allicanstands - can't stands no more

DPAdue process assist
- The Brooklyn Lyceum
  
  a once and future theatre, coffee shop, gym and sometimes public square
  
  (if procedural due process has any meaning whatsoever)
  
  help usher the arc of Brooklyn justice towards procedural due process
  & EARN STAKE in programming the Brooklyn Lyceum 2.0
  
  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):
  
  BROOKLYN LYCEUM RISES FROM PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS ASHES?
  TL/DR:
  
  Never enough time (for the courts) to do it (foreclosure) right,
  always enough time (for the courts) to do it (foreclosure) over.
  
  SHORT VERSION:
  
  Appellate Court (Reinaldo Rivera) thrusts failure to serve notice of motion to appear a decade in the past on lyceum attorney into the forefront of Lyceum case when he, Rivera, found 17 > 26 & Lyceum had attorney.
  
  CAN YOU GIVE US A CAR ANALOGY?:
  
  NO. But I can give a fish market analogy. --Hand the 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. 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?:
  
  --The 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.
  
  --Only proper service of the complaint on defendants invokes the power of the court.
  
  --As a motion is a mini-case, service of the notice of motion has to comply with some rules, advance notice to ones attorney and the statutory minimum days notice.
  
  OK, WHAT ARE THE GOTCHAS?:
  
  --Participation, on the merits, in motion w/o raising lack of procedural due process.
  --Client forwarding papers inappropriately served on defendant to atty.
  
  --If one's attorney appears at oral argument or serves opposition papers without alleging lack of any notice or lack of statutory days notice, that defect is waived. Otherwise, power of the court is not invoked to hear the motion.
  
  --If the plaintiff somehow serves notice on the defendant but not the defendant's attorney, notice is valid ONLY if defendant forwards notice to atty.
  
  HOW DOES THIS APPLY TO THE LYCEUM?:
  
  The Brooklyn Lyceum is directly in the position just described.
  Notice of Motion for Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale not served on Lyceum atty.
  That unserved notice was fatally, facially deficient being dated March ??, 2011 and, no matter upon whom it was served, noticed a hearing on April ?, 2001, a decade in the past. This is clearly not 8 days in advance as required by the service statute CPLR 2214.
  
  Since the atty was never served the Notice to appear a decade in the past the atty could not have argued orally on the merits a decade prior to the unserved Notice.
  No papers were served in opposition to the motion by the unserved atty, and, as such, no participation on the merits on paper ever occured.
  The Lyceum did not forward any papers from Plaintiff to Lyceum atty.
  (Lyceum atty marching orders to Lyceum, in sum and substance: "Don't communicate with plaintiff and don't call us, we'll call you" )
  
  Thus the Lyceum checks all the lack of procedural due process boxes of no participation whatsoever, let alone on the merits of the motion.
  
  THE LYCEUM WAS SOLD AT AUCTION, WHY RAISE THIS NOW?:
  
  The auction terms announced were the sale was subject to the ongoing litigation.
  The pending litigation 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 26, 2009), was, pursuant to CPLR 3215c ... abandoned precluding entry of judgment by the court and 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.
  (he 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?:
  
  - PREAMBLE
  Oral argument occurred, finally, on September 6, 2018.
  At that oral argument the Lyceum raised jurisdictional questions that come into play if the case is not deemed abandoned, specifically denoting them 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 decsion 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.
  
  LA DECISION
  
  The decison went against all hope to the extent that the appellate court made up a fact (October 17 comes after October 26) and went outside the record (again, illegally) to necessarily retroactively insert an appearance of counsel into the record some 11 years earlier.
  
  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 (Octoober 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".
  
  PRESERVING LYCEUM RGHTS
  
  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.
  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 with the covid fog lingering thru January. As the fog lifted we tried 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 the issues clearer, 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 that reset the case back to March, 2011, almost 4 years prior to the sale of the Brooklyn Lyceum..
  Those issues include failure to serve atty the notice of Motion for a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale and a notice that in and of itself was 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 like shooting fish in a barrel, like drawing to an inside royal flush!
  
  WHAT IS NEXT?
  
  We are starting to prepare a motion to vacate the sale of the Brooklyn Lyceum and the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale.
  
  WHAT DOES THE BROOKLYN LYCEUM NEED?
  
  We need case law ---- Send us some! From any jurisdiction around the core issues up next,
  ----failure to serve atty,
  ----notice to appear in the past,
  ----failure to state in notice the statute allowing the court to grant the requested relief, and,
  ----waiver of procedural due process.
  
  We need eyeballs ---- 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.
  We are creating a process by which you do the equivalent of proof of work in a blockchain.
  (NO WE ARE NOT USING BITCOIN, we are using the blockchain construct with your help as proof of work and to track voting (next).)
  These proofs of work garner you votes in programming the Brooklyn Lyceum 2.0.
  ***#1(Since we broached the idea of a blockchain proof of work to for votes programming an arts facility, it has been noted that what people are really doing is ensuring pro-se procedural due process and that the voting ought, to the extent it is defined, be used to help other pro-se people get procedural due process. To that we say yes and have adjusted to gameplan accordingly.)
  ***#2(it has also been raised that the lyceum may not be what floats everyone's due process boats. After some consultation with a few of those types, it was decided to add exchanging the votes in Lyceum curatorial programming for some benefit related to a list of causes. So, you can, when you get the urge, have us help someone else once you are successful in helping us, a procedural due process paying it forward!)
  So, now, in addition to votes to program an arts facility, those votes can also help choose pro-se 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 the proof of work off to: jafomaru.com
  & application of lyceum curatorial (programming) votes garnered thereby off to gowanagus.com
  
  CAN'T WE JUST GIVE YOU MONEY
  
  ANSWER BEING PREPARED
  
  -
  
  ---
ABOUTallicanstands
- ALL I CAN STANDS
  (I Can't Stands No More) - Lawyers, judges and referees ... OH MY!.
  --sometimes they fall on the dark side.
  -- ALLICANSTANDS documents their fall.
  Shining a teeny tiny flashlight on a few bad apple lawyers.
  allicanstands.com
CONTACTallicanstands
DEMONS...when a good man goes to war
- Demons run ...
  when a good man goes to war
  Night will fall and drown the sun
  ----When a good man goes to war--
  Friendship dies and true love lies
  Night will fall and the dark will rise
  ----When a good man goes to war--
  Demons run, but count the cost
  The battle's won, but the child is lost
  ----When a good man goes to war--
  from "A Good Man Goes to War" -Doctor Who
  
  DEMONS RUN MEETINGS - TBA.
  Information commons - Grand Army Plaza Library

ABOUT

ALL I CAN STANDS
(I Can't Stands No More) - Lawyers, judges and referees ... OH MY!.
--sometimes they fall on the dark side.
-- ALLICANSTANDS documents their fall.
Shining a teeny tiny flashlight on a few bad apple lawyers.
allicanstands.com

Judicial due process violations brought to you by
Judges Donald Scott Kurtz, Reinaldo Rivera & Devin Cohen

SWAG

brooklynlyceum

swaslu

jafomaru

Judicial due process violations brought to you by
Judges Donald Scott Kurtz, Reinaldo Rivera & Devin Cohen

JafoMaru

JAFOMARU
--JAFO: Just Another F--king Observer
(unwelcome, but necessary, system observers)
-- MARU, either a Ship or Circle in Japanese.
Also, unwinnable situation won by resetting the rules by Captain James T. Kirk - Star Trek: TOS (Kobayashi Maru).
-- judicial tricks thwartable by focused attention to remove friction from the legal system for those who represent themselves.
-- collecting procedural tricks of the judicial trade in a place where the self represented can research before they get screwed.
-- key juncture observers to make self represented more manageable.
... System Observers because : A watched court more likely to do its job.
unwatched systems tend towards abuse, watched towards accountability
JafoMaru.com

Judicial due process violations brought to you by
Judges Donald Scott Kurtz, Reinaldo Rivera & Devin Cohen

HARUCHAI

HARUCHAI
A movement of reason. -- A nascent organization to
provide information on, and opposition to,
judges and politicians up for re-election
if those judges and politicians
have the habit of ignoring the law and their oaths.
haruchai.com

Judicial due process violations brought to you by
Judges Donald Scott Kurtz, Reinaldo Rivera & Devin Cohen

THE
GROWLER

THE GROWLER
Journalism ain't what it used to be
--A years late followup to some heated discussions about the future of journalism.
-- Which led to a process diagram sketched on the back of an envelope that was promptly ignored for years.
-- Then a media echo chamber of silliness effectively cauterized a Democratic leaning populace into a zombie-like apathy at the polls.
-- Not only must objective critical analysis occur (whether or not we call it journalism), that work needs to be given a fertile and sustainable soil from which to spring. The Growler is that soil. -- thegrowler.org

Judicial due process violations brought to you by
Judges Donald Scott Kurtz, Reinaldo Rivera & Devin Cohen

8 EASY
PIECES

The Inevitable return of the Brooklyn Lyceum

-- We are documenting a decade of malfeasance with commentary.

HERE

Judicial due process violations brought to you by
Judges Donald Scott Kurtz, Reinaldo Rivera & Devin Cohen

Due Process
$$

The Brooklyn Lyceum
as a judicial jurisdictional pincushion.

The LOWER COURT STORY (Judge Donald Scott Kurtz)

Lender (Plaintiff) initiated a foreclosure against Lyceum.
Based on the papers submitted by the Plaintiff, the first action in the case was fatally and facially tardy and jurisdictionally ineffective.
The judge, Donald Scott Kurtz, did, or failed to do the following:
  --Failed to dismiss the case as abandoned as was required.
  --Granted relief not requested in the moving papers.
  --Granted relief not listed under the statute noticed.
  --Premised decision on two non-existent documents.
Defendant Richmond moved to dismiss the case as abandoned.
  --Counsel for defendant admitted to the court on October 24, 2012, that Plaintiff had moved 6 months later than the abandonment statute allowed.
  --After this admission, the Court gave Plaintiff extra time to come up with another answer.
  --Plaintiff Counsel produced a sworn statement from former Plaintiff counsel admitting Plaintiff had regular and repeated interaction with counsel for Richmond and Lyceum PRIOR to October 26, 2009 motion.
  --Plaintiff Counsel produced a sworn statement that Plaintiff counsel had admitted, in a hearing on October 24, 2012, that the initial motion was 6 months late.
  --The Decision referenced documents that did not exist at the time of the October 26, 2009 Notice of Motion.
  --The Decision does not address Plaintiff admission to moving 6 months after statutory abandonment.
The judge then followed it up by granting a motion on no notice.
Defendant Richmond appealed the refusal to dismiss the case as abandoned (APPEAL #1).
The Lyceum moved to vacate the Order of Reference never served on the attorney for Richmond and the Lyceum, and the Judgment of Foreclosure with the facially statutorily insufficient notice, either of which would unwind the sale of the Brooklyn Lyceum.
The Plaintiff, in opposition papers, admitted ...:
  --Plaintiff failed to serve the October 26, 2009 Notice of Motion on the sworn to counsel for Richmond / Lyceum, David Blum, Esq.
  --Plaintiff's March 17, 2011 Notice of Motion instructed those noticed to apear on April 18, 2001.
  --Plantiff's ?? Notice of Entry of the Judgment of Foreclosure failed to accurately describe the Decision attached to the Notice of Entry.
The court is required to address jursdictional arguments before it takes any action after they are raised.
Judge Kurtz, rather than addressing the jurisdictional challenges, as required, refused to provide a required court reporter at the hearing on the motion and failed to acknowledge the hearing occurred (and that Richmond raised all three jurisdictional arguments orally) in a decision that said:
"If I were to address the motion, I would deny it"

The APPELLATE COURT STORY (Judge Reinaldo Rivera)

The Lyceum appealed the decision on whether the first action in the case was statutorily abandoned.
Once the appeal was fully briefed, it took 2.5 years to get calendered for oral argument.
At oral argumment on appeal, the Lyceum raised three jurisdictional challenges that, being jurisdictional, can be raised as late as oral argument on appeal:
  --The Lower court had granted a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale on no notice.
  --The required notice of entry of the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale was invalid as it did not truly descibe the document entered.
  --The Plaintiff, having now sworn that the Lyceum had actually appeared, contrary to prior sworn statement, failed to serve the attorney for the Lyceum with whom they had repeated communicatuion, including extensions of time to answer.

The Appellate Court ignored the jurisdictional arguments, and, in order to avoid ruling a case abandoned based on the record presented to the lower court:
  --Made up a fact (finding October 19 comes after October 26)
  --Found that the Plaintiff had timely moved in the first motion in the case.
    ---- an impossible finding from the record in the lower court at the time of the motion in question,
  ---- a finding that could only be possible if the court altered the lower docket to incorporate proof of Lyceum appearance, and appearance that triggered the three jurisdictional issues raised at oral argument.
The Appellate Court denied a motion to reconsider whether 19 > 26 or whether the Appellate court went outside the record and altered the docket.
The Appellate Court denied a motion to for leave to appeal whether 19 > 26 or whether the Appellate court went outside the record and altered the docket.

The COURT OF APPEALS STORY

The COURT OF APPEALS:
  --dismissed stating the court did not have jurisdiction over 19 > 26
  --(but did not deny)

  --a motion to for leave to appeal

  --whether 19 > 26 or
  --whether the Appellate court went outside the record and altered the docket.

NEXT LYCEUM STEPS

We are sure that making mathmatically impossible findings is directly akin to jurisdictional issues
(the court has no authority to get 5th grade math wrong).

In the event that Court of Appeals fails to do its job, we will be back with writs to compel the courts to address the jurisdictional arguments and 5th grader math failure.

Judicial due process violations brought to you by
Judges Donald Scott Kurtz, Reinaldo Rivera & Devin Cohen

Contact allicanstands.com

Name

Email

Subject

Message

Add my email please!