Monday, June 23, 2014

Recusal Papers filed vs Judge Carolyn Demarest re Brooklyn, NY Taub v Taub divorce case

Posted by susan titus glascoff at 3/5/2009 1:26 AM


At the Matrimonial Part 5 J of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse located at Civic Center, Brooklyn, New York, on the ____ day of _________, 2008.



P R E S E N T :         HON. CAROLYN E. DEMAREST
                                    Justice, Supreme Court

------------------------------------------------------------------x
CHANA TAUB,
                                                                                            Index No. 26534/07

                                                            Plaintiff,                 
                                                                                   
                                    -against-                                          ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE


                                                                                   
SIMON TAUB,                                                                    Oral argument is requested
                                                            Defendant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------x

            Upon reading and filing the annexed affirmation of Chana Taub, affirmed the 26th  day of September, 2008, upon the annexed affirmation of Chana Taub’s attorney, Neil Iovino, Esq., affirmed the 26th day of September, 2008, upon the annexed exhibits, and upon all of the pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein,
Let Simon Taub, or his attorney, show cause before this Court at Part 5 J of the Supreme Court at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, on the 7th

Page 1 (from total of 45,+ 2,16,17,23,24,33,34,38,40,45), then pg 1, 2 from 48 more
PAGE 2         day of  October, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, why an Order should not be made and entered herein:
1.      Recusing the presiding justice in connection with the above captioned case; and
2.      For such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and appropriate.

SUFFICIENT CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR, it is

ORDERED, that pending the hearing and determination of this Order to
Show Cause, this court shall not issue any further decisions, orders, or directives; and it is further

ORDERED, that service of a copy of this Order to Show Cause and
the papers upon which it is based upon Simon Taub’s attorneys, Mallow, Konstam & Hager, P.C., at 321 Broadway, New York, New York 10007, by overnight delivery, on or before the ______ day of _______________, 2008, shall be deemed good and sufficient service; and it is further

ORDERED, that opposition papers, if any, shall be served upon Chana Taub’s attorney and filed with the Court, so as to be received in hand by both the Court and Chana Taub’s counsel no later than 12:00 noon on                          page 2
PAGE 16      it has been shown (again) that the court has been operating under a mistaken belief? 
39.  If this court is not biased and prejudiced against me, I would invite this court to search the record to find one criticism of Mr. Taub and his financial misconduct and violation of court orders.  
40.  This court has criticized and demeaned me for being on the “14th or 15th lawyer”.  See Exhibit 1, page 28 lines 19 to 21.  While this is false and not even close, Mr. Taub has had more attorneys than me in all these legal proceedings.  In addition, Mr. Taub has been coming to almost each court appearance accompanied by two attorneys who are both partners of the same law firm.  Yet, where is the court’s criticism of Mr. Taub?  What is the source of payment of Mr. Taub’s legal fees on the one hand, yet inability to pay even $350.00 per week as court ordered on the other hand?
  41.  There have never been any issues of fact that this is a long term marriage, that I have never worked during the marriage, that Mr. Taub did not want me to work during the marriage, that he wanted me to raise our children and maintain a Jewish home, that I do not have a college degree, and that Mr. Taub earns well over $250,000.00 per year.  Yet, and this court granted me only $350.00 per week maintenance  for my support on the one hand, yet directed me to contribute $2,000.00 on a $5,000.00 mortgage.  In effect, the court ordered me to do something that was impossible for me to do.  However, the court does state in response to comments by Mr. Taub’s attorney and my not contributing
 PAGE 17     $2,000.00 per month that the court could put me in jail.  (See Exhibit 1 page 42, lines 11 to 13.) 
42.  How can there not be prejudice and bias, or the appearance of prejudice and bias, when a court orders a person to pay $2,000.00 per month toward a mortgage, yet receive only $1,400.00 per month in interim maintenance?  As will be detailed below, this court acknowledged it did not know how I was going to get the money to make up the shortfall.
43.  With only Mr. Taub  collecting rent on his properties and my properties, yet only the properties in my name are in foreclosure, but none of Mr. Taub’s properties are in foreclosure, how can the court say there is no bias or prejudice when I am not enabled by the court to receive the rents and pay the expenses on the properties I own?  The court never questions Mr. Taub about how he is able to keep his properties out of foreclosure but not the marital residence, for example, which is just in my name.  (See Exhibit 1, page 54, lines 1 to 7; page 55, line 7 to page 56 line 5.)
44.  The court ordered Mr. Taub to pay all of the monthly mortgage charges on the marital residence.  (See Exhibit 1 page 57, lines 16 to 17.  See also Exhibit 11—Order  dated October 30, 2007.)
            45.  I then brought a contempt proceeding because Mr. Taub was not paying the mortgage on the marital residence or the $350.00 per week interim maintenance.  Rather than dealing with Mr. Taub’s violations of a  court order, the court stated “I am not concerned about contempt.  I am concerned about going forward.”  (See Exhibit 1, page 33 line 25, to page 34, line 2.)
PAGE 23         59.  On the one hand, the court does not look at my exhibits and records that prove the points I make and, on the other hand, accepts Mr. Taub’s mere say so.  For instance, on March 7, 2008, in connection with a contempt application I brought against Mr. Taub, the court states:  “Now, as to this alleged contempt, I have accepted, based upon the documents that have been produced here, the representations of defendant [Mr. Taub] that he was unable to comply.  He’s saying it’s because he doesn’t have the money, but we don’t have to get there, because the foreclosure action precluded him from complying.  But now that’s been vacated.  I’m denying the motion for contempt against Mr. Taub based on the failure to comply with the October 30th order.”  See Exhibit 13, page 43 line 21 to page 44 line 4.  Yet, as detailed below, this court has stated that Mr. Taub is the only party with resources. 
60.  If there is no bias or prejudice, how can Mr. Taub have “resources” for some purposes, yet not have “money” for other purposes?
61.  Again, the court criticizes only me and states that “Mrs. Taub helped herself to an awful lot of money, which increased the amount of payments due on this [the marital residence]”.  See Exhibit 13, page 49, line 11 to page 50 line 8.  The court has no interest in determining any financial fault on the part of Mr. Taub such as Mr. Taub’s failure to pay only $350.00 per week for many months, his removal of even larger funds of money ($300,000.00 cash from a marital safe), and Mr. Taub’s interim collecting of rents on his and my real estate properties while not paying the expenses on my properties, which has resulted in PAGE 24         my properties going into foreclosure, but his properties remaining viable money makers.  
62.  If there is no bias or prejudice, why has this court refused to appoint a receiver on all properties as opposed to allowing Mr. Taub to manage his and mismanage my properties?
63.  How can there not be bias or prejudice when this court continually refuses to get to the bottom of these issues, but at every turn, is quick to criticize or punish me, yet dismiss or defer Mr. Taub’s financial fault?  
64.  In a proceeding before this court on April 4, 2008, when it was pointed out that Mr. Taub listed in his statement of net worth only four real estate properties in his name, my attorney pointed out that Mr. Taub listed as liabilities other even more significant real estate properties, but failed to note them as assets.  (See Exhibit 14, page 16, line 10 to page 18 line 3)  Yet the court never criticizes Mr. Taub for this obvious attempt at concealing his interest in certain assets.
65.  During these same proceedings On April 4, 2008, it is represented to the court that a motion has been made for all of the properties before Judge Knipel in the constructive trust action, except 1259 52nd Street Brooklyn, New York, to be withdrawn or removed from that proceeding.  (See Exhibit 14, page 21, line 10 to 23.)  This is further evidence that a constructive trust action was orchestrated by Mr. Taub in order to tie up our marital assets.
66.  Real estate located at 10 Grand Avenue, 6-8 Grand Avenue and 23-27 Grand Avenue, all in Brooklyn, New York, were transferred by Mr. Taub to his

PAGE 33    socks every day, that Mr. Taub threatened to chop my hands off, that most of the time I was quiet and afraid to answer or question Mr. Taub, that I was so afraid to be with Mr. Taub that I slept in our daughter’s room.  Alexander further testified that if I ever objected to Mr. Taub’s conduct, Mr. Taub would behave even more violently, but that he never saw me scream at Mr. Taub.   Alexander even testified he was afraid of his father.  See Exhibit 18, transcripts of proceedings on March 19th, 20th, and 21st, 2007.
            91.  Our daughter, Cheryl Taub, also testified regarding what she observed.  She testified that she loves her father but not what he’s doing to me.  See Exhibit 18, page 37.  She also testified that especially the last two years, Mr. Taub would come home every day and become enraged at me and scream at me for no reason, and if I were not home the minute he arrived, he would “just fly into a rage and start screaming and cursing her,” that she was scared of her father, that he broke off a door handle to our daughter’s room when I had sought refuge in my daughter’s room and that literally for several hours he was screaming at me, that if I tried to defend myself, Mr. Taub would get “more mad and start yelling more and throwing things around more”, he never gave me any credit for working so hard to prepare for Shabbat and the 20 to 30 guests he invited each week, that he would always tear up my mail, that I was assaulted by Mr. Taub who put his hands around my neck, threw a TV at me, and so on.  See Exhibit 18.  
PAGE 34     92.  She also testified she was afraid of her father who told Cheryl on one occasion he “would have no problem getting rid of my mother”, and on another occasion that he could easily stage a car accident.
            93.  Nechama Markovics, my daughter, also testified regarding Mr. Taub’s abuse.   Without repeating what our other children observed, she testified she observed Mr. Taub always treating me “like a slave”, that I did not defend myself because “She was too afraid of being punished”, that there was a safe in the house where large sums of cash were held, and that “My mother was never permitted to take any money out of that without permission, though she was forced to open it up and allow him to take out and remove large sum,” that during one of Mr. Taub’s fits of rage and anger, “He took apart the whole kitchen.  Everything that was there, he threw it out.  He went from one end to the other.”  See Exhibit 18.
            94.  Dr Evan Stark, a renowned expert on battered spouse syndrome and domestic violence and abuse, was only allowed to testify generally about battered spouse syndrome.  Although Dr. Stark had examined and interviewed me for many hours, Dr. Stark the court did not allow him to testify as to whether, in his opinion, I met the criteria of a battered woman.   If he had been allowed to testify, he would have testified that I was a battered woman, and that I had experienced the four dimensions of coercive control (violence, intimidation, isolation and control) and that this was all consistent with the pattern of everything known to be typical in these cases from the literature and clinical experience  (Exhibit 29). Certainly, his testimony would have added to the

(STGlascoff copying end of this paragraph which is on pg 35)-  “credibility of my claims that I have been abused throughout the marriage.  Nevertheless, because of the court’s bias and prejudice against me, the court accepted Mr. Taub’s claims that this expert should not be allowed to testify and offer an opinion in this case.”
                                  PAGE 38 follows



103.   The court repeatedly said I was not to be trusted with managing my own properties (Exhibit 16, page 62, lines 3-25 & page 63, lines 1-5).   In fact, on the official nyc.gov. website under building violations, Mr. Taub is listed as having 103 violations on his properties, most not corrected.  Unpaid fines show over $50,000 outstanding, and violations listed include fire violations, illegal apts. etc…  For buildings listed in my name for when I was managing them before filing for divorce in June 2005, there were listed only 2, no fines, and I corrected my violations quickly.  (See Exhibit 33 for nyc.gov violation printouts.) 
104.  Exhibit #29, note that Dr. Evan Stark sent Susan Titus Glascoff his summary of his interview with me.  He sent his observations to her since she has attended most of the hearings, starting with February 5, 2007. She was requested to attend by Monica Getz, President of the National Coalition for Family Justice.  The coalition observes when questionable court practices have been reported.  Ms. Glascoff and Ms. Getz attended twice together, and Ms. Getz attended most of the few times Ms. Glascoff could not. Ms. Glascoff has read most of the transcripts dating from the summer of 2005.  Both Ms. Getz and Ms. Glascoff have reported bias and illegalities to higher judges regarding my case.  Ms. Susan Titus Glascoff is the Executive Director of the National Advisory Board to the Coalition for Family Justice.  She is a lifelong public advocate and is a member of three “Who's Whos”. 
             105.   I am attaching herewith as Exhibit 34 my documentary – mostly verbatim quotes from this court, whose bias and prejudice is clearly evident at each of my appearances with this court for the past two years.  
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK               PAGE 40
COUNTY OF KINGS
------------------------------------------------------------------x

CHANA TAUB,

                                                                                              Index No. 26534/07
                                                Plaintiff,                 
                                   
                                               
                        -against-                                                         Attorney’s Affirmation

                                                                                   
SIMON TAUB,                                  
                                
                                                Defendant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------x



            Neil Iovino, being an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the courts of the State of New York, affirms the following under penalty of perjury:
            1.  I am Chana Taub’s attorney in the above entitled actions and submit this affirmation in support of the relief requested by Chana Taub in the annexed Order to Show Cause.
            2.   This motion is not precluded by the existing bankruptcy stay that exists pursuant to the Plaintiff’s bankruptcy case under case number 08-44210.  The primary purpose of the bankruptcy stay is to put the Debtor and the Debtor’s property under the protection of the Bankruptcy Court.  See Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.  That this stay involves property of the estate is also evidenced by the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 which
(AGAIN STG copying top next pg -41)   “expanded scope of marital exceptions to Automatic Stay.. Included.. maintenance…. Recusal not involve debtor property.”
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
------------------------------------------------------------------x

CHANA TAUB,

                                                                                              Index No. 26534/07
                                                Plaintiff,                 
                                   
                                               
                        -against-                                                         Attorney’s Affirmation

                                                                                   
SIMON TAUB,                                  
                                
                                                Defendant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------x



            Neil Iovino, being an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the courts of the State of New York, affirms the following under penalty of perjury:
            1.  I am Chana Taub’s attorney in the above entitled actions and submit this affirmation in support of the relief requested by Chana Taub in the annexed Order to Show Cause.
            2.   This motion is not precluded by the existing bankruptcy stay that exists pursuant to the Plaintiff’s bankruptcy case under case number 08-44210.  The primary purpose of the bankruptcy stay is to put the Debtor and the Debtor’s property under the protection of the Bankruptcy Court.  See Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.  That this stay involves property of the estate is also evidenced by the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 which
(AGAIN STG copied top next pg- 41)  “expanded scope of marital exceptions to Automatic Stay...Exceptions..maintenance.. Recusal not involve debtor property.”
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK                     PAGE 40
COUNTY OF KINGS
------------------------------------------------------------------x

CHANA TAUB,

                                                                                              Index No. 26534/07
                                                Plaintiff,                 
                                   
                                               
                        -against-                                                         Attorney’s Affirmation

                                                                                   
SIMON TAUB,                                  
                                
                                                Defendant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------x



            Neil Iovino, being an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the courts of the State of New York, affirms the following under penalty of perjury:
            1.  I am Chana Taub’s attorney in the above entitled actions and submit this affirmation in support of the relief requested by Chana Taub in the annexed Order to Show Cause.
            2.   This motion is not precluded by the existing bankruptcy stay that exists pursuant to the Plaintiff’s bankruptcy case under case number 08-44210.  The primary purpose of the bankruptcy stay is to put the Debtor and the Debtor’s property under the protection of the Bankruptcy Court.  See Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.  That this stay involves property of the estate is also evidenced by the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 which
(AGAIN STG copying top next pg- 41)  “expanded scope of marital exceptions to Automatic Stay...Included...maintenance...Recusal not involve Debtor property.”
Recusal Motion Exhibits                               PAGE 45

  1. 10/30/07 transcript
  2. 7/6/06 transcript
  3. 8/21/06 transcript
  4. 9/7/06 transcript
  5. 2/16/07 transcript
  6. 5/1/07 transcript
  7. Letter from court dated 10/1/06 adjourning Chana’s emergency application
  8. Mr. Rosenthal’s letter dated October 11, 2006 in response
  9. HUD Settlement Statement on refinance of marital residence
  10.  Order to Show Cause only, with restraint, dated September 20, 2006 signed by Judge Krauss
  11.  Order dated 10/30/07
  12.  1/29/08 transcript
  13.  3/7/08 transcript
  14.  4/4/08 transcript
  15.  “Simon’s Income”, prepared by client regarding several properties, and list of 10 Grand rentals—tenant, premises, annual rent
  16.  11/14/06 transcript
  17.  12/11/transcript
  18.   Transcripts, jury divorce trial, children’s testimony, Dr. Stark, Osgood, etc. 3/19/07, 3/20/08, 3/21/08, 3/22/08, 3/26/08
  19.  2/5/07 transcript
  20.  2/15/07 transcript
  21.   Order dated 6/1/07
  22.  7/17/07 transcript
  23.  Order to Show Cause dated 6/20/08
  24.   Medical Records from Maimonides Medical Center re:  Mr. Taub having “eloped”
  25.   Transcript of proceeding on July 1, 2008
  26.   1st page of Bankruptcy petition showing date when filed
  27.   Note from court rejecting responsive/cross-motion papers
  28.  Copy of rejected responsive/cross motion papers, with proof of service upon opposing counsel
  29.  Dr. Stark’s e-mail to Ms. Glascoff, testifying re: Chana Taub—abused wife
  30. Transcript of Tape not allowed in jury trial
  31.  Mr. Taub’s conviction on three counts of Federal fraud
  32.  Mr. Taub’s forgeries (bank)
  33. nyc.gov printout of violations on Mr. Taub’s properties vs. Mrs. Taub’s properties
  34.  Mrs. Taub’s documentary of bias and prejudice by the court 

   (STGlascoff- note there were 48 more pages submitted with above by Chana Taub, including lots documentation- BELOW is just opening summary pg + next pg which goes onto 3rd pg since different size print in originals)
      JUDGE DEMAREST SHOULD BE RECUSED BECAUSE OF:
1.    BIASED STATEMENTS, BIASED DECISIONS, BIASED ORDERS
2.    ABUSE OF DISCRETION & ABUSE OF JUDICIAL POWERS
(A)    Since first taking the case, July 2006, refused to ENFORCE HER OWN OR Chana’s lawyer’s requests for discovery FOR TWO YEARS (still not done)!
(    Refused to order that Simon Taub give an accounting for the over $200,000.00 income he collects and pockets EACH AND EVERY MONTH from his large properties, in addition to Chana’s two small properties, while completely depriving Chana of any rental income.  Denied all Chana’s motions and pleadings for an accounting - at least of rents stolen from her own properties.
(C)    Refused to order/enforce child support or pendente lite, no “status quo.”
(D)   Denied every single one of Chana Taub’s motions
(E)    Refused to order legal fees.
(F)     Distorting & Obstructing the truth, in order to assist Simon against Chana.
(G)   Deliberate “ignorance” of the law, so as to deprive Chana. 
(H)   Refused to address prejudice against Chana when Simon refused “Get”
(I)      Judge Demarest ordered Simon to pay marital mortgage several times, TWICE Chana filed Contempt Motions when Simon violated her orders, TWICE  Judge Demarest vacated her own orders, to assist Simon in WASTING the marital assets.
(J)     Made improper and unreasonable orders against Chana.
(K)   Continuous inflammatory, BIASED statements against Chana
(L)    ADVOCATING AND/OR ORDERING MARITAL ASSETS TO BE WASTED AND LOST.
(M)                       SIGNED INAPPROPRIATE AND POSSIBLY ILLEGAL RESTRAINING ORDER, PRECLUDING CHANA FROM GOING TO FAMILY COURT (4/4/08).

Judge Demarest supported, condoned, endorsed and awarded all of Simon Taub’s flagrantly wrong and unethical actions throughout the legal proceedings which have led to absurd and harsh orders against Chana Taub and enormous legal fees.   Chana Taub is petrified to step into Judge Demarest’s Court, knowing that she will not be given a fair determination before her, and even worse – will be target of some new, bizarre and abusive Order endangering her and her children’s lives.
*   *   *   *   *
FROM THE TRANSCRIPT  OF 9/7/06:

1)  P. 6, Lines 2-21:   ATTY. ROSENTHAL:   “On the calendar for today, it was my understanding, was the issue of spousal support and child support.  That motion has been kicking around.  This case is about 14 months old, and to date there has been no decision on the issue of spousal and child support and it’s one of tremendous importance.”
                                        THE COURT:   “Before we get any further than this, one of the issues that I intend to address and this is… we are going to find out whether there’s any reason to be addressing any of this…..   And the motions you referred to, some of them were made long before I got the case and I previously indicated that I felt that, at least as to some of these motions, they should probably be deemed dismissed and started again because I have no prior knowledge of any of the matters that took place in the courtroom.  So, I’m not going to try to resurrect them.”
(If one spouse has no money, shouldn’t pendente lite and child support be the first important issue to address?  Judge Demarest always found ways to refuse support by diverting from the subject (above) and by denying outright.)

P.6, Lines 19-20, Judge claims to have no “prior knowledge” of Chana’s motions pleading for support, but immediately following that, P.7, Lines 2-14, she has full knowledge of Simon’s motions!)

2)  P. 7, Lines 2-25:   THE COURT:     “I would note that there’s a motion to punish for contempt that is against your client (Chana) for failure to account for certain property that was removed from the marital home by her, prior to my ever getting this case.”     “And while I find no merit at this time in the motion to punish for contempt, because she has finally complied.”         
(At the same time, Judge Demarest has “no prior knowledge” of Chana’s motion that Simon account for his millions.  Judge does not threaten Simon to “punish for contempt” even though he is in contempt, he never gave any accounting.)
                                   ATTY.. ROSENTHAL:   “This is a Court of equity.  We have here a money spouse to my right and we have a non-money spouse here…”



No comments:

Post a Comment