dirty-deeds - critical failure?

DPAdue process assist
- Brooklyn Lyceum
  
  a once and future theatre, coffee shop, gym and sometimes public square
  
  (if Brooklyn procedural due process has any meaning whatsoever)
  help "MAKE IT SO" - Read! Think! Act! Appear!
  
  Brooklyn Lyceum needs
  YOUR
  PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS ASSIST:
  
  (You only get the rights you fight for)
  
  Read! --- Think! --- Act! --- Appear!
  
  help usher
  
  the arc of Brooklyn justice towards procedural due process
  
  via inevitable
  
  unwinding of the illegal foreclosure sale of the Brooklyn Lyceum
  
  as Court of Appeals
  
  confirms throwing Greystone from frying pan (abandoned case)
  into the fire (lack of un-waived procedural due process):
  
  & EARN
  
  STAKE in programming the Brooklyn Lyceum 2.0
  
  HELP
  "make it so?"
  
  read up on some excruciatingly simple legal concepts.
  
  read a few simple documents from our docket
  
  note lack (or presence) of something in a docket
  
  note dates in notices and clerk timestamps on those papers.
  
  look at simple statute
  
  look at simple case law
  
  sign affidavit/jurat
  
  send us a case citation
  
  appear at a hearing or event (if you ever have the time)!
  
  9 Easy Pieces
  
  IS IT REALLY THIS SIMPLE?
  
  these is the facts jack
  
  STEP 1
  
  Court failed to do what statute says it shall
  (dismiss case as abandoned).
  
  STEP 2
  
  Court denies motion to dismiss case as abandoned
  (because, get this,
  defendant moved to vacate decision court not allowed to make
  after entry of decision court not allowed to make)
  ---that is as stupid as it sounds---
  
  STEP 3
  
  Defendant appealed denial of motion to dismiss case as abandoned.
  
  STEP 4
  
  oral argument YEARs later
  (where defendant informed court of ramifications
  if court somehow finds case not abandoned)
  
  STEP 5
  
  decision affirmed on different grounds
  (without actually stating it was on different grounds)
  the primary different ground being
  defendant moved too late (really?)
  by moving on (October 17, 2012) which came
  AFTER entry of different judgment than lower court ruling used (October 26, 2012)
  
  STEP 6
  
  defendant moves to re-argue
  whether October 17 really comes after October 26. (which is denied)
  
  STEP 7
  
  defendant moves to higher court for permission to appeal
  whether October 17 really comes after October 26. (which is denied)
  
  STEP 8
  
  defendant files appeal
  whether October 17 really comes after October 26.
  (which is dismissed because arcane & arbitrary rule application
  as court refuses to deal with 1st decision in case
  by pointing to last decision in case
  as the only one they will deal with)
  
  STEP 9
  
  that last decision, irrelevant if case is abandoned, critical if not,
  is product of fatally, facially flawed NOTICE OF MOTION ...
  --never served on defendant atty
  ( an atty appellate court retroactively inserted into the record.)
  --noticing whomever to appear a decade in the past
  -- that fails to notice what statute allows court to grant what is requested
  
  9 Not So Easy Pieces
  
  Just need an attention span ...?
  
  use your brain jane!
  
  STEP 1
  
  waiver of proceudral due process violations
  
  STEP 2
  
  jurisdiction: authority to rule, lost if procedure relating to due process is violated and that violation is not waived.
  
  STEP 3
  
  unwaived jurisdiction violations are forever (laches, inapplicability of)
  
  STEP 4
  
  no rights can vest from unwaived procedural due process violations.
  
  STEP 5
  
  requirement to give minimum notice of hearings
  
  STEP 6
  
  requirement to state, in notice of motion, statute that allows court to grant what is requested in notice
  
  STEP 7
  
  appearance, appearance by atty
  
  STEP 8
  
  requirement to serve all papers on atty for party
  
  STEP 9
  
  requirement of court
  to ensure procedural due process rights of other parties
  when court alters history
  to the benefit of one party
  
  BROOKLYN LYCEUM RISES FROM PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS ASHES?
  
  TL/DR:
  (old saying)
  
  Never enough time (for the courts) to do it (foreclosure) right,
  always enough time (for the courts) to do it (foreclosure) over.
  
  TL/DR:
  (Brooklyn literary reference)
  
  Joseph Heller (author of Catch-22) ... would be proud
  of the double edged judicial sword
  that cuts through jurisdiction
  no matter which side of the legal finding coin the court chooses ...
  
  A WEE BIT MORE INFO:
  
  the Brooklyn Lyceum needs a little help from our friends --the court didn't do what it was required to do (dismiss case as abandoned).
  --the appellate court avoided correcting the lower court by finding that:
  ------October 17 comes AFTER October 26, and,
  ------because 17 > 26 the Appellant moved too late
  ------the Appellant had an attorney
  who had timely appeared
  but then failed to timely answer the complaint.
  ------the decision the Appellate Court cared about
  was not the one appealed from
  but the Judgement of Foreclosure and Sale.
  --the court of appeals ignored jurisdictional challenges
  and rubber-stamped the appellate court decision
  freezing the schrodinger's cat of a case
  in an immutable position.
  
  HELP US UNWIND THE JUDGEMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE!
  
  as ... attorney never served
  a facially, fatally defective notice to appear,
  a notice to appear a decade before date of notice! ...
  a notice that does not cite the statute that permits court to grant what is requested.
  (lets do the TimeWarp Again!)
  
  EITHER:
  
  No Lyceum attorney appearance
  
  case statutorily abandoned
  
  Lyceum Foreclosure sale illegal
  
  OR:
  
  Lyceum attorney appearance
  
  unwaived violations of procedural due process
  (atty not served notices, notice to appear a decade in the past)
  
  Lyceum Foreclosure sale illegal
  
  ONE SENTENCE CLIFF NOTE:
  
  Appellate Court (Reinaldo Rivera) thrusts failure to serve notice of motion to appear a decade in the past on Brooklyn Lyceum attorney into the forefront of Brooklyn Lyceum case when he, Rivera, found 17 > 26 & Brooklyn Lyceum had attorney (an atty the now suspended from the practice of law Plaintiff atty withheld from the court).
  
  CAN YOU GIVE US A CAR ANALOGY?:
  
  NO. But I can give a fish market analogy. --Hand wrapped fish back to the fish monger because the sell by date is two weeks ago
  ... he goes into a back room, comes back out
  & hands you the same package with a new sell by date on it ...
  You have __NOT__ lost the right to see if the previously expired fish is bad!!
  --That is, in sum and substance, the current Brooklyn Lyceum problem. Brooklyn Lyceum alleged case abandoned (expired), Appellate Court does some back room surgery on the record & comes back w/a case that is rotten to the core.
  
  MEH, WHY DOES THAT MATTER?:
  
  Power of the court MUST be invoked
  
  by proper procedure
  
  else decisions the court makes
  
  never attain any authority,
  even if perceived to have authority for decades.
  see United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882)
  USA had to rebuy Arlington National Cemetery
  a decade after it became a cemetery for lack of proper service.
  
  Only proper service of the complaint
  
  invokes the power of the court.
  
  As a motion is a mini-case
  
  improper or lack of service of the notice of motion on the parties
  or facial insufficiency of the notice of motion fail to invoke the power of the court.
  
  OK, WHAT ARE THE GOTCHAS?:
  
  Participation, on the merits, in motion
  w/o raising lack of procedural due process
  
  can waive lack of procedural due process.
  (did not happen, so unwaived)
  
  Defendant forwarding papers
  inappropriately served on Defendant to Defendant atty.
  
  can waive lack of procedural due process.
  (did not happen, so unwaived)
  
  Attorney appearing at oral argument
  w/out arguing lack of procedural due process
  
  can waive lack of procedural due process.
  (did not happen, so unwaived)
  
  Attorney serving opposition papers
  w/out arguing lack of procedural due process
  
  can waive lack of procedural due process.
  (did not happen, so unwaived)
  
  Passage of time, even decades
  
  cannot waive lack of procedural due process.
  
  Facially, fatally defective notice of motion
  absent waiver of fatal facial defects ...
  
  cannot invoke the power of the court.
  
  HOW DOES THIS APPLY TO THE LYCEUM?:
  
  The Appellate Court and Court of Appeals
  both refused to address the case as presented to the court
  by the Plaintiff on October 26, 2009, ...
  
  going as far as making up a fact
  (October 17, 2012 comes after October 26, 2012)
  to avoid one procedural due process trap
  
  That trap was,
  if the court limits itself to that record,
  
  the case was abandoned
  by the time (Oct 2009) the Plaintiff
  filed/served the first action in a case
  where the Plaintiff later
  repeatedly swore Defendant had not appeared.
  
  The Appellate Court stuck in
  (& Court of Appeals rubber-stamped)
  a little gem that can only be interpreted as ....
  
  The Appellant had an atty
  who appeared
  (by way of Plaintiff granting extension of time to answer).
  
  The Appellate Court and Court of Appeals finding of
  "within a year of failing to serve an answer"
  is a very dodgy way of saying
  
  You timely appeared, but failed to subsequently timely answer.
  
  The Appellate Court and Court of Appeals
  artfully failed to do the math
  or point to the facts about appearance
  
  Which would show that the only way
  to an unabandoned case
  by way of getting to appearing and not answering
  would be to go outside the record
  and use proof of communication with Appellant Attorney
  that the Plaintiff withheld from the court.
  
  That artful avoidance of procedural due process (by way of making up a fact and hiding an necessary atty appearance)
  
  just opened a pandora's box of other, later procedural due process issues.
  
  In just the motion that allowed for the sale of the collateral, the Brooklyn Lyceum
  
  --the Plaintiff withheld from the court that there was a Defendant attorney,
  --that Defendant attorney was never served
  the Notice of Motion for a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale and
  -- the entities that were noticed, were noticed to appear a decade in the past, and
  --the unserved notice failed to specify the statute that allowed for a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale.
  
  THE LYCEUM WAS SOLD AT AUCTION, WHY RAISE THIS NOW?:
  
  The auction terms announced were
  
  the sale was subject to the pending (ongoing) litigation (the foreclosure case that allowed for the auction)
  
  The pending litigation at the time of the sale of the collateral, aka the Brooklyn Lyceum, was
  
  an appeal arguing that the case,
  based on the record made available to the court
  by the Plaintiff at the time of the 1st motion in the case (October, 2009),
  was, pursuant to CPLR 3215c ...
  abandoned precluding entry of ANY judgment by the court
  & mandating its dismissal as abandoned.
  
  Judge Donald Scott Kurtz broke the law
  
  by ruling on the motion.
  
  Kurtz broke the law again
  
  by going outside the record to support initial breaking of law when challenged on his initial breaking the law.
  
  Kurtz even went further by finding that
  
  since defendant moved () after the decison was entered () ...
  the against the law decision became valid.
  
  Thusly an appeal was pending
  
  at the time of the auction (10/23/14) and subsequent sale (1/20/15)
  
  APPEAL PENDING AT TIME OF AUCTION AND SALE. WHAT HAPPENED?:
  
  Oral argument occurred, finally, almost 2 years after the appeals were ready to be calendared ...
  
  on September 6, 2018.
  
  At that oral argument
  
  Appellant raised jurisdictional questions that come into play if the case is not deemed abandoned
  
  Specifically noted as jurisdictional to the court:
  
  --failure to serve Lyceum atty any notices of motion and, the kicker,
  --the unserved on Lyceum atty Notice of Motion for Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale dated March 2011... instructed all to appear a decade earlier in April 2001 ....
  
  Lyceum was hopeful when,
  in response to these issues
  (and one more about the ridiculousness of the decision the appealed decision was premised upon),
  the lead Appellate judge (Reinaldo Rivera) said
  
  --The 2nd Department has an excellent reputation.
  --We will get to the bottom of it.
  
  THE ABJECT APPELLATE DECISION
  
  The decison went against all hope to the extent ...
  
  that the Appellate Court
  
  was either shockingly lazy
  or wanted to put a fork in the Lyceum
  to benefit a developer
  
  the Appellate Court
  
  made up a fact
  (October 17 comes after October 26)
  
  the Appellate Court
  
  went outside the record (again, illegally)
  to necessarily retroactively
  insert an appearance of counsel into the record
  some 11 years earlier
  thereby invoking the lack of juridiction
  appellant raised at oral argument.
  
  Suffice it to say
  we were dumfounded as
  
  the court retroactivly altered the docket
  without doing exactly what it did
  in a case some two weeks prior to oral argument,
  reset another case back
  to the point of retroactively altering the docket
  to preserve the due process rights of a defendant.
  
  We were
  flabbergasted
  
  by the unequal treatment of under the law
  and the fabication of a fact
  in order to avoid ruling
  on the record available to the court
  at the time of the first motion in the case (October 26, 2009)
  
  We were
  double flabbergasted that
  
  the decision,
  clearly based on other grounds than the lower court,
  was not labelled with the magic words ...
  "affirmed, on different grounds"
  which impact many things.
  
  PRESERVING LYCEUM RIGHTS
  
  We made motion to reargue the fake fact and the alteration of the docket or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
  
  it was denied by the finders of fake fact
  (trust us, 17 is not greater than 26)
  
  We made a motion to the Court of Appeals for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
  
  It was denied.
  
  We appealed to the Court of Appeals as of right we thought.
  
  Mid-pandmic the Court of Appeals (Janet DiFiore) found the time to dismiss the appeal as not a final determination absent the pre-requisite analysis of whether the lower appellate court had jurisdiction as highlighted extensively in pre-appeal statement of the issues.
  
  FRYING PAN INTO THE FIRE
  
  We had our own battle with covid in March and April of 2020
  with the covid fog lingering, sadly, even until now..
  
  As the fog lifts, with help from Spock,
  
  we try to understand the apparently
  stacked deck against the Brooklyn Lyceum.
  
  In the end it became clear
  that the abundantly wrong decision
  against the Brooklyn Lyceum
  actually
  
  made another issue shockingly clear
  in that it was irrelevant
  before the abject appellate decision,
  but front and center
  post abject appellate decision.
  
  so we can run with
  that decision as
  
  "the law of the case"
  whilst we fight the appellate court decision.
  
  When, before,
  
  there was a nuanced law (abandonement)
  that would have reset the clock back to no case at all ...
  
  we now have
  
  a straightforward set of
  procedural due process violations
  a 5th grader could see
  
  these issues,
  at a minimum ...
  reset the case back to
  
  March, 2011,
  almost 4 years
  prior to the sale of the Brooklyn Lyceum.
  
  For starters:
  
  failure to serve Lyceum atty
  the notice of Motion
  for a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale
  
  That notice was
  in and of itself
  
  facially and fatally flawed
  for a couple of reasons:
  
  First, it notices
  
  People to appear a decade in the past,
  to a time before when the complaint even existed.
  
  Second, it fails
  
  the requirement
  that the notice state the statute
  under which all are being noticed
  provides for the relief requested
  (judgment of foreclosure and sale)
  
  These are simple issues
  are akin to ...
  
  shooting fish in a barrel -or-
  like drawing to an inside royal flush!
  
  WHAT IS NEXT?
  We are starting to prepare
  a motion to vacate the foreclosure sale
  of the Brooklyn Lyceum and
  vacate the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale
  that allowed for the foreclosure sale.
  WHAT DOES THE BROOKLYN LYCEUM NEED?
  
  ---- We need case law ----
  
  Send us some! From any jurisdiction around these core issues:
  
  failure to serve atty notice of motion
  
  unserved notice of motion
  to appear in the past,
  
  failure to state in notice of motion the statute allowing the court to grant the requested relief
  
  failure to cite statute that permits court to grant what is requested in notice of motion.
  
  waiver of procedural due process
  
  ---- We need eyeballs and brainstems, yum! ----
  
  walk with us thru some of our docket to see what any 5th grader should be able to see
  
  ---- We need affidavits (well jurats which are a special affidavit) ----
  
  swearing to what you have seen and to your belief in the applicability of laws to the facts!
  
  ---- We need bodies ----
  
  as witnesses and disseminators of information when covid become essentially a non-threat
  
  WHAT DO WE GET IN RETURN?
  
  Well, a warm fuzzy feeling is not enough. So ...
  
  Prove your work ...
  
  ... to Earn your votes!
  
  YOU:
  
  READ!
  
  THINK!
  
  ACT!
  
  APPEAR!
  
  WE:
  
  ADD UP VOTES!
  
  IMPLEMENT VOTING SYSTEM!
  
  A VOTING SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS FOR ....
  
  -- voting for events/acts at the Brooklyn Lyceum (or any proxy Lyceum), and
  -- temporary (or permanent) transfer of voting rights, and
  -- conversion of votes to future time spent for another cause you prefer, and
  -- former Lyceum participants to garner extra votes for past Lyceum service!
  
  Since theorizing proof of work for votes in programming an arts facility
  
  it has been noted that what people are really doing is ensuring procedural due process and that the voting ought, also, be used to help others get procedural due process.
  
  The Lyceum may not be what floats everyone's long term boats.
  
  Exchange Programming votes for either hours of time or dollars for a cause you choose from our ever-expanding list.
  
  Have us help someone else once you help us and we come up for air,
  
  a procedural due process paying it forward!
  
  In addition to Lyceum programming votes, you get votes in directing the procedural due process engine jafomaru.com
  
  those votes can also help choose litigants to help and how to help them get procedural due process using a library arsenal of procedural due process information built from Brooklyn Lyceum experiences and any other sources we can scrounge.
  
  SIGN ME UP!!!
  
  We have split off the
  
  earning stake/votes to:
  jafomaru.com
  
  application of curatorial (programming) votes to
  gowanagus.com
  
  CAN'T WE JUST GIVE YOU MONEY?
  ANSWER BEING PREPARED
ABOUTdirty-deeds
- About Dirty Deeds
CONTACTdirty-deeds

Contact dirty-deeds.org

Name

Email

Subject

Message

^

Add my email please!