TO THE DEPARTMENT  OF  JUSTICE 
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION 


COMPLAINT




COMPLAINANT
Michael A. Hense
1150 Commonwealth Avenue, Apt. 407
Bronx, NY 10472
Tel 347 340-0192
917 714-5409


PERSON(S) BE COMPLAINED ABOUT
Latia W. Martin
Justice NY State Supreme Court
Bronx County Supreme Court
851 GrandConcourse
Bronx, NY 10541
Tel (718)618-1254


Janette A. Baxter  
Attorney NY State 
246 Central Avenue
White Plains, NY 10606
Tel (914)328-1272


Jonathan Lippman
Chief Presiding Judge NYS Court of Appeals
20 Eagle Street
Albany, NY 12207






NATURE OF COMPLAINT  AGAINST  PARTIES
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, 18 U.S.C. § 242.
Conspiracy Against Rights, 18 U.S.C. § 241. 


PRELIMARY STATEMENT
This is a Complaint against Latia W. Martin and Janette A. Baxter for their criminal acts in violation of  the  laws of the United States of America and also the laws of the State of New York, all of which were done under color of law and with full knowledge of both parties that they were acting in violation of the law, and with full intention of both parties to use their positions authority in order to pervert the legal process to deprive this Complainant of his legally owned property, to violate his Constitutional rights as protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of The United States against deprivation of  life, liberty, or property without due process of law and his deny him his Constitutionally protected right not to be denied the equal protection of the law.


FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Specifically, Complainant states that the above captioned parties wantonly, recklessly, and knowingly did  act  both individually, and also in conspiracy with one another, under color of law,   and  they did seek to and  did succeed in depriving this Complainant of his rightfully owned real property at 94 Waterbury Parkway, Cortlandt Manor, New York, and did act on multiple occasions to prevent him from asserting is Constitutionally protected right to assert such ownership.


It was  during the  preliminary proceedings brought before the Supreme Court of The State Of  New York, County of Westchester on October 23, 2006 during an Action For Divorce, that an Order of the Court in the guise of a stipulation was issued directing the immediate sale, prior to any sort of substantive hearing on the issue of the sale of the property, and months prior to a dissolution of the marriage.


The so called “stipulation” was initiated by Justice Latia W. Martin (Martin) in open court and on the record, where it can clearly be seen that the  terms of this “stipulation”  were explicitly dictated by Martin, and not by the parties involved.  Martin immediately directed attorney Janette A. Baxter (Baxter) to hand scribe the “stipulation” and ordered this Complainant to sign it.


There was no hearing regarding the issues of  need for an immediate sale of the property, nor was an opportunity given for this Complainant to present any substantive defense against the forced immediate sale  prior to this being entered as an Order of The Court as both substantive and procedural  due process would dictate. 


Also, contrary to what Martin would have the courts believe on this issue, there was in fact, no valid stipulation at all.  The parties did not freely agree to the terms of  Martin’s arbitrary order which purely on first blush went against the settled common law of the State of New York, the 14th Amendment, the NY State Constitution, and the Real Property Laws of the state of New York, and was a direct violation of the US Code, nor was this Complainant represented by counsel at the time this order was initiated.


It is evident as fact, as read into the certified transcript of these preliminary hearings that this was clearly not a stipulation by any stretch of the imagination, but an imposition of Martin’s own will, disregarding the law and the rights of this Complainant. 


Martin continued to force her will upon this Complainant by the use of threats and extortion to force this Complainant to comply with her will and sell the property.  Martin can be heard on the record  threatening to use of law enforcement to have me removed (see excerpt from certified transcript of 3/23/07 page 10 ) , threatening to effect the sale without my permission or signature and having my then spouse sign in my stead, and threatening to have my property seized if I don’t just “walk out” .  “When you say you can’t leave, I mean, you can just walk out of the house and your are gone”. 


Baxter acting as Martin’s agent, made threatening calls, one of which was recorded,  where she threaten this Complainant with physical removal if I didn’t comply with the order to sell the house. 


The message threatens “you have until the 30th of March to remove yourself and your possessions  from the property, if not, you will be physically removed from the premises”. She goes on to advise that “if you are unclear I would recommend that you might want to call Justice Martin to clarify the issue”. An audio transcript of this is available on the internet at  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDtjugInCzA&feature=g-upl&context=G2a942f9AUAAAAAAARAA 
and the original recording is available on request.




Martin continued to prevent any substantive hearing as to the issue of the forced immediate sale by disregarding the law (CPLR Section 5519(a)(1))  which provides for an immediate stay upon filing of an interlocutory Appeal) and insisting that the sale take place prior to a  decision on the pending Appeal,  which was filed on March 30th, 2007.  


In compliance with the Court’s Order, the property was sold on April 4, 2007, almost a month before the decision on the interlucatory Appeal was handed down, and two months before the proceedings in which a divorce was finally granted to this Complainant on his countersuit.


The decision dismissing the Appeal was handed down on  April 27th, 2007 .




An abuse of process is the  use of the legal process to accomplish an unlawful purpose; causing a summons, writ, warrant, mandate, or any other process to issue from a court in order to accomplish some purpose not intended by the law.  Equitable distribution occurs after a dissolution of a marriage, as any matrimonial part Justice is well aware of.  Even under the most extraordinary of circumstances the rights to property as a tenant by the entireties has been well settled by the courts of the State of New York and the Federal Courts (Adamo v. Adamo18 A.D.3d 407; 794 N.Y.S.2d 413, Kahn v Kahn, 43 N.Y.2d 203, 371 N.E.2d 809, 401 N.Y.S.2d 47; Harrington v McManus, 303 A.D.2d 368, 755 N.Y.S.2d 661; Kayden v Kayden, 234 A.D.2d 345, 650 N.Y.S.2d 790). “It is well settled that before some alteration in the marital relationship, courts lack the authority, absent the consent of the parties, to direct the sale of the marital residence owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety”.


But this doesn’t end here.


After assurances by Justice Martin that I would be able to bring out substantive relevant facts at a trial in more than 5 separate instances.


During the proceedings of May 21/22 Martin coerced a signing of a “settlement of divorce” in place of a trial at the final hearing, granting the Complainant the divorce on my countersuit.




An Appeal was immediately filed on the issue of the deprivation of property, which went all the way to New York State’s highest court, The Court Of Appeals. 


Inexplicably, after stating that the Court “will examine its subject matter jurisdiction with respects to whether a substantial question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right and whether you are an ‘aggrieved party’ (CPLR 5511) to the extent the appeal involves review of the October 23, 2006 so-ordered stipulation”, and in light of Article 1, section 6 of the State’s Constitution (“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law”), Judge Jonathan Lippman dismissed the Appeal on the grounds that “no substantial constitutional question is directly involved”, yet in a subsequent action filed in the Federal Court against Martin and Baxter (amongst others), the state appointed Defense claimed that the Federal Courts lacked jurisdiction as per Rooker Feldman on grounds that the 14th Amendment issue had already been determined in the New York State Courts.


The District Court (Hon Barbara S. Jones) dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the Rooker Feldman bar, despite the fact that there was no state court decision on the issues presented, I was not a state court loser, the state court dismissed for lack of constitutional question.
The Appeals Court was similarly disinterested as was the Supreme Court of the United States, denying certiorari in the matter.


CONCLUSION
The appearances of impropriety are obvious. The actions of the above named individuals are nothing less than criminal activities, and the proofs of these activities are a matter of record.


When a state actor can violate the law at will, deprive a citizen of their property and their Constitutionally protected rights to that property; when a person sitting as a Judge in the New York State Supreme Court can turn a blind eye to the law and rule on her own personal whims in order to satisfy her own personal agenda; when the Chief Justice of the State Court can lend his aid and abet after the fact such actions;   when the State’s highest Court aids and abets such deprivations through the use of the legal system,  in clear violation of State and Federal laws;  when this can couched under color of law by persons in apparent authority who have taken the oath to rule by the law and by the Constitution,  then, at the very least a Complaint to the Department of Justice is fully warranted and proper.


These are crimes; crimes against the Constitution, crimes against the State of New York, crimes against the Courts, and crimes against the individual Complainant.


Our president stated at a White House ceremony held on January 21, 2009, that “Transparency And  Rule of  Law will  be the touchstones of this Presidency.”


I have exhausted all attempts at civil remedies in this matter. It is apparent that the influence  of the above named actors extend far beyond my reach.  When a federal court is misused to insure that these persons can never be brought to trial; when a case of obvious merit is dismissed by false pretext, justice is the final victim.




When a person is forced back into the hostile arena of a State Court  which has already seen fit to disregard its own Constitution and its own rule of law, then a Complaint is warranted and proper.


It is as such that I respectfully submit this Complaint to the Department of Justice for prosecution of the above named individuals for their direct and indirect criminal actions, and for relief as this prosecutorial body sees fit.


Additional documents, certified transcripts, and audio transcripts are available upon request.


I declare under penalty of perjury, that all statements made in the above Complaint are true.






____________________________
Michael A. Hense


April 4, 2012

April 4, 2012
For immediate release

Lippman, Martin Named In Department Of Justice Complaint

Judges are obligated to uphold the laws, but instead some of them break the law, and then use their positions of authority to insulate each other against any accountability. This is the sad state of affairs in the courts of  New York State, and what is at the heart of a Complaint filed with the Department of Justice - Civil Rights Criminal Division on Wednesday, April 4th 2012.


Jonathan Lippman, Chief Judge of the State of New York and Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals was named along with Justice Latia W. Martin (Bronx Supreme Court) and (White Plains attorney) Janette A. Baxter in a Complaint to the Department of Justice alleging  violations of  18  U.S.C. § 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color Of Law,  and 18 U.S.C. § 241, Conspiracy Against Rights.


The Complaint is the result of  events that occurred during and the preliminary hearings in a matrimonial action in 2006-2007  alleging  that Martin and attorney Janette Baxter used their positions as officers of the court to force Michael A. Hense, a resident of Westchester New York, to relinquish his ownership of his real property located at 94 Waterbury Parkway,  Cortlandt Manor through a process of coercion, extortion and abuse of process.


Lippman is named as condoning these actions, after the fact,  in an attempt to shield the state actors from any legal consequences arising from their actions. 


“What can only be viewed as inexplicable is his reasoning dismissing an appeal alleging deprivation of property under color of law as posing ‘no substantial constitutional question‘.  Given Lippman’s position and experience with the law, his summary dismissal of an appeal that so clearly involves an alleged constitutional civil rights violation can only serve to raise an appearance of impropriety to even the most objective observer.“-Michael Hense. 


The law is the law.  New York courts have consistently  held that “It is well settled that before some alteration in the marital relationship, courts lack the authority, absent the consent of the parties, to direct the sale of the marital residence owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety” (Adamo v. Adamo18 A.D.3d 407; 794 N.Y.S.2d 413, Kahn v Kahn, 43 N.Y.2d 203, 371 N.E.2d 809, 401 N.Y.S.2d 47; Harrington v McManus, 303 A.D.2d 368, 755 N.Y.S.2d 661; Kayden v Kayden, 234 A.D.2d 345, 650 N.Y.S.2d 790).


Section 1983 of the U.S. Code imposes liability without defense on state and local officials who, acting under color of law in their individual capacity, deprive plaintiffs of rights created by the Constitution and federal law.   Section 6 of the New York State Constitution reiterates that part of the 14th Amendment to The U.S. Constitution  where it states “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law”.


New York’s Real property laws also reinforce the rights of ownership of real property as tenants by the entireties. 


“It seems as if the parties named in the complaint think that somehow the laws don’t apply to them; that somehow they are above the law and can violate it with impunity;  that they can manipulate the legal process to fit their own personal agendas.  Our President said at a White House ceremony in 2009,  that ‘Transparency and Rule of Law will be the touchstone of this administration‘.  Here is an opportunity for the administration to come through on its promise. “ -Michael A. Hense




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


For additional information contact 


Michael A. Hense
1150 Commonwealth Avenue Apt.407
Bronx, New York 10472
Redocktober@hotmail.com