|
Welcome to The New Updated Web site for The case of, DJ DONNELLY vs RAYMOND P MARTINEZ, the Commissioner of The NYS DMV.
On this updated web site for this Ground Breaking Case, you shall read the Final Order by Corrupt Federal Judges in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The Unethical Judges are:
JOHN GLEESON
LOIS BLOOM
SANDRA L TOWNES.
This case was filed on October of 2001, as a Pro Se, which means (without legal representation), you cant trust lawyers
either, like judges...
Please read the MEMORANDUM & ORDER by a Federal Judge who is from South Carolina, and is a Black Judge...
PAGE ONE:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
_________________________________X
DJ. DONNELLY,
plaintiff.
-against-
RAYMOND P MARTINEZ, COMMISSIONER
OF THE NEW YORK STATE DEPT OF MOTOR
VEHICLES.
defendant.
"02-CV-5344(ST)(LB)"
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
______________________________________________________X
TOWNES, DISTRICT JUDGE:
BY ORDERS DATED JUNE 16, 2003 AND AUGUST 19, 2004, THE COURT (GLEESON J) REFERRED THIS MATTER TO MAGISTRATE
JUDGE LOIS BLOOM FOR A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON "DEFENDANT's"
MOTION TO DISMISS THE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE CLAIM AND PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. THE COURT
ADOPTS JUDGE BLOOM'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION "IN IT'S ENTIRETY".
A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE MAY DESIGNATE A MAGISTRATE TO HEAR AND DECIDE CERTAIN MOTIONS PENDING BEFORE THE COURT AND TO
SUBMIT TO THE COURT PROPOSED FINDINGS OF "FACT"AND A RECOMMENDATION AS TO THE DEPOSITION OF THE MOTION. SEE 28 U.S.C. ss 636
(b)(1). WITHIN TEN DAYS OF SERVICE OF THE RECOMMENDATION, ANY PART MAY FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE REPORT. SEE
ID. UPON de novo REVIEW OF THOSE PORTIONSOF THE RECORD TO WHICH THE OBJECTIONS WERE MADE, THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGEMAY AFFIRM
OR "REJECT" THE RECOMMENDATIONS, SEE ID. THE COURTIS NOT REQUIRED TO "REVIEW" THE "FACTUAL" OR LEGAL CONCLUSIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE AS TO THOSEPORTIONS OF THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO WHICH "NO OBJECTIONS"ARE ADDRESSED, SEE THOMAS v. ARN, 474
U.S. 140, 150, 106 S. CT 88 L. ED 435 (1985.
end of page one.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
PAGE 2.
JUDGE BLOOM HAS "RECOMMENDATED" THAT THIS COURT "GRANT" DEFENDANTS MOTION, DENY PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AS "MOOT" (which means un real). AND DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT "ENTIRETY". PLAINTIFF FILED "TIMELY OBJECTIONS"
TO THE MAGISTRATE REPORT. THE MAJORITY OF PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS RELATE TO HIS APPRANENT "DISPLEASURE" WITH THE WAY THE "JUDGE
BLOOM" HAS HANDLED THE CASE, (plaintiff filed a judicial complaint on bloom). SUCH ISSUES "DO NOT MERIT REVIEW OF THIS COURT".
HOWEVER, THE COURT "WILL" ADDRESS THOSE OBJECTIONS THAT PERTAIN TO LEGAL CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY JUDGE BLOOM IN HER REPORT.
SECTION 1981 AND 1983 CLAIMS:
PLAINTIFF DOES NOT DISPUTE (false),THAT THE STATUE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO HIS SECTION 1981 AND 1983 CLAIMS(wrong
dates filed by the great court), CLAIMS ID THREE YEARS. HOWEVER, THE PLAINTIFF ARGUES THE THE WRONG DATES HAVE BEEN USED TO
DEFINE LIMITATIONS PERIOD. PLAINTIFF CLAIMS, FOR THE FIRST TIME HIS OBJECTION THAT HE FILED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS ACTION IN
OCTOBER OF 2001, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE COMPLAINT IS DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 2001(court had to approve filing status, failed
to mention this), THE ACCOMPANYING AFFIDAVIT IS DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 2001, THAT THE COMPLAINT IS FILE STAMPED SEPTEMBER 26,
2002. HOWEVER THE COURT CANNOT EVEN "ENTERTAIN" PLAINTIFF'S "EXTRAORDINARY ALLEGATION" AS IT WAS NOT RAISED IN THE PLAINTIFF'S
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS(only) MOTION TO DISMISS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT PRESENTED TO JUDGE BLOOM(false statement by the court).
SEE JESSELSON v OUTLET ASSOC OF WILLIAMSBURG, LTD PARTNERSHIP, 784 F. SUPP. 1223, 1228, (D. Va. 1991) "REVIEWOF A MAGISTRATE'S
RULING BRFORE THE DISTRICT COURT "DOES NOT PERMIT" CONSIDERATION OF THE "ISSUES" NOT RAISED, (again false statements,
plaint raise many issues, not stated by this great court). A MAGISTRATE DECISION SHOULD "NOT BE DISTURBED" (dont rock the
boat judges), ON THE BASIS OF THE ARGUMENTS NOT PRESENTED TO HIM"( these corrupt judges, refused ALL MOTIONS filed by the
plaintiff, refused to disclose evidence, refused to allow evidence to be entered, WHY? TO PROTECT THE DEFENDANT, they are
a brotherhood).
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND ARGUMENT(alot of arguments, must be truthfull), FOR WHY HIS ACTION IS TIMELY IS THAT HE "PETITIONED"
DEFENDANT, "FOR RECONSIDERATION OD HIS LICENSE"( denied seven times by martinez, great commissioner uh), REVOCATION ON UNSPECFIED(again
a false statement by the court to protect the defendant status in the community), DATES, 2000, 2001 AND 2002 AND....
END OF PAGE TWO.
|
|
