Filing for Asensio versus DiFiore. Case assigned to the US District Court Judge Ronnie Abrams. Manuel P. Asensio, individually and as the parent of Eva Asensio, a minor child,
Plaintiffs, -against- Janet DiFiore, Chief Judge of New York State; Barbara Underwood, Attorney General of New York State; Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of New York State; Adetokunbo O. Fasanya, New York County Family Court Magistrate; and Emilie Marie Bosak, individually.
The cover sheet of the complaint reads as follows:
The Plaintiff, Manuel P. Asensio, files this pleading individually and on behalf of his daughter, Eva Asensio, born October 14, 2004. It is an indisputable and undeniable fact that New York State Chief Judge Janet Marie DiFiore (“Defendant DiFiore”) retaliated against the Plaintiffs as a direct response to the Plaintiff’s investigations into Defendant DiFiore’s ongoing malicious use of the federal courts’ so-called “domestic relations exception to Article III or federal subject matter jurisdiction.” The Plaintiffs define the acronym “DRE” as the “domestic relations exception.” Defendant DiFiore uses the DRE to protect her ability to use her powers wantonly, as she has done in the Plaintiff’s post-divorce judgment actions against Emilie Marie Bosak (“Defendant Bosak”) and to protect her impermissible ‘use tax’ scheme and her malicious domestic relations process. The process is entirely based on deliberate and malicious fabrications that are created without legitimate jurisdiction, rules, controls, standards, or codes. The process’ central purpose is the fabrication of charges, evidence, fees and judgments based on concealed impermissible ideological rules. The Plaintiff defines the acronym “PIDRP” to mean Defendant DiFiore’s “prohibited and impermissible domestic relations process.” The DRE is a counter-intuitive, counterfactual, prejudicial and unsupported blind sanctioning of Defendant DiFiore’s wanton crimes against the public.
 Defendant DiFiore is the Chief Judge of the State and the Court of Appeals. She is also the Chair of the Administrative Board of the Courts, which sets the state’s judicial standards and policies, the Head of the Office of Court Administration, and the sole state official responsible for the supervision of the Justice Department’s ethics and judicial conduct education. She holds the state’s only power under Judiciary Law §212(1) (h) to directly investigate judicial misconduct, while controlling, along with the governor, the state’s commission for the adjudication of judicial misconduct.Click here to view pdf