the Brooklyn Lyceum a once and future theater (if due process has any meaning whatsoever) needs your eyes, brainstem and body
and an AFFIDAVIT OR TWO FROM YOU

LEARN ABOUT
re-programming the Brooklyn Lyceum & an affidavit process that will compel judges to "make it so".
ABOUT

the Brooklyn Lyceum
(and its legal DUE PROCESS dilemma)
a due-process challenged
once and future Brooklyn theater and coffee shop
(if due process has any meaning whatsoever)
needs your eyes, brainstem and body

Read! Think! Act! Appear!

take simple actions
to compel the courts
to do what is
ethical AND moral AND required
by statute, case-law, common law and constitution.

Once successful... help us re-program the Brooklyn Lyceum.

HERE


Judicial violations of due process brought to you by
Judge Donald Scott Kurtz & Judge Reinaldo Rivera
GOWANAGUS

re-programming a due process challenged Brooklyn theater as soon as the legal swamp settles.

-- Once the Lyceum gets the court to do:
  • what it should have done, or,
  • what it must now do,
    given what it did do,
the Brookyn Lyceum will be back ... & needs to hit the swamp running.

-- To that end we are plotting programming now
so that we can be quick to implement that programming in the interim,
either at the Brooklyn Lyceum or proxy sites.

-- You can participate in programming the Lyceum
by earning votes and then applying those votes.

score curatorial votes by brain, body, past effort or wallet.

Simple things to do to help the Lyceum due process cause:

--Take poll and tell us what you think of a couple of judges and their simple to interpret actions.
--Review a couple of lines in a couple of documents and sign affidavit about what a 5th grader should see.
--Make an appearance at a hearing (a watched court more likely to follow the rules).
--Buy swag for future curatorial voting rights.
--Contribute $$ to the cause for future curatorial voting rights.
--Contribute a case citation to the cause (if you have legal mojo in your bones).


Judicial violations of due process brought to you by
Judge Donald Scott Kurtz & Judge Reinaldo Rivera
OOBLE

Out Of BrooklynLyceum Events



-- As we seek to provide programming when the Brooklyn Lyceum (or any interim proxy Lyceum) returns, we need to see a LOT of music, theatre, dance, comedy, etc.

-- To that end, we are accepting invitations to see such work
to investigate if that work (or that group) would be a good fit for the Lyceum (or any interim proxy Lyceum)
.

-- In addition, we are also open to invitations to see work for an actual written review
(whether or not there is any intent to present at the Lyceum).

We will post the review online, send it to email and social media, where appropriate.

Apply HERE.

-- If that interests you or your group, pursue that at OOBLE.ORG


Judicial violations of due process brought to you by
Judge Donald Scott Kurtz & Judge Reinaldo Rivera
THESMEE

Art exhibits popping up at the Brooklyn Lyceum
(or any interim proxy Lyceum)

-- Wherever the Lyceum or any interim proxy Lyceum goes,
art is sure to be part of the mix.

-- As we seek to exhibit art
at the Brooklyn Lyceum (or any interim proxy Lyceum),
we need to seek submissions for the exhibits.

-- To that end, we are accepting submission appications now.

    We expect our next exhibits to be in :
  • an approximately 1,000 square foot venue
    with 25 foot ceilings in New York State.
  • (location secret till we sign lease)
    We Expect:
  • two group exhibitions of 6 weeks each; and,
  • one 4 week solo exhibition
in Spring and Summer of 2020.

Apply HERE.


-- If that interests you or your group, pursue that at THESMEE.COM


Judicial violations of due process brought to you by
Judge Donald Scott Kurtz & Judge Reinaldo Rivera
SWASLU

When the Brooklyn Lyceum gets done
fighting over a non-trivial set of procedural due process violations ...


There ... WILL ... BE ... BETTER ... COFFEE ...
on the Brooklyn Lyceum block.
till then
... Out & About & On The Road w/an answer:
... Inexorable Espresso Evolution ...
Flavor, not labor, from our espresso cellar!
-- 15 years of a coffee shop/ cafe
and the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy taught us that
there is another, more ecological, way.

-- When the Lycem Due Process dust settles,
we may be taking on,
or taking out,
Starbucks with our own Espresso cellar.

--Till then we are pulling espress shot the SwaSlu way, ont the road again!

We make it a point not to be a roaster
and will be presenting multitudes of flavors of roasters
from, well, everywhere at events, markets and fairs.

Interested in a review or a pop-up? Take a dip HERE


Judicial violations of due process brought to you by
Judge Donald Scott Kurtz & Judge Reinaldo Rivera
8 EASY PIECES

The Inevitable return of the Brooklyn Lyceum


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


Judicial violations of due process brought to you by
Judge Donald Scott Kurtz & Judge Reinaldo Rivera
Due Process
In Brooklyn


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 violations of due process brought to you by
Judge Donald Scott Kurtz & Judge Reinaldo Rivera
SUMMARY: Brooklyn Lyceum case is simple.
The Court has no place to run to, baby, no place to hide.

The Lyceum had the Plaintiff
dead to rights
(case was statutorily abandoned).

Judge Donald Scott Kurtz
broke the law to let the Plaintiff
continue abandoned case.

Judge Reinaldo Rivera
aided and abetted Kurtz by:

-- making up a fact (Oct. 19 comes after Oct. 26) &
-- by going outside the record to save the Plaintiff.

Ruling threw Plaintiff
into retroactive jurisdictional traps:

-- failure to serve the Lyceum attorney ANY papers.
-- noticing parties to appear a DECADE IN THE PAST.
-- Kurtz granted what was not requested.
-- Kurtz premised a decision on TWO non-existent sworn statements.
-- Kurtz granted what was NOT available under cited statute.
CALLS TO ACTION:Take poll, vote, sign affidavit, appear, contribute.
Pass judgment on Judges not smarter than a 5th grader!!
If a judge can't figure out which is greater of two numbers or can't see that the Plaintiff noticed parties to appear a decade in the past, how can you trust those judges with things that are complicated?
Take a look at some crystal clear STUPIDS and tell us what you think of a judge who would do these types of STUPIDS.
(& un-elect these two: Nov 5, 2019)
Crowd-Source legal citations
If you have a legal frame of mind, take a look at the 19 brain-dead simple issues that do not allow for any judicial discretion.
We are seeking 100 citations (in any jurisdiction) to support each of the premises that will set the Brooklyn Lyceum free.
If you are first to subit an on point case (even if it contradicts our position), you will earn, if you leave your email address, one Brooklyn Lyceum Curatorial vote.
Sign Affidavit!
You don't have to be a judge to see when a judge does a STUPID.
Review a couple of dates or a couple of lines in some documents and sign an affidavit that you swear to. Just the facts, no conclusions necessary.
Send us the affidavit(s) and, if they are true to form and content, you will earn some Lyceum street cred via curatorial voting right you can use, transfer or exchange (ten (10) votes for each accepted affidavit and one (1) vote for each use of the affidavit in court papers).
Appear!, Spread the Word!
In addition to an affidavit, we believe that a watched judiciary tends to do its job more than an unwatched one.
To that end, if you appear at specified junctures, just as an observer, you will get twenty (20) votes.
Lastly, we may need to have fliers distributed at places out and about.
To that end, for each hour of flier distribution, you will get five (5) votes.
COMING SOON
Keep this from happening.
The Lyceum was floored when Appellate Judge Reinaldo Rivera made up a fact (Oct. 19 is after Oct. 26) after stating at the Lyceum Oral Argument on Sep. 26, 2018, that the 2nd dept. would "get to the bottom" of things because "the 2nd dept. has an excellent reputation".
To stop this madness, we endeavor to review all (2018-2019) Appellate Oral Argument and review papers and decisions to document such malfeasances and outright lies by the Appellate Court.
LYCEUM CURATORIAL VOTING/PROXY/TRANSFER/EXCHANGE
WHY BOTHER? ART MATTERS!
DUE PROCESS MATTERS!
JUDGES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO LIE (MAKE UP FACTS)! JUDGES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ALTER DOCKET ! JUDGES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GRANT MOTION ON NO NOTICE! JUDGES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REFUSE TO CORRECT GRANTING MOTION ON NO NOTICE! JUDGES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GRANT RELIEF NOT REQUESTED! JUDGES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GRANT RELIEF NOT AVAILABLE UNDER STATUTE CITED! JUDGES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PREMISE DECISIONS ON NON-EXISTENT DOCUMENTS! DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS HAVE NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS!
  • You can get in on the ground floor of the rebirth of a facility that has welcomed the likes of:

    Fiona Apple,
    Ted Danson,
    Amanda Palmer,
    Adrian Grenier,
    Yo La Tego,
    the Knights Orchestra,
    a Charlie Brown Christmas,
    rocky: the musical, etc.
It only takes a little time to help jumpstart the LYCEUM DUE PROCESS TRAIN.
HOW CAN I HELP?
(0 Votes): Take our online poll & tell us what you think of judicial STUPIDS:
--granting motion on no notice,
--finding Oct. 19 comes AFTER Oct. 26, ...
--granting relief not requested,
--refusing to address jurisdictional challenges,
(10 votes):
Review a few lines in a few documents, a couple of dates therein, and
--Sign, notarize and send us affidavits.
(1 vote):
Per use of affidavit in court filing.
(20 votes): --Appearance at hearings or specially designated places/times (a watched judiciary more likely to perform unbiased job). (5 votes): --Per hour flier distribution (places/times TBA).
(1 vote): --Be first to submit an on point citation regarding these simple judical STUPIDS. (1 vote): --Be first to submit to us an act/event not mentioned in the "BEFORE" button. (1 vote): --For every $25 spent:HERE
CULTURE WARRIORS
If you pulled espressos, swept floors, worked, booked, produced, designed or performed at the Brooklyn Lyceum, you get a vote bonus based on the Lyceum involvement in the past to be added to the first accepted affidavit as a Due Process Warrior!.
  • LYCEUM CREWE = 1 / participatory month.
  • RUN PRODUCER ENTITY = 10 / week of run.
  • RUN CREATIVE = 2 / week of run.
  • RUN CREWE = 1 / week of run
  • RUN PERFORMER = 1 / performance
  • MARKET/CONVENTION TABLER = 1 / table day (2/day if booth)
  • FESTIVAL PRODUCER ENTITY = 20 / festival week
  • FESTIVAL CREATIVE = 2 / festival week
  • FESTIVAL ENTRY LIVE = 1 / festival performer
  • FESTIVAL ENTRY - NOT LIVE = 1 / festival
  • PUBLIC EVENT RENTAL = 5
  • PUBLIC EVENT PERFORMER = 1 per each day of performing
  • PRIVATE RENTAL = 1 / week
ALTERNATIVES USE/ROLLOVER YOUR VOTE!
  • Monthly On-Line Vote
  • OR - Rollover Up to 6 times (months)
PROXY/TRANSFER YOUR VOTE
  • Have a person/organization you want to help?
    Use Proxy to give them your vote (for up to a year).
    Use Transfer to give them your votes PERMANENTLY.
TRADE IN YOUR VOTE
  • All garnered votes can be exhanged for:
    --1 Hour Lyceum Staffer time per 10 votes exchanged for any of a growing list of approved causes.
    (that works out to be one hour of Lyceum time per accepted affidavit & two hours for each appearance.)
    --Votes automatically returned to Lyceum if not used for 12 voting cycles (12 months/1 Year)
VOTING PROCESS GARNER VOTES affidavit, appearance, case citation, distribution,
missing act/event submission, purchase.

When the Lyceum has succeeded in restoring its due process rights, or the Lyceum launces proxy sites whilst the battle is fought...

VOTE

--Once a month get an email notice of the events/acts/rentals to be voted upon.
--Via online system we are developing to vote. -OR-
--rollover (like phone minutes) votes up to six times.
--(votes unused within 6 "rollovers" are waived).
PASS JUDGMENT ON JUDGES WHO: Ignore Jurisdictional challenges, Grant motions on no notice, Grant relief not requested, Find Oct. 19 is AFTER Oct. 26 & Retroactively alter docket for lender.

Judge Donald Scott Kurtz

“When a case is before me, I try to give it my full attention,”
“Some judges would have just read the papers and signed them,”


Judge Reinaldo Rivera


“we will get to the bottom of this”
“the 2nd department has an excellent reputation”


SIMPLE THING JUGES REINALDO RIVERA and DONALD SCOTT KURTZ DON'T UNDERSTAND:
CONCEPT: --Notice less than statutory minimum # of days.
CITE: --Goldstein v Saltzman 2006 NY Slip Op 26374 [13 Misc 3d 1023] September 21, 2006
TEXT: --Generally, the failure to give proper notice of a motion deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear the motion. (Bianco v LiGreci, 298 AD2d 482 [2d Dept 2002]; Golden v Golden, 128 AD2d 672 [2d Dept 1987]; Burstin v Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 98 AD2d 928 [3d Dept 1983].)
Click a button below to reload a new random case
in a topic Kurtz and/or Rivera screwed up
(19 topics and counting).
TOSS US A CASE CITATION
*=REQUIRED
SMOKING GUNS (DOCUMENTS)
  • #1A - NOTICE TO APPEAR IN THE PAST : KURTZ


    The Plaintiff served a Notice of Motion on March 17, 2011 for all to appear a DECADE IN THE PAST, on April 18, 2001.


    Review a two page Plaintiff: NOTICE OF MOTION TO APPEAR A DECADE IN THE PAST.

    Review a two page Proof of Service : swearing notice of motion was served 10 years after hearing motion.

    An Affidavit about these STUPIDs we hope you will sign: Affidavit swears you saw a notice dated April 17, 2011 to appear on April 18, 2001, and, that you saw that service was sworn to have been done a decade after the noticed hearing..


    The inescapable result of the Judge Donald Scott Kurtz failure to do basic date checks reviewing the facially and jurisdictionally bad NOTICE OF MOTION and proof of jurisdictionally tardy service of the NOTICE OF MOTION is that the sale of the Brooklyn Lyceum is void, right from the start, or ab initio.

    Note: the date of the Notice of Motion, from the second page (March 17, 2011) or the vertical date-time stamp on 1st page (2011 MAR 17 AM 11:24) and the handwritten MOTION SUPPORT date on the lower part of the first page (3-17-11).

    Note: the date all were noticed to appear (lines 4-6 of page #1) : "the undersigned will move this court .... on the 18th day of April, 2001 at 9:30 a.m. ...".

  • #1B - SMOKING GUNS (DOCUMENTS)


    SMOKING GUN: NOTICE TO APPEAR A DECADE IN THE PAST PROOF OF SERVICE A DECADE AFTER NOTICED HEARING

  • #1C - AFFIDAVIT FOR THE CAUSE


    Any 5th Grade fool could see Affidavit

  • #2A - APPELLATE COURT JUDGE FINDS 19 > 26: REINALDO RIVERA


    In order to rule against the Brooklyn Lyceum, Judge Reinaldo Rivera found that the Lyceum must lose because a cross-motion to have the case declared abandoned by Plaintiff inaction came after the entry of the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale.

    The DECISION IS STUPID because it is makes a case the court was REQUIRED, by statute, to dismiss as abandoned by Plaintiff inaction
    can become unabandoned by further Plaintiff action combined with the Court's failure to follow the statute.
    The DECISION IS FLAT OUT WRONG on the simple, 5th grader math comparison of two dates.
    The Cross-Motion (October 19, 2012) came BEFORE, not AFTER the entry of the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale (October 26, 2012).


    Review a line in a short Appellate Decision(Page 3 last Para, lines 2-3#): "The cross motion was untimely since it was made after entry of the judgment of foreclosure and sale "
    Review Motion Clerk date on the Cross-Motion (October 19, 2012) :
    Motion Support hand-written date: 10/19/12 AND adjacent datetime stamp of October 22, 2012

    Review Date-Time stamp on the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale (October 26, 2012). Last Page DateTime Stamp: October 26, 2012


    An Affidavit about these STUPIDs we hope you will sign: Affidavit you saw that the datetime stamp of the Cross-Motion was BEFORE, not AFTER, the Judgment of Foreclosure.

  • #2B - SMOKING GUNS (DOCUMENTS)


    IMPOSSIBLE MATH FINDING: 19>26!
    CLERK ACCEPTED CROSS-MOTION ON OCTOBER 19, 2012
    JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE ENTERED OCTOBER 26, 2012.

  • #2C - AFFIDAVIT FOR THE CAUSE


    Any 5th Grade fool could see (19<26) Affidavit

  • #3A - REINALDO RIVERA ALTERS DOCKET TO AVOID STATUTE


    COMING SOON

  • #4 - IMPACTS OF DOCKET ALTERATION


    COMING SOON

  • THROW DOWN FOR DUE PROCESS: SEND US AFFIDAVITS FOR DUE PROCESS


    --Read up on the judicial shenanigans, become one with the simple logics.
    --Fill out one or more of the affidavits.
    --Take to a notary and sign the affidavit before the notary.
    --Send the Affidavits to:
        Eric Richmond
        2107 Regent Place
        Brooklyn, NY 11226
    Once we have unwound the sale of the Lyceum, we will redeem each affidavit accepted (passing review for content and form) by :
    --10 votes for each accepted affidavit,
    --one vote each time the affidavit is used in a court proceeding,
    --20 votes for any appearance at a hearing, and
    --5 votes per hour of distributing fliers/cards to spread the word.

    You can use the votes to :
    --chime in on programming Brooklyn Lyceum cultural events, or
    --you can proxy them to some other person/entity for a period of time, or
    --you can transfer them permanently to some other person/entity, or
    --you can, when you no longer wish to have votes, trade them in for Lyceum staff time for one of a list of causes.

Appeals Court throws Plaintiff

from frying pan into the fire. - Due Process, the Brooklyn Lyceum and judicial fingers on the scale MORE

NEW YORK APPELLATE COURT COMES UNGLUED -

The Brooklyn Lyceum case really was such such a simple case, rule on the record before the court and the foreclosure was abandoned. 

But, neither the New York State Supreme Court Judge (Donald Scott Kurtz, up for re-election November 5, 2019) nor the Presiding Appellate Judge (Reinaldo Rivera, up for re-election November 5, 2019) could keep themselves focused on the record before them on the first motion in the Brooklyn Lyceum foreclosure case (10035/2008).   

That failure to stick to the record voided every substantive decision after October 26, 2009, including the decision allowing the sale of the Brooklyn Lyceum.

Instead of sticking to the record, they both looked outside the record to validate a decision premised on sworn non-appearance by Defendants RICHMOND and LYCEUM with the years later sworn appearance of Defendants RICHMOND and LYCEUM.  Is that as foolish as it sounds?  Yes.  And, the presiding Appellate Court Judge (Reinaldo Rivera) has doubled down on the foolishness.

For starters, the Appellate Court (Judge Reinaldo Rivera) went bonkers and found that Richmond's motion to dismiss the case as abandoned was too late, having come after the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale was entered:

"The cross motion was untimely since it was made after entry of the judgment of foreclosure and sale"

This is in direct contradiction to the date and time stamps of the Motion to Dismiss (October 19, 2012) and the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale (October 26, 2012).

The Appellate Court (Judge Reinaldo Rivera) was asked to, and refused to, correct this simpler than 5th grader math error.

In a waste of judicial resources, that same question, does October 19, 2012, come after October 26, 2012, is now knocking on the door of the Court of Appeals.

Next, because the courts went outside the record,  there are now two directly contradictory sworn affirmations (RICHMOND/LYCEUM non-appearance, RICHMOND/LYCEUM appearance) by a now suspended from the practice of law attorney for the Plaintiff, Claude Castro (https://therealdeal.com/2017/12/26/real-estate-attorney-claude-castro-suspended/).  It should be noted that contradictory sworn statements form the basis of a slam dunk perjury case.

Then there is the loaded decision wording implicitly finding that RICHMOND and LYCEUM timely appeared but, thereafter, did not timely answer the complaint (plead):

"In any event, Lyceum Bathhouse took the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving for an order of reference (see RPAPL 1321[1]) within one year of Richmond’s default in answering the complaint"

Those words can be illustrated by a comparison of the default statute (CPLR 3215) with rules everyone in New York City knows, No Stopping, No Standing and No Parking.

 Just as Stopping implies Standing and Parking implies both Stopping and Standing, the default statute has analogous words, appear, plead (answer) and proceed.  A finding of failure to answer (plead) implies an appearance and a finding of failing to proceed to trial implies both appearance and answer (plead).

"CPLR 3215 (a) Default and entry.  When a defendant has failed to appear, plead or proceed to trial ... the plaintiff may seek a default judgment against him."

All of this leads to the law of unintended consequences because, rather than stymie LYCEUM and RICHMOND permanently, all the Appellate Court decision did was insert an appearance into the record where there was none, an appearance which retroactively invoked notice and procedural requirements into action, requirements that the Plaintiff and the court failed to meet.

As discussed in later sections those include, but are not limited to:

#1 - Failure to serve any Notice of Motion on the Counsel for appearing parties,  parties the plaintiff initially swore did not appear, let alone by attorney (RICHMOND and LYCEUM).
#2 - The initial Notice of Motion in the case seeking relief (Judgment of Foreclosure and Order of Reference) under the Default Statute (CPLR 3215) that does not allow for those reliefs rather than appropriate statutes that do (RPAPL 1351 and RPAPL 1321, respectively).
#3 - The initial Notice of Motion is premised on an affidavit dated October 26, 2009 that DOES NOT EXIST.
#4 - The Decision by Judge Donald Scott Kurtz, up for re-election November 5, 2009, granted what was not requested (Judgment of Default)
#5 - The Decision by Judge Donald Scott Kurtz, up for re-election November 5, 2009, granted an Order of Reference under a statute that does not allow for an Order of Reference (CPLR 3215).
#6 - The Decision by Judge Donald Scott Kurtz, up for re-election November 5, 2009, was premised on TWO AFFIRMATIONS THAT DO NOT EXIST, one dated October 22, 2009 and one dated October 26, 2009.
#7 - The failure to serve a subsequent Notice of Motion for a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale on the Counsel for appearing parties,  parties the plaintiff initially swore did not exist (RICHMOND and LYCEUM).
#8 - That Notice of Motion, no matter who was served, noticed the served parties on March 17, 2011 to appear on April 18, 2001, A DECADE IN THE PAST

Each of these Eight Easy Pieces of Law (with a nod to both the movie Five Easy Pieces starring Jack Nicholson and, more importantly, 6 Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics Explained by its Most Brilliant Teacher (Richard Feynman)) are both jurisdictional (strip court of power to rule on the motion) and simple enough that a fifth grader can get the concepts and do the math.

The question remains, if a fifth grader can get it, why can't two judges, Reinaldo Rivera and Donald Scott Kurtz, both up for re-election November 5, 2019, with  27 and 20 years experience as judges, respectively, get it?

All of these easy enough for a fifth grader issues are discussed in later sections.

BROOKLYN JUDGES IGNORE FACTS/DUE PROCESS

BROOKLYN JUDGES RUN RAMPANT OVER FACTS/NOTICE! - 19>26? Noticed to appear in past? Cite to non-existent documents? Alter docket? Ignore Plaintiif Attorney perjury? MORE

JUDGES TRAMPLE BROOKLYN LYCEUM DUE PROCESS -

The lower Court (Judge Donald Scott Kurtz, up for re-election 11/5/2019) and the Appellate Court (Judge Reinaldo Rivera, up for re-election 11/5/2019), did what has never been allowed by any court.

Both judges went outside the record to validate a decision they could not validate if they did not go outside the record. Such actions are a retroactive alteration of the record[1].

This would not be a problem if the Appellate Court followed its own rules when it uses the inherent power of the court[2] to reset the case back to the point of the alteration of the record if that alteration impacts a party’s substantial right such as Notice and Opportunity to be heard, as with the Brooklyn Lyceum.

This miscarriage of justice, however wrong, may be irrelevant as timely appearances of Eric Richmond (“RICHMOND”) and 231 Fourth Avenue Lyceum, LLC (“LYCEUM”) retroactively inserted into the record by the lower and Appellate Court are worse for the Plaintiff. Many unmet jurisdictional procedural requirements kicked in once the Courts retroactively altered the record.

Those requirements created a Pandora’s box of failures to invoke the power of the court in the first motion in the case as well as the jurisdictional non-starter of the Plaintiff notice to appear at a hearing a decade prior (in the past) to the notice of motion, a motion to sell the Brooklyn Lyceum.

WHERE'S ERIC?

Out and about through Nov 5 Election - talking about two judges up for re-election MORE

WHERE'S ERIC -

Eric Richmond, owner of the Brooklyn Lyceum, will be out and about through election day, November 5, 2019, distributing fliers and talking about two judges involved in the Lyceum case who are up for re-election, NYS Supreme Court Judge Donald Scott Kurtz (cited non-existent documents) and Appellate Judge Reinaldo Rivera (found October 19 is AFTER October 26).

Richmond will also discuss similar cases where the same Appellate Court has treated other litigants differently under the same conceptual fact pattern, that of the court retroactively (nun pro tunc) altering the docket in favor of a litigant and correctly refusing to thereby harm the substantial rights of other litigants as well as how October 19 cannot be AFTER October 26.

Richmond’s next appearances out and about:

Grand Army Plaza Central Library: Nov 2, 3:30-5:30PM & Nov 3, 2:30-4:30PM - Room 3

Brooklyn Judges Make Up Facts

in Lyceum Case - you only get the rights you fight for, or, altering the timeline has unexpected effects MORE

ONCE MORE UNTO THE due process BREACH -

Dear  Brooklyn Lyceum Due Process Fan  :

The Brooklyn Lyceum has been fighting the good fight for a long while, long enough for some appeals to be decided at the Appellate Court on Monroe Place.

Rather than do what the statute required, the Appellate Court (Judge Reinaldo Rivera, up for re-election November 5, 2019) doubled down on the lower court's going outside the record to justify a decision (by Judge Donald Scott Kurtz, up for re-election on November 5, 2019) it could not justify from the record (with Rivera making up facts along the way).  Rivera also used a case that had never been cited in its 8 years of existence while ignoring the court’s own, directly on point, decision that had been cited 120+ times in 8 years (Giglio v NTIMP, Inc. 2011).

--Where, as here, a party moving for a default judgment beyond one year from the date of default fails to address any reasonable excuse for its untimeliness, courts may not excuse the lateness and "shall" dismiss the claim pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) (see County of Nassau v Chmela, 45 AD3d at 722; Keyes v McLaughlin, 49 AD2d 974 [1975]; Di Carlo v Bravo Tours, 129 AD2d 552 [1987]; Perricone v City of New York, 96 AD2d 531, 532 [1983], affd 62 NY2d 661 [1984]; Shepard v St. Agnes Hosp., 86 AD2d 628, 630 [1982]).{**86 AD3d at 309}

That is a story for another day.

The Decisions on the Appeals are painful, and wrong.  But, that is where we are.

After months of consulting with various attorneys and law professors and other legal resources, one thing emerged as a consensus, by changing the past the Appellate Court  retroactively invoked requirements that the Plaintiff did not meet.  The Plaintiff failed to Notice to the Attorney for the Lyceum anything, ever, the first Notice had fatal facial flaws, and the Plaintiff failed to provide the statutory minimum advance notice (or any notice) of the Motion to sell the Brooklyn Lyceum.  

Those failures strike right at the heart of the power of the court to rule, JURISDICTION.

We have gone over the docket more than a hundred times and a few things stand out.

  1. The Appellate Court made up a fact by finding October 19 comes after October 26, to avoid finding for the Brooklyn Lyceum on appeal (courtesy of Judge Reinaldo Rivera).
  2. The Appellate Court also found that the Defendants appeared by counsel prior to the 1st motion, absent proof of same on the record, a record where the Plaintiff swore otherwise in the 1st motion.
  3. The Plaintiff never served the initial motion papers in the case, or any papers in the case,  on our attorney, one the Plaintiff swore did not exist in the first several motions.
  4. First Notice of Motion was fatally flawed as it asked for reliefs not available under the cited statute.
  5. That Notice of Motion was fatally flawed as it  is premised upon the NON-EXISTENT affirmation.
  6. The Notice of Motion  was fatally flawed being dated prior to the document it is premised upon, that DOES NOT EXIST.
  7. The Decision is premised on the Attorney affirmation that DOES NOT EXIST.
  8. The Decision is premised upon another affirmation that DOES NOT EXIST.
  9. The Decision grants relief that was not even requested, which the court is not allowed to do absent notice that the court is expanding the scope of the motion.
  10. A subsequent Notice of Motion for the right to sell the Lyceum was not served on the attorney for the Lyceum, and, in addition, the Notice of Motion dated March 18, 2011 instructs all parties to appear on April 17, 2001,  DECADE IN THE PAST.

The Court and Appellate Court failed to do even a cursory review of the papers during the case.  The Court even has an affirmation from the Attorney for the Plaintiff admitting #3 and #10.

All this from a Judge, Donald Scott Kurtz, up for re-election on November 5, 2019, who, in a Brooklyn Eagle story around the time of the first motion in the case was quoted saying :

  “When a case is before me, I try to give it my full attention,” Justice Kurtz said.
“Some judges would have just read the papers and signed them,” Kurtz said.

We need to button down the next action as each of the last 8 items (#3-#10) unwinds the sale of the Brooklyn Lyceum because each error sounds in the court exceeding its authority.

These 10 things, Ten Easy Pieces of Law: Essentials of Brooklyn Due Process Violations, will be the subject to actions in the case (with a nod to Richard Feynman's Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics Explained by Its Most Brilliant Teacher. )

Given all this, it would be tremendously helpful if, in addition to the players, some other people took a look at the relevant pieces of the record and stated, in affidavit form, what they have seen.

That is where you, Friend of the Due Process, come in.  We invite, cajole, request, and beg you to follow our process, logically and then legally,  here  https://brooklynlyceum.com/wip/10078. Pressed for time?  Start with the 4 RED tabs.

When you finish, you are invited to sign affidavits, more forceful than a petition, as to these 8 simple things (#3-#10), the first 7 (#3-#9) in one affidavit, and the 8th (#10) in another.

What we can offer in return, is, since facts and the law indicate the Brooklyn Lyceum will rise from the legal ashes, is the opportunity to participate in curating the Brooklyn Lyceum's next incarnation.  Details are roughed out here :  https://brooklynlyceum.com/wip/10078/19.

>>>Legal scholars should note we are offering one vote for each on-point citation submitted that supports or casts doubt on any of our points with the vote for that citation going to the first scholar submitter. 

Affidavits are at brooklynlyceum.com/static/images/10078/AFFIDAVIT_1.pdf & AFFIDAVIT_2.pdf

Because you only get the rights you fight for, ONCE MORE UNTO THE  due process BREACH, INDEED!

Eric Richmond
brooklynlyceum.com

Brookyln Lyceum Maru

altering the timeline has unexpected effects - or, you only get the rights you fight for ... MORE

WORSE THAN KOBAYASHI MARU -

Captain Kirk would have a tough time with Brooklyn Courts

Star Trek's Captain Kirk re-programmed a Star Fleet Academy simulation that was designed to have the Star Fleet candidate either lose his ship, himself and all his crew in battle or lose a freighter (the Kobayashi Maru) in the Neutral Zone.

That was a situation no one could win, a Catch-22. In Brooklyn Courts we have a worse situation, judges re-programming (altering) the docket to avoid what the record and the abandonment statute, CPLR 3215(c) required, dismissal of the case as abandoned.

The Brooklyn Lyceum, aka Public Bath #7 (by Raymond Francis Almirall), a community fixture for 20 years as a theater / cafe / gym / batting cage, needs your help, a couple of affidavits, and, if it works with your schedule, an appearance here and there to let the courts know someone is watching.

The courts (lower and appellate), in an ill advised attempt to short circuit due process for the Brooklyn Lyceum (made up multiple dispositive facts, selectively quoted caselaw, altered the docket for the benefit of the Plaintiff, ignored attorney perjury, ...), created a winnable battle for the Brooklyn Lyceum in that, under the altered record:

  • Plaintiff failed to serve initial Notice of Motion (or any papers whatsoever) on Lyceum Attorney.
  • Plaintiff Notice of Motion cites, as the required document, an affidavit that does not exist.
  • Plaintiff Notice of Motion dated October 13, 2009 cites non-existent, and impossible, October 26, 2009 Affidavit.
  • Plaintiff Notice of Motion asks for relief (Judgment of Foreclosure and Order of Reference) under a statute that does not allow for Judgment of Foreclosure or Order of Reference.
  • Decision by Judge Donald Scott Kurtz is premised on two affidavits that do not exist, one cited to by the Plaintiff in the motions papers, and, one out of whole judicial cloth.
  • Same Decision grants relief not requested in Motion (Judgment of Default)  and relief not available under the statute  presented as the basis for the Motion (Order of Reference).
  • Another Notice of Motion, to foreclose on the Lyceum, notices everyone on March 18, 2011, to attend a hearing on April 17, 2001, A DECADE IN THE PAST!!

HERE IS HOW YOU CAN HELP:

  • Read, and mentally process, all the tabs.  We know it will take some effort, but the payoff is worth it. If you already believe us and want to dig right in, read and become one with the 4 RED tabs.
  • Sign & send a couple of affidavits regarding what you have processed regarding the bullet points above.
  • If it works with your schedule, show up at a hearing on occasional basis.
  • Or, if direct participation is not your bag, buy things from  brooklynlycem.com/viewart or roxysteeparlour.com .
  • Or,  if you just want to help in the least involvement way possible, give $$ to the cause (https://brooklynlyceum.com/viewart/5) that may entail a new attorney and two projects to help keep this from happening to other people.

THE PAYOFF: Convert your affidavits and our use of your affidavits or your appearance at some hearings or your contributions into curatorial voting rights when the Brooklyn Lyceum rises from the ashes.  Help program a venue that has seen the likes of Fiona Apple, Amanda Palmer, Vernon Reid, Yo La Tengo, Marc Ribot, Jose Gonzalez, and scores of others.

ONCE MORE UNTO THE BREACH

into court for lyceum due process - tell us if you get it MORE

YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS UP ... -

Quite plainly, any judge, after 20 years of being one, who does work this sloppy OR puts his thumb on scale for developers like this OR hides behind unnecessary formalities when the jurisdictional issues are raised by Defendants in a sworn statement and at oral argument and admitted in a sworn statement and not contested at oral argument by Plaintiff should not be elected, let alone re-elected, especially if the court refused to provide a court reporter for that hearing.  To wit, Judge Donald Scott Kurtz, up for re-election November 5, 2019.

This from a judge who said, in 2009: 

“When a case is before me, I try to give it my full attention,” Justice Kurtz said.

“Some judges would have just read the papers and signed them,” Kurtz said.

Plaintiff:

  • Sent  Notice of a Motion to a Defendant, not Defendant's attorney (failure to serve attorney did not invoke the power of the court),
  • Noticed whomever that the motion would seek Judgement of Foreclosure under a law (CPLR 3215) that only allows something different, Judgment of Default(facial deficiency of paper  cannot invoke the power of the court),
  • Notice to whomever was premised upon a 10/26/2009 affidavit by an attorney when there is no such dated affidavit (facial deficiency of paper  cannot invoke the power of the court),
  • Affidavit actually attached, not dated 10/26/2009, says it is premised upon an already filed proof of service when there is no priorly filed proof of service (power of the court not invoked if premised on non-existent paper).

Decision (Judge Donald Scott Kurtz):

  • premised on the same non-existent 10/26/2009 affidavit
  • premised on non-existent previously filed proof of service referenced in motion.
  • premised on a false instrument created by the court, an Request for Judicial Intervention Worksheet page.
  • granted Judgment of Default, which was not requested (which is not legal), instead of Judgment of Foreclosure (not available under the statute)

Years later Plaintiff admits in affirmation (attorney affidavit) in support of a Plaintiff Cross-Motion:

  • Plaintiff never served Notice of Motion on Defendant's attorney.
  • Defendant Noticed another motion for parties to appear a decade in the past.
  • Defendant failed to comply with the express terms of the order allowing sale of Property.

Years later Judge  (Donald Scott Kurtz, up for re-election November 5, 2019):

  • Grants Plaintiff Cross Motion while finding that the Motion the Cross-Motion responds to was not properly served and was of no effect.
  • Fails to address jurisdictional non starter (admission Counsel for Defendant was never served Notice of Motion) in granting Plaintiff Cross Motion.
  • Fails to address jurisdictional non starter (admission Counsel for defendant noticed all to appear a decade in the past for a hearing).
  • Fails to do 5th grader math by failing to figure out that Defendants were noticed to appear a decade in the past.
  • Failed to provide a court reporter (and, thereby, lost jurisdiction) when defendant invoked New York State Constitution Article VI right to a court reporter.

This cacophony of jurisdictional errors cannot stand if due process has any meaning whatsoever.

Thus, "Once More Unto the Breach" we go for due process.

Judge Devin Cohen Ignores ...

Oral Argument, AGAIN!!! Fool me once ... - judge puts thumb on the judicial scale by ignoring oral argument MORE

JUDGE IGNORES ORAL ARGUMENT, AGAIN? -

Is failure to acknowledge/ address oral argument that occurred on August 14, 2019 or July 18, 2018, at all, let alone a standing argument raised each time, jurisdictional?

Just what happened at Oral Argument on August 14, 2019 and July 18, 2018?

We were in court on August 14, 2019 to do oral argument seeking re-argument of court findings subsequent to a prior oral argument on July 18, 2018 that found:

  • The Defendant Lyceum had no attorney, and, as such, any answer filed was irrelevant despite the attorneys name and signature being on the answer filed and served electronically on September 20, 2017 as docket # 10 and docket #11.
  • Any answer filed to the complaint, by attorney or not, or motion to dismiss the complaint, was made irrelevant by the Plaintiff filing an amended complaint (against a tidal wave of case law that says Plaintiff can not amend a complaint to escape a motion to dismiss or answer targeting the original complaint).

The decision after the July 18, 2018 oral argument does not acknowledge oral argument even occurred, let alone address the standing argument raised therein, that the Plaintiff, by selling all right, title and interest in the subject property to another entity, had, absent some documentation of the transfer of the claim, made it illegal for the plaintiff or the new entity to appear as Plaintiff no longer had a cause of action and the new entity did not have title to the claim.

Pascal's Due Process Wager

a bit of time for arts due process ... - speeds up inevitable due process victory!! MORE

UPSIDE >>>>>> DOWNSIDE -

In Pascal's Wager, the premise was why not believe in a higher being as the time spent (church, prayer, etc.) is minimal compared to the cost of eternal damnation? 

In that case, your actions were not known to actually influence your fate, they were just checkpoints if the higher being counted attendance somewhat akin to Grantland Rice's :

"For when the One Great Scorer comes.
To mark against your name,
He writes - not that you won or lost
But HOW you played the Game."

A Due Process Wager follows a slightly different tack.   The time spent to ensure a Brooklyn Theatre due process, if due process still truly exists, is trivial compared to the value to society of a successful application of due process, AKA Notice and Opportunity to be Heard, with a cultural collateral impact of allowing a Brooklyn Theatre to rise like a Phoenix.  It would also send a signal to that due process is a thing still, even in the BK.

The minimal time spent produces some substantial upsides:

  • DUE PROCESS is re-affirmed/re-instituted in Brooklyn, NY, returning to existence a venue that has showcased the likes of Fiona Apple, Jose Gonzalez, Vernon Reid, Amanda Palmer, Yo la Tengo, moby dick: the sermon, project: ground control,  Josh Walden's All is Full of Love, Brooklyn Repertory Opera Company's  Fidelio, 31BondA Charlie Brown Christmas, rocky: the musical and a growing list of others.
  • Helpers, AKA Due Process Warriors, vote via Gowanagus.com to assist in re-programming the Brooklyn Lyceum by garnering votes via fighting the JafoMaru.  
  • Those VOTES can be temporarily proxied, permanently re-assigned or traded in for Lyceum Staff time spent on one of an evolving list of Not-for-Profits and causes.
  • NOTE: once the lyceum fate is assured, we will work to take on other just due process battles.

ALL ONE NEEDS TO DO IS :

  • Read up on a few straightforward rules/concepts the court system is premised upon.
  • Review a few controlling decisions regarding those concepts.
  • Review 6+/- items on a certified court docket (one or two line descriptions of papers filed).
  • Review certified copies of a few documents on that certified docket list.
    • Note facts sworn to or sworn facts a decision (by Judge Donald Scott Kurtz, up for re-election November 5, 2019) is premised upon.
    • Note the Plaintiff never served any papers on the defendant's attorney.
    • Note the papers served, no matter whom was served,  noticed in March of 2011 for all to appear in April of 2001.
    • Note that the Plaintiff has sworn to two contradictory things, that the Lyceum never appeared, and, when that non-appearance became a problem,  that the Lyceum appeared by way of attorney.
  • Listen to a few snippets of court hearings/oral arguments to hear that jurisdictional arguments were raised.
  • Review some short (1-3 page) decisions by Judge Reinaldo Rivera (up for reelection November 5, 2019) noting whether or not the jurisdictional arguments were even addressed.
  • Review date-time stamps on two documents to note whether a court found that October 26, 2012 came before October 19, 2012.
  • Review a notice of motion that notices all in March of 2011 to appear in April of 2001.

THEN...

  • Print and sign affidavits related to some combination of the above facts.

THE RETURN:

  • You get Brooklyn Lyceum re-programming votes for each affidavit sent to us as long as they pass simple rules of format and content.
  • You get more votes each time we use that affidavit.
  • You get even more votes if you appear (a watched judiciary more often does its job) at critical junctures going forward.
  • Voting begins as soon as the Lyceum case gets due process  (votes vest upon receipt of 1st affidavit).

OLD LYCEUM WARRIORS:

  • who crossed the Lyceum threshold in the past by way of working, performing, renting or designing things at the Brooklyn Lyceum get additional votes that vest upon that person's or that entity's first affidavit.

Heads - Arts Wins ...

Tails Developers Lose ... but Brooklyn? - Lyceum will return, If due process has any meaning at all. MORE

Judicial Avoidance -

(blue & red  bold tabs = overview, the rest = devilish details).

After a decade, the courts stopped kicking the Brooklyn Lyceum Foreclosure can down the judicial road and, on December 26, 2018, made a finding that threatens to make a mockery of due process, precedent, statute and common sense. 

The ramifications of the contradictory court choices are unavoidable.

In order to avoid finding for the Brooklyn Lyceum and to avoid calling out the lower court judge (Judge Donald Scott Kurtz, up for re-election 11/5/2019) for failing to do what, based on the record before the court, a statute required, the appellate court (Judge Reinaldo Rivera, up for re-election 11/5/2019) made up a fact (October 19 is after October 26) and doubled down on the lower court going outside the record (using an appearance by the Defendants that the Plaintiff hid from the court, and swore did not exist, in prior motion), creating a situation wherein a plaintiff obtained a judgement against the Lyceum premised upon swearing no appearance by the Lyceum, and, when that judgment was challenged based on the sworn non-appearance, obtaining a validation of that judgment premised upon the Plaintiff swearing, yup, that the Lyceum appeared.

Judicial Wave-Particle duality, indeed!

In addition, the appellate court ignored its own recent and long-standing common sense precedent of ensuring that no harm is done to a party when the court retroactively alters the record for another party.

The retroactively altering the record also retroactively invoked some due process requirements the Plaintiff failed to meet, requirements the appellate court conveniently failed to address.

The inconvenient fact, addressed in detail further on, is that due process violations fail to invoke the power of the court, and, due to that, there is no statute of limitations to address them.

What follows is why we keep fighting, like many others in life, because we are right.

Benjamin Ferencz: And I'm still in there fighting. And you know what keeps me going? I know I'm right.

MEANWHILE ...

as we fight for due process - we prepare for the return of the Brooklyn Lyceum MORE

MARU, JAFO STYLE -

JAFO = Just Another F---ing Observer (see move Blue Thunder- an unwanted, but necessary to the process, observer.

MARU = Battle the system is predisposed to make you lose, but that can be won. (see kobayashi maru - Star Trek - TOS) -

To Kobayashi Maru a situation is really to find the win in the no-win situation.

If you have read much of the article on the issue : brooklynlyceum.com/wip/10094, you now that something is wrong in the Brooklyn courts.

JAFOMARU is one way to make the system do what it is supposed to do, apply the common law, constitution, statute and case law to the facts consistently no matter who is the litigant, not just to favor developers.

JAFOMARU seeks public support (read! think! act! appear!) at focal points such that there are ramifications to not following simple rules, starting with the Brooklyn Lyceum case and then, maybe, extended to other issues.

All it takes is for you to read brooklynlyceum.com/wip/10094 and then head to the JAFOMARU.com website to see the myriad of ways to benefit from such playing it forward.

Initially, all the efforts at JAFOMARU.com (affidavits submitted, affidavits used, appearances at focal points, etc.) will garner votes to participate in re-programming the Brooklyn Lyceum after victory is obtained.  Once obtained, you can utilize those votes to program the Lyceum or you can trade them in for volunteer time by the Brooklyn Lyceum staff at a growing number of Not-For-Profits.

So, even if you live far from the Brooklyn Lyceum or even if the arts ain't your thing, you can help, JAFOMARU!

***NOTE: Past participants at the Brooklyn Lyceum can vest votes in addition to the ones for acting now.  Consider it recognition that all who passed through the Brooklyn Lyceum doors were appreciated.

GOWANAGUS

Re-Programming the Brooklyn Lyceum. - Fighting the due process MARU it must and prepping to hit the swamp running. MORE

Cliff Notes Version -

Gowanagus.com: Managing the vote of Due Process Warriors who now come to the aid of the Brooklyn Lyceum.

Earn votes at https://brooklynlyceum.com/wip/10078

The Brooklyn Lyceum has had its due process rights savaged in court and is fighting the fight to its inevitable conclusion, the restoration of those due process rights, come what may no matter the cost, as we all should.  

In short and simple terms, these are the inescapable problems:

FIRST MOTION IN CASE

  1. You can't fail to send a Notice of Motion to the attorney for a party, especially an attorney you swore did not exist.
  2. Your Notice of Motion, whomever is served, can't ask for a Judgment of Foreclosure under the Default Statute.
  3. Your Notice of Motion, whomever is served, can't be dated before documents it references.
  4. Your Notice of Motion can't reference a non-existent affidavit / affirmation.
  5. The Judge can't issue a decision for what was not requested.
  6. The Judge can't issue a decision premised on a non-existent affidavit / affirmation. 

GRAB BAG OF JURISDICTIONAL GOODIES

  1. You can't use evidence you withheld from the court when seeking and obtaining a judgment to validate the judgment when that judgment is later challenged, especially when that evidence contradicts sworn attorney affidavit.
  2.  If the court does accept such late evidence outside the record, that is a nun pro tunc action, a changing of history to be what the court "feels" it should have been.  And, that the court in nun pro tunc'ing of the past court must ensure that the other side is not procedurally harmed by the nun pro tunc changing of the past.  In this case, changing the past makes the affidavit upon which the judgment is premised perjury, and the court can have no part in perjury.  Thus the court should have, a la a now common Science Fiction theme (see Star Trek Voyager : Year of Hell), reset the timeline to the point of the change in history and let the case play out again from that point, just as the same court did weeks before in Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. of Charleston v Tezzi 2018 NY Slip Op 05826 Decided on August 22, 2018 Appellate Division, Second Department.  From that decision:
    1. """
    2. In granting this relief, however, the court must do so upon such terms as may be just, and only where a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced (see CPLR 2001; Discover Bank v Eschwege, 71 AD3d 1413, 1414). The court may not make such relief retroactive, to the prejudice of the defendant, by placing the defendant in default as of a date prior to the order (see Khan v Hernandez, 122 AD3d at 803; Discover Bank v Eschwege, 71 AD3d at 1414), "nor may a court give effect to a default judgment that, prior to the curing of the irregularity, was a nullity requiring vacatur" (Discover Bank v Eschwege, 71 AD3d at 1414 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Bank of New York v Schwab, 97 AD2d 450). Rather, the defendant must be afforded an additional 30 days to appear and answer after service upon her of a copy of the decision and order (see CPLR 320[a]; Buist v Bromley Co., LLC, 151 AD3d at 683; Khan v Hernandez, 122 AD3d at 803; Pipinias v J. Sackaris & Sons, Inc., 116 AD3d at 750; Discover Bank v Eschwege, 71 AD3d at 1414).
    3. """
  3.  If the court does go outside the record and accept such late evidence, the court must ensure that the Plaintiff followed the due process procedural rules such evidence would have required.  In this case, not serving a non-appearing party is ok, not serving counsel for an appearing party is not ok, and is fatal to whatever was not noticed.

SUMMARY: If you got this far, you can see a potent legal storm a brewing and you might be a Due Process Warrior.

ROCKIN THE DUE PROCESS VOTE: The Brooklyn Lyceum is well aware that art spaces are hard to come by and harder to keep in operation, and that no man is an island.  To that end, the Lyceum has always worked with others to program the Lyceum.  It is no different now, for the Lyceum has hundreds of groups/individuals that have performed or taught or rented or held court at the Lyceum and thousands of performers that have performed at the Lyceum as probably the best pool of community arts knowledge in the entire country.

Since full-time programming was never the Lyceum founder's goal, what better way is there to thank/honor those Due Process Warriors who now come to the aid of the Lyceum as well as those who have already crossed the Lyceum Cultural Threshold and become Due Process Warriors, than to invite them to participate in determining the cultural future of the Lyceum?

The Smee

Roving art show - like a pirate on the seven seas, The Smee Art Show is always on the move. MORE

The Smee says ... make it so. -

Art makes us what we are, and, when it is ignored, takes away a part of what we could be.

Most importantly, art is often, no matter the talent or effort or time to make the piece, far too expensive for most of us.

Artist have to eat and so do the buyers.

What is usually the answer is for the artist to eschew exposure to the masses until they have reached great acclaim.

That road to fame is almost always fatal to the earnings of the artist, and to the career of the artist as well.

Enter The Smee, an art exhibit intending to get the art into the hands of a wider audience before that artist has become so famous the average joe cannot afford their art.

Some artists may choose not to participate having looked deep into their soul and finding the process lacking.

Other artists will seize the day and enter The Smee.

Make it so.

JAFOMaru

System Observers - sunlight is the best disinfectant MORE

A little sunlight -

is both dangerous and useful ...

TL/DR:James Bryce : 1888 : The American Commonwealth

The conscience and common sense of the nation as a whole keep down the evils which have crept into the working of the Constitution, and may in time extinguish them. Public opinion is a sort of atmosphere, fresh, keen, and full of sunlight, like that of the American cities, and this sunlight kills many of those noxious germs which are hatched where politicians congregate. That which, varying a once famous phrase, we may call the genius of universal publicity, has some disagreeable results, but the wholesome ones are greater and more numerous. Selfishness, injustice, cruelty, tricks, and jobs of all sorts shun the light; to expose them is to defeat them. No serious evils, no rankling sore in the body politic, can remain long concealed, and when disclosed, it is half destroyed.

LONG VERSION

Maru stands for circle or ship in Japanese.

Maru is also a recurring part of Star Trek, whereby Captain Kirk reprograms a simulator (system) that has been designed to not allow success.

The system is called the Kobayashi Maru : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru

KOBAYASHI MARU : "The test's name is occasionally used among Star Trek fans or those familiar with the series to describe a no-win scenario, a test of one's character or a solution that involves redefining the problem and managing an insurmountable scenario gracefully."

We think a system that covers up judicial violations of due process and false statements by judges counts as "a test of one's character" and "a no-win scenario" or an "insurmountable scenario" to be managed by the public at large.

We are not finished till sunlight kills the "noxious germs".

SWASLU

espesso the need? - SWASLU the speed! MORE

Waiting since the Permian ... -

for a reason to get out of the muck.

SwampSlurry.com is that reason.

Where evolution failed us, your trilobite overlords, science and taste buds let you nouveau upstart species enjoy life (espresso) more than we did at the bottom of a mucky ocean eating all we bumped into until we developed the first eyes. Yes, the food tasted so bad we developed these multi-lens eyes to avoid things that taste like, well, scum.

Think FEED before FIGHT or FLIGHT.

Born in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy when power was at a minimum, the SwampSlurry process extracts all it can, far more than the local super-barista can hope to pull in a busy shop with far too many variables to manage the process in any meaningful way.

SwaSlu hones in on Stealth Roasts, processes the roasts into shots and then flash cools them for later use preserving the vital taste characteristics for later use whether that use is at home, in cafes and restaurants, or on the road at markets and fairs.  Think of it as a wine cellar of espresso roasts.

Swaslu  (swaslu.com) is the roadshow.

UnElecteds

When the system give you a lemon, return it! - Remove judges who ... are not smarter than a 5th grader MORE

Political machine inertia ... -

... is the primary force in elections.

With so much going on in everyone's lives outside the election of judges, very rarely is the public informed enough to make an informed decision when an attorney is first up for election as a judge, resulting in party-line votes without any substantive evaluation of the candidates.

But in the Kings County Supreme Court, they must come up for re-election every 14 years for Supreme Court and 10 years for Civil Court.

After a decade or more of being a judge, one has ought have more than party-backing to go by.

Until recently, reviews of how a judge did during his or her 10/14 year term were hard to come by.

Now we present scorecard of sorts.

Old Guard still standing ...

  • CHICAGO TRIBUNE
  • --Ex-top aide to Circuit Court Clerk Dorothy Brown faces possible prison for lying to grand jury
  • --Man, woman wounded at party after bullets fly into West Pullman home
  • --Pelosi drug bill up for House vote reflects a Trump idea
  • NEW YORK TIMES
  • --What to Watch For as the House Judiciary Committee Marks Up the Articles of Impeachment
  • --Inside the Private Moments of Impeachment
  • --Late Into the Night on Capitol Hill: A Debate of Impeachment Articles Begins at 7 P.M.
  • LA TIMES
  • --Donald Trump Jr. got approval to hunt an endangered sheep days after he killed it
  • --Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison concedes climate change ‘contributed’ to bushfires
  • --Greta Thunberg blasts soft emissions targets and denounces the pledges of wealthy countries and busi
  • NPR
  • --The State Of North Korean Nuclear Negotiations
  • --Israel Headed For 3rd Election In A Year
  • --News Brief: Impeachment Markup, U.K. Election, Jersey City Shootings

Indie news of note ...

  • CHICAGO REPORTER
  • --Report: Amazon workers’ injuries spike during holiday season at Illinois facility
  • --Five things to read or watch for 50th anniversary of Fred Hampton’s murder by police
  • --To stop police shootings of people with mental health disabilities, I asked them what cops – and eve
  • CITY LIMITS
  • --Flushing’s Chinese-Run Dollar Stores Struggling Amid Rising Rents and U.S.-China Trade War
  • --Reclamando el impacto de la lotería en los pobres
  • --NYC Has a Family Homelessness Crisis. Who are the Families?
  • NEW HAVEN INDEPENDENT
  • --Welcome To WNHH!
  • --Biz Renewal Plan OK’d; Grand, Affordability Dropped
  • --Top West Side Cop Promoted
  • SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC PRESS
  • --Experimental FRESH Festival Pursues Healing and Tenderness in Troubled Times
  • --In Superheated Market, Nonprofits Buy Housing to Keep it Affordable
  • --City College Students, Teachers Blindsided by Class Cuts

Science feeds of note ...

  • PHYS.ORG
  • --Researchers on the hunt for the 'pupping ground'
  • --Forensic chemist proposes sweat testing strip as breathalyzer replacement
  • --A more efficient way to turn saltwater into drinking water
  • POPULAR SCIENCE
  • --Four stargazing gadgets to try even when it’s raining
  • --Gear to clean your phone, tablet, and other electronics
  • --The tightest storage options for your spices
  • SPACE.COM
  • --Europe's XMM-Newton Telescope Celebrates 20 Years of X-Ray Astronomy
  • --Satellite Sees Deadly New Zealand Volcano Eruption from Space (Photos)
  • --The Top 10 Skywatching Events to Look for in 2020
  • REDDIT - SCIENCE
  • --Study Finds That Top Fossil Fuel Companies’ Emissions Responsible for More Than Half of Ocean Acidif
  • --Researchers discovered you can make transparent solar windows by punching extremely small holes into
  • --Exercise advice on food labels could help to tackle the obesity crisis. Saying how far consumers nee

Evolution feeds of note ...

  • EVOLUTION INSTITUTE
  • --The Virtue of Extremism is its Enhancement of the Ordinary
  • --Extremism in Historical and Evolutionary Perspective
  • --Seven Reasons Why Most Major Depression is Probably Not a Brain Disorder
  • FRONTIERS IN
  • --Wnt Gene Expression During Early Embryogenesis in the Nymphalid Butterfly Bicyclus anynana
  • --CRABS CLAW and SUPERMAN Coordinate Hormone-, Stress-, and Metabolic-Related Gene Expression During A
  • --Multiple Roles of the Polycistronic Gene Tarsal-less/Mille-Pattes/Polished-Rice During Embryogenesis
  • CELL.COM
  • --Ecosystem-Based Tsunami Mitigation for Tropical Biodiversity Hotspots
  • --Echoing the Need to Quantify Carrion Biomass Production
  • --A Horizon Scan of Emerging Global Biological Conservation Issues for 2020
  • NYTIMES: EVOLUTION
  • --How a Curious Mammal Evolved Its Venom
  • --Is This the First Fossil of an Embryo?
  • --Seeking a New Lens to Study Same-Sex Behavior in Animals

Espresso feeds of note ...

  • PERFECT DAILY FEED
  • --El Papel Del Café Frente a la Crisis Humanitaria de Yemen
  • --Coffee Producer Debt Is Growing & It’s Causing Problems
  • --PRF 2020 Busca Ofrecer Mejores Becas Para Productores Que en 2019
  • I NEED COFFEE
  • --A Small Screwball Cake Recipe for Two
  • --How to Brew Fine Drip Over Coffee With a Stainless Steel Filter
  • --How To Make Coffee Using A Thermos Flask
  • SPRUDGE
  • --We Are All The Coffee Rat
  • --All Are Welcome At Brooklyn’s Babydudes
  • --Durham: Come Party (And Give!) At Getchusomegear’s Ugly Sweater Showdown
  • REDDIT COFFEE
  • --[MOD] The Official Deal Thread
  • --[MOD] Inside Scoop - Ask the coffee industry
  • --Who needs a gooseneck, anyway?