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.

  Prayer and Request by the Frost Family

We pray the Judge Richard Pajtas be reprimanded for his unfair prejudiced behavior in the Frost vs Smith trials of March 2010 and July 2011.  The effects of his behaviors are listed below and have unfairly and improperly devastated the lives of the Frost Family.  The Judge’s unjust decisions have destroyed the last 31 years life’s business works of the Frost Family, leaving the Family in poverty. We list the following facts and some of the major effects, and the Frost Family consequences, of the Judge Pajtas extreme decisions.

#1.     64 year old Albert Frost is now without a business, without his church, is homeless, bankrupt, is living far below the poverty level, and is spiritually suffering because of the loss of his 2 self-built 14 room families log homes.

#2. The Frost Family 2 beloved Homes should have been sold by the Frost Family, not a receiver because the huge additional fees and loss of home value would not have occurred.  

 #3. The Frosts have lost their Family rental business which would have provided them with income of 1.4 million dollars, over the next 7 years and their business had a large financial value in itself, since it exists on Non-conforming-use, zoned property and could be sold as such.                                                                                       

 #4. The loss of their self-built homes and church to the Frost Family are a great emotional , spiritual, and financial loss as the homes were sold into a poor real estate market with no repairs, fix up or clean up allowed on them by the Court appointed receiver, removal of possessions  by Frost was also not allowed.  The receivership decision by Judge Pajtas cost the Frost Family at least $500,000.

 # 5. The Plaintiffs were each awarded a settlement fee by Judge Pajtas, Smith was awarded about $200,000 and Curtis was awarded about $270,000 while the Frost Family lost everything because they believed in accepting some donations to keep their church and its community services operating.

#6. The whole Family life for the Frost Familyhasbeenseverelydamaged, eventheir hopes and dreams and their future life’s plans, have been disastrously, unjustly dismantled by Judge Pajtas’ biased outlook  and prejudicial decisions.

#7. The Frost homes, their property, and their vacation rental business had an actual cash value of about $2,550,000.  After their property was liquidated and all the various receivership bills were paid,  Frost received a check for about $50,000 which was quickly used  up to pay for his debts, bills, and his childrens bills from the previous  7½  months, during which his business had already been closed ( since Dec. 30,2010) by Judge Pajtas.                                                                                               

#8 In Summary since the Plaintiff’s each received large judgments in that their property values greatly increased and they received cash payments from the Frost home sales. Frost was left homeless, income less, and bankrupt.  Fairly those judgments and more should be awarded back to the Frost Family.

 Judge Pajtas’ Constitutional Amendment Federal Violations.

The following 6items are details of each of the 6 U.S. ConstitutionalAmendmentsthat Judge Pajtas has violated, against the Frost Family, in his judging of the Smith vs Frost cases, in the March 2010 and the July 2011 trials.

1.The Albert Frost Families FIRSTAMENDMENT religious rights were violated.      

Judge Pajtas put  into receivership The FrostFamilies 2 home   properties ,  whichalso  contained,on their grounds, a  24ft  by   34  ft. beautifullog outbuilding often used as a church.  That   building was  builtabout6  years  prior,  for use as a handyman’swoodworking  shop and as a meeting  place for the “Holy Island Family Church  and  Fellowship organization” .                                                                                             Frost, hisson Ben and several church members built that inspirationallog building inthe woods over a 7 month period. The building hadalarge (6ft)white, illuminated  Christian   Cross  on   it,  and  a  large  Church  and a Chapel sign, which was left over from earlier days. " Albert Frost  gave testimony incourt thatfor thepast  24  years  himself and severalfriends, includingRev. Christopher  Wood, , who is anordained ChurchofLatterDaySaintsminister, had led  regular religiousservices at  theFrost homes.   The church organizationdidhave alegallyregisteredname.   In May2010   the court’s decisionorderfor the March 2010trial was released, Judge Pajtas said in it thatallrentalsmust stop at the 2 Frost Family homes on Dec.30, 2010.A timelyAppeal was filedand wasscheduledtobeheardin Oct   2011, however it was never heard because Judge Pajtas’ Order of July 2011 blocked the ability for Frost to proceed with the Appeal. After  Dec. 30, 2010  the Frost  Family   did allow some  groups to stay  at  their  2  homes  but if, and only if,  thegroupswould  sign a  legaldocument  thatverifiedthat theirpayment tovisitandstay,was to beusedonlyfor the  maintenance  and   the support  of community services of  the onsite, long existing,   Holy Island Family Church and Fellowship, organization.                                                         

   In July 2011Frostwas brought into court on charges of violating the Dec. 30, 2010 Judge Pajtas’ order ofnotrenting his homes. Frost did explain their existing 24 year old church organization had the rightto exist.Much evidence waspresented toJudgePajtas.  A Front  pagemajor newspaperstory fromthe  area’s  largest  newspaper with  a  largefront page picture of  Albert Frost volunteering inside a nursing home, the church was mentioned in that article. The actual beautiful log church building.

Albert Frost oftenperformed cost-freeguitarconcertsatthe7local nursing  homes  thathe  and  hischurchmembers  frequently  spoke  and  volunteered at.  The articledidmention   Frost, hischurch, and his20 + yearsof volunteercommunityservices.  4 witnessesalsotestifiedinCourtaboutthechurchandits many communityservices, youth counseling and related activities.At the July 2011 trial, one  man, Mr  David  Drury, 31, who lives in Charlevoix at his grandfather’s home, Ret. Colonel Woodrow Wilson, U.S. Air Force,  testifiedabout  how Frost, through his organization  had  personally worked  with  him  for about 27  years, teaching him  most  of   his  life skills  and   religious knowledge.Daviddid nothaveafatherin thearea for 30years. Two local area Motherstestifiedabout their personalknowledge of the churchand howFrost hadbeencounselinganddoingmany, wonderful, beneficialactivities withtheir own childrenand many otherlocal children that they know, over the past 25 years. Frost testified thattaking in donation moneytosupportthechurchanditsmany services, as had been done the past 24 years,was justified by the First amendment.Thusending allfunding, tothechurch, wouldresult in illegal "Governmentclosure”ofalongstanding non-profitchurch.                                                                                                                    Judge Pajtas disagreed with Frost.JudgePajtasthenissued  an  order whichimmediatelyput  the  Frost  2  homes, and church  propertyintothe  hands  of  a receiver, to  be  promptly  sold.  The Judge also bannedFrost fromever returningtohis homeproperty, of 31 years again.

     U.S. Supreme Court Justice  Blackwell in 1981 had  set  the standard  for  what a  “church”saying  that it is the  group  of  the leaders of persons  meeting  for  religious  purposes. In our case Judge Pajtas wrongly interpreted the “church” as a log structure and the Frost church building did not meet all of the new Township Church building codes, however the church was located on non-conforming-use zoned property. This incorrect interpretation, of what a church is, by Judge Pajtas, may be the reason that the Judge put all of the Frost’s homes and property into receivership to be promptly sold. Judge Pajtas did not rationally consider the facts in his extremely quick decision. Pajtas could have much more fairly had the Frost properties locked up until the Appeals Court date in 9 weeks.  However the Appeals Court would have been very likely allow the Frost’s to keep their 31 year Family supporting rental business operating at some level, which would go against Judge Pajtas’ exhibited prejudiced and biased positions on the Frost rental homes situation.

AMENDMENT4.  Violation of search and seizure

 Frost’s searchandseizurerightswereviolatedin thatJudgePajtas suddenly  bannedAlbertFrostfrom returning to his homes and property of 31 years and entering hishomes  again,  following  the July 2011 court session.  Thus without warning and without reason, Judge Pajtas essentially froze and took controlof both of   Frosthomes and the homespossessions.  NoCourtreason orinformation wasgivenonthisunwarrantedactbyJudgePajtas.

AMENDMENT5:  Violation of Eminent Domain Rights and Due Process Rights.

JudgePajtas'courtappointedreceivertookpossessionof AlbertFrosts 2 self-builtloghomes after the July 2011 trial.Onehome locatedat1560SleepyHollowLane,wasFrost's31 year long,legal, EminentDomain.Frosthadownedthepropertyfor31yearsandhadlovinglyspentover 30,000hoursworkingalone,buildingthat homeforhisFamilyandhisretirement.          The Courttook controlof the Frosts’2homesandhadthemprofessionallysoldbyareceiver.TheFrostFamilycouldhavesimplysoldtheirhomes,BenFrost, Albert Frost'sson,  age18,was inthecourtroomandcould havehandledanymatter instead Judge Pajtas prejudicially chose the extreme and greatlyexpensiveprocedureofhavinghighpricedprofessionalsliquidate the Frost Homes and their property, for no court offered reason.

AMENDMENT6:  At the beginningoftheJuly2011trialthe ShowofCausestatement read “civil/criminal trial”.About half waythrough this trialJudge Pajtas and the Plaintiffs attorney decided in court that therewouldnowbeacriminalelementin thetrial.Frost askedJudgePajtas, atthattime, for aCourtAppointedAttorney, because of the clarification of the criminal contempt of court charge now being sought by JudgePajtas.  JudgePajtas,actingin aprejudicial manner, didnot allow Frost to get an attorney, Frost was not read his Constitutional rights, or given a chance to get an attorney and prepare a defense to the new criminal charge. Thus Frost’s dueprocess rights were violated.

  Amendment 8.  In both of the  March  2010and  March  2011trials, Judge   Pajtas   violated   the   8thamendment  in  that   he  brought  forth   onto  the  Frost   Family   "  excess  fines  and cruel   and  unusual   punishment"                                                                                                 

   In theMarch2010trial JudgePajtasdecidedto closeallrentalsattheFrost homesbeginningDec. 30 2010.  Thetrial was  a civil  trial  toseeifthe Frosts had beenincivil  violation  of  the Rental Injunction.   Judge Pajtas'Order   was   a   severe criminal penalty of  closing down  the  Frost  Family  Vacation Rental Business . This  extreme  courtaction  resulted in the total loss  of  all income  to  the  4  memberFrostFamily. 

The recommended Maximum State of Michigan Law penalty, for a civil contempt of court offense violation, was 90 days in Jail and a $10,000 fine.  Judge Pajtas, in closing the Frost’s business, fined the Frost Family approximately $1,400,000 which is an extremely “excessive fine”. The issued, greatly excessive fines have resulted in “cruel and unusual punishment” to the Frost Family.

    Judge Pajtas alsoviolated the  8thamendment   in  July 2011 inthat  he  took  court  possession of  both  Frost  homes  and  assigned  them  to a  Receiver   to  be  promptly sold , shortly  before  the  Oct., 2011 Appeal  hearing  date.  The Judge could have fairly isolatedandlockedtheFrost homes untilafterthelongawaitedupcoming Appeal in 9 weeks, was heard.One of the 2 Frost Family sold homes was the  poet, "Robert  Frost" ,(an actual close relative of this Albert Frost Family), Memorial home,  at  1560 SleepyHollow  Lane, which had been a community shared resource ( article in back section). Factually thiswas  the  first time  charge  of  "Criminal  Contempt  of Court" against the Frost  Family.

AMENDMENT     14:           Equal Protection, Due Process

AlbertFrost wasdeniedlife, liberty,andproperty,his2self-builtloghomes,one ofwhichwasMr.Frost's Eminentdomain for 31 years,weretakenbytheJudgePajtasin courtwithouttheproper, due process requirements of a Statehearingonthereasonsfor thesesevereactionsbythe Judge. Onehome wasdebtfree andone home owed about a half mortgage.Judge Pajtas chose to take and sell the homes, the church and thus close the rental business that the Frost Family had built,had owned, and had paid high taxes on, for over 31 years.

A:   Judge Pajtas in the July 2011 trial promised, from the bench, to the Plaintiffs, at the beginning of that trial that he would give a decision and an Order on that day. This was before any evidence was given:  This is due Process violation, by Judge Pajtas.

B:   Also the Frost Family was not treated as fairly as everyone else is in the March 2010 and July 2011 trials, in that they were giving cruel, unusual and extreme punishments, greatly exceeding the State recommended ones. This was an equal protection violation by the Judge.

AMENDMENT14A: Judge Pajtas also violated the Civil Rights of Albert Frost who was 61 at the time of the July 2011 trial. Albert Frost had a stress related neurological condition that was causing him occasional minor seizures,and tremors.Mr Frost could  still drive,converse, work,and function in society normally; he had to be his own attorney in the July2011trial, due to Judge Pajtas’ previously ending Frost’s income.A medical report was given to Judge Pajtas verifying MrFrost’s condition which resulted in the Judge deciding to sell both Frost self- built log homes.    The Judge’s decision violated the solution to the disagreement that the Plaintiff’s had actually testified in court, that they wanted, which was the selling of one Frost home.Frost was denied fair treatmentunder the law, his Civil  Rights   were  violated       by  a  Physical  Limitation which was prejudicially  overweighed by  Judge  Pajtas               .

Conclusions:   Albert Frost spent 7 full years hand building his own log homes, and church. The retiring Judge Pajtas refused the early Motion to recuse himself even though the facts are that he was living in a very similar situation, as this case, for many years. The retiring government Smith, DNR official is a local friend of the Judge, was a Plaintiff.  The other Plaintiff, Curtis, was a profit motivated real estate company owner who has frequently presented false testimony and great exaggerations of events in an effort gain Judge Pajtas’ favor and eventually close the pre-existing Frost Homes.

There are several undeniable facts.

1. The Albert Frost Family was on location and legally renting to vacationers many years before the Plaintiffs arrived.

2. Frost has worked 31 years on building and improving his homes and property, even rebuilding twice, following severe fire damages. One home was his planned retirement home.

3. The 2 Plaintiff neighbors did purchase, next door to the pre-existing Frost rental business, and were quite aware of the Frost vacation rentals before they purchased.

4. The Frost Family had made many rental concessions and many property and home additions, to help improve the area’s conditions for the 2 Plaintiffs increased enjoyment. This included signing an Injunction, 15 years prior, that limited groups sizes,  the number of rental weeks, quiet times, etc.

5.  Frost’s, life’s work, his income, his self-built log homes and his many other achievements at his property, have been prejudicially taken from him, leaving him homeless, bankrupt, and in poverty.   

6. Judge Pajtas destroyed the Frosts Family’s 31 years life’s work and yet the Judge was never shown a picture, a photograph, heard a recorder, observed by himself, or actually observed any  Injunction violations at the Frost Homes.  

7. Judge Pajtas is therefore prejudicially shown to believe the Plaintiff’s verbal statements even though many of them, from Plaintiff Curtis, have already been shown to be lies as evidenced by the Sheriff Dept. not responding to Curtis’ phony calls anymore, and Curtis’ other, previously listed, 12  derogatory actions and statements.

8. Nearly all of the Plaintiff’s case evidence was verbal statements which were over emotionally presented to retiring Judge Pajtas, without proof.

9. Judge Pajtas was acting prejudicially because of the Plaintiffs total lack of “Hard Evidence” such as a video, Curtis testified that he could always see all of the beach and front lawn area, at the 2 Frost Homes.

10. Various Judge Pajtas decisions are especially shocking in the fact that these decisions are far more severe than what the 2 Plaintiffs were even requesting from the court.  ( In Court they requested the selling of one Frost home).

11. Judge Pajtas issued penalties, were far more severe, extreme, and Family debilitating than the State of Michigan recommended maximum penalty limits.  

The 34 listed prejudiced decisions by Judge Pajtas, cry out loudly of a consistent pattern of intentional biased and prejudiced judicial misconduct.  Together they rise to the level of a criminal offence violation by Judge Richard Pajtas. Evidence suggests that Criminal charges be issued in court against Judge Richard Pajtas for his, unjust actions and Michigan State legal law violating penalties, in these 2 Cases. Retiring Judge Pajtas is older, less objective and possesses a very deep, family home developed prejudice, against next door neighbor outside business situations. In our case, much untrue information has been emotionally spoon fed to the Judge, by realtor Curtis. It is catastrophically unfortunate that the Frost Family and our beloved, self-built log homes had to be the doormat in one of realtor Curtis’ greedy “march to the financial top”, schemes.

 One major question Judge Pajtas should have asked himself is “does the penalty fit the crime”? In the July 2011 trial, there was a mix up by Frost of whether or not the donated funds to his established church are legally considered rental funds at the Frost Homes.  By any honorable judgement this type of unclear, accidental violation should not result in the total destruction of a Families 31 years of hard work, a $2,550,000 penalty, bankruptcy and homelessness, especially when the State calls for a $10,000 fine and 90 days in jail as the maximum penalty.

Please help us to receive justice, fair treatment, and honest, logical, objective court consideration, under the laws of our Country.  I would once again like to be able to look into my beautiful childrens eyes and peacefully and honestly, tell them that we have a great country with a fair and honorable legal system.

                                                             Sincerely Albert Frost