AMJ T. Kubiniec

AMJ T. Kubiniec

NY Dept, of Parole
350 South Ave
Rochester NY 14620

    Stuart Dizak

    732 Middlebury Rd
    Webster, NY 14580

      February 8, 2021 – 0820131

      Dear Judge Kubiniec:

      On 1/16/21 I received a copy of the 12/7/20 plea proceedings, followed by the remainder, 10/13/20 preliminary hearing, the 10/28/20 final hearing and the 12/4/20 trial.  I immediately noticed an oddity. The 12/7/20 plea transcript had twice as many pages as the 12/4/trial. That did not make sense until I quickly discovered why. There were substantive segments missing from the 12/4/20 trial transcript.

      Immediately prior to the 12/4/20 trial, I received a call from you, informing me that a live trial could not be held as a result of covid restrictions. My response, “Unacceptable.” I had already waited an extra 6 weeks for a live trial, primarily for my right to view and confront my accusers. Therefore, contrary to your later comment, the time is chargeable to the People. In any event, the first 6 pages of the 12/4/20 trial transcript, addressed adjourning the trial, culminating with your stating, “We could reschedule this trial for January 8th for a contested hearing. Would you like that Mr Dizak?”  “That’s fine your honor, that’s fine.”  Kubiniec: “We will reschedule this matter.”  No mention of any new rules or caveats. At this point no reason to proceed further.

      But then and the top of page 7, instead of adjourning as you stated, Totally out of context, you begin discussing a plea to charge 4. What is missing is an entire segment where you informed me that effective an 12/9/20 new rules go into effect that would require you to sentence me to a year versus 3 months under the current rules. This followed by attorney Seppeler confirming same. Your honor that was not true.

       A few days later I received a copy of the new rule, 8500.20 stating three months to a year, (with a minor charge three months). In reality the new rule was in my favor as the previous four months I had already served, would be credited to me. In other words, guilty or not guilty, I would have been released on January 8th!

      Additionally, and also contrary to both your own and MS Seppeler’s comments, every floor in both towers of Monroe County Jail has video capabilities.  Therefore, no reason video could not have been offered to me as an alternative to a trial by phone.  I also made you aware that MS Seppeler failed to show up for pretrial preparations so even if we could have had a trial, I was essentially on my own. Finally, both yourself and MS Seppeler should have been  well aware I, a lowly law library clerk was, Facebook copies are not acceptable in any New York court, yet you in my case you made an exception. As I had explained to parole officer Roll, easy to get into someone else’s Facebook account.

      Respectfully yours,


      Stuart Dizak

      Note:  Also missing from the trial transcript is that you repeated the alleged one-year mandatory sentence a second time, adding, along with a CC-2 charge. That also was not true—- And missing from the October 13, 2020 preliminary hearing transcript is the most revealing incident.  That is where attorney Seppeler reminded the hearing officer that MS Nanni had DELETED the only possible evidence from her computer, the alleged 9/21/20 notice from Facebook that Stuart Dizak wants to be your friend.

      Yet another irregularity, never explained to me. is that the morning I left Mid-State C.F. on January 16, 2020 I was rated a Compas report 4 minimum risk, When I arrived in Rochester, it was changed to 1 maximum risk.  WHY?

      ADDENDUM, FEBRUARY 8, 2021

      To: AMJ Thomas Kubiniec | From: Stuart Dizak

      Much of parole officer Roll’s testimony at the October 13, 2020 preliminary hearing, concerned the incident and resulting charges from her September 28th visit to my residence, all of which was an AV recorded by the home security system. That video of which parole officer role is well aware of, will confirm that much of her sworn testimony at that hearing was untrue.

      For example, after asking me if I had sent my ex-wife, Judy Nanni, a Facebook friend request, I responded, “Not true, they were only searches.”  She was referring to my cell phone Facebook activity report of September 20th. Yet based on that known false accusation, turns to another PO, “See, he (Dizak) is lying.”  She then charges me with six violations, and later, in her office, I was handed a CC-2, also stating the incident occurred on September 20th as does the parole revocation notice.

      The later documents provided to me, Nanni’s domestic incident report and all other police reports signed by Nanni, also state September 20th. Even the parole revocation provided to me after the trial states September 20th. The only document stating September 21st is he alleged notification from Facebook to Nanni, “Stuart Dizak wants to be your friend.”  Yet for some inexplicable reason, MS Nanni deleted that “alleged evidence” from both her cell phone and computer.

      Regardless, at the October 13th hearing PO Roll finally admits her original charges were wrong. There never was a friend request on the September 20th, Facebook cellphone activity report that she used as the basis for all of the resulting charges against me.  Instead, she now converts the primary charging instrument to the alleged 9/21/20 notice from Facebook to Nanni (not from me) “Stuart Dizak wants to be your friend.” Of most significance is that is step 2 in a 3-step process, and cannot legitimately exist before step 1, the actual friend request from myself to Facebook.

      Perhaps all of the above explains why none of the opposing parties, ever contacted Facebook for verification of the documents nor ran an IP Address check on my alleged 9/20/20 Facebook activity report.




      During  the month of January 2022, I had by far, the highest number of responses to my Facebook advertising of my websites, and, well over 900 links.  By “coincidence,” on January 25, 2022, I was asked to stop by the Rochester, NY Parole office.

      I was informed that I was being charged with a violation of the terms of parole. Specifically writing to my ex-wife’s attorney brother, on December 1, and 10, 2022   was considered to be an impermissible 3rd party contact.  I was also issued a contempt of court ticket by the Rochester Police Dept.  The letters were genuinely nice, requesting a meeting to discuss and amicable resolution to his sister Judy Nanni’s  exposed perjured trial testimony. After continuances of several months, on June 1, 2022, during a hearing by parole administrative

      judge, Thomas Kubiniec, he informed me that Parole would accept in full satisfaction, whatever decision city court made.  The City Court dismissed the charges, yet another parole hearing was held in which Kubiniec denied making that offer.

      Prior to the final hearing, my assigned conflict defender, Emma Molodetz, a new employee, (Assigned because of the fiasco with the previously referred too, public defender, Christine Seppeler.) met with me, informing me that she was granted additional time to work on my case and came up with an excellent defense.  She even found  a previous case ruling that was strongly in my favor.  She did however inform me that if Kubiniec found me guilty he could sentence me to a year in County Jail. As I had already spent six months awaiting the final hearing, I was willing to take that final chance.

      But then, after the hearing had begun, Ms Molodetz suddenly informed me, without any explanation, that if I did not plead  guilty, I would face up to three years in state prison.  However, if I was willing to change my plea to guilty, it would be only one year.

      At age 79, and in deteriorating health, I could ill afford that risk.  As such I accepted the plea offer.  Attorney Molodetzlater failed to respond to both phone calls and letters requesting an explanation, as did the parole appeals board.  Nor even though acknowledging the June 1, 2022, hearing where Kubiniec stated Parole would go along with City Court’s ruling, refused to provide me with a copy of that prepaid transcript.

      Of equal significance, Kubiniec had initially recused himself because of the prior conflict, but later changed his mind.  This even though a judge is required to recuse himself if there is even a hint of bias.  As a result, at age 80, I spent yet another illicit year imprisoned.

      And finally after noticing that the original 2009 order of protection was lacking the required certification stamp which was required to make it valid, I contacted Monroe County Court.  I was informed that they had no record of any order of protection whatsoever.  All the charges and accusations against me were based upon a non-existent court order.

      And as now pointed out to me, if someone does a search for ALJ Kubiniec, this website is displayed first.

      What would any reasonably intelligent person conclude?