devoting a maximum

effort to complete same,

2. My present health is not good

due to what my physician at-

tributes to Court related

pressures spanning a period of

seven years which has seriously

elevated my blood pressure,

Attached hereto as Exhibit II

is a recent letter to me from

my physician attesting to the

state of my health,

Subject writ is concerned with possibly

overturning judgments adverse to me by the

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

SECOND CIRCUIT and by the UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW

YORK. The two subject judgments are

attached hereto to comprise Exhibit III.

The issues to be presented to this

Court concern judicial misconduct by cer-

tain State judges in concert with others

which I assert have clearly deprived me

of my Constitutional rights in New York

State.

A77

AppendixVIII-Application to Extend Time

The facts are documented to the Court

below and will be re-submitted to this

Court if I am afforded the opportunity of

submitting subject writ and if subject

writ is deemed worthy enough to warrant a

full review of the merits of subject

litigation by this Court,

The essence of my allegations consist of

literally dozens of serious Court irregu-

larities which were never once disputed by

my adversaries, These include the undis-

puted fact that certain New York State

judges were presiding in my matters that

involved interested parties with whom said

judges had had a personal and social re-

lationship while not disclosing this fact

beforehand to afford to me the option of

requesting a judge not having a social and

personal relationship with my adversary

attorney nor did subject judges disqualify

themselves. This is flagrant abuse of the

Canons of Judicial Ethics and I so charged

in my argument to the UNITED STATES COURT

OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.

Despite the summary (adverse -- to me --)

opinion rendered by that Court, it is a

fact that both Judge Lumbard and Judge

A78

AppendixVIII-Application to Extend Time

Van Graafeiland revealed in open Court to

having had some degree of a personal re-

lationship with my adversary attorney in

the New York State Courts who was present

as well as an attorney who was assisting

me at that time in Court. I stated to.

that Second Circuit Court that all I asked

for in the New York State Courts was the

same disclosure and emphasized the point

by stating that if a juror refused to

disclose a personal and social relation-

ship with one of the litigating parties,

that that juror would be subject to serious

criminal prosecution, A layman sitting on

a jury might resort to an excuse of

“ignorance of the law.” A judge can make

no such claim and I so stated to that

Second Circuit tribunal,

I have contacted cabinet officials whose

responsibilities would encompass concern

with such flagrant abuses by State Court

judges, as well as the media. Their re-

sponse in general was in support of my

position that certain State Court judges

were abusing the powers of their office.

In fact, the Chairman of the House

Judiciary Committee responded with a letter

A79

AppendiWIII -Application to Extend Time

citing certain Federal statutes which re-

quire “full disclosure” by a judge and

this is over and above any compliance with

the Canons of Judicial Ethics, which I

understand all judges are subject to con-

form to, I utilized those Federal Codes

in my reply brief submitted to the SECOND

CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS and they are a

1974 addition to the Federal Judicial

Code, 28 U.S.C.A. 455 (supp. 1976) which

provides in (a) that any judge “shall

disqualify himself in any proceeding in

which his partiality might be questioned;

and then adds in (e) that “Waiver may be

accepted provided it is preceded by a

full disclosure on the record of the basis

for disqualification.” In practice, they

do not conform and evidently this practice

is so widespread that it is now accepted

as “normal operating procedure” in certain

State Courts.

There is also an apparent pattern for

the “judiciary” to protect the “judiciary”

and a full airing of this matter will

document that this does indeed exist and

is widespread.

I abhor the underlying inference by

A80

AppendixVIII-Application to Extend Time

some that I am merely a “sore loser.” In

my Federal Court action there was not one

single reference made to re-trying any of

the merits of the case, but rather focus

was exclusively attentioned upon Court

irregularities. Prior to my having been

“whip-sawed” for seven years by certain

segments of the New York State Courts --

I was a man in excellent health, enjoying

the financial fruits of a lifetime of

diligent work including a tenure as one

of the senior officers of one of our

Country's largest corporations.

I do not believe it right for some

State Courts to be used for what I docu-

ment has been “legalized grand larceny.”

Not once did my adversaries dispute even

a single one of my serious charges against

them documented by either third party

affidavits, Court minutes, and other Court

records. |

It appears that it would be more

convenient for those utilizing our Courts

as “their own private country club” to

sweep this matter under the rug as was

attempted in Watergate,

A81

AppendixVIII-Application to Extend Time

I ask this Court for my day in this

Court to which I feel fully entitled to

request based upon the merits of the

facts presented and to be presented.

I respectfully request that this Court

grant my application for an additional

twenty-one days in order to afford to me

the opportunity to properly present the

facts for your consideration both for my

own interests as well as for the interest

of countless millions of other citizens

who up to now have had to “grin and bear

it.”

Another major point of my case which

effects all citizens of our Country is

that the present Internal Revenue Service

business: codes permit lawyers entertaining

judges to deduct those expenses when com-

puting income taxes, My adversary attorney

in the New York State Courts has been in

the habit of lavishly entertaining judges

at circus tent extravaganzas and this is

documented via third party affidavits.

Some of those judges presided over my

cases without ever disclosing their

relationship with their host-attorney in

open Court as is required by the Canons of

A82

AppendixVIII-Application to Extend Time

Judicial Ethics. At present, the IRS is

an innocent partner in promoting judicial

favoritism by virtue of the entertained

judges and their families, They could be

beholden to a standard of living they

could not normally afford on a judges

present salary. In effect, additional tax

burdens are shifted to millions of other

unwitting citizens like myself who might

have been indeed paying for our own ad-

verse decisions. Government regulations

clearly forbid Pentagon officials from

accepting entertainment from potential

Government contractors. Actually, those

Pentagon officials are “judges” determin-

ing the merits of one contractor's pro-

duct as compared to another, Is it too

much to ask that an ordinary citizen like

myself, relying upon the equal justice

guaranteed by our Constitution, be

afforded the same even-handed judicial

assessments as required by our Pentagon

purchasing personnel?

Practical justice can be far different

from theoretical justice and this Court

finally eliminated the poll tax which

converted a theoretical Constitutional

A83

AppendixVIII-Application to Extend Time

right to an actual Constitutional right.

As Federal Judge Clark explained in

In Re Sacher, 306 F. 2d 358, 365 (2d Cir.

1953)(dissenting opinion), rev'd sub, nom,

Sach Oo on of the r s‘n,

347 U.S. 388 (1954): "For our courts should

be, like Caesar's wife, above suspicion, ”

I beseech this Court to act in a positive

way to discourage practices of attorneys

and judges circumventing true justice by

whatever their method no matter how subtly

contrived, I ask this Court to help the

judges of the State of New York and per-

haps state judges throughout the Country

to be, like Caesar's wife, above

suspicion,

Respectfully submitted,

/S/ WILLIAM TERNER

WILLIAM TERNER, Pro Se

575 Madison Avenue (Room 1006)

New York, New York 10022

A84

AppendixVIII-Application to Extend Time

I, WILLIAM TERNER, hereby certify that

I mailed a copy of the foregoing APPLICA-

TION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE to:

LOUIS J. LEFKOWITZ, Attorney General

of the State of N.Y.

Attorney for Appellees State Judges

Two World Trade Center, New York, New

York 10047

Att: SAMUEL A. HIRSCHOWITZ, First

Assistant Attorney General

ROBERT S. HAMMER, Of Counsel, Assist-

ant Attorney General

James Dempsey, Esq., Dempsey and

Spring, P.C.

175 Main Street, White Plains, N.Y.

10601

N.Y.S. Sen, Bernard G. Gordon (Chairman

N.Y.S. Judiciary Comn, )

1019 Park Street, Peekskill, N.Y. 10566

Jerald S. Kalter, M.D.

130 East 67th Street, New York, N.Y.

10021

—.

A85

AppendiwIII-Application to Extend Time

James Dempsey, Esq., Dempsey and

Spring, P.C.

Attorney for Appellee Mildred Terner,

now known as Mrs. Jerald Kalter

175 Main Street, White Plains, N.Y.

10601

Sullivan and Cromwell, Attorneys for

Appellee Kraftco Corp.

48 Wall Street, New York, New York

10005

Att: Marvin Schwartz, Of Counsel

Barbara A. Mentz, Of Counsel

Kelley Drye and Warren, Attorneys for

Appellee Manufacturers Hanover Trust

Company

350 Park Avenue, New York, New York

10022

Att: Richard J. Concannon, Of Counsel

Charles Pou, Jr., Of Counsel

WILLIAM TERNER

AppendixVIII-Application to Extend Time

A86

“EXHIBIT I”

APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME

TO FILE WRIT OF CERTIORARI

AND AFFIDAVIT

DRAFT

Pages In Writ of Certiorart

Title Page.

Page 38,

Page 5.

Page I -- TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 44,

A87

AppendiwIII-Application to Extend Time

“EXHIBIT II”

MICHAEL S. BRUNO, M. D,

535 Park Avenue

New York, N. Y. 10021

TEmpleton 6-3155

October 21, 1976

Mr. William Terner

575 Madison Avenue (Room 1006)

New York, New York 10022

Dear Bills

There has been no improvement in your high

blood pressure problem because you are

still being subjected to great personal

stress,

I have repeatedly warned you in the past

that you are a prime stroke candidate,

You must remove yourself from all condi-

tions of stress to reduce this almost

certain likelihood of a stroke, Your

reluctance to comply with my previous

instructions to take a long rest away from

pressures of any kind is making it ex-

tremely difficult or perhaps even impos-

sible to at least partially repair the

extensive damage already suffered by your

system,

A88

AppendixVIII-Application to Extend Time

MSB/ je

Sincerely,

/S/ MICHAEL S. BRUNO, M.D.

Michael S, Bruno, M.D.

Director, Department of Medicine

President of the Medical Board

Lenox Hill Hospital

A89

Appendix VIIEApplication to Extend Time

“EXHIBIT III"

1. Memorandum and Order of District

Judge Whitman Knapp, contained

here as APPENDIX II, A44-52.

2. Opinion of Second Circuit, UNITED

STATES COURT OF APPEALS, contained

here as APPENDIX III, A53-54.

A90

. APPENDIX IX

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR

WRIT OF CERTIORARI

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

NO. 4-608

WILLIAM TERNER,

Petitioner,

Vv.

HON, JAMES D. HOPKINS, ET AL.

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR

WRIT OF CERTIORARI

UPON CONSIDERATION of the application

of counsel for petitioner{g),

IT IS ORDERED that the time for filing

a petition for writ of certiorari in the

above-entitled case be, and the same is

hereby, extended to and including

February 14 » 1977_, without pre-

judice to the Court's consideration of

whether this application has been filed

A91

Appendix IX---Order Extending Time To File

Petition For Writ of Certiorari

in time,

3 ood Mar 1

Associate Justice of

the Supreme Court of

the United States

Dated this 27th

day of January > 10EZ.,

A92

APP eae

Reason For Application To Extend Time To

Submit Writ of Certiorari Being Late By

32 minutes

Eastern Airlines gave erroneous shuttle

flight information to petitioner upon which

petitioner relied to permit the submission

of his Application to Extend by three weeks

the time to submit subject writ to this

Court,

The information originally given to

petitioner by Eastern provided for a safe

time margin for unforseen contingencies,

Petitioner advised and personally met

with Eastern'’s Supervisor of Air Shuttle

Services, Mr. Frank J. Horn at LaGuardia

Airport in New York City. Mr. Horn ack-

nowledged Eastern's error which confused

the LaGuardia to Boston Shuttle with the

LaGuardia to Washington National Airport

shuttle, Mr. Horn was advised by peti-

tioner of the serious implications of

Eastern‘’s error and Mr. Horn arranged for

a special light aircraft to fly petitioner

to the Washington, D.C. National Airport

in the hopes of making the midnight dead-

line, Eastern also arranged for a car to

be waiting for petitioner at National Air-

port, at their expense, in order to expe-

dite the submission of subject papers.

The charter service contacted by Eastern

through Butler Aircraft was Sound Air

Aviation, They flew a plane into LaGuardia

from MacArthur Airport in Ronkonkoma, Long

Island, New York, to pick up petitioner

and fly him to National Airport.

ok ee ST

A93

Appendix X--«-

The names and addresses of the parties

involved are as follows:

Frank J, Horn, Supervisor, Air Shuttle

Services, Eastern Airlines, La-

Guardia Airport, Flushing, New York

113713; Telephone: (212) 476-4698

Sound Air Aviation, Hangar “A"“, Mac-

Arthur Airport, Ronkonkoma, N.Y.

11779; Telephone: (212) 476-0200

Name of pilot: Peter W, Theisen

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.