The CRIMINAL CONDUCT alleged below was admitted by Atty. Bomba in court proceedings by failing to oppose motion papers and deny allegations of criminality ("silence is assent").

On or about 6/16/95, in Surrogate's Court, New York County, Atty. Bomba FABRICATED AN INCOMPLETE AND FACIALLY VOID "CITATION" and then caused a copy of same to be served as "process" under the PRETENSE OF AUTHENTICITY.
Atty. Bomba's as-served "citation" had no caption (CPLR 2101[c]), and no notice of the relief requested in the petition (SCPA 306[1][d]). The original "citation," found in the court files, had no proof of issuance and filing (SCPA 306[4], no file number (without which it cannot be filed), no clerk's "filed" stamp (CPLR 304), and no impression seal of the court (SCPA 306[4]). My attorneys, acting in collusion with Atty. Bomba, pleaded to and subjected me to futile "litigation" in this SCAM, without challenging statutory noncompliance (and resultant lack of jurisdiction and availability of appeal). I was neither advised nor consulted regarding the consequences of forged process UNLAWFUL CONVERSION WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW! (Also a felony)

Deliberate and willful making/altering/completing and serving of unauthorized process is a crime under P.L. 170.10 (Forgery 2nd). When done by an elder-law specialist with "superior knowledge," who knew or should have known that such a "citation" was absolutely void, such act constitutes a clear INTEND TO DEFRAUD! Because of Atty. Bomba's position as co-chair of the Subcommittee on Fraud and Abuse - moral turpitude, evil intent and guilty knowledge (mens rea) are also present.

Atty. Bomba, in promoting a fictitious (unauthorized) "litigation," first ATTEMPTED TO EXCLUDE ME FROM NOTICE OF THE PROCEEDINGS by claiming my whereabouts were "unknown." When it became apparent that I had become aware of the proceedings, she then submitted a false and fraudulent backdated affidavit as "damage control" for a COMPLETE LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE!

Surrogate Eve Preminger, without ascertaining her jurisdiction, IMPROPERLY PRESIDED OVER THE FICTITIOUS PROBATE PROCEEDING on an unfiled "probate package" (a probate petition was filed, but few of the customary supporting documents were filed). She ultimately admitted the purported will to probate, WITHOUT ANY LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO DO SO. This followed violation by her of all controlling authority concerning summary judgment procedures She precluded meaningful pretrial discovery by issuing improper "protective" orders to fiduciaries, ignoring a CPLR 2218 demand for hearing by jury (usurping jury power), manufacturing "evidence" contrary to and not supported by the record, and rendering fact decisions rather than merely identifying issues for trial. I was not permitted to speak at "oral arguments." She constantly violated CPLR 2219 by failing to recite the papers used in the motions. Based on the initial lack of jurisdiction and authority by reason of unissued/unauthorized process, and the LACK OF DUE PROCESS NOTICE in the "citation," Surrogate Preminger had no authority to issue any relief, but issue relief, she did!

Acting without lawful authority, the clerk issued Letters Testamentary and the estate was apparently converted by Atty. Bomba, her client, and others. In short, I was deprived of my rightful inheritance by fraud and collusion, by a fiduciary, other "officers of the court" and a public officer.
Although, as a matter of law, the orders and decree and the clerk's certificates are void ab initio, the appellate courts refused to remand for dismissal and instead accepted jurisdiction, affirming the unlawful summary judgment, claiming waiver of jurisdiction, WHILE REFUSING TO LOOK AT THE FORGED, UNAUTHORIZED, DEFECTIVE "CITATION"! This, of course, is contrary to controlling authority As a matter of law, waiver or agreement by the parties cannot confer jurisdiction where jurisdiction in compliance with statutory mandates is not lawfully obtained initially.
IS IT JUSTICE - OR CRONYISM AND COVERUP?

Working from the original "citation" found in the court files, the clerk, on 9/16/98, FALSELY CERTIFIED to the "filing" of a "citation" without file number, "filed" stamp, and court impression seal! And a judge and chief clerk executed an exemplified copy, FALSELY STATING that they "examined the records and files and found there remaining a certain record of a Citation…" despite the fact that THE RECORDS OF THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF SURROGATE'S COURT, NEW YORK COUNTY, DO NOT EVIDENCE ANY ISSUANCE OF A CITATION, NOR RETURN ON PROCESS. At my request, several independent witnesses have examined the court records and furnished affidavits to that effect, to prevent tampering.

The clerks of that court are also failing to keep required records of proceedings, otherwise issuing false certificates (to the effect that papers were filed when they were not so filed), and failing and refusing to issue certificates of "no record" on fee-paid requests for "no-record" certificates.

SURROGATE'S COURT, UNLIKE CIVIL/SUPREME/HOUSING/FEDERAL COURTS, DOES NOT MAKE THEIR RECORDS AVAILABLE IN PRINTOUT FORM TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, THUS ENGAGING IN "STAR CHAMBERS" PROCEEDINGS

Twice a week in Surrogate's Court, New York County, there are numerous defaults in appearances on "citations" allegedly served, and untold moneys are siphoned out of decedent's estates. When judges do not insist on proof of mailing (and receipt), all kinds of fraud can take place.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO OVERSIGHT OF COMPLIANCE WITH LAW !

It is stories like this that bring disgrace to bench and bar. This is not an isolated case, but it is one which is extremely well documented. The group of victims of corruption in the courts is now huge. General pro-se litigation is at an all-time high due to a distrust of the profession. But the public consensus is that surrogate's court is the most corrupt.
There are no "good lawyers" when property is converted without due process of law and no one does anything about it! If thieves are allowed to operate with impunity, then all lawyers are justly deserving of their constantly worsening image, which is now, according to recent bar reports, of great concern, but obviously not yet enough to take any meaningful action.