I'm enclosing my draw of suit too. I have evidence that NAD Law Center
refused to help me due contributions National Association Certified Court
Reporters.

PROCEDURIAL HISTORY
  The judge Ferentz heard this case with #SC-00650-96 on 03/22/96 with
demonstration exclusive partiality on behalf Defendant. She particularly
ignored my pre and in trial disqualification a court reporter due obvious
possibility conflict of interests. She treated my violation contract
nature suit as a labor dispute. She forced me to miss deadline for
filling Notice Appeal with help Mr. Tramer, supervisor of Office Official
Court Reporters.
  The judge Ferentz heard also my other case #SC-01676-96 on 06/05/96
with demonstration exclusive partiality on behalf Defendant. She
particularly ignored my pre and in trial disqualification as her due
exclusive partiality and so the court reporter due obvious possibility
conflict of interests that made me being loss and fail properly present
the case.
  The same judge Ferentz picked up my case #SC-04590-96 on 12/11/96 with
demonstration the same level partiality on behalf Defendant. She
particularly ignored my disqualification of her. Ms. Ferentz positioned a
court reporter far from her and microphones in order prevention audio
recording for free manipulation later caption. The court reporter had
problems with captioning due as imperfection CART technology and so
understanding speech the judge determined by big distance. The judge had
problem with understanding my speech apparently determined by big
distance from her and likely my imperfect pronunciation due hearing
impairment. It prompted her to claim that the process communication is
too annoying. Then she claimed that I am submitting the same arguments
presented in case A-6986-95Tl (SC-000650-96) on 03/22/96 dismissed by NJ
Superior Court on the ground failure meet the 75-days deadline for
filling appeal, therefore she dismisses the case with prohibition to file
any appeals in Superior Court. She ignored my cry that I did not finish
my presentation the case and literally run out of room. Apparently she
knew that next my argument would be presentation copies of pages of
Federal Financial Aid Handbook US Department Education with evidence of
gross violation its Chapter 7 related to statutes Federal Work-Study
Program by Defendant.


STATEMENT FACTS
1)  The judge selected for accommodation obviously a partial court
reporter that positioned me and herself backward and far away from the
judge, microphones and clerks apparently in order prevention audio
recording for free manipulation later caption.
2)  The very first sentence of the judge, "Mr. Pribytkov, this is the
third case that you've brought lawsuit against NJIT. How is this one
different from the prior two?" demonstrates her prejudice and intention
to confuse Plaintiff. 3t(8-10). In reality the first lawsuit was
dismissed by NJ Superior Court due managed by her in cooperation with Mr.
Tramper missing by me 75 days deadline submission Notice of Appeal. That
with combination a new found evidence gross malpractice Federal
Work-Study Program are reasons resubmission this lawsuit. The second
lawsuit has nothing common with Federal Work-Study Program that is the
subject of the current lawsuit.
3)  Judge Ferentz ignored my disqualification her. 3t(11-16).
4)  The judge repeated demonstration her prejudice and intention to
confuse Plaintiff in her second question, "Mr. Pribytkov, are you asking
for the same relief in this case that you asked in the other two?"
3t(23-34). The second lawsuit has nothing common with Federal Work-Study
Program that is subject the current lawsuit. See additional comments in
point 2.
5)  Ms. Ferentz again demonstrated her prejudice and intention to confuse
Plaintiff in her question, "Mr. Pribytkov, is this the same claim that
you made the prior two times?" 4t(20-21). The second lawsuit has nothing
common with Federal Work-Study Program that is subject the current
lawsuit. See additional comments in point 2.
6)  She didn't hesitate to show her prejudice and intention to confuse
Plaintiff in her next remark, "...it's nothing more than a restatement of
what you've already been claiming. I've already found in the prior cases
that you were not entitled to the funds that you south because you didn't
comply..." 5t(7-10). The second lawsuit has nothing common with Federal
Work-Study Program that is subject the current lawsuit. See additional
comments in point 2.
7)  She again showed her prejudice on 5t(16-25) and 6t(1-13).
8)  The most outrageously she demonstrated her prejudice in remark, "Mr.
Pribytkov, I found that what you're doing is an abuse of the system. This
case has been heard once, twice and now a third time. I am again going to
dismiss the case as being the same claim you brought before... I'm going
to tell counsel, to direct her to submit an order indicating this and in
the order to provide that you are prohibited from filing any further
lawsuits against NJIT for this same claim. If you do it there's going to
be a sanction imposed against you, Mr. Pribytkov. I'm also going to take
care of your request for transcript now because I know that you'll ask
for one, for a free transcript... Counsel, submit the order please."
5t(20-25) and 6t(1-14). The second lawsuit has nothing common with
Federal Work-Study Program that is subject the current lawsuit. See
additional comments in point 2.
9)  She literally run from a room, however I was able to read her last
words and cry, "I'm sorry, I have another paper." before she closed the
door. 6t(16). 
10)  But she replied, "Finished, sir." 6t(17).
11)  The court reporter altered two words in my statement that cardinally
changed its meaning. She printed "need" instead "got" that made the
sentence senseless. "I got additional information during the time," she
converted in "I need additional information during this time." 3t(20).
12)  The court reporter also obviously altered claim the judge, "I'm
absolutely astounded at the amount of rude behavior in this courtroom. If
you don't think it's difficult dealing with somebody with a handicap or
trying to work with delayed, time delayed program here, to have of the
chattering in this courtroom is unacceptable. Now I'm going to direct
that everybody get out. I can't hear a thing that's going on up here
because of the chattering in the courtroom." 4t(13-19). I remember very
good that there was at least a word "annoying" near "delayed" since I
paid attention to it as a ground for allegation in violation my Civil
Rights under ADA. However I don't remember any mentioning "chattering in
the courtroom," in addition there is any mentioning in the transcript
about time given for vacation the courtroom by audience. More over, I
didn't see any signs vacation by audience the room after stopping reading
caption the court reporter. All audience kept sitting.
13)  Although the judge ordered, "Now I'm going to direct that everybody
get out," nobody left the room, even after she left the courtroom
herself. 4t(17-18), 4t(19-26), 5t, 6t. 
14)  The transcript reflects the only words of Defendant during the whole
hearing, "Leslie Fries for defendant NJIT." 3t(7). And "Your Honor, thank
you very much." 6t(15).
15)  Ms. Ferentz claimed, "I'm going to tell counsel, to direct her to
submit an order indicating this and in the order to provide that you are
prohibited from filing any further lawsuits against NJIT for this same
claim," however she signed an order prepared by Defendant with totally
inclusive prohibition. "1. The Complaint filed by pro se Plaintiff,...is
dismissed with prejudice.   2.  Mr. Pribytkov is prohibited from filing
in the NJ Superior Court any lawsuit against NJIT, its trustees,
employees, or agents related to the issue of Federal or Institutional
Work Study money."
LEGAL ARGUMENT
1.   In this case during a short hearing with full transcript occupying
fewer four pages one sees fifteen events at least doubtful appearance of
impartiality and integrity of the judge. More over the transcript reveals
that the judge put aside the Defendant and administrated ordinary
inherent to a counsel of Defendant extremely partial cross-examination of
Plaintiff with repeated intentionally slanderous claim that all three
lawsuits are the same matter. The second lawsuit has nothing common with
Federal Work-Study Program that is the subject of the current lawsuit.
See points: 2; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8 in Statement Facts.
She prevented Defendant from presenting the case, particular she
proclaimed the judgment just before Defendant was going to present copies
pages of Federal Financial Aid Handbook US Department Education with
evidence of gross violation its Chapter 7 related to statutes Federal
Work-Study Program by Defendant. 
She allowed to the counsel of Defendant to say during the whole hearing
only, "Leslie Fries for defendant NJIT." 3t(7). And "Your Honor, thank
you very much." 6t(15).
CJS #98; (LISTS ABOUT 100 CASES)
a)  NO JUDGE SHOULD PRESIDE IN A CASE IN WHICH HE ISN'T WHOLLY FREE,
DISINTERESTED, IMPARTIAL, AND INDEPENDENT. 
US-US V. ORBIS DC PUERTO RICO, 366 F. SUPP. 628.   
NJ-STATE V. MURASKI, 69 A. 2D 745 NJ SUPER. 36.
b)  FOUNDATION OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
IMPARTIALITY IS THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM. 
Minn.-Payne v. Lee, 24 N.W. 2d.259, 222 Minn. 269.
c)  NEXT IN IMPORTANCE TO THE DUTY OF RENDERING A RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENT IS
THAT OF DOING IT IN SUCH MANNER AS WILL BEGET NO SUSPECTION OF THE
FAIRNESS AND INTEGRITY OF THE JUDGE, AND THE LAW REQUIRES NOT ONLY THAT A
JUDGE BE IMPARTIAL, but also that he appear to be impartial. So, in
determining whether a judge should disqualify himself where his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned, the standard or test isn't
whether the is impartial in fact, but rather whether a reasonable man
might question his impartiality under all circumstances.   
US-SCA SERVICES, INC. V. MORGAN, C.A. ILL. 557 F.2D 110 - WEBLE V.
MCGHILE LAND TITLE CO. C.A. UTAH, 549 F.2D 1358.  
IND.-STATE EX REL. MOSSHAMMER V. ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT N3, 206 N.E.2D 139,
246 IND. 366.     KY.-WELLS V. WALTER, 501 S.W.2D 259.   WASH.- STATE V.
MODRY, 504 P.2D 1156, 8 WASH. APP. 61.
d)  THERE MUST BE APPEARANCE OF IMPARTIALITY WHICH FOSTERS CONFIDENCE OF
LITIGANT IN JUSTICE SYSTEM; ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THAT IMPARTIALITY
THREATENS INTEGRITY OF JUDICIAL PROCESS. R. 1:12-1; CODE OF JUDGE
CONDUCT, CANON 3 SUBD. C(1),-ID. NJ-STATE V. TICKER, 625, A.2D 34, 264 NJ
SUPER 549, CERTIFICATION DENIED 640 A.2D 850, 135 N.J. 468,              
   
e)  EVERY LITIGANT IS ENTITLED TO NOTHING LESS THAN COLD NEUTRALITY OF AN
IMPARTIAL JUDGE...AND COURTS SHOULD SCRUPULOUSLY PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF
LITIGANTS IN THIS REGARD. 
US-SUGGS V. C.W. TRANSPORT, INC. D.C. ILL., 421 F. SUPP. 58.   OKL.-STATE
V. FREEMAN, 229 P.296, 102 OKL. 291.   
CJS #99  (LISTS ABOUT 100 CASES)
f)  THE DISQUALIFICATION MAY BE BASED ON PROVISION OF A CONSTITUTION  
CAL.-PEOPLE V. CHESSMAN, 342 P.2D 679, 52 C.2D 467. 
MASS.-BEAUREGARD V. DAILEY, 1 N.E.2D 481, 294 MASS. 315. + LIST 12 CASES.
g)  OF A STATUE   US.-CHAMBERLAIN V. WICHITA FALLS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DIST., CA TEX., 539 F.2D 586.
DUTY OF STATE.
h)  IN VIEW OF THE STATUTE, THE STATE IS BOUND TO FURNISH EVERY LITIGANT
NOT ONLY AN IMPARTIAL JUDGE, BUT ONE WHO HAS NOT, BY ANY ACT OF HIS,
JUSTIFIED A DOUBT OF HIS IMPARTIALITY.       NY-MOERS V, GILBERT, 25
NYS.2D 114, 175 MISC. 733, AFFIRMED 27 NYS.2D 425, 261 APP.DIV. 957, AND
27 NYS.2D 426, 261 APP.DIV. 957.
i)  OF A COURT RULE.                   MONT.-STATE EX REL. GREELG V.
DISTRICT COURT OF FOURTH JUDICAL DIST., 590 P.2D 1104.
CJS #108 (LISTS ABOUT 100 CASES.)
j)  THE RIGHT TO A JUDGE FREE FROM BIAS OR PREJUDICE IS BASED ON THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, AND 
US-US V. CEIUTO, CA ILL., 531 F.2D 842.
ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.             US-US V.
CONFORTE, DC NEV., 457 F.SUPP. 641, AFFIRMED, CA, 624 F2D 869.
k)  IF THE REQUISTE BIAS OR PREJUDICE EXISTS, IT'S IMMATERIAL WHAT CAUSED
IT.  
KY.-STAMP V. COMMONWEALTH, 243 S.W. 27, 195 KY. 404.
l)  A PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW DEMANDS NOT ONLY THAT JUDGES
REFRAIN FROM ACTUAL BIAS BUT ALSO THAT THEY AVOID ALL APPEARANCE OF
UNFAIRNESS, BIAS OR PREJUDICE.             US-US V. RITTER, CA, 540 F.3D
459;  LA.-STATE V. GORDY, 380 SO.2D 1347.
CJS #109  (LISTS ABOUT 100 CASES)
m)  BIAS AND PREJUDICE MEAN A HOSTILE FEELING OR SPIRIT OF ILL WILL
AGAINST ONE OF THE LITIGANT, OR UNDUE FRIENDSHIP OR FAVORITISM TOWARD
ONE.  IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ACTUAL BIAS OR PREJUDICE MUST BE SHOWN, BUT
IT HAS ALSO BEEN STATED THAT ACTUAL PREJUDICE ISN'T REQUIRED, AND THAT
THE BELIEF ON THE PART OF LITIGANT THAT HE CANNOT HAVE A FAIR TRIAL IS
SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR DISQUALIFICATION.
CAL.-STATE EX. REL. AQUIAR V. CHAPPELL, APP. 344 SO.2D 925.
CJS #111 (LISTS ABOUT 100 CASES)
CUMULATIVE EFFECT CAN BE SUFFICIENT ALTHOUGH COMPONENTS NOT.
2.   Every litigant entitled to right to a fair trial by the Constitution
of the USA. Impartiality is the very foundation of the American judicial
system. Impartiality and integrity a court reporter participating to a
court hearing as mean communication accommodations are vital for a pro se
litigant with hearing impairment, considering practically inability CART
technology to secure absolute accuracy is delivering information and
unrestricted possibility altering caption as in real time and so
subsequently! This statute supported by America with Disability Act. The
partial court reporter in this case positioned me and herself backward
and far away from the judge, microphones and clerks apparently in order
prevention audio recording for free manipulation later caption. The court
reporter obviously altered two words in my statement that cardinally
changed its meaning. She printed "need" instead "got" that made the
sentence senseless. "I got additional information during the time," she
converted in "I need additional information during this time." 3t(20).
Even if I were told accidentally such nonsensical phrase, I would correct
it at once. I don't remember words the judge, "I'm absolutely astounded
at the amount of rude behavior in this courtroom. If you don't think it's
difficult dealing with somebody with a handicap or trying to work with
delayed, time delayed program here, to have of the chattering in this
courtroom is unacceptable. Now I'm going to direct that everybody get
out. I can't hear a thing that's going on up here because of the
chattering in the courtroom." 4t(13-19). I remember very good that there
was at least a word "annoying" near "delayed" since I paid attention it
as a ground for allegation in violation my Civil Rights under ADA.
However I don't remember any mentioning "chattering in the courtroom," in
addition there is no any mentioning in the transcript about time given
for vacation the courtroom by audience. More over, I didn't see any signs
vacation by audience the room after stopping reading caption the court
reporter. All audience kept sitting. CART technology increases accuracy
stenography of course, however it's still far away from perfection and
proper accuracy. More over it's a highly manipulative technology allowing
say to alter a question in order get yes-no answer with opposite meaning
and later undetectably change a question to original form. In addition
even an honest CART operator is unable to absolute accuracy caption even
during later editing, that is why audio recording is a mandatory
requirement. Therefore the fact that the court reporter placed herself
and me in position excluding audio recording is obvious evidence
predetermined intention to affect my Constitutional right on fair and
unbiased trial.

Lev Pribyktov
l.pribytkov@juno.com