THE KIDNAPPING AND THREATENING OF SUNNY SHEU BY DISTRICT ATTORNEY DETECTIVES.

From the Blackstar News article, "Junk Justice": by Milton Alimadi 

"About a week after Sheu left the letter at Judge Golia’s residence, on January 14, 2009, Sheu says, when he stepped out of the judge’s courtroom after submitting some documents, and while he was still inside the Queens Court house, two men in plainclothes approached him. The men flashed badges, tapped their side arms, and asked him to accompany them. 

Sheu says the men declined to provide business cards. He was driven in an unmarked car to the Queens county D.A.’s office, where he was led in through a rear entrance, he says.

Inside a small room, Sheu sat facing the two men across a table, he says.

He was required to provide his social security number, and made to empty his pockets. One detective left the room and made photocopies of his driver’s license as well as his credit cards, Sheu says. “One of them said ‘We know you’re a victim of mortgage fraud, but we are not going to talk about that today,’” Sheu recalls.

Then one of them opened a folder and revealed the letter Sheu had left in Judge Golia’s mailbox. “He said ‘did you send this letter?’ and I said ‘yes,’” Sheu recalls. “Then they began to say ‘don’t contact detective Keith Ng again.’ They said ‘the house belongs to the bank.’  They began to ask me about my tax issues and my immigration issue. One of them said they would like to go to my home to see my passport. They were getting angrier.”

Sheu says one of the detectives leaned across the desk towards him. “He said ‘you cannot send a letter again,’” Sheu recalled. And I cannot contact detective Keith Ng again. They kept saying "you cannot contact Keith Ng again.’”

He says he asked whether Jayson Garlick, an assistant district attorney who had once worked on the May 23, 2000 fraudulent mortgage closing case was available, and was told Garlick no longer work at the Queens County D.A.’s office.

Sheu says the detectives also copied phone numbers from his cell phone. He said he was kept for two hours before being escorted downstairs and let out of a side door that led towards a drugstore. “They didn’t write down anything,” Sheu recalls.

He said he had to demand for his driver’s license back before he walked out of the building.  Sheu met with a retired detective the next day and narrated the incident to him. “He said one word,” Sheu recalled. “Kidnap.”

On January 18, Sheu sent a letter to Robert H. Tembeckjian, Administrator and Counsel to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, documenting what he now calls his “kidnapping.”

Judge Golia did not return a phone message seeking comment.

Golia's Clerk Confirm's Sheu's Detention by NYPD Detectives

The judge’s law clerk, Mitchell Kaufman said the judge had not contacted the police about Sheu and that the judge also had not filed a report, raising questions about who summoned the detectives. 

“However there is a matter open if you will with court security because Mr. Sheu had taken it upon himself, to, I guess through the Internet, to obtain information about the judge, and his private residence, and the judge’s wife, and the judge’s daughter,” Kaufman added. “And he left mail addressed to the judge's wife not through the mail; not with the stamped mail but going to the judge’s residence and leaving mail in the judge’s mailbox. So I imagine something came out of that. I don't know.”

“As a party in a civil case, Mr. Sheu should not have had any outside contact with the judge presiding over the matter, and he especially should not have gone to the judge's personal residence,"


What Clerk Kaufman fails to consider is that a citizen may not be detained without a formal complaint and a warrant. There is no provision in NY law that allows for the detention of and individual based on the whim of police detectives. 

If Golia did not order the detention of Sunny Sheu on 1/14/2009, WHO DID?

Under NY State law detention without a warrant constitutes Kidnapping in Second Degree, and is a B Felony:

KIDNAPPING SECOND DEGREE (B Felony) PENAL LAW 135.20 (Committed on or after Sept. 1, 1967)

Under our law, a person is guilty of Kidnapping in the Second Degree when he or she abducts another person.

The term "abduct" used in this definition has its own special meaning in our law. I will now give you the meaning of that term.

ABDUCT means to restrain a person with intent to prevent that person's liberation either by secreting or holding him or her in a place where he or she is not likely to be found, or by using or threatening to use deadly physical force.1

The words "restrain," "intent," and "deadly physical force" used in the definition of "abduct" also have their own special meanings.

Restrain means to restrict a person's movements intentionally and unlawfully in such manner as to interfere substantially with his or her liberty by moving him or her from one place to another, or by confining him or her either in the place where the restriction commences or in a place to which he or she has been moved, without consent and with knowledge that the restriction is unlawful.2

A person restricts another's movements intentionally when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to restrict that person's movem ents.3

1 See Penal Law § 135.00(2). 2 See Penal Law § 135.00(1). 3 See Penal Law § 15.05(1).

A person restricts another's movements unlawfully when he or she is not authorized by law to do so.

NOTE: Select appropriate alternative:

Under our law, with certain exceptions not applicable here, a person is not authorized by law to restrict another's movem ents.

or

Under our law, a person is authorized by law to restrict another's movements when (read the applicable law that authorizes a person to restrict another's movements 4).

A person restricts another's movements with knowledge that the restriction is unlawful when he or she is aware that the restriction is not authorized by law.5

A person is moved or confined without consent when such is accomplished

NOTE: Select appropriate alternative:

by physical force, intimidation or deception.

or

by any means whatever, including acquiescence of the

victim, if he or she is a child less than sixteen years old or an

incompetent person and the parent, guardian or other

person or institution having lawful control or custody of him

or her has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement. 6

4See, e.g., CPL §§ 140.15, 140.35, Penal Law §§ 35.05, 35.10. 5 See People v. Weiss, 276 N.Y. 384 (1938). Cf. Penal Law § 15.05(2). 6 See Penal Law § 135.00(1).

2

Intent means conscious objective or purpose.7

Thus, a person acts with intent to prevent another’s liberation either by secreting or holding him or her in a place where he or she is not likely to be found, or by using or threatening to use deadly physical force, when that person’s conscious objective or purpose is to do so.

Deadly physical force means physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury.8 Serious physical injury means impairment of a person's physical condition which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes death or serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.9

In order for you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, the People are required to prove, from all the evidence in the case, beyond a reasonable doubt, the following five elements:

1. That on or about (date) , in the County of (county) , the defendant, (defendant's name), restricted

(specify)'s movements in such manner as to interfere substantially with his/her liberty by moving him/her from one place to another, or by confining him/her either in the place where the restriction commenced or in a place to which he/she had been moved;

2. That the defendant did so without consent of

(specify);

3. That the defendant did so intentionally;

7 See Penal Law § 15.05(1). 8 See Penal Law § 10.00(11). 9 See Penal Law § 10.00(10).

3

4. That the restriction of (specify)'s movements was unlawful, and the defendant knew that the restriction was unlawful.

5. That the defendant restrained (specify) with intent to prevent (specify)'s liberation either by secreting or holding him/her in a place where he/she was not likely to be found, or by using or threatening to use deadly physical force.

[NOTE: If affirmative defense does not apply, conclude as follows: Therefore, if you find that the People have proven each of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant guilty of the crime of Kidnapping in the Second Degree

as charged in the _____ count.

On the other hand, if you find that the People have not proven any one or more of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty of the crime of Kidnapping in the Second Degree as charged in the _____ count.]

[NOTE: If affirmative defense applies, continue as follows: If you find that the People have not proven any one or more of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty of Kidnapping in the Second Degree as

charged in the ______ count.

On the other hand, if you find that the People have proven each of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must consider an affirmative defense the defendant has raised. Remember, if you have already found the defendant not guilty of Kidnapping in the Second Degree, you will not consider the affirmative defense.

Under our law, it is an affirmative defense to this charge that the defendant was a relative of the person abducted, and the

4

defendant's sole purpose was to assume control of such person.10 The term "relative" includes a parent [or an ancestor] [a brother] [ a sister] [ an uncle] [ an aunt].11

Under our law, the defendant has the burden of proving an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

In determining whether the defendant has proven the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, you may consider evidence introduced by the People or by the defendant.

A preponderance of the evidence means the greater part of the believable and reliable evidence, not in terms of the number of witnesses or the length of time taken to present the evidence, but in terms of its quality and the weight and convincing effect it has. For the affirmative defense to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, the evidence that supports the affirmative defense must be of such convincing quality as to outweigh any evidence to the contrary.

Therefore, if you find that the defendant has not proven the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, then, based upon your initial determination that the People had proven each of the elements of Kidnapping in the Second Degree beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant guilty of that crime as charge in the _____ count.

On the other hand, if you find that the defendant has proven the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, then you must find the defendant not guilty of Kidnapping in the Second Degree as charged in the _____ count.]

10 See Penal Law § 135.30. 11 See Penal Law § 135.00(3).

5

Kaufman's justification of the detention based on speculation of Sheu's motivations demonstrate either ignorance of, or disregard for, the fundamentals of constitutional due process.