JURISDICTION

Article II, Section 8. Waiver of immunity from liability.
The state hereby waives its immunity from liability and action and hereby assumes liability and consents to have the same determined in accordance with the same rules of law as applied to actions in the Supreme Court against individuals or corporations, provided the claimant complies with the limitations of this article.

Article II, Sec 8-b. Claims for unjust conviction and imprisonment.

1. The legislature finds and declares that innocent persons who have been wrongly convicted of crimes and, subsequently, imprisoned have been frustrated in seeking legal redress due to a variety of substantive and technical obstacles in the law. Such persons should have an available avenue of redress over and above the existing tort remedies to seek compensation for damages. The legislature intends, by the enactment of the provisions of this section, that those innocent persons, who can demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that they were unjustly convicted and imprisoned be able to recover damages against the state.

FAKE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE
For the First Cause of Action

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

(2)  That claimant is not an attorney or counselor at law.

(3)  That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant herein was and still is a domestic state corporation, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

(4)  That heretofore and on the 4th day of May 2017, a notice of claim together with a notice to sue was duly served upon the defendant.

(5)  That the notice of claim and notice of intention to sue was duly served        upon the defendant within 90 days after the cause of action of the claimant accrued.

(6)  That more than 30 days have elapsed since the service of the notice of claim and notice of intention to sue upon the defendant.

(7)  That the defendant and its comptroller have failed, neglected, and refused to pay, settle, compromise, or adjust the claim of the claimant herein.

(8) That the claimant has duly submitted to an inquiry concerning the justness of his claim on the 6th day of October 2017.

(9)  That this action has been commenced within one year and 90 days after the cause of action of claimant accrued.

(10)  That claimant has duly complied with all of the conditions precedent to the commencement of this action.

(11)  Upon information and belief, that at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant employed the Assistant Attorney Generals, warrant officers, policemen, jailers, warden, magistrates, court attendants, clerks, corporation counsel and [his/her] assistants, drivers, and others hereinafter mentioned in this complaint.

(12)  That on or about February 2007, claimant was arrested pursuant to a void warrant, the warrant not having been issued as required by law.

(13)  That on or about August 2008, claimant was arrested pursuant to a void warrant, the warrant not having been issued as required by law.

(14)  That on or about November 2011, claimant was arrested pursuant to a void warrant, the warrant not having been issued as required by law.

(15)  That on or about October 2016, claimant was arrested pursuant to a void warrant, the warrant not having been issued as required by law.

(16)  That a court without jurisdiction tried and convicted the claimant without probable cause on February 9, 2007; August 2008; November 2011; October 2016; February 16, 2017.

(17)  That the commitment was void on its face.

(18)  That wide publicity was given claimant’s conviction and sentence in every New York newspaper and television station.

(19)  That claimant was kept in jail for almost four (4) months.

(20) That a result of the false arrest and illegal imprisonment that the claimant suffered, claimant’s health was impaired, claimant suffered great mental distress, his reputation and character were injured, his earning power was permanently impaired, large sums of money were expended by the claimant in his defense, all to the defendant’s damage in an amount to be determined upon the trial of this action.

(21)  That as result of the intentional infliction of emotional distress “(a) extreme and outrageous conduct; (b) intent to cause, or disregard of a substantial probability of causing, severe emotional distress; (c) connection between the conduct and injury; and (d) severe emotional distress” the claimant inflicted with emotional distress.  Capellupo v Nassau Health Care Corp., __ AD2d ___, ___ NYS2d ___, 2012 WL 2819354, *4 (2d Dept 2012). The tort arises from conduct which is “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, the claimant has alleged conduct by the defendant(s) which satisfies the standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The claimant has alleged reckless conduct by defendants. Published accounts of the incidents were paid by the defendant.

(22)  The complaint also seeks punitive damages and preliminary injunction in the form of an order from the court requiring all defendants to publish a correction and an apology. See Exhibit-14.

HISTORY

(23)  Upon information and belief, a secret society (Lebron, Clark, Maione, and others) at the Attorney General’s Office is destined to close THE HOMEWARD BOUND PROGRAM, FOR CHILDREN, INC and to cause injury to this Claimant, and was probably, more than likely, behind the medical malpractice. It is very hard for me to believe the medical facility was unable to prescribe the medicine that I was taking since that facility was [the first] to prescribe that medication back in November 2011. See Exhibit-15.c, 15.d, 15.e.

(24)  When I had to be examined at the same facility on February 16, 2017, by a different doctor, he said that he wondered how it was possible that the other doctor said that he was not able to prescribe the medicine I was taking since 2011. Moreover, he said that the first doctor had the ability to see the prescription at Walgreens Pharmacy.

(25)  Assistant Attorney Generals are the heartless individuals who convincingly deceive the public with false allegations against Edwin Rivera to improve the AG’s chances to become governor of New York. See Exhibit 10, 11, 12. Our most vulnerable communities, poor and immigrants, are deceived by the fraudster(s) coming out of the Attorney General’s Office with false allegations created by a secret society that will break the law to harm this Claimant.

(26)  A warrant for Mr. Rivera’s arrest was issued (August 2008 and November 2011) by the Bronx Supreme Court Judge Justice Betty Owen Stinson, the same judge who: (1) worked for the Bronx chief Administrative Judge of the Civil Term of Bronx Supreme Court, Judge Gerald Esposito, who received money from undisclosed number of people, and who was reported by Edwin Rivera to the NYS OIG for Election Fraud; (2) heard the complaints filed by this Claimant against Attorney Ronald Klar, who received money indulging in real estate fraud; (3) heard complaints filed by this Claimant against Attorney Philip Parker, who received money indulging in real estate fraud; (4) heard the complaints filed by this Claimant against the bank officer who received money indulging in real estate fraud; and (4) allowed this Defendant, countless times in Court, without [any] proof of service on the Attorney for this Claimant, to commit due process violations, making each decision void and each warrant for the arrest of this Claimant void for no reason at all.

See Earle v. McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398. See also Restatements, Judgments ‘ 4(b). Prather v Loyd, 86 Idaho 45, 382 P2d 910. Hanson v Denckla, 357 US 235, 2 L Ed 2d 1283, 78 S Ct 1228. 30A Am Jur Judgments ” 44, 45. Renaud v. Abbott, 116 US 277, 29 L Ed 629, 6 S Ct 1194. Earle v McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398. Sabariego v Maverick, 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal. “A void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Federal decisions addressing void state court judgments include Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed370; Ex parte Rowland (1882) 104 U.S. 604, 26 L.Ed. 861

i.     Void Orders Can Be Attacked at Any Time

ii.     An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court is void, or voidable, and can be attacked in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 Led 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L ed 608. U.S. v. Holtzman, 762 F.2d 720 (9th Cir. 1985) (“Portion of judgment directing a defendant not to import vehicles without first obtaining approval … was not appropriately limited in duration and, thus, the districtcourt abused its discretion by not vacating it as being prospectively inequitable.” Id at 722.

(27) It would be insane to believe that AG Spitzer and this Court were not acting in concert. There was definitely collusion between the secret society, the AG, and the Court. Special Counsel Robert Muller would have a feast with the matter of this case. See RECORD, 1576/2004.

(28) Moreover, see Defendant’s Response to Claimant’s Combined Discovery Demands and Demand a Verified Bill of Particulars dated January 11, 2018, which is only a couple of pages. To get them to comply, the Court has to issue a Court Order. Meanwhile, see Claimant’s Response, which has numerous details and about 50 pages strong.

For a Second Cause of Action

PAINS & SUFFERINGS

That claimant is not an attorney or counselor at law.

That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant herein was and still is a domestic state corporation, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

That heretofore and on the 4th day of May 2017, a notice of claim together with a notice to sue was duly served upon the defendant.

That the notice of claim and notice of intention to sue was duly served upon the defendant within 90 days after the cause of action of the claimant accrued.

That more than 30 days have elapsed since the service of the notice of claim and notice of intention to sue upon the defendant.

That the defendant and its comptroller have failed, neglected, and refused to pay, settle, compromise, or adjust the claim of the claimant herein.

(29) Claimant is a citizen of the United States and was arrested in the Dominican Republic under the direction of this defendant. Claimant is almost certain that those in the secret society of this defendant will not reveal the name(s) of those responsible for the arrest overseas. See Exhibit-5, 6.

a.     Claimant hopes that the American Ambassador assigned to the Dominican Republic in 2007 can testify to the arrest that claimant suffered from February 9, 2007, to February 22, 2007, in the hands of the local Police. Claimant hopes that the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agent, Bernardo, who called claimant after the Police returned claimant’s passport, can testify.

b.    When claimant was getting ready to leave the Dominican Republic on February 22, 2007, Bernardo can testify to the fear that claimant had in arriving at JFK. After being arrested and thrown into the most horrible prison, claimant was terrified and overwhelmed by the terrible smell of the prison.

c.     Your Honor will never imagine where the Police had claimant; without any plumbing, the fecal waste was accumulated in the space where I was kept. Bernardo desperately tried to help me, checked with the United States Department of State and Border Patrol, and he told me that there was no hold warrant issued for me at JFK and he told me to call him if they arrested me at the airport. I told Bernardo that I was afraid of getting arrested at the airport for Visa Fraud.

d.    LEBRON and his secret society knew, and they didn’t care, that I was Licensed by the United States Department of Labor, as a Farm Labor Contractor, to interview farm workers interested in the H-2A Visa and work in the farms in Puerto Rico. See Exhibit-3, 4, 5.

e.     LEBRON, who was probably born in New York City, was all out to stop this Claimant from helping the farmers in Puerto Rico. See San Juan Star, October 10, 2006. His society will violate the laws, and nobody will dare step on their toes since they work for the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK STATE. They are above the law; nobody can stop them.

(29) “This Claimant is not a prosecutor; he is a victim of this secretorganization that has broken the laws under RICO (received money that was not reported; false allegations to avenge personal issues; secured statements from criminals that lied because of false promises, carried their business in a secretive manner, etc.).

(30) I hope that the Federal Government will prosecute this society. Lebron and his secret society cannot abuse their power to avenge a personal vendetta. Is not like the FBI doesn’t know about this case, they are probably waiting for the second half for the claimant to recover from the injuries.

(31) This entity is criminal, and we will explore if what they did is legal. Moreover, since the issue is civil, in a significant U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding the statute of limitations in civil RICO actions, the Court, in 2000, held, in Rotella v. Wood, that the four-year statute of limitations period begins as soon as a claimant discovers his injury, regardless of when the fraud is causing that injury is discovered”.

For a Third Cause of Action

FALSE ARREST(S) & INTIMIDATION BY GOVERNMENT

That claimant is not an attorney or counselor at law.

That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant herein was and still is a domestic state corporation, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

That heretofore and on the 4th day of May 2017, a notice of claim together with a notice to sue was duly served upon the defendant.

That the notice of claim and notice of intention to sue was duly                  served upon the defendant within 90 days after the cause of action of the claimant accrued.

That more than 30 days have elapsed since the service of the notice    of claim and notice of intention to sue upon the defendant.

That the defendant and its comptroller have failed, neglected, and    refused to pay, settle, compromise, or adjust the claim of the claimant herein.

(32)   That on or about February 2007, claimant was arrested pursuant to a void warrant, the warrant not having been issued as required by law. 42 U.S. Code § 12102.

(33)   That on or about August 2008, claimant was arrested pursuant to a void warrant, the warrant not having been issued as required by law. 42 U.S. Code § 12102.

(34)    That on or about November 2011, claimant was arrested pursuant to a void warrant, the warrant not having been issued as required by law. 42 U.S. Code § 12102.

(35)     That on or about October 2016, claimant was arrested pursuant to a void warrant, the warrant not having been issued as required by law. 42 U.S. Code § 12102.

(36)  Pursuant to the void court orders, the false and unexplored allegations, protections under ADA (American Disability Act), and issues with a statue of limitations, the claimant is asking permission to amend the complaint. See 42 U.S. Code § 12102; A disability is defined as a past or present physical or mental impairment that substantially limits or has limited one or more major life activities.

(1)Disability The term “disability” means, with respect to an individual—

(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;

(B) a record of such an impairment; or

(C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as described in paragraph (3)).

(3) Regarded as having such an impairment For purposes of paragraph (1)(C):

(A) An individual meets the requirement of “being regarded as having such an impairment” if the individual establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited under this chapter because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.

(37)  False Arrest on February 16, 2017; they wanted to shoehorn me six months in prison. The officers who arrested me, discussed with me, while they had me on Rikers Island, the possibility of serving less than two months because they would have to give me credit from October 3, 2006, and the time spent outside after November 1, 2016, would have to count towards the six months wanted for me.

a.     The Assistant Attorney General (AAG), a young white male in a light blue sports jacket with some papers in his hands, standing there, couching them, said to this Claimant that he (AAG) was going to hold me for six months. See also https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Fake-Immigration-Lawyer-Arrested-Bronx-395739771.html

b.    Lebron and Steven Laudat made false accusations and statements about this Claimant. The newspaper reporter simply repeated the false allegations that have never been challenged in court. Lebron specifically said ontelevision, October 3, 2016, that this Claimant should get “six months” in jail.

c.     The officers negotiated with the AAG because they reasoned that if I was held for six months, starting on October 3, 2016, I would be out six months after that date (180 days later) on April 1, 2017. The arresting officers, who anxiously wanted to help me, calculated with the AAG that I should be released on April 1, 2017. They went back and forth discussing my release date, and, finally, one young white officer came to the bullpen, in front of the other officers, and said to me “It is possible that you will go home today; he (AAG) doesn’t have anything to hold you.”

d.    Earlier, in the vehicle that transported me from my office to Rikers, with the AAG sitting in the passenger seat, the officer with a sinus problem, sitting behind me in the vehicle, said to me that if it were up to him, he would have never arrested me. The officers were very professional; the AAG was attacking me like junkyard dog; the AG needs to inform the appropriate professional authority.

e.     It would be insanely naïve to think that the AAG did not carry out the arrest(s) of this Claimant, and they were illegal. Rule 8.3, Professional Conduct. See Exhibit-11, 12.

f.      I hope that the matter [in its entirety] of this case will be revealed in Court, so the majesty of the Court sees the corruption and the unscrupulous individuals at the Attorney General’s Office. Criminal laws were violated by these thugs. The fraudsters in that office have been abusing their power under cover of the AG. The Court will also see that all the allegations made against this Claimant since 2004 are false and that the Fake AAG, Lebron, and his boys abused their power. See 8.2, Professional Conduct, ABA.

g.    To accomplish their ongoing scheme, they violated every conceivable Constitutional Right under the Due Process. Amazingly, Eliot Spitzer, the Attorney General who was behind this secret society and who was also the governor of the New York State, resigned as governor after his prostitution ring was exposed. The society at the Attorney General’s Office is still going strong, and it must be exposed.

(38)    There’s no doubt that the matter of this case will give definition to organized criminal activity. The AG’s office is more than likely involved with organized crime, exempla gratia, importers of Chinese-small-and-large products who report a very small percentage of their income to New York State and the IRS. This claimant is reconnoitering their paper trails, money, contacts, suppliers, and final-end buyers. Hundreds of Millions of unpaid tax dollars go into the pockets of secret societies to carry on criminal activities. The corruption flies on the AG’s face, and you will never hear that the AG’s Office is doing the job required. Prostitution was only the tip of the iceberg, upon information and belief, the AG’s office is still a consumer.

(39) THE HOMEWARD BOUND PROGRAM, FOR CHILDREN, INC is a not-for-profit organization, IRS (501(c) (3), since 1996, and in that capacity, we help people with special needs looking for suitable housing. It is very hard to run around helping our clients with the AAG following my footsteps. The public needs to be warned to stay away from phony AAGs promising immigration benefits when they themselves are the criminals.

(40) The Claimant is also asking this Court for a stay of prosecution by this Defendant. People on the street feel that is not safe to do business with our office.

(41) The Claimant is also a journalist of Inmigracion Hoy News Today, and, formerly, Director of Inmigracion Hoy Radio Show, and in that capacity, we help people looking for all kinds of information about government programs, apartments, taxes, etc. On or around December 2017, our application to practice immigration law was denied because of the false allegations that appear on the internet. Disabled veterans and poor clients go without our assistance because of the Defendant.

I hope for an Order granting leave to amend the complaint.

Dated:

EDWIN RIVERA, PRO SE, CLAIMANT

1428 Zerega Avenue, Bronx, NY 10462