PATRICK F. GARVEY, APPELLANT-MOVANT SDNY DOCKET: 1:14-cv-10299Post Office Box 21Newburgh, New York, 12550-0021845-249-7194E-Mail: roofersrwe@aol.com

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUITThurgood Marshall U. S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 1007 212-857-8500_________________________________________________x

PATRICK F. GARVEY, et al., 15-3130 Second Circuit Docket No.

Appellant-Plaintiffs, APPELLANTS ANSWER

-against- IN OPPOSITION AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION

KATHLEEN B. GARVEY, et al., TO APPELLANTS OMNIBUS

Appellee-Defendants,

________________________________________x

PATRICK F. GARVEY, Pro se, for the appellant-plaintiffs and co-fiduciaries in

the captioned proceeding provides their answer to the appellees opposition

in the pending motion to proceed in forma puaperis now before this honorable

Court, for Judicial Notice pursuant to FRE 201(b) and relief set forth in their

Omnibus, and states under penalty of perjury:

1. Appellants do not refute JAMES M. FEDORCHAK, ESQ. is the

County Attorney, for the County Appellees in the captioned matter.

2. Appellant-Plaintiff and administrators in fact demanded the Medical

Examiner comply with the specific investigative requirements, his affirmative

1

and ministerial and Special duties promised. All aside the manner, scope and

requirements set forth therein Dutchess County’s Charter pursuant to Section

30.01(b) (1),(2),(3) and more, in the specific manner, scope, nature proscribed

Therein, additional to his promised assurances personally made of that a full

Investigation would thereafter ensue.

3. Special duty obligations were thereby thereafter established by

meeting the 4 test Prongs, as held in [Sorichetti v. City of New York] acts neglected

and thereafter further investigation, of statutory mandated reporting, openly refused by the M.E. and both police departments of the Town and City of Poughkeepsie police thereafter enjoined, and District Attorney Appellees, upon learning the direct involvement of Christopher [“D”] Petsas in that perpetrated fraud and contrary to Title 18 U.S. Code § 1518 –

(i) Appellee’s acted collectively to impede and conceal Mr. Petsas identity and thereby is abundantly demonstrative, and knowingly, inviolating ; 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States; 18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant, in addition to Obstruction of criminal investigations of health care offenses, as provided to them herein;

It is noteworthy to state; John Garvey suffered severe injuries of a broken lower Spine, Impact Force Trauma to the torso, a severe fracture of number 8 rib injuries, within the home located at 36 Talmage Street Poughkeepsie, NY and belonging to Christopher D. Petsas.Mr. Petsas filled out a City police report descriptive he knew prior to discovery of such injuries John Garvey suffered inside the home by his indications, based upon an impossible position seated in a chair indicating obvious spinal injuries, when such injuries were never diagnosed by the former St. Francis Hospital, and only thereafter known and only detected on Appellant’s demand for an Autopsy after which no details were released to the public on such findings from the Medical

2

Examiner’s Office. Further, giving a completely different description on the Hospital ER intake assessment form. The Obstruction statute provides;

(a) Whoever willfully prevents, obstructs, misleads, delays or attempts to prevent, obstruct, mislead, or delay the communication of [information or records] relating to a violation of a Federal health care offense to a criminal investigator shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.(b) As used in this section the term “criminal investigator” means any individual duly authorized by a department, agency, or armed force of the United States to conduct or engage in investigations for prosecutions for violations of health care offenses.(Added Pub. L. 104–191, title II, § 245(a), Aug. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 2017.)

(ii) Aside the Appellee’s culpability, nonetheless had and still has a required special duty that remains owing for the specific benefit of the appellants, the appellant’s family and the Estate, regardless of who was involved. After the family learned of the details and involvement of city of Poughkeepsie Councilman, Christopher D. Petsas, despite advising the ME, Town Police, City police and particularly the District and Town attorneys, duly licensed Officers of the Court in the State of New York, violated a plethora of obligatory sections of 22 NYCRR Part 1200, attorneys RPC, Rules of Professional Responsibility, and ethics codes, after being informed, knowingly of the procedures as conveyed to us by the NY State Police, ignored us.

(iii) Further and in doing so these appellees knowingly and wantonly didso both, in individual and official capacities and under Color of Law and Office. Violating; 42 USC 1983; 18 USC 4; 18 USC 3 18 USC 242, 241and U.S. Code § 1518, while acting and actively engaged collectively, to conceal a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1347 - Health care fraud in the reported of events to them of their perpetrated acts upon the Hospital and John A. Garvey by Mr. Petsas and Kathleen Garvey, who’s hoax, ruse violated; 18 U.S. Code § 1038(c) –using False information and hoaxes, of which the hospital’s use thereof precipitated the death, of John Garvey; while Mr. Petsas violated by means of identity theft, in connection with his act, 18 U.S. Code § 1028A - Aggravated identity theft by familial presentation to the hospital by Kathleen Garvey who initially provided false

3

familial statements 18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally while engaged as a health Proxy violating section §1035. False statements relating in health matters violating 18 USC §1035; 1038(c); by two or more persons violating 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States; 18 U.S. Code § 1001 – by, Statements or entries generally

(iv) Such Information used were false statements to the hospital by which the former Saint Francis hospital relied upon to be true, and thereafter acted which precipitated the death of John A. Garvey. These officials and Officers of the court and others could have and should had notice and knowledge thereof the reported violations and the penalties associated by neglect in failing to act, yet continue to concealed after the fact, and thereby becoming accessories to those crimes by violating 18 U.S. Code § 3 - Accessory after the fact to the crimes against John A. Garvey, a frail elderly person and a health facility.

(v). The appellees by their contributory culpable conduct thereafter to concealed by acts to aid and abet are also culpable for the crimes of Kathleen B. Garvey and Christopher D. Petsas of; among the pendant State counterparts of the Penal code;

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 63 › § 134718 U.S. Code § 1347 - Health care fraud;(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice—(1) to defraud any health care benefit program; or(2) to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any health care benefit program,in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items, [or services,] shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. If the violation results in serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of this title), such person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and if the violation results in [death], such person shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 3 - Accessory after the fact;

4

[“If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both”])).

(vi) Despite breached promises to the Appellants, informed the Appellees District and Town Attorneys numerous times in writing, over a 3 year course, yet chose to disregard, impede and conceal, contrarily to; 18 U.S. Code § 1518 - Obstruction of criminal investigation of health care offenses, permitted fictitious statements in the patient discharge Narrative in violation of;U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 47 › § 103518 U.S. Code § 1035 - False statements relating to health care matters as provided in part; (a) Whoever, in any matter involving a health care benefit program, knowingly, wantonly and willfully, and therefore subject to penalties wherein —[“(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; or(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any materially false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items, or services, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.(b) As used in this section, the term “health care benefit program” has the meaning given such term in section 24(b) of this title”])).(Added Pub. L. 104–191, title II, § 244(a), Aug. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 2017.)

The events of established fraud in health care matters perpetrated by Mr. Petsas and Kathleen Garvey collectively by hoax and ruse, by Kathleen Garvey’s initial presentation of Petsas falsely, as a blood sibling, a fraud while being reflected in the medical (death) discharge narrative record as a [“family member who was present at the bed side”] [Falsely] initiated by wire over the telephone from the State of New Hampshire with a wireless device engaged by using interstate commerce, violating among others, 18 U.S. Code § 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television

5

to circumvent the NY State Health Department law, required Surrogate Consent form and law for financial gain. And thereafter looted the estate, contrary to and as provided therein; N.Y SCP 1750(b); 18 U.S.C. 1343—Elements of Wire Fraud;

[“The elements of wire fraud under Section 1343 directly parallel those of the mail fraud statute, but require the use of an interstate telephone call or electronic communication made in furtherance of the scheme. United States v. Briscoe, 65 F.3d 576, 583 (7th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Ames Sintering Co., 927 F.2d 232, 234 (6th Cir. 1990) (per curiam)); United States v. Frey, 42 F.3d 795, 797 (3d Cir. 1994) (wire fraud is identical to mail fraud statute except that it speaks of communications transmitted by wire); see also, e.g., United States v. Profit, 49 F.3d 404, 406 n. 1 (8th Cir.) (the four essential elements of the crime of wire fraud are: (1) that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally devised or participated in a scheme to defraud another out of money; (2) that the defendant did so with the intent to defraud; (3) that it was reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire communications would be used; and (4) that interstate wire communications were in fact used) (citing Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the Eighth Circuit 6.18.1341 (West 1994)), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 2289 (1995); United States v. Hanson, 41 F.3d 580, 583 (10th Cir. 1994) (two elements comprise the crime of wire fraud: (1) a scheme or artifice to defraud; and (2) use of interstate wire communication to facilitate that scheme); United States v. Faulkner, 17 F.3d 745, 771 (5th Cir. 1994) ( essential elements of wire fraud are: (1) a scheme to defraud and (2) the use of, or causing the use of, interstate wire communications to execute the scheme), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 193 (1995); United States v. Cassiere, 4 F.3d 1006 (1st Cir. 1993) [“to prove wire fraud government must show (1) scheme to defraud by means of false pretenses, (2) defendant's knowing and willful participation in scheme with intent to defraud, and (3) use of interstate wire communications in furtherance of scheme”])); United States v. Maxwell, 920 F.2d 1028, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 1990) [“Wire fraud requires proof of (1) a scheme to defraud; and (2) the use of an interstate wire communication to further the scheme”])).

[cited in USAM 9-43.100]

6

[“Previous intentions was established in Kathleen’s face book transcripts of which statements were planned and made some 100 days in advance of the death of John A. Garvey.”])) [mens rea] executed by Mr. Petsas, [actus reus])).

(vii) The family and captioned Appellants and Movants directly relied upon the official promises of a thorough police and the Medical Examiner’s investigative duties after accepting the investigation and jurisdiction taken over the body, the interviewed Appellant’s and some of the members of the family, and terminated their investigation after learning the direct involvement of Councilman Petsas, despite written Notice and corroborated evidence of such involvements.

The Police involved in this investigation and were officially summoned by the ME And thereafter extended the Special Duties owed thereto. See ME Request(omitted)

4. The appellants relied thereupon a full and proper investigation due to

That relationship, suspicious nature of and the initial findings and the

circumstances discovered prompted by the M.E. preliminary finding of the case

[“under investigation”]) on the death certificate. The appellants relied

upon the promise of a proper further investigation to determine the underlying

circumstances and all parties involved. Thereby such promises and special

relationship duty established. The ME normal duty required him to proceed, and in

this case, with special emphasis pursuant to the municipal promises and

the special duty requirements and his ministerial duties he was to perform as is

set forth in subsection (c) of the Dutchess County Charter among others, yet failed

in even the collection of Medical records of the Pines Facility requested by the

M.E. and despite many requests. refused in others, constitutes negligence.

7

(See: [Section 30.01. Dutchess County Charter]);

(See also : Sorichetti v. City of New York, 408 N.Y.S. 2d 219 (1978); (See also: 65

N.Y.2d 461,492N.Y.S 2d 591 (N.Y. 1985) ( the “Cuffy” Rule)

(Medical Examiner; Appointment; Revocation; Operation of Office.) DUTCHESS COUNTY CHARTER

To Wit:

(b) Medical Examiner; Jurisdiction to Investigate Deaths. The Medical Examiner shall have jurisdiction and authority to investigate the death of every person dying within the County of Dutchess or whose body is found within the County which is or appears to be:[ (1) a violent death, whether by criminal violence, suicide or casualty ])); [ (2) a death caused by unlawful act or criminal neglect ])); [ (3) a death occurring in a suspicious, unusual or unexplained manner ])) ; (4) a death caused by suspected criminal abortion;(5) a death while unattended by a physician, so far as can be discovered, or where no physician, able to certify the cause of death as provided in the public health law and in a form as prescribed by the Commissioner of Health, can be found; (c) Manner of Investigation.1. When the Medical Examiner is informed of the occurrence of a death within his jurisdiction as defined in the previous section, he shall go at once to the place where the body is and take charge of it. Code Article XXX - 2Reissued 03/13

5. In answer to appellees Line Item # 3. The appellants sent the Medical

Examiner a Police report from the City of Poughkeepsie Police Department in

addition to the, the Discharge Narrative of one Doctor Mohomad Akhter, and

the progress notes of RN Sarah Coulter and the emergency room patient assessment intake form, indicating Christopher P. Petsas was present on

8

admission of JOHN ALBERT GARVEY. Counsel for the Appellee’s states the Medical Examiner’s Jurisdiction is limited, yet the required duties proscribed in the County Charter are succinct and specific as to the manner and scope of those duties as defined therein; Section 30.01.(c) of the Dutchess County Charter

(c) Manner of Investigation.1. When the Medical Examiner is informed of the occurrence of a deathwithin his jurisdiction as defined in the previous section, he shall go at once to the place where the body is and take charge of it. The Medical Examiner shall have authority to the extent required for the investigation, to remove and transport the body upon taking charge of it, notwithstanding any general, special or local law.

2. The Medical Examiner shall fully investigate the [essential facts]concerning the death, taking the names and addresses of as many witnesses thereto as it may be practicable to obtain, and before leaving the premises shall reduce all such facts to writing. He shall take possession of any portable objects which, in his opinion, may be useful in establishing the cause or means of death. The Medeical Examiner never went to the body, but had it delivered.3. In the course of the investigation, the Medical Examiner shall make orcause to be made such examinations, including an autopsy, as in his opinion are necessary to establish the cause of death, or to determine the means or manner of death, or to discover facts, the ascertainment of which is requested in writing by a District Attorney, or a Sheriff, or the Chief of a police department of a City or the County, or the Superintendent of State Police, or the Commissioner of Correction. The authority to make any examination as provided in this Section includes the authority to remove, retain and transport or send, for the purpose of the examination, any tissue or organs and any portable object. The Medical Examiner shall have power to subpoena and examine witnesses under oath in the same manner as a magistrate in holding acourt of special sessions.3. In the course of the investigation, the Medical Examiner shall make orcause to be made such examinations, including an autopsy, as in his opinion are necessary to establish the cause of death, or to determine the means or manner of death, or to discover facts, the ascertainment of which is requested in writing by a District Attorney, or a Sheriff, or the Chief of a police

9

department of a City or the County, or the Superintendent of State Police, or the Commissioner of Correction.

5 (i) Appellants firmly hold County Charter part 2. and 3. Also pertainReview of all medical records and procedures as highlighted above herein as being pertinent [“facts”] of the records, when specifically provided such details by a family member [witness] as the case dictates.( and not arbitrary or a self-servingreview when it pertained to his assumed special duties owed and promised.)

(d) Advice, Consultation and Assistance.(d) Advice, Consultation and Assistance. The Medical Examiner shall haveauthority, when necessary in his opinion, to consult with and to request advice, consultation or other assistance from any officer of a department of the State government, from any Medical Examiner of any city or county, from any coroner or coroner's physician of any county, or from the head of any public health laboratory, police laboratory or state or municipal laboratory or from any member of the staff of such laboratory designated for such purposes by the head, ( Which he did when request made to town police who dispatched town Det. Eric Lindermark).

Code Article XXX - 3Reissued 03/13thereof, or from any physician qualified to make postmortem examinations and to testify thereon; and to request from any such person such tests, examinations or analysis and reports with respect thereto as are necessary in his opinion, with respect to the body of the deceased or any part thereof or with respect to any other matter related to his investigation. (e) Employment of Stenographer. When the services of a stenographer shall not have been provided by the County Legislature, or if a stenographer so provided is not available, the Medical Examiner shall have the power to employ a stenographer for the purpose of taking statements and reducing to writing the testimony of witnesses or of transcribing or reproducing any report or document required by his investigation. If the County Legislature has not fixed any rate of compensation, such stenographer shall be paid for taking and transcribing minutes at the rate charged by official court stenographers in the County of Dutchess.

[“(f)”][ Reports and Records].[strenuous emphasis added]1. The writing made by the Medical Examiner at the place where he takes charge of the body shall be filed promptly in the Office of the Medical Examiner. The

10

testimony of witnesses examined before him and the report of any examination made or directed by him shall be made in writing or reduced to writing and thereupon filed in such office.2.[“ The report of any autopsy or other examination” [“shall”] [state every fact] and circumstance tending to show the condition of the body ”])).

5 (i) Appellants informed the M.E. that Christopher Petsas falsely presented himself as family member brother to the hospital for the purpose of fulfilling the familial Requirement to invoke John A. Garvey’s DNR by means of fraud, hoax and ruse violating 18 U.S. Code § 1028A - Aggravated identity theft; providing false information in doing so while violating 18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally of his false familial status and information to the hospital by the NY Health Proxy Agent in which that hospital acted ending the life of John A. Garvey, while violating 18 U.S. Code § 1038 - False information and hoaxesand in which by that hoax and ruse acted upon, precipitated the death of John A. Garvey violating 18 U.S. Code § 1038(c) among the pendant state penal code which abundantly meets the burdens requirements in (a) (1) states meeting and constituting;

(a) Criminal Violation.—(1)In general.—Whoever engages in any conduct with intent to convey false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed and where such information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute a violation of chapter 2, 10, 11B, 39, 40, 44, 111, or 113B of this title, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), or section 46502, the second sentence of section 46504, section 46505(b)(3) or (c), section 46506 if homicide or attempted homicide is involved, or section 60123(b) of title 49, shall—(A) be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;(B) if serious bodily injury results, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and(C) [“if death results, be fined under this title or imprisoned for any number of years up to life, or both”])); U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 19 › § 37118 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States as it provides; If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do

11

any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both aside the pendant state Penal law violations ( omitted here from).

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 701; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

5 (ii) Kathleen B. Garvey’s conspired with Christopher D. Petsas initiated by a phone call from the state of New initiating the act, after planning the details the many of which detailed intentions of the health proxy’s agents [planned absence] [mens rea] was posted in a Face book chat 100 days prior to the death, and thereafter carried out and executed in a New York Hospital by Christopher Petsas upon(to wit: the former St. Francis Hospital) by his presentation as a brother of Kathleen Garvey, authorizing falsely the invocation of the DNR effecting the [actus reus] in a conspiracy to commit homicide using health care fraud abundantly meeting the statutory burden of 18 U.S. Code § 1111 – Murder.

(iii) As the Discharge Narrative states: [Shortly thereafter the patient

expired] written By Doctor Mohamad Akter. The call and the fraud originated initiated all from the state of New

Hampshire to circumvent the NY Public Health Department Surrogates consent law to invoke a DNR and requiring the signature to Department of Health Form(DOH-5003) by either the NY Health Proxy, A direct blood relative or next of Kin, or absent of the first two the DOH MOLST form as a Surrogate as defined as being a [SCPA §1750b Surrogate identified in Section (B) of form DOH-5003])). For a

DNR. See:[DOH Form 5003] L egal requirements checklist. SECTION A Resuscitation Instructions When the Patient Has No Pulse and/or Is Not BreathingCheck one:CPR Order: Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation CPR involves artificial breathing and forceful pressure on the chest to try to restart the heart. It usually involves electric shock (defibrillation) and a

12

plastic tube down the throat into the windpipe to assist breathing (intubation). It means that all medical treatments will be done to prolong life whenthe heart stops or breathing stops, including being placed on a breathing machine and being transferred to the hospital.DNR Order: Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (Allow Natural Death)This means do not begin CPR, as defined above, to make the heart or breathing start again if either stops.SECTION B Consent for Resuscitation Instructions (Section A)The patient can make a decision about resuscitation if he or she has the ability to decide about resuscitation. If the patient does NOT have the ability todecide about resuscitation and has a health care proxy, the health care agent makes this decision. If there is no health care proxy, another person willdecide, chosen from a list based on NYS law.])).SIGNATURE DATE/TIMECheck if verbal consent (Leave signature line blank)PRINT NAME OF DECISIONMAKERPRINT FIRST WITNESS NAME PRINT SECOND WITNESS NAMEWho made the decision? Patient Health Care Agent Public Health Law Surrogate Minor’s Parent/Guardian §1750 b Surrogate

(v) After which was confirmed and Corroborated in an admitted byKathleen B. Garvey in a Notarized sworn Statement Provided to the parties in the estate proceedings and the Dutchess County Surrogate’s court Judge James D. Pegones on July 15, 2013. In case No.: 2012-188 The case was abruptly stayed and immediately transferred to Orange County without explanations the same day, and is still ongoing under that courts file 2013-609/C which the Appellant’s were finally appointed permanent administrators on December 2 2015. Despite all of these issues raised to both Surrogate Jurists, during which time the Estate was nearly 75 percent looted by Kathleen Garvey, with some involvement of Mr. Petsas, and his Club the Exempt Firemans Association, Inc. who received a check of 7,000.00 we were unaware of until informed by the deceased’s insurance company.

5 (v) Counselor for the appellees James Mark Fedorchak’s associates makes no mention of these facts in his opposition and when with knowledge violates a host of sections of 22 NYCRR Part 1200.

The very reasons the appellants insisted they produce the DOH form 5003 to obtain an official response, when they sent a letter stating and declaring on

13

12-1-14 that [“ after diligent search of your fathers Medical records by Counselor Byron, and the Chief Medical Examiner, Chute, that no Surrogates Consent form was in the record, and to quote in his opposition, [“could be found”] . ( # 5 last sentence). Noteworthy is the fact we were aware of the requirement as it was personally explained to me by Senior Counsel, Johnathan Karmel, Esq., to NY State Health Department that it was a permanent part of the medical record absent the Health care Proxy agent or a direct sibling. What counselor Fedorchak and all of his associates were unaware of, that the appellant already knew the required form was not present, having a full copy of the 100 page Medical record of the deceased, and new already no DOH 5003 form was present, raising the question of fraud, yet needed an official response due to the estate proceedings and their accepted special duties. Dutchess County provided that declaration in writing, and in doing so validated, verified and confirmed the occurrences of not only the health care fraud, but also the crime of a false Discharge Narrative that was generated by the Former St. Francis Hospital, Doctor Akhter; created to accommodate that occurrence of fraud to mislead and provide a false impression to appear that “a” family member was present, when in fact the captioned appellant, PATRICK FRANCIS GARVEY, was the sole lawful representative that existed in the entire state of NY, and not present, and such a Narrative was a biological impossibility, and conveyed to Judy Fitzpatrick of St. Francis Hospital administration office as such. Stating that the record was false, refusing to speak further and referred me to their attorney Nixon and Peabody ( their Chapter 13 attorneys ) in a bankruptcy petition 5 days before our initial action against them was filed in district Court, and dismissed See (Gavey v. St Francis 13-cv 09084; appealed (US 2d Cir., 14-1081) and before this very Court on appeal, dismissed as void by the automatic stay, and dismissed with mandate [Without Prejudice] US 2d Cir.,])). (Order omitted.) Despite the federal crimes currently clearly prevalent in both the State surrogate court files and federal published court records and exhibits.

6 The Honorable James D. Pegones although presented with these facts in that courts records, simply ignored the issues and the June 14, 2013 Motion which brought them, transferred the case of which that motion languished for 110 days contrary to the 60 day rule later dismissed and interpreted as a motion to reargue, and current issues still pending, now in Orange County Surrogates Court 2013-609/C while seemingly, both jurist appears to be obstructing the report while Appellants cited 18 USC 4 and FRE Rule 201 to both state courts most recently on 12-1-15 in Orange County Surrogate’s court and to Judge Preska in every case

14

presented to the Chief Jurist, while with due respect, failed in her obligations under 18 USC 4 to take notice when reported and cause referral to an investigative agency “they them selves not involved,” more importantly [forthwith] as the statute requires of the Jurist when presented with the facts now here shown. Again, with all due respect the chief Jurist then acts prejudicially to place by Order an injunction against the docket baring any filings under 14-cv-10299 during the pendency of this appeal, in apparent retaliation for exercising a constitutional right that would not have been necessary had the chief Jurist taken Demanded Judicial Notice of the clear presented fraud in the records, much less the conduct that precipitated it. Judge Pegones could have and should have stopped these crimes on July 15, 2013 when they came to his attention. Rather then forwarded the criminal acts to another jurisdiction the very day they arrived that should have predicated mandatory Judical Notice of the Adjudicative fact, much less forwarding them to another Jurisdiction with wanton disregard to the damage that has since occurred and created a state of Judicial mess this case has become in that wake of such failures. what’s more, shockingly, without any explanation whatsoever, to the parties in the Estate Proceedings The same day, smacks of impropriety if not clear obstruction of justice to any reasonable person, to protect local hospital special interest known and his campaign donors, then the family and interests of the estate and the law he serves. Any simple person could, with a simple understanding of the law realize.

7 Had Appellees and their counsel completed their obligations and special duty promised by the Medical examiner, again this mess would not exist, and those responsible brought to justice and held accountable, but again, special and political interest prevail, while those charged in upholding the law regardless of those exposed devastate financially by their intentional infliction of distress to a family and relatives for the sake of shielding corrupt collogues is plainly despicable in anyone’s eyes. Yes I Filed a Miscellaneous motion as a 9th grade educated roofer desperately seeking to correct a blatant and gross display of misconduct, misprision and official misconduct engaged collectively involved all of the appellees, at the cost of human life after and likely unknowingly, honorable

Administrative Judge Alan D. Schenkman, transferred the case same day, did we find the list 6 to 8 Board members of ST. Francis Hospital who recently were cash political donors in Judge Pegones’s reelection and likely done at that time to shield the hospital. Despite numerous requests largely documented over and over since

15

March 6 2012 to the Appelle’s, were all ignored. After, I confronted Mr. Petsas about his direct involvement in the fraud, after Dutchess county validated the fraud in writing, we suspected despite, filed a false complaint to hinder the continuance of these proceedings in the district court, with the bogus charges dismissed on fascial insufficiency. And never refiled despite that judge providing 45 days to do so, proved they were knowingly baseless and done immediately after confronting Councilman Petsas. Despite reporting these issues in reports to the Commission on Judicial Conduct and the grievance Committee for the 9th District… All Ignored and covered up after saying nothing for nearly a year..

8 Appellees opposition on his item 8, is knowingly wrong, as Counselor should know and has easy access to such Public assistance records of Dutchess County, had he been diligent, would, could, and should have had of out of diligence, realized the amount in the monthly income was incorrect, yet rather reflects the total annual amount of for the entire previous 12 months, and is demonstrative of his lack in diligence when with accurate review of his own county agency records would have shown the fact was the total for the year prior. Surely Counsel knows the appellant is a single male would realize the error as no single person receives $ 36,058 a year in public assistance benefit, when an applicant eligibility would not qualify at such income levels. Further, my home was previously foreclosed upon by attorneys for Deutsche Bank, and assigned to referee, Jack Econmou, Esq., and prior to forclosure sold in a bulk package to Bank of America, unknown to appellant, expecting eviction papers. Thereafter received papers from BOA to discuss possible Modification rather than initiate new foreclosure proceeding.

(i) The latest of the city and County, is the action taken during the pendency of this Court’s consideration, and despite the city defendant Building Inpsector’s blatant contempt for this court’s authority, are now deeming the building vacant and abandoned and have according to the notice dated 10/26/15 have likely boarded up and by doing so likely caused damage to (32) windows at a cost of $32,000.00 and or both, new Western Red Cedar Siding installed in 2005 in violation of Appellant’s due process, and “takings Clause of the 5th, amendment.”

9 This item in opposition is purely a self-serving mitigating statement,as its already abundantly set forth here, the substantiation of which had the District Court carry out its mandated administrative and statutory duties, the merit clearly establishes itself on fraud in health matters, as they are substantial, glaringly

16

criminal, and mandated by 18 USC 4 to Notice and further investigation to determine exacting party culpability while further establishes more meritorious cause civil than not just by facts publically published in all the court records.

(i) Upon Proper investigation by a federal agency, will not only yield Current abundant cause, but further merit and give rise to significant need of further criminal proceedings thereby. Aside the false arrest which was dismissed, and the day after the city defendant-appellees, engaged in a course of conduct to order the appellant to leave his home of 10 plus years to further thwart, impede, intimidate and retaliate defensively, over the issues presented and record tampering established there. Is it ironic and very convenient that the Appellee’s Counselor’s wife Nancy Fedorchak, is employed by the defendant city building Department, who issued an Order on May 20, 2015 while advised by e-mail I had left the county Jurisdiction to comply despite the due process violations simply then uses tampered documents to bring new charges and then serve a summons on that property based on City negligence 10 years previous, with altered documents, between May 5 2010 and August 6 of the same year and back dated to 2005 in documents indicated in this courts T-1080, to leave the home immediately the day after the city court Judge dismissed the false charges. Thereafter send a summons to the very address, ordered to vacate, knowing I had complied although an order not provided by any court, despite violating the takings clause of the 5th amendment and due process violations, and then to issue a bench warrant for failing to appear on documents served on the vacated address never served, knowingly, when the e-mail was sent to that building department in June 2015 noted and acknowledged by the City reply e-mail of Kathy Rodriguez, I had left the County, also indicated in the IFP Application and ironically where the Dutchess County counselor’s spouse is employed. Appellants have already established a pattern of witness tampering and intimidation by the false arrest and the violations of due process, the tampered documents thereafter.

(ii) Appellees, Counselor’s Item # 4 opposition is correct and without Appellant’s need in saying, to justify same as aforesaid previously herein. Item 5 is also abundantly answered and with good cause abundantly shown for the reasons thereof and herein.

10 The medical examiner refused to inform the authorities or the District

Attorney, William Grady, after having been informed knowingly, of the facts two

17

years previously.

(i) The July 15, 2013 admission of culpability of Kathleen Garvey inDutchess County Surrogates Court under their File 2012-188 corroborated the health fraud and perjury in Court records of Estate proceedings, all of which despite reporting and submission of irrefutable NY Rule 901 self-authenticating documented proof, were all ignored to protect those culpable and to serve and protect the special interests of the former St. Francis Hospital and the sitting Surrogate’s policitcal Donors on the board of St. Francis Hospital, again shown and listed in the district Court records.

(ii) The Medical Examiner, owed duties he refused to perform despite documented proof of the fraud shown in the medical procedures, and the generation of false documented Narrative of material facts to accommodate them. All of which fall under the county Charter duty purview, manner and scope of his investigative authority, is clearly demonstrated and abundantly shown negligent and remains actionable for damages.

Again. All of which were obligated by his acceptance and promises made to and

aside obligations and duties pursuant to his mandated obligations to discharge in the Dutchess County charter Section 30.01., obligated to render all such facts be

reduced to writing, mandated reporting and provided to Appellants.

A special duty accepted upon the Medical Examiner’s invocation

of Jurisdiction over the body and initial preliminary cause of death labeled “under

investigation.” [emphasis added]. JOHN ALBERT GARVEY’S death was

precipitated by presentation and use of false information, in a hoax and ruse; a

fraud perpetrated thereupon for unjust financial enrichment, relied upon by

18

the Hospital, staff submitted by Christopher D. Petsas and Kathleen B. Garvey to

purposes of looting John A. Garvey’s assets and Estate. Appellant’s continued to

demand the reporting of the fraud, and the false generated medical records after

such suspicious circumstances to him yet he refused to alert the authorities

stating “ The Hospital had to find someone.” To cover for Mr. Petsas. The M.E.

was informed by the appellant on or about 19th day of February 2012.

All of the County, City and individual Defendant-Appellees, direct knowledge

during and those becoming involved thereafter to aid and abet the cover-up are

accessories after the fact with knowledge and subject to penalties as those

perpetrating the original crimes themselves, and statutorily provided for.

Appellant prays this honorable Court provide some latitude in this Answer as to

format whereas lacking such latitude, appellant’s answer would exceed the 20 Page

Rule.

11 The Appellant herein also prays and moves by this additional

supplemental Motion to his Omnibus for the additional relief as defined herein

below:

19

APPELLANT’S SUPPLEMENTALMOTION TO OMNIBUS(A) Move to vacate District Court Order of Injunction dated 10-5-15;(B). Motion to remove previous District Court Jurist for Cause and

Failure to take Judicial Notice and 18 USC 4 administrative action [forthwith];

(C) Motion for full record review of all District court and both Surrogate Court proceeding records for adjudicative fact, and procedural defect;

(D) Motion for Injunction and TRO of Appellee City Building Inspector from further acts against Appellant’s Property pending findings and Mandates of the Second Circuit, also for good cause shown;

(E) Leave to file additional Motions.

WHEREFORE , the appellant’s fervently pray this honorable court grant their application to proceed in informa pauperis for good cause shown, the relief requested in their Second Omnibus, Supplemental Motion to that Omnibus, and such other relief this court in its discretions, deems just proper and equitable.

Dated: Peekskill, New York Respectfully submitted,December 7th, 2015

________________________________________PATRICK F. GARVEY, Appellant-Plaintiff, Fiduciary and Co-Administrator, Estate of John A. GarveyPost Office Box 21Newburgh, NY 12550845-249-7194E-mail: roofersrwe@aol.com

20

21