PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

FACTS PERTAINING TO SUA SPONTE RECUSALS OF FIVE PRESIDING JUDGES

The Honorable Judge Susan Aramony issued a sua sponte Order to disqualify herself from the case, dated August 1, 2008, after a vexatious hearing held on July 24, 2008, which would prove to be the onset of a series of misrepresentation of facts in Respondent’s motions and testimony including allegations as to the reason for the trial court’s striking of Petitioner’s pleadings. Notwithstanding, this Writ in no way attempts to re-litigate matters already affirmed by this court nor does it seek to re-literate dispositive rulings mandated by this Court.

On August 1, 2008, The Honorable Judge Susan F. Greenhawt was randomly assigned to the case, and was the presiding judge during pre-trial, trial proceedings and the rendition of the Final Judgment(s) in this case.

Judge Greenhawt disqualified herself from the case, sua sponte, in an Order dated June 29, 2009, during the pendency of the related Appeal. Following the Order for disqualification, Petitioner filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration of prior judicial rulings challenging, among other Orders, The Original and both Amended Final Judgments of Dissolution. A copy is attached hereto as Exhibit “G”.

Petitioner’s pending motions were once again placed on the back burner during the pendency of reassignment to a successor judge.

On July 8, 2009, the case was then randomly assigned to the Honorable Judge Marina Garcia-Wood and an initial hearing was held on September 2, 2009. Petitioner’s friend, Robert Bishop was present. Petitioner’s motion(s) and an ADA Accommodation Request were subject to the hearing and two (2) Orders were rendered by Judge Wood:

Order “Deferring” Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration on prior Orders of a disqualified Judge; and an Order “Denying” Petitioner’s Motion to Correct a Clerical Error. Copies are attached hereto as Exhibit “K”.

On September 14, 2009, Mr. Bishop issued letter and sworn affidavit to Judge Wood of which both were docketed by Petitioner and made part of the record. Subsequent to receiving Bishop’s correspondence and sworn statement, Judge Wood issued an Order disqualifying herself, sua sponte and date September 18, 2009. Copies are attached hereto as Exhibit “L”.

Petitioner’s pending motions were once again placed on the back burner.

On September 10, 2009, Petitioner submitted an ADA Request for Accommodations for “all future proceedings” to the ADA Administrator, Cheryl Anderson who issued her response on September 20, 2009. Copies of the request and response are attached hereto as Exhibit “M”.

Petitioner’s pending motions were once again placed on the back burner.

The Honorable Judge Arthur Birken was randomly assigned to the case on September 18, 2009.

Substantial judicial filings and hearing ensued in the trial court on numerous Motions filed by Respondent’s opposing counsel and on behalf of his client. Among other misrepresentations in motions, Respondent repeatedly alleged that Petitioner’s income exceeded $100,000.00 annually and that her “alleged” disability was “highly questionable” and her “claim” of “illness” was used as a tactic to intentionally delay, and her willful failure to comply with this court’s order.” The docket reflects the series of voluminous filings and is attached hereto as Exhibit “O”.

Another year of proceedings would commence, where Petitioner spent 100% of her time, without representation, “defending” the countless, vexatious filings and misrepresentations asserted in Respondent’s Motions and Petitioner’s motions remained unheard. On September 21, 2011, Judge Birken issued a sua sponte Order disqualifying himself from the case but, unlike all other recusal Orders, Judge Birken’s Order included a note to the successor judge, recommending that the case be assigned to a Senior Judge. In his recusal order, Judge Birken stated;

“This case may need to be assigned to a Senior Judge”. The clerk specifically instructed the newly-assigned Judge to “review” Judge Birken’s Order to Recuse after notating that it was not a “standard” Order as it contained a referral to a “Sr. Judge”. Copies are attached hereto with Exhibits “A” (Recusal Orders). Judge Greenhawt, a disqualified judge, independently returned the case to the “random assignment” pool and disregarded Judge Birken’s recommendation that the case was suited for a Senior Judge. The Chief Judge was never noticed and the disqualified Judge acted independently by simply resubmitting the case for random assignment. Upon review of the record, Petitioner sought assistance of the office of the ADA Administrator and the Honorable Chief Judge Peter Weinstein through a letter and copy of Judge Birken’s recusal Order recommending a Senior Judge be assigned. A copy of the letters and responses are attached hereto as Exhibit “P”.

Petitioner was once again denied an opportunity to be heard, once again, and her pending motions were placed on the back burner.

On September 21, 2009 The Honorable Judge Alfred J. Horowitz was randomly assigned to the case. Subsequent hearings were conducted on December 6 and December 14, 2011. Petitioner presented her Motion to Conduct Discovery and argued the merits of her Motion to Vacate the Amended Final Judgment Under 12.540. The trial court, finally, for the first time, after hearing Petitioner’s testimony as to the merits of her claims, granted a three (3)-hour evidentiary hearing that was scheduled to be heard on Febrauary 2, 2012.

However, On January 23, 2012 Stephen L. Berzner, ESQ., filed his “LIMITED” Notice of Appearance on behalf of the Petitioner, with a limited scope of obtaining Attorney’s Fees to represent Petitioner. Judge Horowitz instructed Mr. Berzner to direct Petitioner to “refrain from filing any pro se filings” and in an Order dated April 16, 2012, the trial court directed Mr. Berzner to “consolidate” all of Petitioner’s pending motions into one Motion to be filed by Mr. Berzner but stated that “no retroactive attorney’s fees” would be entertained or awarded. The trial court rescinded its decision to allow for the evidentiary hearing already pre-set until such time that Mr. Berzner could produce the consolidated Motions and re-justify the need for eventiary proceedings and extended discovery.

The voluminous filings resulted in over 35 hours of counsel’s time, without compensation. During the limited time of Mr. Berzner’s appearance in this case, opposing counsel filed numerous ex parte motions, and actually obtained an ex parte Order compelling Petitioner to respond to his Request for Production. Respondent was without choice but to file a Motion defending opposing counsel’s “concealed attacks” since no copies were provided to Petitioner despite Petitioner’s requests for same. Copies are attached hereto as Exhibit “O”.

Judge Horowitz filed his sua sponte order to Recuse dated July 24, 2012.

Petitioner’s pending motions were once again placed on the back burner. In addition, Petitioner’s Evidentiary Hearing already set on the docket reserving three (3) hours was rescinded and denied and she is back at square one with complete absence of due process. Both the hearing and her right to conduct discovery were both dissolved upon Judge Horowitz’ Order to Recuse.

The case was randomly assigned to Judge Rothschild on July 24, 2012. Petitioner sent copies of her Motion objecting to the ex parte filings to the newly-assigned judge who sent his response dated August 21, 2012 and received a response from the judge. Copies are attached hereto as Exhibit “P”.

Subsequent to Judge Rothschild’s letter, Mr. Berzner’s inevitable Motion to Withdraw as “limited” counsel was Granted in an Order dated September 4, 2012.

Petitioner’s pending motions were once again placed on the back burner.

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO VACATE FINAL and AMENDED JUDGMENTS AS VOID AB INITIO

The “Original” and two (2) subsequent “nunc pro tunc” Amended Final Judgments

On March 13, 2009, Petitioner filed a EX-PARTE EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORAY FINANCIAL RELIEF AND A TO VACATE FINAL ORDER.

Respondent, on March 13 2009, filed a MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, FOR REHEARING, and/or TO CORRECT FINAL JUDGMENT, along with a NOTICE OF HEARING scheduled on March 23, 2009, at 8:45P.M in room 997.

Both Motions were Denied of which the Orders are attached hereto as Exhibit “Q”.

One (1) original Final Order, followed by Two (2) Final Orders (Amended). The Amended Final Orders differed on the final page of the Judgment, specifically as to the actual “date” of which the Amended Final Judgment would become docketed. However, both Amended Final Judgments are “official” court versions that remain in effect through this current day. Copies are attached hereto as Exhibit “ XX”.

It is important to note that Petitioner’s Appellate counsel, Lynn Waxman, was furnished with all concurrent, post-decree trial proceedings, motion(s) and Order(s) during the pendency of the Appeal the appeal on the stricken pleadings remained pending. The correspondence is attached and referenced hereto as “Exhibit Q”.

COMPOSITE OF EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT                     TITLE

A                                   RECUSAL ORDERS

B                                    DOCKET

C                                    CORRESPONDENCE – CHIEF JUDGE(S)

D                                   ALJ FINAL ORDER

E                                    TRANSCRIPT DECEMBER 17, 2008

F                                    OMNIBUS ORDER ISSUED BY HON. JUDGE BIRKE;  SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 – MEDICAL CONTINUANCE

G                                   FINAL AND AMENDED JUDGMENTS

H                                   PETITIONER’S OMNIBUS MOTION – A CONSOLIDATED MOTION OF PENDING MOTIONS

I                                     DENIED ORDERS MARCH 13, 2009

J                                     RELATED FORECLOSURE CASES

K                                   SEPTEMBER 2, 2009 ORDERS RENDERED BY JUDGE WOOD

L                                    ROBERT BISHOP’S SWORN STATEMENT AND LETTER TO JUDGE WOOD

M                                   FORMAL REQUEST FOR ADA ACCOMMODATIONS AND RESPONSE

N                                   ORDER INSTRUCTING MR. BERZNER TO CONSOLIDATE PETITIONER’S PENDING MOTIONS

O                                   RESPONDENT’S EX PARTE MOTION AND EX PARTE ORDER TO COMPEL PETITIONER’S RFP; PETITIONER’S MOTION OBJECTING TO X PARTE FILINGS

P                                    PETITIONER’S LETTER, MOTION(S) AND RESPONSE FROM JUDGE ROTHSCHILD

Q                                   MARCH 13, 2009 MOTION AND ORDERS

R                                    MARCH 20, 2009 MOTION AND MARCH 23, 2009 ORDER