NYC DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE UNCONSTITUTIONAL RED LIGHT CAMERA UNIT

POSTED AT: http://issuu.com/prayerwarriorsneeded/docs/nyc_camera_fraud_motion_to_dismiss

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

NYC DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE IMPERSONATING AGENCY FOR THE CITY OF NEW DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE UNCONSTITUTIONAL RED LIGHT CAMERA UNIT PO BOX 3641 CHURCH STREET STATION NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10008-3641 CONCOCTED NOTICE # 5086062366 and PIN 2775

MOTION TO DISMISS, VALIDATION DEMAND, NOTICE OF DISPUTE AND OBJECTIONS, Comes Now Miriam Snyder Repeated Organized Fraud Crime Victim and for her Motion to Dismiss in the above matter states as follows: 1.

I, Miriam Snyder dispute this unconstitutional red light camera fraud for the below reasons and I seek an immediate dismissal of this unconstitutional denial of due process extortion scam.

2.

The no real party in interest New York City Department of Finance impersonating for the City of New York Department of Finance, filed an extortion Notice against Me, Miriam Snyder, alleging a claim of “Suit on Money Owed.” There is no such claim under the law of the State of New York.

3.

If the no real party in interest New York City Department of Finance (hereinafter The Extortionists) are claiming a breach of contract, the claim must fail because the Notice alleges neither the existence nor terms of any contract. Instead, The Extortionists sent me a document with patched up pictures of some unknown cars, coupled with an unverified “statement” of a bill purporting to be a statement of money owed by The Extortionists at some point in time, but stating no terms of any contract.

4.

To state a breach of contract under the state law of New York, the Notice coupled with the nonexistent petition must allege a contract, its agreement, breach, and damages. The Extortionists Notice with no petition fails in every regard.

5.

If The Extortionists are claiming a Suit on Account, The Extortionists must allege an account and the payment or disbursal of money.

6.

Alleging that money is owed with threat of property seizure with no due process, no validation and no proof of claim, is unconstitutional. Using the attached patched up pictures of a variety of unknown cars is so vague as to be meaningless, especially since there is no cause of action, 1

no real party in interest, no complaint or petition, no affidavit or affirmation, no validation, no calibration of the alleged lights, etc…

I, Miriam Snyder, again adamantly object to the proceeding of this matter and the entertaining

7.

of The Extortionists frivolous allegations with no proof of claim and with an erroneous, unconstitutional, and non-validated document with patched up pictures of multiple unknown cars.

8.

Pursuant to CPLR § 3211, I, Miriam Snyder, hereby move this administrative body to dismiss with prejudice the attached Notice of unconstitutional claims based on the below grounds for dismissal:

A. Statute of frauds B. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction C. Lack of capacity to sue D. Never served the complaint or summons E. Failure to state a cause of action F. Absence of a necessary party This dismissal Motion is pursuant to:

9.

A.

CPLR § 3211(A) – MOTION TO DISMISS The court should not proceed in the absence of a person who should be a party. NO REAL PARTY, NO INJURED PARTY

B.

CPLR RULE §3211(E) – MOTION TO DISMISS Undue hardship: OBTRUCTS FDCPA Validation Requirements and the Extortionists Abusive, Vexatious and Malicious Prosecution, Harassment and Replicated Fraud on The Administrative Body and I

C.

CPLR 5015(A) Newly-discovered evidence: THE ATTACHED NOTICE ACTING AS WITNESS AND RESPONDENT, NO CERTIFICATION OR SIGNATURE ON THE NOTICE, SANCTIONABLE BEHAVIORS, DENIED DUE PROCESS, NON COMPLIANCE WITH DUE PROCESS PROCEDURES, FILING OF FRIVILOUS NOTICE WITH NO REAL PARTY OF INTEREST

D.

47 USC § 502 - Violation of Rules, Regulations, Etc

E.

18 USC § 4 - MISPRISION OF FELONY: whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

2

F.

15 U.S.C. § 1692e - false or misleading representations a debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt, emphasis SIMULATING DOCUMENTS INTENDED TO APPEAR AS COURT DOCUMENTS

G.

15 U.S.C. S § 1692f – UNFAIR PRACTICES THE EXTORTIONISTS HAVE INVOKED: § 1692 f Any unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect the alleged debt § 1692 f(1) Attempt to collect any amount not authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law

H.

30 Day Validation Notice § 1692 g Failure to send the consumer a 30-day validation notice within five days of the initial communication § 1692 g(a)(1) Must state Amount of Debt § 1692 g(a)(2) Must state Name of Creditor to Whom Debt Owed § 1692 g(a)(3) Must state Right to Dispute within 30 Days § 1692 g(a)(4) Must state Right to Have Verification/Judgment Mailed to Consumer § 1692 g(a)(5) Must state Will Provide Name and Address of original Creditor if Different from Current Creditor § 1692 g(B) Collector must cease collection efforts until debt is validated

I.

COMMON LAW FRAUD

J.

10.

15 U.S.C. §1692k: DEBT COLLECTOR CIVIL LLIABILITY The extortion claims must be dismissed because of their gross violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,

violations of the New York General Business Law § 349 et seq,

Violations of the Statute of Frauds, Violations of NYS statute of limitations, violations of the 1st, 4th,, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th and 14th NYS and Federal Constitutional Amendments, Deprivation of Constitutional Rights and Privileges, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, Conspiracy to Depriving Persons of Equal Protection of the Laws, 42 U. S. C. § 1985, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Invasion of Privacy, Negligence, willful, malicious, retaliatory, discriminatory, deceitful, abusive and outrageous debt collection actions against Miriam Snyder. The nonexistent, out of thin air created and concocted debt is based on deceit, deception, trickery, no authentications, no signatures, no proof, no validation, illusions of legality, and simulation of process programming. All such fraud is objected to pursuant to the above noted laws.

11.

The Extortionist could not provide this Tribunal with documentary proof of the alleged claim or an Affirmation or Affidavit in the instant action establishing the Extortionists prima facie case, including the contract or account number of the debt alleged, because the Extortionists are not the Real Parties of Interest and are acting as Fictitious Respondents.

3

12.

If the Extortionists were the real parties and not fictitious entities, a signature would be on the illusion of legality Notice, a real party affidavit of merit would have been attached with a petition and these legal documents would be easily accessible and submitted to this administrative body and attached to the alleged Notice to me, as required under the law.

13.

The Dismissal is needed in the furtherance of a positive effect on public interest in that this dismissal enforces constitutional and consumer protections embedded in the US Constitution and the FDCPA due process and validation protections. Additionally, a dismissal positively impacts public interest in that it reduces the use of conspiracy against rights false phenomenon of supremacy and criminally insane induced oppression programming and targeting and prohibits abuse of authority and deviation from the bounds of constitutional programming.

This means this dismissal will help stop the use of government agencies for:

A.

Constitutional Violations and Violations of Corporation Regulations and Compliance Policies

B.

Multiple Identity Agents Exceeding Their Legal Authority

C.

Rendering Simulation of Process Notices and Determinations That Are Arbitrary, Capricious, or an Abuse of Discretion

D.

Making Claims That Are Not Supported By Substantial Evidence

E.

Collusion and Deceit

F.

Suppressing Evidence

G.

Misleading Consumer

H.

Producing False Documents

I.

Extortion: Extortionists no proof of claim, burden of proof shifting scam

14.

The "United States Supreme Court" states: The Federal Constitution and laws passed within its authority are by the express terms of that instrument made the supreme law of the land.

The Fourteenth Amendment protects life, liberty, and property from invasion by the States without due process of law. Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard; and an opportunity to be heard must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 2004.SCT.0000124, 75; 542 U.S. 507 (2004). These essential constitutional promises may not be eroded. The requirement of a meaningful opportunity to be heard must be protected against denial. Boddie v. Connecticut, 1971.SCT.40765 , 27, 31; 401 U.S. 371 (1971). The law recognizes the importance to organized society that these procedural due process rights be scrupulously observed. Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266 (1978).

4

15.

This matter should be dismissed because The Extortionists have no summons, no complaint, have no real party in interest, have no standing, no capacity to sue or collect anything. This non validated and non-calibrated camera scam is unconstitutional, abusive, deceitful and conspiratorial.

16.

The Extortionists non validated claim alleged to be a Notice is not supported by any substantial or admissible evidence, such as an affidavit or affirmation, or seal, or certification or oath, much more a signature. The Extortionists have not submitted any proof of claim and or any certification as to the veracity of the allegations. This extortion is not supported by any substantial evidence and as such is objected to in totality.

17.

I seek a Restraining Order restraining The Extortionists from threatening further levying of my property until proof of claim and validation under penalty of perjury or oath has been produced.

18.

Under the circumstances presented in this matter, The Extortionists did not and could not have properly certified the claim filed in the instant action because The Extortionists Notice is frivolous with intent to harass, oppress, and create injurious motor vehicle records for the specific purpose of further burdensome expense, oppression and harassment.

19.

The attached Notice is in violation of 22 NYCRR ยง 130 -1.1-a requires that "by signing a paper, an attorney or party certifies that, to the best of that person's knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, (1) the presentation of the paper or the contentions therein are not frivolous as defined in subsection 130-1.1(c)." 22 NYCRR ยง 130 -1.1(c) defines conduct as frivolous if: a. it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law; (2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) it asserts material factual statements that are false."

20.

The attached Notice and claims are completely without merit as exemplified in its deliberate certification and affirmation defects. The Extortionists cannot show prima-facie evidence to bring or enforce their claims nor have they offered any proof of claims.

21.

The attached claim fails to state any cause of action recognized by the State of New York and its Unconstitutional Notice and all alleged debt collection must be dismissed.

22.

There was and is no jurisdiction or rule allowing the Extortionists legal abuse, deceit, and misrepresentations. The Notice and threat of Levy with no due process, no hearing, no prior notice, no signature, no certification, no affirmation are criminal extortionists acts that are arbitrary, capricious, and exemplify a gross abuse of discretion.

5

23.

Failure to provide Full Disclosure is Fraud, predicated upon violation of Due Process of Law. Fraud is gaining at the loss of another using trickery or deception. Fraud vitiates a Contract.

24.

The Extortionists false claims exemplify fraud in and on the administrative body. Above all, this dismissal is required under the statute of fraud. No written note or memorandum of agreement exists that is signed by the persons bound by the alleged contract's terms or their authorized representatives.

25.

In closing, a party guilty of fraud or misconduct in prosecution of civil proceedings should not be permitted to continue to employ the judiciary to achieve its ends when a crime victim ask the administrative body for immediate relief and protection, such as in this matter.

FACTS 27.

Adding one second to yellow intervals tends to reduce violations and camera ticket revenue sharply AND tends to reduce crashes about 40%. Please explain the safety value to NOT do this.

James C. Walker Life Member - National Motorists Association

28.

Because politicians deliberately, maliciously, immorally set the yellows 0.5 to 1.0 seconds too short to rob the wallets of safe drivers who have endangered no one. It is robbery and should be prosecuted as a felony theft by the officials.

James C. Walker Life Member - National Motorists Association

29.

Tripping the red by 0.1 to 0.9 seconds when the yellow interval was deliberately and improperly set (or left) at least 1.0 seconds too short to create high ticket revenue does NOT constitute "blowing through a red light" and does not risk any crashes. This is how red light cameras make profits above their high costs - typically $4,000 to $5,000 per month per camera. Unless they can ticket mostly safe drivers with deliberate mis-engineering of the lights, they lose money and no city will use them.

30.

Red Light Camera Studies show increase in accidents, a 2008 University of South Florida report found: Comprehensive studies conclude cameras actually increase crashes and injuries, providing a safety argument not to install them‌. public policy should avoid conflicts of interest that enhance revenues for government and private interests at the risk of public safety.� Please read: http://www.campaignforliberty.org/state-blogs/arizona/red-light-camera-studies-show-increase-inaccidents/ and Former Redflex Executive: We Bribed Politicians in 13 States.

6

31.

Multiple States Move to Ban Photo Ticketing State Legislatures in Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Missouri and Ohio all advanced bills in their 2013 sessions to make red light cameras and photo radar completely illegal. Citizen backlash against the unconstitutional camera systems has demanded legislators file these bills – in some cases under major duress! Expect these states as well as others to take the issue up again in 2014. After all, the Cameras Are Coming Down!

32.

Redflex Faces Massive Financial Troubles

Fallout from the bribery scandal in Chicago (don’t worry, that one’s coming too) crushed any expectations of staying above water that Redflex may have had. Shortly after it was announced that they were losing their contract in Chicago, Redflex put out a press release that detailed their grim fortunes to come – [link] Later on in the year, the camera vendor announced that their profit had dropped a whopping 50 percent! Look out below! [read more] 33.

Missouri Court System Condemns Red Light Cameras

Missouri courts spend the last 4 months of 2013 absolutely obliterating the state’s red light camera scheme. In September, they deemed that itviolated due process. In November, the 2nd highest Court in Missouri ruled that red light camera programs are unenforceable and thus void. Later that month, the MO Appeals Court agreed and upheld that ruling. And in December, the MO Appeals Court ruled that red light cameras are unconstitutional! 2014 should be the end of red light cameras in Missouri and the court system, not legislature, will be the ones to thank for that.

34.

Florida Caught Up in Yellow Light Time Shortening Scandal

And they say Journalism is dead in this country. One News Affiliate in Tampa Florida proved that it’s still alive in 2013 when they blew the doors wide open on a $50 Million dollar yellow light shortening scheme being carried out by American Traffic Solutions and several municipalities. They estimate that $50M figure is what’s been stolen by ATS by lowering yellow light duration to illegal and very dangerously short durations. Thanks to WTSP (Tampa) for doing this great public service and the fallout continues to be felt across the state [read more].

7

VALIDATION DEMAND 36.

This is a request for validation pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act,: § 809 Validation of debts. Please be advised that I am not refusing to pay, but I need the information requested in this correspondence before I can make any offer to settle this imaginary matter. I would like to settle this scheme to defraud as soon as possible and I may have a counter claim to set-off or indemnify the disputed balance, this is why I am sending you this request for validation and dispute document.

37.

Please furnish a copy of the original contract redacting my social security number to prevent identify theft and state under penalty of perjury that the New York City Department of Finance is the bona fide party in interest of the contract and will produce the original contract for my own and a judge’s inspection should there be a trial to further object and contest these matters.

38.

Please produce the agreement that bears the signature of the alleged debtor wherein the alleged agreed to pay.

39.

Please verify under penalty of perjury that The Extortionists know and understand that certain clauses in a contract of adhesion, such as a so-called forum selection clause, are unenforceable unless the party to whom the contract is extended could have rejected the clause without impunity.

40.

Please verify that you know and understand that collecting on this alleged non validated fraudulent debt without providing procedurally proper validation of the debt constitutes criminal fraud as such criminal charges will be filed accordingly.

41.

I Miriam Snyder demand that the extortionists produce the physical human being who assessed and calibrated the allege cameras and the timing of the lights. Please produce the person who assessed the cameras and light timers. I demand my right to cross examination. If the extortionists cannot produce the human who saw the alleged car, assessed the cameras, and validate light timers, then I demand a dismissal with prejudice. If the alleged debt cannot be validated, there can be no collection of it. This is established by 15 USC 1692g(b). Disputed Debts a debt collector must cease collection of the debt until it is validated.

42.

I Miriam Snyder demand the alleged video footage with Certification, validation of the intersection controls, light timers, PROOF THAT THE YELLOW LIGHTS WERE NOT SHORTENED, the engineering, installation, and operation at the alleged time the concocted and alleged violation occurred.

43.

Validation that the Extortionists were not tripping the red by 0.1 to 0.9 seconds and setting the yellow interval deliberately and improperly to set at least 1.0 seconds too short to create high ticket revenue.

8

44.

From the date The Extortionists receive this letter, they are granted ten (10) days to reply directly to the validation questions put forth in order to validate this money hungry fictional claim. If after the ten (10) day period The Extortionists do not reply directly to these validation questions, this silence shall serve as valid proof that this is a fraudulent/imaginary matter that has no origination and The Extortionists may not pursue this fraudulent/imaginary account further.

45.

The certified reply to this validation and dispute document is awaited. I look forward to resolving the validation issues as soon as possible.

NOTICE OF DISPUTE AND OBJECTIONS 46.

I Miriam Snyder object to the camera scam ticket based on the above and the below specifications embedded in the:

47.

4th Amendment: The cameras scan the license plate and run the MVD data (personal information) of every motorist in NYS that passes by them, tracking people like cattle. This is an unwarranted search.

48.

5th Amendment: Photo tickets demand a fine be paid, or you face the seizure of capital and possessions without offering due process. It’s simply a rubber stamp by an employee of the company who is collecting the fine.

49.

6th Amendment: There is no way to exercise your right to face your accuser, when the accuser is an unmanned machine.

50.

7th Amendment: There is no option for a trial because this scheme to defraud attempts to take that right away with photo tickets and criminal coercion.

51.

14th Amendment: Two sets of standards have been created for the same offenses. Red light and speed camera tickets are treated completely differently by the courts, which is a clear violation of one’s right to equal protection under the laws.

52.

There is no certifiable witness to the alleged violation. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it may also take a thousand words to explain what the picture really means. Even in those rare instances where a law enforcement officer is overseeing a ticket camera, it is highly unlikely that the officer would recall the supposed violation. For all practical purposes, there is no "accuser" for motorists to confront, which is a constitutional right. There is no one that can personally testify to the circumstances of the alleged violation, and just because a camera unit was operating properly when it was set up does not mean it was operating properly when the picture was taken of any given vehicle.

9

53.

54.

No machine can replace a sworn peace officer conducting traffic stops.

The NMA and I object to the use of photographic devices to issue tickets. With properly posted speed limits and properly installed traffic-control devices, there is no need for ticket cameras.

They can actually make our roads less safe.

55.

Ticket cameras do not improve safety. Despite the claims of companies that sell ticket cameras and provide related services, there is no independent verification that photo enforcement devices improve highway safety, reduce overall accidents, or improve traffic flow. Believing the claims of companies that sell photo enforcement equipment or municipalities that use this equipment is like believing any commercial produced by a company that is trying to sell you something.

56.

There is no certifiable witness to the alleged violation. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it may also take a thousand words to explain what the picture really means. Even in those rare instances where a law enforcement officer is overseeing a ticket camera, it is highly unlikely that the officer would recall the supposed violation. For all practical purposes, there is no "accuser" for motorists to confront, which is a constitutional right. There is no one that can personally testify to the circumstances of the alleged violation, and just because a camera unit was operating properly when it was set up does not mean it was operating properly when the picture was taken of any given vehicle.

57.

Ticket recipients are not adequately notified. Most governments using ticket cameras send out tickets via first class mail. There is no guarantee that the accused motorists will even receive the ticket, let alone understands it and know how to respond. However, the government makes the assumption that the ticket was received. If motorists fail to pay, it is assumed that they did so on purpose, and a warrant may be issued for their arrest or a fictitious non adjudicated judgment may resurrect with no authority but with power to criminally seize one’s property unconstitutionally.

58.

The driver of the vehicle is not positively identified. Typically, the photos taken by these cameras do not identify the driver of the offending vehicle. The owner of the vehicle is mailed the ticket, even if the owner was not driving the vehicle and may not know who was driving at the time. The owner of the vehicle is then forced to prove his or her innocence, often by identifying the actual diver who may be a family member, friend or employee.

10

59.

Ticket recipients are not notified quickly. People may not receive citations until days or sometimes weeks after the alleged violation. This makes it very difficult to defend oneself because it would be hard to remember the circumstances surrounding the supposed violation. There may have been a reason that someone would be speeding or in an intersection after the light turned red. Even if the photo was taken in error, it may be very hard to recall the day in question.

60.

These devices discourage the synchronization of traffic lights. When red light cameras are used to make money for local governments, these governments are unlikely to jeopardize this income source. This includes traffic-light synchronization, which is the elimination of unneeded lights and partial deactivation of other traffic lights during periods of low traffic. When properly done, traffic-light synchronization decreases congestion, pollution, and fuel consumption.

61.

Cameras do not prevent most intersection accidents. Intersection accidents are just that, accidents. Motorists do not casually drive through red lights. More likely, they do not see a given traffic light because they are distracted, impaired, or unfamiliar with their surroundings. Even the most flagrant of red light violators will not drive blithely into a crowded intersection, against the light. Putting cameras on poles and taking pictures will not stop these kinds of accidents.

62.

There are better alternatives to cameras. If intersection controls are properly engineered, installed, and operated, there will be very few red light violations. From the motorists' perspective, government funds should be used on improving intersections, not on ticket cameras. Even in instances where cameras were shown to decrease certain types of accidents, they increased other accidents. Simple intersection and signal improvements can have lasting positive effects, without negative consequences. Cities can choose to make intersections safer with sound traffic engineering or make money with ticket cameras. Unfortunately, many pick money over safety.

63.

Ticket camera systems are designed to inconvenience motorists. Under the guise of protecting motorist privacy, the court or private contractor that sends out tickets often refuses to send a copy of the photo to the accused vehicle owner. This is really because many of the photos do not clearly depict the driver or the driver is obviously not the vehicle owner. Typically, the vehicle owner is forced to travel to a courthouse or municipal building to even see the photograph, an obvious and deliberate inconvenience meant to discourage ticket challenges.

64.

Taking dangerous drivers' pictures doesn't stop them. Photo enforcement devices do not apprehend seriously impaired, reckless or otherwise dangerous drivers. A fugitive could fly through an intersection at 100 mph and not even get his picture taken, as long as the light was green!

11

CONCLUSION Wherefore, Miriam Snyder, demands that as a matter of law this administrative body dismisses the indisputable NYC Department of Finance camera scheme to defraud claims with prejudice based on their no proof of claim and the below documented and linked repetitious harassment, corruption, terrorization and extortion scams. I further invoke the need for a restraining order against The Extortionists for their repeated use of the City of New York Department of Finance as a hit man agency criminally targeting, terrorizing and extorting money from me and similarly situated people who look like me. Please see these extortionists multitudes of crimes inflicted on me. Please read the documents in the below links at: MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND NOTICE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE NEWLY CONCOCTED CONTEMPT AND RESJUDICATA EXTORTION DOCUMENTS DATED APRIL 15, 2015 AND REPEATED CRIMINAL THREAT OF DRIVER LICENSE SUSPENSION FOR DEADLY AND IMPROPER PURPOSES EMBEDDED IN A DOCUMENTED CONSPIRCY TO COVERTLY MURDER, PIT AND ENJOIN THE POICE, HARASS AND CAUSE UNNECESSARY EXPENSE, http://issuu.com/prayerwarriorsneeded/docs/cor_mailed_final_nys_tax_and_dept_o

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AND DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW TO SILENCE THE CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE CRIMINAL AGENTS AGENCY CRIMES AND ASSAULTS ON MIRIAM SNYDER STATEMENT OF FACTS JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE CAROL AMON EASTERN DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: SECTION 195.00(2) OF THE NEW YORK PENAL LAW PROVIDES THAT A PUBLIC SERVANT IS GUILTY OF OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT WHERE, TO HER BENEFIT OR TO THE INJURY OF ANOTHER PERSON, SHE KNOWINGLY FAILS TO PERFORM A DUTY EITHER "IMPOSED BY LAW OR CLEARLY INHERENT IN THE NATURE OF HER OFFICE, JUDGE CAROL AMON’S ADMINISTRATION OF TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW, JUDGE CAROL AMON’S REPEATED DERELICTION OF JUDICIAL DUTIES, OMISION OF INHERENT ADJUDICATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES THAT VIOLATE PENAL CODES AND JUDICIAL CANONS, CONDUCT OBSTRUCTING AND DENYING JUSTICE, DUE PROCESS, EQUAL ACCESS TO THE COURTS, AND THE EXPEDITIOUS ADMINISTRATION OF COURT CASES AND THE COURT, JUDICIAL PREJUDICE, LAZINESS, AND HER HISTORY OF CASE SABOTAGE AND HOSTILITIES AGAINST PRO SE LITIGANTS, COUPLED WITH HER HISTORY OF ROBOT, FACTORY LIKE AND GHOST WRITTEN, REVERSE JUSTICE, UNAUTHENTIC, DISINGENUOUS AND MISLEADING ORDERS TO HARM AND DENY DUE PROCESS TO PRO SE LITIGANTS, PARTICULARLY THE POOR, GROSS JUDICIAL CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT ROOTED IN EMBEZZLEMENT OF PRO SE FUNDS AND CRIMINAL USE OF SUCH FOR DUE PROCESS DENIALS, JUDGE AMON’S CRIMINAL USE OF THE JUDICIARY TO SILENCE CRIME REPORTING http://endorganizedcrimeuniverse.com/assets/download/JUDICIAL_FORM_W_MAILED_RCPTS_AND_NOTARIZED_LINKED_JUDGE _CAROL_AMON_JUDICIAL_COMPLAINT_SECOND_CIRCUIT_COURT_OF_APPEAL_COMPLAINT.pdf OR http://issuu.com/prayerwarriorsneeded/docs/linked_judge_carol_amon_judicial_co/1 FEBRUARY 12, 2015 EUGENICISTS JONATHAN LIPPMAN AND BOYDEN GRAY CRIMINALLY CONSPIRED EUGENIC FUNDING SOURCES, MULTIBILLION DOLLAR AGENCY USURPATIONS, EXTERMINATION OF COMPETENT LEADERSHIP, CREATED TOP LEADERSHIP VACANCY TO SEND IN MASSACRE DEMON RULERSHIP SPIRITS, EFFECTUATING INVISIBLE EVIL LEADERSHIP, DISGUISED AS THE LAW DEPARTMENT, EMBEZZLEMENT OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS RESERVED FOR THEIR EUGENIC KILLING PROJECTS, AGENCY DYSFUNTIONALISM, OBSTRUCTED RULES, REGULATIONS, POLICIES, MONEY DIVERTED TO IMPERSONATION AGENCIES, EUGENIC KILLING PROJECT FUNDED, RANDOM MEDICAL CENTERS OPEN WITH UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER CREATED LETHAL AND INFECTIOUS INJECTIONS TO BE INJECTED IN THE TARGETED HUMAN RACE, LGBT COMMNUNITY, MINORITIES, POOR PEOPE, ETC. http://endorganizedcrimeuniverse.com/assets/download/NOTARIZED_W_LINKS___FEBRUARY_2015_REGIONAL_KILLER_BOYDEN _GRAY_AND_JONATTHAN_LIPPMA_EUGENIC_KILLING__FUNDING_SOURCE.pdf OR http://issuu.com/prayerwarriorsneeded/docs/notarized__february_2015_regional_k

12

FEBRUARY 2015 LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE BECAUSE EUGENICISTS AND REGIONAL KILLERS JONATHAN LIPPMAN AND BOYDEN GRAY ARE USING SUCH AGENCIES FOR CRIMINAL RETAILIATION TO THE BELOW JANUARY 2015 EUGENICS REPORT, CRIMINAL USE OF THE VACANT TOP POSITION CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE TOTAL FRAUD, WASTE, EXTORTION, CORRUPTION http://issuu.com/prayerwarriorsneeded/docs/complete_february_6_removed__2015_l/0

JANUARY 2015 CRIMINAL REPORT UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER EUGENICISTS 2015 INJECTION MASSACRE SCHEDULED CRIMINAL REPORT JANUARY 2015 UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER CONTINUED UNREGULATED EUGENIC KILLING PROJECTS, JONATHAN LIPPMAN, BOYDEN GRAY AND GARY ENGLISH http://endorganizedcrimeuniverse.com/assets/download/MAILED_NOTARIZED_JANUARY_5_2014_CRIMINAL_REPORT__UNIVERSI TY_OF_ROCHESTER_EUGENICISTS_GARY_ENGLISH__BOYDEN_GRAY__JONATHAN_LIPPMAN.pdf

AFFIRMATION On the 26TH day of June 2015, I, Miriam Snyder hereby affirm that the above statements in this MOTION TO

DISMISS, VALIDATION DEMAND, NOTICE OF DISPUTE AND OBJECTIONS, and the Exhibits, are true, accurate and correct. I hereby further affirm that the basis of these statements is my own direct knowledge, experience, and historical facts involved. This notarized document with my signature verifies the truth in my sworn statements. Thank you.

_____________________________________ Miriam Snyder, mirisni@aol.com 516 642 6007 3230 Cruger Avenue 6B Bronx, New York 10467 Affirm before me _________, day of ___________, 2015 Notary Signature____________________________ Commission Expires: Seal

XC: MINISTER ACROSS THE NATION FAXED AND OR EMALED TO: Bureau of Consumer Protection, COMPLAINT@FTC.GOV Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20580 (202) 326-2222

US Congressman Schumer senator@schumer.senate.gov 780 Third Avenue Suite 2301 New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-486-4430 Fax: 212-486-7693

Andrew M. Cuomo: gov.cuomo@chamber.state.ny.us Governor of New York State NYS State Capitol Building Albany, NY 12224 FAX: (518)474-3767

Congressman Eliot Engle Congressman_Engel@housemail.house.gov 3655 Johnson Avenue Bronx, NY 10463 Phone : (718) 796-9700 Fax: (718)796-5134 13

Mr. Schneider, NYS Attorney General, nysattorneygeneral@public.govdelivery.com Office of the Attorney General The Capitol Albany, NY 12224-0341 FBI New York 26 Federal Plaza, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10278-0004 Phone: (212) 384-1000 Fax: (212) 384-4073 / 4074 E-mail: ny1@ic.fbi.gov Mr. Schneider, NYS Attorney General, nysattorneygeneral@public.govdelivery.com Fraud and Civil Rights Crimes Office of the Attorney General The Capitol Albany, NY 12224-0341 Preet Bharara United States Attorney's Office Southern District of New York 86 Chambers Street, 3rd Floor New York, New York 10007 Fax: (212) 637-2750.

United States Attorney's Office Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn NY 11201 (718)254-7000/(718)254-7508 fax Attn: Chief, Civil Rights Unit William J. Bratton, Police Commissioner http://www.nyc.gov/html/mail/html/mailnypd.html NYC Police Department One Police Plaza NY, NY 10038 1-646-610-5000 FAXED AND EMAILED: https://democrats-oversight.house.gov/tipline Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 2157 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-5074 Fax: (202) 225-3974

14

EXHIBIT 1

15

EXHIBIT 2 THE NYS SCAMERA SCAM BEGAN VIA CHIEF EUGENIC KILLER/CRIMINAL AND JUDGE JONATHAN LIPPMAN AND SHELDON SILVER PROPAGANDA, THE TWO CRIMINALS CITED BELOW Help NYC Get More Red Light Cams and Speed Cams Tell Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and State Senate Leader Joe Bruno to pass this lifesaving legislation There is overwhelming evidence that red light cameras and speed cameras make streets safer. To their credit, Mayor Bloomberg and the Department of Transportation are renewing their efforts to get the state legislature to pass new laws allowing NYC to expand its successful red light camera program from 50 to 150 cameras and to install up to ten automatic speed enforcement cameras.

Act now. Fax them both a message to make NYC streets safer for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Send a faxto both Silver and Bruno using the form below or modify it as you see fit. If your e-mail program does not support forms, visit Silver

16

Bruno

EXHIBIT 3 REGIONAL KILLER JONATHAN LPPMAN’S OLD BUDDY GETS CAUGHT WITH THE CRMINAL USE OF HIS JONATHAN LIPPMAN’S SATANIC RULERSHP COURT USED FOR THEFT, DECEIT, AND EXTORTON

Shelly’s court

By Post Editorial Board February 2, 2015 | 8:58pm

Modal Trigger

Sheldon SilverPhoto: Splash News

He may be out as speaker of the Assembly, but Shelly Silver’s legacy lives on.

As The Post reported Sunday, US Attorney Preet Bharara is now investigating the state Supreme Court’s civil division in lower Manhattan.

17

Its courtrooms handled many of the asbestos and real-estate claims that provided Silver with much of his outside income. The stink here is that it isn’t just the plaintiffs Speaker Silver had ties to. He was pals with the judges as well.

The most prominent is Jonathan Lippman, whom Shelly has known since childhood. Shelly helped engineer Lippman’s appointment as chief judge of the state Court of Appeals.

In that post, Lippman appointed Arthur Luxenberg — yes, of the same Weitz & Luxenberg that was paying Silver — to a committee that helped decide which judges are appointed to the division handling the asbestos cases that are among Weitz & Luxenberg’s specialties.

There are also the two landlords who are being represented in the same courtrooms by Silver’s other law firm, Goldberg & Iryami.

Their case is being heard by Judge Martin Shulman. Not only does Silver live in the same building and go to the same synagogue as Shulman, Silver helped get Shulman his appointment.

No one besides Silver has yet been charged with any wrong-doing. But with a state court now under federal investigation along with the governor’s office and the Legislature, Bharara now has all three branches of New York government in his crosshairs.

In other words, a state trifecta. And not one New York should be proud of. =

18