Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lawsuit Two Against Di Marzio and Brooklyn Diocese
Lawsuit Two Against Di Marzio and Brooklyn Diocese
COUNTY OF KINGS
_____________________________________________
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Defendants.
______________________________________________
Kenneth Bronstein, pro se; Madison Arnold, pro se; Martin Heinsdorf, pro
se; Akiko Ichikawa, pro se; Nancy Lewis, pro se; Winston Lipton, pro se; Cyrelle Pinar,
pro se; Stephanie Pollard, pro se; Stan Russo, pro se; Alexandra Sidiropoulos, pro se;
Warren Allen Smith, pro se; Edward M. Stephens, MD, pro se; Elaine Stone, pro se; and
John A. Wagner, pro se, aver to the following as and for a complaint against the
defendants:
and resides at 501 East 79th Street, Apartment 4-E, New York, New York, 10075.
1
3. Plaintiff Madison Arnold is a citizen of the State of New York and
resides at 183 Sullivan Street, Apartment C-5, New York, New York, 10012.
and resides at 121 West 72nd Street, Apartment 4-C, New York, New York, 10023.
resides at 401 East 86th Street, Apartment 10-D, New York, New York, 10028.
resides at 620 Lenox Avenue, Apartment 12-E, New York, New York, 10037.
resides at 99 Bank Street, Apartment 2-D, New York, New York, 10014.
and resides at 377 Montgomery Street, Apartment F-14, Brooklyn, New York, 11225.
10. Plaintiff Stan Russo is a citizen of the State of New York and
resides at 792 Ninth Avenue, Apartment 2-RN, New York, New York, 10019.
York and resides at 400 Fort Washington Avenue, Apartment 1-F, New York, New York
10033.
12. Plaintiff Warren Allen Smith is a citizen of the State of New York
and resides at 31 Jane Street, Apartment 10-D, New York, New York, 10014
York and resides at 169 East 74th Street, Garden Suite, New York, New York, 10021.
2
14. Plaintiff Elaine Stone is a citizen of the State of New York and
15. Plaintiff John A. Wagner is a citizen of the State of New York and
resides at 431 East 85th Street, New York, New York, 10028.
Bishop of Brooklyn, New York, with offices and/or residence at 75 Greene Avenue,
Brooklyn, New York, 11202, and with a principal place of business in Kings County,
New York.
offices at 75 Greene Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, 11202, and a principal place of
Brooklyn are holders of a 501(c) 3 tax-exempt number and certification upon information
and belief. Brooklyn diocesan employees and volunteers use the Diocese of Brooklyn’s
501(c)(3) tax-exempt certificate and number to exempt them from paying sales tax and
other fees that otherwise would be going to the State and City of New York. This status
allows these defendants to receive tax exempt contributions and to not have contributions
taxed, and the defendants do not pay other taxes due to their tax-exempt charitable status.
Tax exempt institutions such as the Brooklyn Diocese must comply with all laws and
rules established by State and federal agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service.
Assembly and has a principal place of business at 434 South 5th Street, Brooklyn, New
York, 11211. The defendant Lopez is an employee of the State of New York, and also
3
has a duty to comply with State and federal law while in office and while campaigning
and running for office, and a duty not to violate or to conspire with any entity or third
party to violate State and federal laws, and has a duty to act and vote independently and
for the good of citizens of the State of New York, and not compromise his high office for
private benefit.
international conglomerates based in Rome, Italy, with Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph
Ratzinger) as the chief executive and operating officer. Pope Benedict XVI is Bishop
Nicholas Di Marzio’s direct superior and supervisor, and Pope Benedict XVI, the Roman
Catholic Church, and “The Vatican” did allow and encourage Bishop Nicholas Di Marzio
to publicly campaign in New York City for specific electoral candidates who would act in
favor of the church and who would protect the church from financial losses due to the
sexual abuse of children by Popes, Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, priests, and deacons,
Kenneth Bronstein, Madison Arnold, Martin Heinsdorf, Akiko Ichikawa, Nancy Lewis,
Winston Lipton, Cyrelle Pinar, Stephanie Pollard, Stan Russo, Alexandra Sidiropoulos,
Warren Allen Smith, Edward M. Stephens, MD, Elaine Stone, and John A. Wagner are
citizens of New York State, taxpayers, and have suffered harm as a direct result of
defendants’ actions.
. 22. During the New York State and New York City public elections of
2009, culminating on November 3, 2009, Election Day, including but not limited to
October 31, 2009, and November 1, 2009, Bishop Nicholas Di Marzio publicly
4
campaigned for certain candidates in Brooklyn, New York in violation of the rules and
laws of the Internal Revenue Service and New York State and federal law. All
candidates upon information and belief were part of the slate of candidates of defendant
Assemblyman Vito J. Lopez, and were done for and with the aid and cooperation of
Diocese used the public airwaves and procedures (robocalling) to urge voters to vote for
candidates aligned with and supportive of defendant Vito Lopez and/or anyone Lopez
endorsed for public office. This was done by using the personal property and/or assets of
the defendant Diocese as a reward to defendant Lopez as and for a quid pro quo in
exchange for help with legislation favorable to the Catholic Church and defendant
Diocese of Brooklyn. Defendant Bishop Di Marzio used the telephone lines during a
campaign as part of a quid pro quo and/or to pay back Mr. Lopez for:
property in the County of Kings which benefited both entities and the Brooklyn Diocese;
and,
pending in the New York State legislature that would assist childhood victims of sexual
opposing bill that deliberately protected defendant Di Marzio and his diocese and
24. This conspiracy and quid pro quo between a public official and a
private religious organization was accomplished to help the Catholic Church and to help
5
the Church maintain its assets and save millions of dollars, and to attempt to benefit the
25. Vito Lopez is, upon information and belief, a member of the
Roman Catholic Church and Diocese of Brooklyn, and a public pro-abortion and pro
and to help defendant Lopez’s candidates, upon information and belief, in order to satisfy
a quid pro quo and to pay back defendant Lopez for “real estate” deals which financially
benefited both parties and their businesses, and for Lopez’s work in assiduously
attempting to defeat legislation in New York State that would give childhood victims of
sexual abuse their day in court, thus keeping millions of prospective “settlement dollars”
used telephonic equipment to make calls on behalf of the plaintiff Diocese and the
Catholic Church and Vito Lopez to residents of Vito Lopez’s district and/or
neighborhood and/or Borough to urge and persuade them to vote for the “Lopez
27. These actions are in violation of New York State and federal
law prohibiting public endorsements of or campaigning for candidates for public office,
and “exchange of favors to violate the law” was conducted as “quid pro quo” and in a
6
28. The use of religion and religious beliefs in order to manipulate or
influence voters is contrary to the Constitution and the foundation of the laws the United
organizations, charitable organizations and their principals are not allowed to participate
in campaigns for public office. Tax-exempt organizations may not endorse or oppose
candidates for public office. The Internal Revenue Service defines a tax exempt 501(c) 3
organization as a group “which does not participate in, or intervene in…any political
campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”
Diocese of Brooklyn and defendant Di Marzio, may not in any way involve themselves
or their churches in directly assisting or opposing candidates for office. Bishop Nicholas
Di Marzio violated the laws of the State of New York and the United States of America
by engaging in overt political activity and/or inserting himself and his diocese into the
activity and/or inserted himself and his church into the November 3, 2009 New York City
and State election campaign with the aid of defendant Vito Lopez and in conspiracy with
defendant Lopez.
32. The defendant Di Marzio acted in this manner, using his title and
position within the Church, and using his status as a member of a tax exempt
organization. During the telephone calls (robocalls), the defendant Di Marzio used his
7
title and position with the Catholic Church and Diocese of Brooklyn in an intentional
effort at manipulating and influencing voters by using his high religious office to do so.
33. Upon information and belief, the defendant Di Marzio acted in this
manner at the urging and assistance of defendant Lopez or due to a quid pro quo with
defendant Lopez.
and Bishop Di Marzio and the Diocese of Brooklyn, New York, violated the laws that do
35. Bishop Nicholas Di Marzio violated the tax laws by using his and
36. The State of New York uses and spends hundreds of millions of
dollars to support and subsidize the Catholic Church and its agencies including, but not
limited to, Catholic Charities, through the Church’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.
37. The plaintiffs and taxpayers of New York State have been
dictates that there shall be a separation of Church and State. The defendants Di Marzio
and Lopez conspired to violate Internal Revenue Service laws and the Constitutional
separation of Church and State in an intentional attempt to affect and influence the
39. Upon information and belief, the New York State Attorney
8
Andrew Cuomo has a conflict of interest in or a fear of commencing an investigation of
his own church and its non-profit organization(s). Attorney General Andrew Cuomo,
upon information and belief, is a devout Catholic with deep roots and political
40. Rather than acting for the public good and/or for the benefit of his
constituents, or supporting the laws of the United Stated and New York State, defendant
Lopez acted on behalf of his own private, personal and financial interests and in a manner
41. Equitable and immediate relief is required and asked for in this
42. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all of the allegations set forth herein.
43. This cause of action is against all of the defendants jointly and
severally for a conspiracy to violate the First Amendment, and the provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code which proximately have cost the plaintiffs and taxpayers millions
if not billions of dollars, and to have this Court order that the defendants cease and desist
44. The defendant Diocese has been violating the provisions of State
and federal law for years in a surreptitious manner, but the recent acts of the defendant Di
Marzio have clearly and unequivocally established that the defendants have violated
these laws, causing the plaintiffs, taxpayers, and the United States damages.
but by violating the terms and conditions of a non-profit organization, the defendant
9
Diocese has the obligation to lose its status and to pay taxes or income and contributions,
compromising his office, and a strict prohibition on his behalf against direct political
activity by a charitable and non-profit tax exempt organization, engaged in a quid pro quo
and conspiracy with defendants Di Marzio and the Diocese of Brooklyn by giving
“special favors” to the Catholic Church with regards to real estate transactions and
helping to defeat legislation that would directly benefit the defendant Diocese. In
exchange, and as and for a quid pro quo, the defendants Di Marzio and the Diocese
pledged to campaign for Lopez and those he is mentoring, promoting and endorsing.
prosecution, the defendants acted in this illegal manner on the eve of an election, and on
the weekend before the election. This was done, upon information and belief, to avoid
detection.
compromising their offices and public positions, and engaging in a theft of honest
services. The defendants have violated public policy, the public good, and the rights of
the plaintiffs.
Vito Lopez to exchange, sell, or control property in Brooklyn that was targeted for
construction of housing for the poor by firing a Catholic priest who “pastored” a large
Catholic parish and was the leader of a coalition to build affordable housing. He was
removed from office by the defendants Di Marzio and the Diocese in order to support the
10
aims, causes, and agenda of defendant Lopez. Lopez, in turn, sponsored absurd and
discarded legislation in the State legislature that would have protected the defendants Di
Marzio and Diocese from paying out large sums of money in civil settlements over clergy
50. The conspiracy has proximately caused the plaintiffs and the
public and community damages, and warrants legitimate and appropriate relief.
51. The plaintiffs repeat and reallege all of the allegations set forth
herein.
52. This cause of action is against the defendants jointly and severally
seeking appropriate equitable relief in that the defendant Diocese should lose its tax
exempt status and should be compelled to pay taxes and income taxes and lose its ability
defendant Di Marzio has violated laws limiting political activity and advocacy by non-
profit organizations. Defendant Di Marzio identified himself, his position and/or title
know that it is illegal to engage in partisan campaigning in any election (as is the case
with defendant Di Marzio), breaks the law and actively endorses candidates of a certain
party or slate, the organization must lose its tax exempt status or be required to
55. The actions of the defendants Di Marzio and Diocese require that
11
the Catholic Church, and at least the Brooklyn Diocese, lose its tax-exempt status
immediately and be ordered to pay income and other appropriate taxes, including
who knows or should know that it is illegal to engage in partisan campaigning in any
election, conspires in a “quid pro quo” formula with a politician and employee of the
State of New York (defendant Lopez) who has a formal “slate” of candidates and is clear
about whom he is endorsing, and then attempts to get certain people elected and uses his
Church authority and position to solicit and secure votes, it is a violation of the law and
57. The plaintiffs repeat and reallege all of the allegations set forth
herein.
58. The actions of the three defendants are discriminatory, illegal, and
against the constituents of his district and citizens of New York State, whom he is sworn
to serve and protect, by conspiring with a powerful institution in his district (the
Brooklyn Diocese and Bishop Nicholas Di Marzio) that is not allowed to directly act in
political campaigns, according to the laws of non-profit organizations and the Internal
Revenue Service.
12
manner against his constituents who are adversely affected by the conspiracy he entered
into with defendant Lopez to exchange, sell, or deal property, leaving many constituents
61. Defendant Lopez has acted and acts illegally by conspiring with
defendants Di Marzio and the Diocese to make “deals” with politicians as a quid pro quo
for receiving goods and services and campaigning for defendant Lopez’s candidates.
result in unfair and discriminatory behavior and actions as and toward the plaintiffs.
64. The plaintiffs repeat and reallege all of the allegations set forth
herein.
65. The Catholic Church’s insertion into the homes and families of
citizens and voters in Kings County violates the First Amendment separation of Church
and State.
Bishops are exempt from federal and State income taxes and are eligible to receive tax-
13
compromise and violate the laws of the State of New York and the United States of
infringed on the religious or non-religious beliefs of the plaintiffs and others, and have
proximately caused damages, and defendants’ actions have damaged persons of all
69. The plaintiffs repeat and reallege all of the allegations set forth
herein.
70. This cause of action is for injunctive relief in order to prevent the
71. The defendants Di Marzio, Diocese, and Lopez are and have
become deeply intertwined in 2009. Defendant Lopez coordinated an effort to defeat and
“kill” New York State legislation that would give a one-year window to victims of sexual
abuse by clergy and others to file civil actions in order to hold their abusers civilly
responsible.
the other bishops of New York State to organize and defeat the sex abuse legislation
because of the “quid pro quo” arrangement with defendant Lopez. In exchange for Lopez
derailing the sexual abuse legislation by introducing a poison pen bill that never had a
owned” property that he could use for his own purposes, and a promise of assistance in
14
upcoming campaigns, including the campaign leading up to the November 3, 2009
elections.
73. Upon information and belief, the defendant Lopez is and has been
the significant and primary legislator who has advocated for and sponsored legislation
favorable to the defendant Diocese and the Catholic Church, and it is this example of a
quid pro quo that caused the direct and overt political activities of the defendant Di
Marzio.
ordering the defendants Di Marzio and Diocese to cease and desist in their campaigning
and any other political or quid pro quo activities associated with defendant Lopez, his
established religion in an effort to benefit the defendant Lopez and this acts to shield and
76. The actions of defendant Lopez have created a situation where the
State of New York has partnered and conspired with one established religion, which is
discriminatory toward other religions and atheists, and has harmed the plaintiffs, all of
79. The defendants are powerful entities and political persons and have
15
severe prejudice and irreparable harm.
81. There are public policy concerns at issue that warrant the granting
82. The defendants would not be prejudiced if the equitable relief were
issued.
83. If the Court does not prohibit or restrict this action or grant the
relief requested, the defendants will continue to violate State and federal laws at issue,
causing harm to the plaintiffs and the citizens of the State of New York.
84. If injunctive relief is not granted, the damage will have already
criminal manner and in a manner that infringes on the First Amendment and other well-
established laws.
___________________________________
Kenneth Bronstein
Pro Se Plaintiff
501 East 79th Street, Apartment 4-E
New York, New York 10075
(212) 535-7425
16
___________________________________
Madison Arnold
Pro Se Plaintiff
183 Sullivan Street, Apartment C-5
New York, New York 10012
(212) 260-5824
___________________________________
Martin Heinsdorf
Pro Se Plaintiff
121 West 72nd Street, Apartment 4-C
New York, New York 10023
(646) 425-6824
____________________________________
Benjamin Bode
Pro Se Plaintiff
1466 Broadway, Apartment 2
Brooklyn, New York 11221
(269) 760-8518
_____________________________________
Nancy Lewis
Pro Se Plaintiff
401 East 86th Street, Apartment 10-D
New York, New York 10028
(212) 243-4429
_____________________________________
Winston Lipton
Pro Se Plaintiff
620 Lenox Avenue, Apartment 12-E
New York, New York 10037
(917) 386-3470
17
_____________________________________
Cyrelle Pinar
Pro Se Plaintiff
99 Bank Street, Apartment 2-D
New York, New York 10014
(212) 691-3840
_____________________________________
Stephanie Pollard
Pro Se Plaintiff
377 Montgomery Street, Apartment F-14
Brooklyn, New York 11225
(203) 610-2951
_____________________________________
Stan Russo
Pro Se Plaintiff
792 Ninth Avenue, Apartment 2-RN
New York, New York 10019
(646) 522-0991
_____________________________________
Alexandra Sidiropoulos
Pro Se Plaintiff
400 Fort Washington, Apartment 1-F
New York, New York 10033
(314) 814-7183
_____________________________________
Warren Allen Smith
Pro Se Plaintiff
31 Jane Street, Apartment 10-D
New York, New York 10014
(212) 366-6481
18
_____________________________________
Edward M. Stephens, MD
Pro Se Plaintiff
169 East 74th Street, Garden Suite
New York, New York 10021
(212) 249-8861
_____________________________________
Elaine Stone
Pro Se Plaintiff
76 Devoe Road
Chappaqua, New York 10514
(914) 236-4803
_____________________________________
John A. Wagner
Pro Se Plaintiff
431 East 85th Street
New York, New York 10028
(212) 744-2640
19