Denial of due process in dismissal of case without considering evidence, denial of discovery, improper consolidation of cases, judicial bias and misconduct

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Case Index number CV-030309-13/QU, Petitioner had submitted letter from President of Com| municar Inc. Pasquale Freni, to David Kosher, General counsel to Progressive credit union, stating that Progressive credit union is now the sole owner of 64 Radio share certificates on March 16, 2011. In the same letter, it states that the printed Radio share certificates would be shipped later after print: ing, this shows that this is a single transaction of 64 Radio share certificates, and not a foreclose action and seizure of the shares for default of loans. If one checks the status of the shares from the Stock share ledger, it will be apparent that the actual disposition of the shares Would be exposed. 1. Question: Why did the Honorable Judge Jodi Orlow refuse to call on the disposition of the shares by a simple discovery of the Stock share certificate ledger, and did she not negate the perjured motions submitted . by the Defendants? ’ Quote(sworn under oath by Defendant counsel.) “Progressive Inc. has never entered into any agreement with Communicar Inc. for the purpose of sale or purchase of Radio stock shares.” 2. Question: Why did the Honorable Judge Jodi Orlow state that the evidence submitted was unsigned, and unsworn and unacknowledged, without perusing the evidence? ii ; QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued The evidence submitted shows beyond the shadow . of a doubt that Progressive purchased 64 Radios without paying the required share transfer fee of $1000/per share, and Petitioner was given these papers by the President of Communicar Inc., when he was a member of the Corporation and administration as Co-Chairman to vice President of Rules and security. 8. Question: Why did Honorable Judge Jodi Orlow not send the petitioner a “Motion correction Notice” if the submission was inadmissible, so petitioner could refile in the correct format? This is a violation of Basic fairness, and pre-empting petitioner from seeking Justice. 4. Question: Why did Honorable Judge Jodi Orlow classify and dismiss the case as under Res Judicata? For Res Judicata, in determinization, the case should have been to final trial, and in the system. The ease was dismissed as inadmissible, and therefore has not been included in the subsequent motions, when it was not entertained even for one? It has to be two or more motions to determine Res Judicata, and not an isolated and inadmissible one time. 5. Question: Petitioner requested discovery myriad times, from the year 2011; but never received any discovery. Petitioner filed Court Compel Discovery, which was again not responded to and in contempt after 30 days. Why was the contempt of the “Compel ; iii QUESTIONS PRESENTED -— Continued Discovery” ignored by Honorable Judge Jodi Orlow, and the case dismissed? Does a Court Compel Discovery have no legal status or value in the American Jurisprudence system, that a Judge dismisses it as irrelevant? 6. Question: Can a judge of the civil court state incorrectly that the petitioner asserts material facts that are false, without perusing the evidence submitted, and, that which is substantiated by the letter of the President of Communicar Inc stating that Progressive “is now the sole owner of 64 radio share stock certificates.” And in the possession of the petitioner who was an officer of the corporation? Why was this crucial piece of evidence suppressed by Honorable Judge Jodi Orlow? It is my contention that It seems there is a connection between the Judge and the Counsel for the defendants, and I wonder could a Judge of the civil court be bribed to show favoritism? 7. Question: Can a Judge of the civil court interrupt an arbitration and suggest an exorbitant fee to the counsel for the defendants? Can a Judge refuse to accept a motion by hand, when it was directed to be handed over to the Judge by another judge of the motion court, due to shortage of time to file with the court clerk? Can an action for costs be initiated by a judge on an incomplete