Institutional excile is one of the most dangerous forms of systemic abuse.

What happened to me isn’t just about one corrupt judge, or a bad investigator, a nonprofit committing insurance fraud and evading taxes, an insurance company colluding with said nonprofit, a corrupt attorney, shoddy police work; this is a county-wide stonewall, where multiple institutions—legal, governmental, and corporate—have coordinated to deny me access to due process, remedies, or even basic acknowledgment. This goes well beyond incompetence. This is collusion through silence. And if you were to ask me why? I have no earthly idea. I suppose opening my mouth and having words come out was my mistake. Saying “This shit is not ok” was another one. Challenging the status quo was another one. 

The people in “government” in Saugerties have all held their positions for years, many unopposed. This is the problem when people in positions of power who have the ability to make a decision that can ruin your life are put their based on popularity, not merit or ability.

The Judge who oversaw my cases ignored:
– A letter I hand-delivered, divulging sensitive information about abuse and being in danger
– Three formal demands – one from me, one from a prior attorney I got through legal services who said it was “unusual”
– A motion to dismiss

All of this violates my right to be heard under NY CPLR § 3211(d) and § 3212(f) (both relate to motions and my right to discovery or response), and is also a direct violation of judicial canons under the NY Rules of Judicial Conduct (22 NYCRR Part 100)—particularly:

Canon 2: A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.

Canon 3(B)(6): A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest… the right to be heard according to law.

If a judge is refusing to rule, acknowledge filings, or engage in any judicial function—it’s de facto denial of due process. 

Willful Judicial Misconduct

Refusing to rule, engage, or even acknowledge filings—after privately discussing my case with my attorney outside of my presence (ex parte)—violates:

– Judicial Canon 3(B)(6) – A judge must accord every person with a legal interest the right to be heard.
– Judicial Canon 2(A) – A judge must avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
– 22 NYCRR §100.3(B)(1) – A judge shall hear and decide all matters assigned to the judge except those in which disqualification is required.

This isn’t negligence. It’s intentional. And that behavior truly crosses a line.

Bad Faith Insurance Conduct

RUPCO opened an insurance claim in my name in reply to a letter I sent them asking for every piece of documentation they had for the water heater above me, as well as every person who has done work on it or any aspect of the unit above me, including proof of proper licensing. Opening a claim in my name without my knowledge or consent is illegal. AND BY DOING SO THEY ADMITTED GUILT.

Under New York law (and supported federally), an insurer has a duty of good faith and fair dealing when handling a claim. 

The Three Contradictory Excuses for denying my claim from Erie Insurance:

1. Claim Denial Excuse #1:
“We didn’t receive any documentation by April ***18th***.”
/// But I did send it—with proof—and not only that, **their own later statements contradict this.**
2. Claim Denial Excuse #2 (Office of the President):
“We received it, but not by ***5 PM on April 16th***.”
/// So they now admit receipt—but move the goalposts with a completely arbitrary, undisclosed deadline.
3. Claim Denial Excuse #3 (DFS version):
“We received the documentation, but couldn’t open the Dropbox link. We asked her to resend it another way.”
/// But they never actually sent that request. And worse—they sent it to an email I had already told them was defunct. If they had send that email it would have bounced back right away. 

Why This is Legally Explosive:

1. Demonstrates Bad Faith and Constructive Denial

– Inconsistent excuses = lack of legitimate grounds.
– Refusing to open a Dropbox file while claiming they “couldn’t open it” is willful negligence or fabrication.
– Using a known-dead email and then blaming me for non-response = intentional setup.

2. Violation of NY Insurance Law § 2601

– This law explicitly forbids misrepresenting facts or policy provisions.
– They misrepresented the reason for denial multiple times, to me and to the government (DFS).

3. Breach of Duty to Communicate in Good Faith

– They had a duty to notify me of any file access issue, in real time and via a functioning method of communication.
– Using a defunct email knowingly is documentable sabotage.

4. Potential Mail and Wire Fraud

– If any of these false explanations were sent via email, USPS, or another carrier, and used to mislead me or DFS, it may constitute fraud under federal law.

This isn’t just “poor communication.”

It’s a coordinated pattern of obfuscation, meant to:

– Avoid paying a valid claim
– Mislead a regulatory agency (DFS)
– Sabotage my ability to dispute the denial
– Exhaust me into giving up—which I didn’t, and I won’t, because I’m a force.

RUPCO and Erie’s Coordination:

– Every question I asked has gone unanswered and ignored.
– Every demand I have sent has been ignored.
– My materials were copied across insurers, misfiled, or disappeared.
– Insurance communications were ghosted, altered, or filed late to avoid liability.

This is corporate fraud, bad faith insurance handling, and nonprofit abuse of tax-exempt status. Combined with RUPCO’s false reporting and Erie’s conflicting stories, my causes for action fall under:

– NYS Insurance Law § 2601 (unfair claims practices),
– IRS Whistleblower Law (26 USC § 7623) regarding nonprofit abuse and duplicate filings, and
– Fraudulent conveyance and collusion statutes under NY Executive Law (applicable to housing nonprofits).

ALSO…..

Law Enforcement – NYS Troopers, the DA, and an investigator assigned to my case who did nothing but jerk me around for 4 months – Mishandled a Criminal Theft

One of my employees stole $2,000 worth of goods, and law enforcement:

– Refused to arrest her,
– Claimed it was a civil issue,
– Lied by suggesting I had a policy that excused theft (with no evidence or policy to show BECAUSE IT’S INSANE
– Ignored my report in its entirety and cherry picked one sentence I said, while treating my anxiety/PTSD (a disability) as a weapon against me.

That’s:

– Misclassification of theft as civil (Penal Law § 155.35 – Grand Larceny 3rd, a felony),
– Disability-based discrimination, possibly in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and NYS Human Rights Law § 296, and
– Retaliatory investigation tactics, potentially violating 42 U.S. Code § 1983 (civil rights deprivation under color of law).

Welcome to Ulster County.