June 3, 2013            Judge Richard Pajtas    Lawsuit   Brought By 

********************   VERIFIED COMPLAINT: *********************

 Albert F

 (((REDACTED)))

EmmetCountyPlaintiff

                 Vs

   JudgeRichard Pajtas

Individually and in his official capacity as State Judge in the Circuit Court of Charlevoix Michigan,   

 Defendant.                                                                          

Jurisdictional Basis:

Plaintiff claims that Federal jurisdiction pursuant Article111 S/S2 which Extends the jurisdiction to cases arising underthe U. S. Constitution.

 Plaintiff  Albert F brings this suit pursuant to

    Title42  U.S. codeS/S1983   for   violations of Certain protections guaranteed to him by the First, Fourth, Fifth,Sixth, Eighth and ourteenth.

Amendments to    the U. S. Constitution,   and the U.S.Bill of        Rights.

  Judgement and financial reimbursements sought under the

  Supreme Court Case of Bivens v. Six unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),

  And the State court jurisdiction of 42 U.S.C. & 1983.

   Plaintiff Albert F brings this suit also pursuant  To many improper disregards of the State of  Michigan Jurisdictional legal codes by Judge Pajtas,  Including extremely severe errors of logical Courtjudgement,  Multiple prejudicial and biased interpretations of events and  Direct violations of 6 of Albert F’s U.S. Constitutional Rights Including excessiveand extreme Court Orders to the Albert F Family.

*****   The following is a listing of 34 of Judge Richard Pajtas’ Prejudiced, Inappropriate Decisions, Biased Unfair Actions and Extreme Unwarranted Orders in the March, 2010 and July 2011, Smith vs Frost trials.  *****

   1.  Judge Pajtas failed to recuse himself, though requested by a Court Motion, before the July 2011, Smith vs Frost Trial. This recusal Motion was based on the Judge and his central family’s long intense legal dispute, with their own next door neighbors business. Judge Pajtas’ home neighbor’s dispute, situation mirrored this Smith vs Frost Case, as mentioned earlier.

  1a. Judge Pajtas should have delayed the March 2010 trial due to his obvious illness. The Judge was coughing, sneezing with a handkerchief, and often blowing his nose and appeared quite red eyed, throughout the March 2010 court session.  He even admitted out loud to the courtroom that he was not up to par and was ill. He exhibited some odd body language sessions from the bench.      This illness would have affected the retiring Judges Concentration and logical exactness in this complicated case.

 2. Judge gave incredibly strict sentences of the Albert Frost Family, in both trials, even-though no pictures, no videos, and no noise level recordings, of any possible rental Injunction violation, occurring over the past 7 years, by the Frosts, were ever shown to Judge Pajtas, by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs major Injunction violation complaint was that large and noisy groups were staying at the Frost homes, the Plaintiffs however had agreed to allow 28 persons at the Frost homes.                     When questioned by the Defendants about the lack of any pictures of injunction violations, Plaintiff Curtis, a professional realtor, testified to Judge Pajtas that his camera had been broken for the past 5 years, nearly all of the Plaintiff’s evidence against the Defendant Frosts was verbal and without any actual supporting hard facts. Judge Pajtas acted quite prejudicially in closing the Frost’s business. Curtis a few years back, did install a 7 camera video surveillance system and still could not produce any photographic proof or video evidence to affirm any actual Injunction violations by the Frost Rental Home visitors, in court.

 3: The Plaintiffs in three early 2010 pre-court mediation sessions were mainly requesting, as a solution to the neighborhood disagreement, that the Frost Family simply hire a property manager.  The Judge greatly exceeded that Plaintiff requested pre-court mediation solution.  He instead shockingly closed the Frost Families rental business of 31 years.

 4: The March 2010 Judge Pajtas Court Trial Orders shut down the Frosts rental business although the Smith vs Frost case had not been in any courtroom over 1800 days. This long length of time, without any court appearances, depicts a normal, non-extreme, Frost vacation rental home situation in that neighborhood.  The 7 other neighborhood families were not in court, complaining.

 5:  Judge Pajtas denied Frosts’ request for a court appointed attorney while in the courtroom, in mid-trial of the July 2011 trial.  After the first part of that trial, it was finally clarified by Judge Pajtas that he would seek a criminal contempt decision against Frost.    JudgePajtas refused Frost’s request, at that time (during mid-trial), for an attorney, and thus denied Frost’s due process request upon the court’s criminal charge verification.

 6. In regards to Holy Island Family Church and Fellowship, the Frost Families Church, in the July 2011 trial, Judge Pajtas disregarded the testimony of 4 witness’, ignored a large front page major newspaper article about the Frost’s church,  did not comment on a newspaper story which mentioned the churches community services for 20 + years , seemingly ignored pictures of the beautiful, recently self–built, on site, log building with a large illuminated cross and church signs on it,  did not comment on pictures of church members and events, did not comment on a picture of  Frost at a meeting with Michigan’s Bishop Gumbleton. The Judge said nothing about the existing State legal documents verifying the existance of the Church and 501c3 non-profit orientation; he also did not mention the court shown resumes of the 2 Ministers qualification and experience. The Judge also did not comment on the pictures of the Churches operating food bank, or the detailed testimony, by a witness’, of the Churches 25 years of youth counseling, etc.  After being shown all evidence and the witness’ testimony, Judge Pajtas verbalized to the courtroom “I don’t like the concept”, thus Judge Pajtas’ prejudicial decision about donations to the Frost’s church, after Dec.  30 2010, resulted in the Judge taking away and selling both of the Frost Families homes, their property, their church, and destroying the Family supporting business.

 7. Judge essentially blocked the validity and effectiveness of the Defendants upcoming Oct.  2011 Appeal of his March 2010 trial Order.  In the July 2011 Order, Judge Pajtas put both of the Frost homes into receivership, just 9 weeks before the Appeal date of the March 2010 trial. The homes could then be sold at any moment.  Frost had told the Judge, earlier in this July 2011 trial, that he had no funds left and would be declaring bankruptcy, in Dec. 2010.  Thus in July 2011 Judge Pajtas, in reality, blocked the upcoming Oct.  Appeal of his own previous decision in the March 2010 trial by putting the 2 Frost homes into receivership.

 8. A  Legal Reconsideration was asked of the Judge of the his 2011 Order, asking that the Frosts be allowed to keep one of their cherished self-built homes in their Family, the home was Frost’s  Eminent domain of 31 years, his  planned retirement home, and the community shared  and donated ,“Robert Frost” memorial home. Judge Pajtas refused to let the Frost keep even one home, even though this was the Plaintiff’s solution request in the case.

 9. At the beginning of the July 2011 trial Judge Pajtas, was asked by the Plaintiffs if he (the Judge) could promise to finish the Trial on that day, the Judge said he would finish and would promise to give an order on that day, the very first trial day. Judge Pajtas hinted that he was close to a decision, even though the trial had not started. The Judge also mentioned that he had 8 criminal trials coming up next. This was a due process violation by Judge Pajtas against Frost in that the court proceedings, on that day, would be rushed and the Judge also implied that he had about already reached a decision, before the trial even began.

10. During the July 2011, Frost had to appear in Pro Se, due to lack of funds to hire an attorney, resulting from the Judge Pajtas closing of the Frost rental business, Dec., 2010.     Judge Pajtas appointed an expensive downstate receiver to sell the Frosts 2 homes and property.  This prejudiced action was extreme and unnecessary. Ben Frost, Albert Frost’s 18 year old son, was in the courtroom and should have been appointed to sell the homes and property.  The Judge Pajtas inflicted additional Receiver fees, Real Estate broker fees, and extra associated Attorney fees, which cost the Frost Family well over $400,000 in additional fees and lost finances because they were not given a chance to clean up, fix up, and sell their home properties at a later date.   This action again shows extreme prejudice, on the part of Judge Pajtas in that, after closing the Families supporting business in 2010, he, in 2011 appoints a receiver, with his local friend as the commission receiving realtor.

11: The Judge never told the Defendants, (Albert Frost acting in Pro Se) at the end of the July 2011 trial, that they could Appeal his decision on that trial. The Judge implied that his radical decision was final and not changeable because the homes were immediately put up for sale.

 12: A retrial of the July 2011 case was asked by Albert Frost of the Judge in early 2013.  Judge Pajtas refused to grant a new trial to the Frost Family, despite many new facts and evidence being written down, including the fact that the Judge Pajtas decision had bankrupted the Frost Family while awarding several hundred thousand dollar settlements to each of the 2 Plaintiffs.

13:  In the March 2010 trial the charge of being a Nuisance was never proposed by the Plaintiffs, yet the Judge on his own, proposed that charge, after the close of the Proofs, and found the Frost’s guilty of it. This is a direct violation of Michigan State Law and legal procedure.  A defendant cannot be convicted of an offense that the Plaintiffs did not bring into courtroom, as a charge, and yet Judge Pajtas did just that.

 14:  In the March 2010 trial, the case was clearly a civil contempt of court case yet Judge Pajtas issued the extremely severe nuisance charge penalty of closing down the Frost Families 31 year log home Rental Business which was the Families only means of income. It had been 5 long years since the last appearance of these parties in Court thus any Frost rental problems were not frequent, were not extreme, and were not deserving of a  severe -unrequested by the Plaintiff’s,  criminal penalty.

 *** NOTE: 13a, 14a   Legal Analysis with CASE PROOFS, from the legal Reconsideration of the July 2011 trial, of items 13 and 14, are located in the back bibliography section of this document.

15: In an extreme action Judge Pajtas had all of the Frost property, homes and church building, sold.  These homes were handbuilt by the Frost Family including Army Lt. A.A. Frost and Army R.N. Wanda Mary Frost, Albert Frost’s parents and WW2 veterans who married in France just after the War.  Both log homes were often donated to local groups (cub scouts, schools, churches, etc.).  A  State required action of a State court review, when confiscating a person’s home, was illegally bypassed by Judge Pajtas.

16:  The Frosts owned two separate 100 foot properties and the 2 Plaintiffs together owned two 100 foot properties. The Frosts Family was there renting their properties many years before the 2 Plaintiffs homes were even built.  Without explanation, Judge Pajtas did not allow Albert Frost to return to his homes, to retrieve any contents or personal items after the July 2011 court session. Curtis was granted a $74,000 cash payment from the proceeds of the selling of the Frost homes and church building.  Curtis professionally testified in court that the existence of the Frost Vacation Homes Business has cost him $200,000 in lost property value.   Both Plaintiffs property values would thus rise considerably with the selling of the Frost properties.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      This trial’s initial property owner Frost, ends up losing his 2 beautiful large, fully equipped, log homes,  all his belongings in the homes,  becomes homeless,  is forced into chapter 7 bankruptcy,  loses his  31 year rental  business  and his community serving church.       In contrast Curtis gets a settlement total of about $274,000 and Smith about $230,000.  Frost loses all that he has worked for the past 31 years, and is living far below the poverty level.                                                                                                                        

17. Judge Pajtas accepted many of the following deviant statements and actions by Curtis as true.

        1. Curtis lied when testifying in court when he said that his only camera has been broken for the past 5 years, thus he could not provide the Judge with any Frost guest, violation pictures.  Curtis is a realtor and the most important tools of a realtor are good working cameras, plus we have seen him often taking pictures of us.

       2. Curtis lied when he testified that he had seen 144 violations of the Injunction, by Frost, over a 5 years period while Smith testified that he had seen just 5 possible violations over the same period.

       3. Curtis lied when he several times in the July 2011 trial, told Judge Pajtas that Frost was being “threatening”, Frost a father and a minister had lived peacefully at his home there, for 31 years and had absolutely no such record or history of related actions.

       4. Curtis again lied when he called the Sheriff one day about people throwing rocks at his boat and dock, the Sheriff’s report in detail, says that 3 doctors from California and their wifes, who were staying at the Defendant Frost homes, were simply skipping stones. An inspection showed no damage to the Curtis’ boat or dock.

       5. I, Frost. came home and found out that Curtis had planted a 7 foot tree directly in the middle of my gravel driveway, he falsely denied it, (a neighbor verified his act, I promptly removed the tree),

       6. Curtis testified that Al Frost put a campfire pit 20 feet from his second story bedroom window; this would be illegal and logistically quite impossible.

       7. Curtis sent many letters to the local government offices which personally slandered Frost.

       8. Curtis’ 7 camera video spy camera system intimidated the Frost’s rental guest and most guests, after the cameras installation, would not return to the Frosts homes for another visit.

       9. A Sheriff’s deputy testified that Curtis had so misused the complaint phone service that the Sheriff’s Office no longer responded to Curtis’ complaints about noise at the Frost’s.

      10. Curtis was observed and caught in the Charlevoix Chamber of Commerce Office, taking all of the Frost Rental Home brochures off the display rack and rushing out the door.

      11. Curtis testified in Court that he did not have Frost’s cell phone number thus never called Frost about complaints yet in his hand he actually had Frost’s cottage brochure with Frost’s cell phone number on it.

      12.Many guests have written in the Frost logbook about the “peculiar and harassing neighbor” .The point here being is that Curtis frequently misrepresented many situations, yet retiring Judge Pajtas prejudicially seem to accepted Curtis’ testimony as Gospel truth.

         13. In court, in July 2011, Curtis testified that he could see all the Frost property and guests             “from his deck” then changed his story, in court, to say “from his dock”.        

     14. We put a sign up in front of one of Curtis’ live cameras, which had been pointed at and filming our homes for over 2 years.  The sign said that we would be filming today at the “Curtis Home “in Ann Arbor. We put Curtis’ address on the sign.  Judge Pajtas unfairly and unreasonably said that this sign was “threatening” Curtis.

*************************************************************************************************************************

 18. Judge Pajtas did not recognize that the Plaintiffs had been a serious nuisance to the Frost Family in that they had installed live spy cameras, and also the above list in #17.  Once a boy was retrieving a kite from the Curtis property, Curtis asked Judge Pajtas for compensation of about $850 for that one event.  Another time Curtis asked Judge Pajtas for another such payment of $850 because 2 women and a baby wondered onto his beach; such actions by Curtis provide solid evidence of his financial motivations.

 19: Judge Pajtas, in 2010, refused the Frost Family request for a Stay, until the Appeal could be heard, on the Judge’s decision to stop all rentals at The Frost Homes after Dec. 30, 2010.

 20: The Judge accepted evidence from the two Plaintiff’s witnesses, one witness in each trial, despite the fact that Defendants Frost Family showed an email to Judge Pajtas from one witness, a Mr. Vick in the March 2010 case, in which the pre-vacation email from Mr. Vick, said his family would be bringing a legal number of guests, 12, and the email also did not mention his small pet dog accompanying them.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           20a. The other witness, Mr. Chesboro in the July 2011 trial, testified that he was not notified of his payment being donated to the Frost’s onsite church, however Mr. Cheseboro did also testify that his family member, Mr.Grosjean, was the first in the family to talk with Frost about staying at the Frost homes and that all the associated conditions of renting were initially told to Mr.Grosjean.

21: In the July 2011 trial, Judge Pajtas sarcastically and loudly blurted out, from the bench, in a disrespectful, belittling, insulting, demeaning voice to Albert Frost, who was acting in Pro Se.

,                                                                                               “SOME COUNSELOR YOU ARE”.  !!!!!!

This shows great prejudice toward Frost, a disrespectful judgement of Frost, and a lack of Judge Pajtas’ knowledge of Frost’s, college degree with graduate studies. Also Frost’s lifetime achievements, his frequently donated community services, and his many skilled jobs including a Red Cross summer camp director and senior lifesaving instructor, Explorer Scout Post President, well known guitar instructor, area math tutor, etc.   Mr. David Drury and several local area Mothers,  testified about the 25 plus years that  Frost has been  working with David, who has special needs, and Frosts’ leading  many healthy activities with many other  local children that they personally know,  such as Kalib Levingoode  the son of Charlevoix’s Department of Health and Welfare,  Mr. Larry Levingoode,  Mr. David Drury  lives in Charlevoix with his Grandfather, Ret.  Col. Woodrow Wilson U.S. Air Force.

 22: In the March 2010 trial the Judge Pajtas failed to declare a mistrial despite a great contradiction in the 2 Plaintiff’s testimony. Curtis, on location 45 days a year, testified that he had seen 144 violations of the Rental Injunction, over the past 5 years.  Smith, on location 200 days a year, reported that he had observed only 5 possible violations of the injunction, over the same past 5 years.

 23:  Judge Pajtas accepted into evidence and allowed Plaintiff Curtis to read hand held notes on the witness stand, despite the fact that no foundation had been laid that warranted the reading of those hand held notes in court.

24: The Judge made the Frosts pay all travel costs of the 2 Plaintiff’s witness’ who did speak questionably valid, truthful testimony.     

 25: The Judge made the Frost pay the entire Plaintiffs attorney Powell’s travel costs despite Powell being from Ann Arbor and was charging 9 or so hours for each round trip to Charlevoix, ethically Plaintiff Curtis should have used a Charlevoix attorney.                                                                      

26:  There are 7 other Family homes with homes in the close, nearby area of the Frost homes. One of those 7 family homes is located nearer to the Frost’s property than the Plaintiff Smith home and additionally it is located on the shoreline, not 250 back in the woods as Smith’s house is.  Those 7 neighbors  were not Plaintiffs , in either of the 2 trials, which provides powerful  evidence that Plaintiffs Curtis and Smith have intentionally exaggerated their testimonies because they do not like having 28 persons vacationing next door to them, although they both signed the Injunction and agreed to this number, and purchased next door to the pre-existing rental business.                                                                                                                                                                                       

   27:  Judge Pajtas failed to consider and recognize that during the 7 years before Curtis’ arrival, Plaintiff Smith never took any court actions against the Frost rental homes even though, during those years, the Frosts rentals, due to the extreme isolation of the area, had no rental rules.  When realtor Curtis purchased all complaints and trouble began.          

  28: Judge Pajtas never commented on Plaintiff Curtis being a professional real estate  company owner, and that Curtis’ behaviors and exaggerated testimony in these two cases, obviously profile a professional,  greedy seasoned realtor’s,  attempt to end the local Frost Families business and thus greatly increase that realtors neighboring home’s property value.

  29: In the July 2011 trial Judge Pajtas accepted the Plaintiffs testimony “that it is just like 1998 out here”, referring to the Frost homes rental conditions.  This was an untrue exaggerated statement.  Both  Frost homes have new large indoor recreation rooms and extensive Large, mature, double rows of pine trees on the lot lines, 3 outside decks have been removed. The Frost homes are not even visible from the Curtis house, decks or front yard

 30: The Judge never commented about the fact that the Frosts generously gave up many of their original inherent property rights when they sympathetically signed the Original Injunction 15 years ago.

31. Judge Pajtas would not turn any questionable evidence in favor of the Frosts; every decision in his court went against the them.  One decision, about our churches operation is extremely telling, the Frost Family wanted to keep operating our church and related community programs and truly believed that the Constitution gave us that right, yet Judge Pajtas took an unbelievable anti- Christian position and closed and sold the church building and our log homes, using the donations to our Church (saying we were renting) as the reason why he so acted.

32.  Early during the 2010 trial Judge Pajtas commented, from the bench, that he questioned his legal authority to stop a possible private nuisance such as the current Smith vs Frost case. Yet later, at that trial, he actually closed the Frost rental business even though the Plaintiffs were not requesting such an extreme action.

33.  The Judge Pajtas Order, in July 2011, of putting the total Frost estate into the hands of a receivership to be liquidated, shortly before the Appeal in Oct. 2011 of the Judge Pajtas decision of March 2010, (which stopped the Frost Family from renting). The Judge did not comment on why he was doing that extreme receivership action.  Very little money was owed by the Frost Family relative to the value of their estate. In truth one of the Frost’s 7 bedroom log homes was paid off and the other one was about one half paid off.  Judge Pajtas did stop all guests and visitors to the Frost homes beginning at that court date in late July 2011. Because of this The Frost Family had to pay back any deposits that had been sent, for the remaining summer weeks, this total was about $40,000.            Thus the only applicable fees due at the end of the July, 2011 trial was this deposit money, and the attorney fees and court costs from that July 2011 trial.  The total of the Frost owed money was thus about $90,000 yet their estate and business were valued at $2,550,000.  Judge Pajtas destroyed the 31 year family business by selling the Frosts homes, and wasted about $500,000 of the Frosts money by letting the receiver, realtor, and attorneys charge the Frost (about $120,000), and by not letting the Frost Family clean up, fix up and repair their own homes for sale, and sell them later into a favorable real estate market.   The Frost rental business often hosted guests such  as the Janet Reno Family (28 guests), the Apollo moon landing finance director, Michigan Supreme Court Justice Patricia Boyle, atty. John Branca who was Michael Jackson’s atty., the President of Cooley Law School, baseball Star Norm Cash, etc.  . Without overnight contemplation of the Case facts, Judge Pajtas put up for sale all of the Frost Families property which they had worked 31 years for.

34 The Judge Pajtas, one day, rushed court trial action of July 2011 was unjust, irrational and prejudicial. Judge Pajtas decided to have the Frost’s pay the deposits back to the canceled guests at the Frost homes, the Court costs and the fees of the July 2011 trial which totaled about $90,000. Judge Pajtas decided to quickly, pay this amount off, by selling the Frosts homes, their church building, and thus permanently ending the Frost’s valuable rental business. This extreme action took place 9 weeks before the Appeal of the March 2010 trial.  Judge Pajtas totally liquidated the $2,550,000 estate of the Frost Family, all to pay off a $90,000 debt, which was not even legally due at that time.  This was a highly irresponsible and prejudicial action. The Judge’s decision has bankrupted the Frost Family and unjustly sent them to a life of extreme poverty and the loss of their life’s 31 years of hard work.

 Questions of the Cases:                                                                                                

        1. Does American Law and U.S. Constitutional ideals depict that a local area man, Albert Frost, who is a loving, Family supporting father and a minister.  Who and has owned his property for 31 years, and with his own hands and hard work, built and maintained his 2 large log homes for 31 years, deserve to have his homes and church, sold cheaply, and his business ended by one questionably biased  judge?

Judge Pajtas:  Yes                                                                                                                                                      

Albert Frost Family:   NO, many morals, Family and home ideals, business rights, American values, and inherent human rights have been directly violated by Judge Pajtas’ non-objective, biased decisions.  The bigger picture is that we have a retiring government judge, a plaintiff Smith, who is also a retiring government DNR official and is also a local acquaintance of that Judge, and finally a real estate company owner, Curtis, who undoubtedly bought his property to make money and who has been shown to have lied in and around court at least 13 times lately.  

#2. State of Michigan law says that a Civil Complaint Case must not be issued a severe Criminal Penalty; do you follow this State law?                                                                                                  

Judge Pajtas: NO. In the March 2010 Smith vs Frost trial , I gave the Frosts a severe criminal penalty of ending their 31 year long vacation rental business, this Case was however a Civil Case, that had not been in Court in over 1800 days, 5 years.   

 Albert Frost:   State legal court procedures and guidelines apply to all State court rooms.  Retiring Judge Pajtas must believe that in his courtroom, the State Court Trial and Sentencing Laws of Michigan do not apply.

#3. State of Michigan Law states that a Court’s solution to a neighborhood nuisance argument must be fair, balanced, and tailored by the Judge to fit the situation. Did you follow this?                                                                                                          

          **Judge Pajtas: NO.       In the July 20, 2011 trial I appointed an expensive receiver to sell the Frost’s Family beloved homes and church of 31 years, thus bankrupting them. I gave Curtis (a 10% of the year Charlevoix resident) a settlement of about $270,000 which includes his property value increase, which resulted from the removal of the Frost Rental Business. The other Plaintiff, Smith, my fellow retiring government official, similarly received a settlement valued at over $200,000.                                                                                                                                 

 **Albert Frost:  After 31 years of building, re-building, owning,  maintaining them,  paying high property taxes on, and renting to many wonderful U.S., families my  two self-built  large  inspirational log homes, I end up in extreme poverty, bankrupt, without a business, without an  income, without a church, and homeless.  Thanks to Judge Pajtas I no long have assets to use to send my two children to college with, or to retire on. Right now my car is 23 years old and needs an exhaust system and new tires, which I cannot afford.  I have applied for food stamps.  In contrast the Plaintiffs, each are receiving about 1/4 of million dollars in total positive value.                              

**4. State law requires that courts cannot find the Defendants guilty of something that the Plaintiffs did not file for in that trial. Did you follow State of Michigan Law?                        

      **Judge Pajtas:  NO.          In the March 2010 trial, the Plaintiffs were asking for a Civil Contempt of Court decision.  I brought   into the Case, the charge of being a Nuisance, and entered it after the proofs were over.  Then I found the Frost’s guilty of being a nuisance despite the fact that they had not been charged in court with that offence by the Plaintiffs.   In this trial the Frost’s decision of not hiring a property manager, brought the matter to my court, and yet my verdict resulted in the closing of their Family supporting rental business of 31 years.                                                                                                   

         **Albert Frost:          Judge Pajtas illegally violated Michigan State Law when he found the Frost Family guilty of being a nuisance, because that charge was never filed or brought against them in court by the Plaintiffs.                                                                                                                               

    5. Michigan State Law says that a Nuisance shall be corrected in the least restrictive manner. Do you follow this?                                                                                                                                            **Judge Pajtas: NO. In July 2011, I personally decided to sell the Defendants Frost 2 homes and their home possessions, and sell their church.                                                                                                                                           

**Albert Frost:  Judge Pajtas violated State Law in that he did not solve the complaint situation in the least restrictive solution. A great variety of solutions were available including the solution of selling on home, which was the actual requested solution, and as such was testified to,  by the Plaintiffs, in court.                                 

#6. Do you believe the Judge Pajtas decisions are honorable and fair in that  Frost, who has physically worked  extremely hard the past 31 years, actually building four, 15 room beautiful log homes, doing 98% of all the work by himself which including working outside for 30 winters, plus operating various community church programs, be left bankrupt, and homeless?

 **Judge Pajtas:  yes                                                                                                                                                                

    **Albert Frost: No, the outcome of this Case is not what our Forefathers would have wanted or would have judged as correct.  The Judge’s extreme decisions are prejudiced, biased, and incorrect. Any honorable person, committee, or court would not have agreed with Judge Pajtas’ irrational decisions.  The Frost Families rights, their hopes, their dreams, their lifestyle, their future, and their childrens future, have all been very seriously disrupted, damaged, and illegally violated by one man, Judge Pajtas.                                                                                                                                                           

    #7.  Do you think that it is fair to the Defendants, for Judge Pajtas to promise the Plaintiffs, from the bench, that he would give a final decision and order on the Case, on that the very first day of the trial, before any evidence was presented?                                                                                             **Judge Pajtas:   Yes.                                                                                       

  **Albert Frost:  The whole first and the only day of the trial had a rushed sense of “let’s get this done quickly “, by the court. At the trials end the Judge did not even go in his chambers to contemplate and review the many facts, he simply said out loud to the courtroom “well I have used a receivership in the past”.  

Judge Pajtas did also prejudicially deny the following legal, Reconsideration Motion, from the Frost Family.