UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Terence Finnan, Plaintiff
Civil
Case No. 08-cv-0259:
versus
CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO 42
U.S.C.§ 1981,
Kevin K. Ryan, Marsha Kameron Finnan, 1983, 1985(2), and 1986
Ara Asadourian, Ann Kennedy,
Essex County, Darla Breckenridge,
J. Does, and Vito Caruso Defendants
....
4. FACTS
A. A Kangaroo Court was operated under the color of law by Defendant
Ryan, with the assistance and/or neglect of Defendants Caruso and
Asadourian.
The acts by Defendant Ryan included:
a. refusing to follow the law and precedents of higher courts,
b. having ex parte communications with Defendant Asadourian and a Ms. Sharpe;
c. making pre trial motions’ decisions which were not appealable;
d. knowingly accepting perjury;
e. taking the rights from a pro se allowed to attorneys in court;
f. ruling Pro Se cannot impeach the testimony of a
witness with the witness’s affidavits or court documents in the
same action, or sworn items in the complaint or deposition testimony
g. allowing Asadourian to give two days of
inadmissible fraudulent testimony and ¼ day of admissible
testimony and then not allowing pro se to refute the two days of
inadmissible fraudulent testimony, because it was inadmissible;
h. ruling Pro Se cannot cross examine certain witnesses;
Page -2-
i. refusing to allow any subpoenas for pro se;
j. reversing the order of closing arguments with pro se defendant going first in the closing argument;
k. allowing Asadourian to claim this is the worst case of abuse he has seen in 20+ years,
1. allowing Asadourian to yell and harass witnesses and me.
The acts by Defendant Caruso included:
m. failing to act agaionst Defendant Essex
County’s Clerk who knowingly lied that I did not demand a trial
by jury
n. failing to act when informed that Defendant Ryan
had ex parte communications with Eileen Sharpe and that Ryan
prevented an appeal of the scheduling order and that Ryan allowed
only two days for a jury trial with eight expert witnesses and that I
demanded my rights under the Constitutions of NY and USA
o. failing to act when informed that Defendant Ryan
refused to allow the Police and Police records to be subpoenaed and
that Ryan allowed Darla Breckenridge, who Ryan knew had no license, to
be named an expert witness
p. failing to act when informed that on 12/17/2007
at a 4 PM scheduled pretrial conference before Ryan the following
sequence of events occurred:
3:55 PM I arrive outside court room and sit
4.06 PM Ara
Asadourian arrives in his coat and winter hat and walks through the
court room and back to Judge Ryan’s chambers.
4;28 PM Ara
Asadourian leaves Judge Ryan’s chambers and comes to waiting room
and asks his client to come for a discussion with him.
4:40 PM I am called into courtroom for conference
q. failing to act when informed that Ryan refused my
requests for subpoenas for witnesses which were named in the Bill of
Particulars.
r. failing to act when informed that Ryan was going
to rule on the merits of the Mandamus suit against him and continue as
Judge in an action where Ryan’s conduct was an issue
s. failing to act when informed of the misconduct and corruption of Ryan described in above a. through 1. (bolded)
t. failing to act when informed Ryan knew the
evidence presented did not support the strict requirements of the law
for this marriage of long duration as noted Kaplan v Kaplan 2007 NYSlip
Op 09734
Page -3-
u. failing to act when informed that Ryan lied about
a subpoena for Victoria Finnan and that Ryan lied about not raising the
issues of Asadourian’s corruption and that Ryan falsely claimed
he was not a party in the Mandamus action.
These acts by
Defendant Asadourian included:
v. telling the jury that this was the worst
case of abuse he had seen in 25 years as a lawyer and District Attorney
violating jiscip1inary Rule 7-106 (B) 3 and DR 7-106(B) 4
w. intentionally and habitually violating
established rules of procedure and of evidence in violation of DR 7-106
(B) 7
x. presenting perjured “read back to jury testimony” in violation of DR 7-102 (A)
y. claiming personal knowledge of proceedings before
the Office of Professions when all such information is privileged .
This DR 7-102 (A) 5
z. claiming that a lawsuit against Andrew Wylie was
without merit, when that action was settled with a confidential
settlement unknown to Asadourian. This violated DR 7-102 (A) 4 and 5.
B.
The Defendants, Asadourian, Marsha Finnan, Kennedy, J. Does(s) and
Essex County through its funded entities rehearsed, planned and
presented multiple false perjuries which Marsha Finnan knew to be false
and which perjuries the other described defendants knew andlor
negligently failed to determine were false.
C. Defendant Breckenridge falsely claimed the
privileges of a licensed professional in NY, when she had no such
license, in the the Family Court and the Supreme Court. Breckenridge
deprived Terence Finnan of his right to full and complete discovery
under law and she refused to release records for which see received a
signed release claiming a special privilege. Breckenridge claimed
immunity from legal action for negligence when NY Law defines her
conduct as negligent. Breckenridge in Finnan v Finnan refused to
testify freely, fully and truthfully and demanded to be exempt from
cross examination. Breckenridge in Finnan v Finnan, Breckenridge et al.
deprived Terence Finnan of his right to name her as a party due to her
false claims of privilege and demanded immunity from discovery.
D. Defendants, Marsha Finnan, and
Asadourian committed multiple crimes against Terence Finnan and were
protected under the color of law in those crimes by the Defendant, Ryan
and Caruso, who refused to carry out their duties under law. These
crimes are described in affidavits submitted to the court in November
2007.
Page -4-
Continued