CRIMES COMMITTED UNDER COLOR OF LAW     

     Frederick Alexander Jones is a 64-year-old indigent disabled veteran, a low-income federally subsized tenant (a rent-stabilized tenant who is in the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development Section 8 Tenant-Based Assistance Housing Choice Voucher Program, having voucher #: 102241), a tenant who has never failed to pay the full amount of his rent on time, a tenant who has never received a proper renewal lease during the 6 years of his tenancy, and a tenant-respondent who must continue suffer another very plainly fraudulent petition that had been filed in the Brooklyn Housing Court (141 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201, tel: 1-347-404-9201, Index # : 100928/2008). 
   
     After several months, inwhich Jones had been constantly requesting a trial, the judges continued to demonstrate an unrestrained contempt for the elderly disabled veteran who was forced to survive in subsidized low-income housing. Jones also had to survive the guileful attempts by these judges to cause the government to pay countless thousands of dollars in fees to the landlord 's lawyer. Accordingly, they threatened indefinite illegal hospitalizations (See. Section 9.27 of the Mental Hygiene Law, at http://www.law.cornell.edu/states/ny.html), the loss of the right to sign contracts (See, Section 81.21 [a] [5] of the Mental Hygiene Law, at http://www.law.cornell.edu/states/ny.html), lifelong debilitating stigmata, the loss of most of his property, and all for not signing a resolution or otherwise not causing the landlord and the landlord 's lawyer to be paid by the government, i.e. The New York City Human Resources Administration. 
  
     Indeed, after countless threats from judges Maria Milin, Peter M. Wendt, and Cheryl J. Gonzales, the aforesaid Jones has a Tuesday 30 June 2009 date to go before judge Gonzales to decide between 2 options : (1) Assist in falsifying records that would cause him to be placed into an outrageous illegal guardianship, eliminate his right to make any type of contract (See, Section 81.21 [a] [5], N.Y.S. Mental Hygiene Law), cause a loss of liberty (See, Section 9.27, N.Y.S. Mental Hygiene Law), inflict  debilitating stigmata, and cause the landlord's lawyer to receive an outrageous sum of many thousands of dollars for a few meaningless minutes in the housing court (The Department of Social Services will pay the landlord's lawyer and the landlord what they would otherwise not receive.) ; or, (2) Suffer an illegal summary eviction that would cause the loss of property for which Jones did make hideous sacrifices to acquire.  Indeed, in these flagrantly sham proceedings these judges routinely and angrily threaten to abuse their positions as judges to inflict patently illegal guardianships or illegal summary evictions, upon any refusal from Jones to cause illegal rent payments and illegal lawyer fees. 
  
     Although these hateful attempts have been routine for many years, they are crimes. Accordingly, they are Attempts to Commit the Crime of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, Section 110/155.40 (2) (c) of the Penal Law of the State of New York, at http://www.law.cornell.edu/states/ny.html. They are D felonies.
  
     The filings of patently fraudulent petitions have always been routine violations of the rights of the tenants as well as felonies that are guilefully protected by the housing court. See, Section 175.35 of the Penal Law of the State of New York, "Offering a False Instrument in the First Degree", at http://www.law.cornell.edu/states/ny.html. The following conduct will describe how  this routine felony is used to initiate an action for  non-payment."
 
      On or about 12 November 2008, in the Brooklyn Housing Court, the attorney for the landlord (Sarah Dademade for Oshun Management), Angelyn D. Johnson, Esq., did file a fraudulent petition for non-payment of rent. It was given index number 100928/2008. Accordingly, while knowing that the said petition contains a false statement or false information, i.e. a statement made in paragraph number 6 that alleged the "tenant is a section 8 tenant, tenants [sic] share of the rent per month is $226.75", she intended to cause the court to believe this false statement or false information. This conduct was used to obtain an enormous outrageous lawyer 's fee and illegal rent payments. 
 
     The aforesaid conduct has been plainly a continuing criminal enterprize for many years. It is a racket, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1962 (c), at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1962.html.
    
     Moreover, the aforesaid hideous conduct was intended to deprive Jones of his 14th Amendment right to the Due Process of the Laws. In addition, the aforesaid judges did conspire to accomplish this depraved deprivation while under the color of law, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 241/242, at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/241.html and at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/242.html.   
  
                     UNDUE INFLUENCES AND ROSARIO 
  
     While the rosario ruling of the New York State Court of Appeals was controling law (ROSARIO v. DIAGONAL REALTY, 840 N.Y.S. 2d 748 [Ct. App. 2007], 8 N.Y. 3d 755, 872 N.E. 2d 860, at http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I07_0111.htm ; See, also, an explanation by New York State Supreme Court Justice Emily Jane Goodman, at http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/law/20050722/13/1488), Jones could never obtain a renewal lease that contained a rent increase approved by the most recent determination or re-determination of the Public Housing Authority (PHA): the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD). The plain language of the lease (the Tenancy Addendum) had established the following : "During the term of the lease (including the initial term of the lease and any extension term), the rent to the owner may at no time exceed : (1) The reasonable rent for the unit as most recently determined by the PHA in accordance with HUD requirements, or (2) Rent charged by the owner for comparable unassisted units in the premises." Only the future approval of the PHA was ever alleged by the landlord.
 
     In addition, the rosario rule plainly allowed to Jones other protections of the New York City Rent Stabilization Law, for the landlord 's failures to offer a proper renewal lease : "... and the tenant shall continue to have the same rights as if the expiring lease were still in effect" (9 NYCRR 2523.5 [d], at http://www.law.cornell.edu/states/ny.html). 
 
     The landlord 's demands for the regulated rent increases that had not been approved by the aforesaid PHA were all demands for illegal rent payments (See, 24 C.F.R. 982.451 [b] [4] [ii], at http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr).    .  
 
     Any request for such rent increases could not exceed the reasonable rent, as determined or re-determined by the aforesaid PHA : the HPD (See, 24 C.F.R. 982.507 [a] [4], at http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr). First, the PHA approves of the rent increase. Second, the landlord may request the tenant to agree to the increase contained in the renewal lease. The landlord may even demand such increase be agreed upon by the tenant.
  
     Despite the plain requirement of this sequence of events, the real estate industry in New York City has made a prior evaluation by section 8 tenants and a prior approval by section 8 tenants of all regulated rent increases a requirement for any  elderly disabled veteran who receives low - income federal housing subsidies and who is selected for such ordeal by the landlord. He, then, must complete the lease by signing it. He is, then, required to take it to the PHA, and wait for the approval of a fully completed and signed lease. This plainly preposterous procedure is accepted by all levels of government (federal, state, and local), and is plainly in direct contradiction to the promulgated procedure of HPD Commissioner Rafael E. Cestero, at http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/downloads/pdf/2008-section-8-Administrative-Plan.pdf , or at http://www.nyc.gov >search NYC.gov for : "hpd administrative plan" >select : "administrative plan effective july 14, 2008" (See, Chapter Nine of the Administrative Plan : "Rent Reasonableness Determinations" : Part ll : When and How Rent Reasonableness Determinations Are Made : Annual Adjustments to Rent - Rent Increases : Rent Regulated Apartments). It was not surprizing, when I was told by several supervisors in HPD that Commissioner Cestero had totally disregarded his promulgated procedure. He has, instead, adopted the aforesaid preposterous procedure for which the new york city real estate industry has successfully caused all judges, court appointed lawyers, bureaucrats, and elected officials to support.
Please, remember that this procedure is only used by the Commissioner when a landlord wants to  arbitrarily select a section 8 rent-stabilized tenant for illegal eviction or for unlawful ordeals. Of course, this depraved conduct is a word-of-mouth procedure. It is not found on anything in writing. Nevertheless, the Rent Stabilization Association will inform any alleged landlord of this procedure. Acordingly, a demand for a rent increase must be approved and agreed upon by the rent-stabilized tenant before the PHA approves of it. This word-of-mouth policy for the Housing Choice Voucher program plainly and directly contradicts the clear mandates of HUD. The predictable refusals to sign renewal leases allow the landlord to select elderly disabled veterans, complaining tenants, and others for a court ordeal and eviction. This ordeal is plainly a protected racket that begins with a fraudulent petition in the Non-Payment Part of the Brooklyn Housing Court.  
  
     "In general, a copy of the rent-stabilized lease indicating the new amount of rent and a current DHCR unit registration will constitute sufficient documentation for HPD rent increase approval." These words of the aforesaid Administrative Plan obviously doesn not suggest the prior approval of the section 8 rent-stabilized tenant. Nevertheless, an 18 May 2009 letter from HPD Senior Project Manager for Continued Occupancy Betsy Scheinbart (1-212-863-7546) indicated that money had been recently paid to the landlord for alleged "deemed" renewal leases. This was done without any HPD approval of the regulated rent increases contained in such "deemed" leases at the time that they allegedly existed (Cf. 9 NYCRR 2523.5 [c] [2], at http://www.law.cornell.edu/states/ny.html). Public scrutiny is clearly needed in the courts. 
    
     Unlike the television or movie courtrooms, the criminal and civil courts in the state of New York almost never has a single member of the public appear for the purpose of seeing a trial or other court proceeding.  Moreover, Section 52 of the New York State Civil Rights Law (at http://www.law.cornell.edu/states/ny.html) forbids any electronic recording device in any courtroom.  So, therefore, be a witness and become wiser. Then, call your elected representatives and make constant proper complaints. What will your find ? A regime that only serves special interests? A two-party  monopoly, saturated with government thugs? Is there no public concern for the protections that government alleges to have for the individual ?
    
     As thousands of fully developed beautiful unborn children are schedualed for the most depraved and senseless murders and as elderly indigent disabled veterans are constantly treated to depraved criminal civil rights deprivations, the only laws that enforce their fundamental Constitutional rights, i.e. 18 U.S.C. 241/242, supra, have been very depravedly placed in disuse for many decades. Tell Jones that someone is understanding the aforesaid dastardly deeds, that someone will not forgive the despicable government thugs that perpetrate such deeds.  
      
  
     PSYCHIATRIST CHARLES HAYES : A PILLAR OF COURT CORRUPTION
   
     Psychiatrist Charles Hayes (1-212-495-2796) is a psychiatric consultant to the New York City Department of Social Services Commissioner Robert Doar (180 Water Street, New York, New York 10038, Tel.: 1-212-331-600), and it is his plainly forced Psychiatric Evaluation Report that is essential to the payment of the fee charged by the lawyer of the landlord. Over the objections of Frederick Alexander Jones, and months after the Public Housing Authority (HPD) conceded blame and paid to the landlord more than she requested ($127.69: See the 18 May 2009 letter from HPD supervisor Evelyn Ruiz: contact Betsy Scheinbart: 1-212-863-7546, in the evidence), Psychiatrist Charles Hayes submitted possibly the most hateful and mendacious and distorted misrepresentation of Jones that a five-page report can cause. Moreover, the report of an alleged 14 April 2009 psychiatric evaluation that occured in the apartment of Jones was submitted to the DSS and to the Brooklyn Housing Court with the purpose of deceiving, in order to cause the enormous fee of the landlord's lawyer to be paid by the DSS. Such conduct is plainly a violation of the Penal Law of the State of New York : Section 175.35 (Filing a False Instrument in the First Degree), at http://www.law.cornell.edu/states/ny.html. 
     This "Psychiatric Evaluation Report" had been ordered or caused by the aforesaid Judge Cheryl J. Gonzales over the objection of Jones. She did also order that Jones be placed in the Adult Proctective Service, over the repeated objections of Jones (Client # : 82093 - 03/05/2009 - 1, case worker : Ms. Farell Dumont : tel.: 1-718-923-7888, or 1-347-907-9279 [APS, Medical Insurance and Community Services Administration, Brooklyn Borough Office, 250 Livingston Street, 3rd Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11201, 1-718-722-4830/4812] ). 
     The aforesaid report was intended to cause to Jones stigmata that will last all of his life. It was also intended to guarantee the fraudulent and baneful conclusions of subsequent evaluators. The report was also intended to cause forced harmful medications, and to make involuntary indefinite hospitalizations almost certain. Despite these depraved deprivations of Fourteenth Amendment due process rights and Human Rights, the 14 April 2009 "Psychiatric Evaluation" was not audio nor video taped.
Because the aforesaid Psychiatric Evaluation Report will be used in all subsequent forced evaluations and in all final commitment hearings, a video and audio recording must be a mandatory procedural safeguard. Indeed, there is nothing more certain than the fact that a legal aid society lawyer or other court-appointed lawyer will waive every right the client or defendant ever had, if this safeguard is not made a  federal and state constitutional right.
If a copy of such a recording is required by the constitutions to be made available to the victims of similar psychiatrists, the arbitrary deprivation of fundamental due process rights will not occur.  
     The aforesaid crimes by a doctor and by a lawyer are extremely routine, very much like drinking cofee in the morning. But, the lives that are destroyed are hidden.