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 dilemma)
a DUE-PROCESS deprived
once and future Brooklyn theater, coffee shop, gym and sometimes cafe
(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
common sense AND ethical AND moral AND required
by statute, case-law, common law and constitution.
Once successful... help us re-program the Brooklyn Lyceum.
brooklynlyceum.com


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 implement that programming in the interim, either at the Brooklyn Lyceum or proxy sites.

--participate in programming the Lyceum
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.
  • --Note presence of a document Plaintiff withheld from the court for 3 years.*
  • --Note sworn statement by Plaintiff counsel about that document.*
  • --Note lack of a particular document from the early (and short) record of the case.*
  • --Note date of notice of a motion.
  • --Note date that notice instructs all to appear.
  • --Note datetime stamp of a document (motion)(A).
  • --Note datetime stamp of a document (decision)(B)..
  • --Note A comes before B.
  • --Note Appellate decision that finds A comes AFTER B.
  • --Make appearance at hearing (watched court more likely to follow the rules).
  • --Contribute a case citation to the cause (if you have legal mojo in your bones).
  • --Buy swag for future curatorial voting rights.
  • --Contribute $$ to the cause for future curatorial voting rights.
*= and sign affidavit about what a 5th grader should see.
Individual affidavits about any of the above gets you 10 votes.
More complicated ones get you 20 votes.


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

Out Of Brooklyn Lyceum Events



-- As we seek to provide programming
for when the Brooklyn Lyceum (or any interim proxy) 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)
.

-- 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)

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

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

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

    One such exhibit may 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 annually.

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
undoing 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 Brooklyn 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 shots the SwaSlu way, on 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 interim locations, events, markets and fairs.

Interested in better americanos/lattes than you could ever do at home?
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.
no more places to run to, baby, no more places to hide.

The Lyceum had the Plaintiff dead to rights
(case was statutorily abandoned based solely on the record provided to the court by the Plaintiff).

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

especially given that the Plaintiff failed to put in even a "dog ate my homework" sufficient cause excuse.

Judge Reinaldo Rivera
aided and abetted Kurtz by:

-- making up a fact (Oct. 17 comes after Oct. 26) &
-- going outside the record to save the Plaintiff.
-- altering lower docket to insert a Defendant appearance when there was not one on the record.
-- altering appellate record to make Defendant allege "intrinsic" fraud when appelalte papers clearly allege "extrinsic" fraud.

Ruling threw Plaintiff
into retroactive jurisdictional traps:

-- failure to serve the Lyceum attorney ANY papers.
-- requesting reliefs not authorized by cited statute.
-- premising requested relief on non-exstent attorney affirmation.
-- noticing parties to appear a DECADE IN THE PAST.
-- Kurtz granted relief 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.
Then help program the Brooklyn Lyceum!
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 or
--premises decisions on non-existent documents, i

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.
Crowd-Source legal citations
If you have a legal frame of mind, take a look at the dozen (and growing) 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 or note the absense of a document from a short record 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 rights 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 ten (10) votes.
COMING SOON
Keep this from happening.
The Lyceum was floored when Appellate Judge Reinaldo Rivera made up a fact (Oct. 17 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 (2018-2020) Appellate Oral Arguments 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)!
--ALTER DOCKET !
--GRANT MOTION ON NO NOTICE!
--REFUSE TO CORRECT GRANTING MOTION ON NO NOTICE!
--GRANT RELIEF NOT REQUESTED!
--GRANT RELIEF NOT AVAILABLE UNDER STATUTE CITED!
--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. 17 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, note presence of documents, note absence of a documents in a short record 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). (10 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 exchanged 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 launches 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: --Court must address jurisdiction before proceeding.
CITE: --Robinson v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 112 N.Y. 315, 324 (N.Y. 1889)
TEXT: --Jurisdiction of the action cannot be conferred upon the court by any consent or stipulation of the parties. The objection to the jurisdiction in such case may be taken at any stage of the action, and the court may, ex mero motu, at any time, when its attention is called to the facts, refuse to proceed further and dismiss the action. (Cooley's Const. Lim. 398; Davidsburgh v. Knickerbocker L. Ins. Co.,90 N.Y. 526.)
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.

due process lemonade

from judicial lemons
Lyceum takes another shot at due process as court has both gone outside the record & found 17>26! MORE

a once and future Lyceum if ... -

we get a little help from some friends.

What must come if the Court of Appeals fails to address simple facts such as ...

is 17 a larger number than 26?

Issues of three appeals the lower appellate court clearly fumbled.

Appeal #1 - Was the case abandoned?

a) The lower appellate court found the Lyceum moved too late (October 17) to have the case deemed abandoned by moving AFTER the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale was entered (October 26) when exactly the opposite is clear from the date-time stamps on the documents.  Such a finding turns a law on its ear as cases abandoned by Plaintiff inaction now become unabandoned by further Plaintiff action when the court fails to dismiss the case as abandoned according to unequivocal statute.

b) When then addressing whether the first Plaintiff motion in the case was within 365 days of the last date for the defendants to appear, absent which the court was required to deem the case abandoned, found something impossible to find from the record available to the court at the time of that initial motion.

The court found, oddly, that the Plaintiff moved within a year of the Defendant's failure to answer, implying an appearance followed by default in timely answering.

The only proof of any interaction whatsoever the Plaintiff had with the Defendants was withheld from the court in the initial motion by the now suspended from the practice of law Plaintiff attorney, proof of appearance by counsel for the Defendants popping up some three years after the submission of the initial motion.

Appeal #2 - Why did the court fail to analyze whether a court order was in effect?

In citing a case to hold defendant in contempt, the court failed to address one of the required prongs of the test, was the court order in effect, the sole issue addressed in defendant appellate brief but ignored by the appellate court.

Appeal #3 - Is an attorney shown to have lied by a document he attached to his own sworn statement about how and when his client became (took over as) Plaintiff about the merits (intrinsic) or about procedure (extrinsic)?

This is important because by relabeling an allegation of "extrinsic" fraud to that of "intrinsic" fraud, in addition it being an alteration of the docket by the appellate court, allowed the appellate court to use a statute of limitations on "intrinsic" fraud that does not exist for allegations of "extrinsic" fraud.

INEVITABLE AS OF RIGHT APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

There are unavoidable ramifications of the Court of Appeals failure to deal with:

  • whether a court can find 17 >26, and
  • whether or not it is OK to go outside the record to the benefit of the Plaintiff and to the harm of the Defendant, and
  • whether attorney lying about when that attorney's client acquired a case is extrinsic or intrinsic, and,
  • whether an order required to be served within 30 days and served at 45 days is in effect

Absent addressing these issues now, there is a direct avenue to the Court of Appeals as the appellate decisions (implicit finding that Defendant appeared by counsel) would, as per the statute on appealability to the Court of Appeals, necessarily impact a future final Judgement of Foreclosure that was now done on no notice to that counsel and whomever was noticed was noticed to appear a decade in the past.

As all appeals of such final judgments allow the Court of Appeals to address any and all prior intermediate (interlocutory) decisions in the case, the Court of Appeals will necessarily have to deal with another fact created by the lower appellate court, that the existence of the attorney appearing for the defendants was never served the initial motion (or any other papers) in the case.

The Court of Appeals would also need to address other annoying initial motion details such as:
  • did lower court grant what was not requested and was not on notice and to which the un-noticed party/attorney did not appear and unnoticed party/attorney did not provide opposition papers??
  • did lower court premise its initial motion decision on two non-existent affirmations (attorney affidavits) which, again, were not on notice ?
  • did lower court grant a relief in the initial motion decision that was not warranted due to failure to notice the statute that grants that relief which, again, was not on notice?

A LITTLE HELP FROM OUR FRIENDS

If you see these as miscarriages of justice and violations of statute and due process, and you are culturally inclined, read further to see how, with a little help of some friends, the Brooklyn Lyceum can obtain the due process long denied.

By doing so you can also trade in that effort for some Brooklyn Lyceum programming rights that you can use or transfer to your favorite cultural groups/people.

Or, alternatively, you can trade in the votes for some some Lyceum staff time for a cause you can select from a growing 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.

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.

Old Guard still standing ...

  • BBC
  • --Germany shooting: Investigation into 'deeply racist' gunman's links
  • --Trump ally Roger Stone sentenced to prison
  • --UK says Russia's GRU behind massive Georgia cyber-attack
  • LA TIMES
  • --[Live Thread] Wuhan Coronavirus
  • --Climate activist Greta Thunberg donates prize money to new foundation
  • --Rohrabacher confirms he offered Trump pardon to Assange for proof Russia didn't hack DNC email
  • NPR
  • --Coronavirus: South Korea Says COVID-19 Cases Doubled In 24 Hours
  • --North Korea Claims Zero Coronavirus Cases, But Experts Are Skeptical
  • --Churchill's First Year As Prime Minister Is Electric In 'The Splendid And The Vile'
  • CHICAGO TRIBUNE
  • --Latinos Progresando, a Little Village nonprofit, plans to buy vacant library and convert it into a $
  • --Cat videos! On the big screen! Coming this weekend to the Music Box Theatre in Chicago
  • --Texas man armed with handgun shot to death at Bronzeville motel, and police believe robbery was moti

Indie news of note ...

  • HIDDEN CITY PHILADELPHIA
  • --Medieval Masterpieces Inspired by Swedish Mystic Still Dazzle in Montco
  • --Rare Books Dealer Turns a Page at Frankford Arsenal
  • --Everything You Always Wanted to Know About The Pleasure Chest* (*But Were Afraid to Ask)
  • CITY LAB
  • --A New Spin on an Old Traffic Injury Problem
  • --There Are Far More Americans Without Broadband Access than Previously Thought
  • --What 4 Years of Trump’s Transportation Budgets Add Up to
  • ATLANTIC YARDS REPORT
  • --Flashback: when Bloomberg was asked (in 2012) about Barclays Center jobs, he showed his peevishness
  • --Does building more housing lower rents or push them up? Studies suggest complicated verdict.
  • --Strange bedfellows: Behind that Atlantic Yards alliance of Bertha Lewis (then of NY ACORN) and Mayor
  • CHICAGO REPORTER
  • --Why Lori Lightfoot may join black elites backing Bloomberg for president
  • --The history of ‘coming out,’ from secret gay code to popular political protest
  • --How the T-Mobile-Sprint merger will increase inequality

Science feeds of note ...

  • POPULAR SCIENCE
  • --Keep track of all the things you want to watch, read, and listen to
  • --The New Horizons spacecraft just revealed secrets of the most distant object we’ve ever visited
  • --Jeff Bezos’ $10 billion to fight the climate crisis can make a difference—if spent correctly
  • SLASHDOT
  • --JPEG Committee is Banking on AI To Build Its Next Image Codec
  • --Sweden Starts Testing World's First Central Bank Digital Currency
  • --Microsoft To Invest $1.1 Billion in Mexico Over Next 5 Years
  • REDDIT - SCIENCE
  • --Coronavirus 'spike' protein just mapped, leading way to vaccine
  • --By watching videos of each other eating, blue tits and great tits can learn to avoid foods that tast
  • --In a breakthrough for Parkinson’s disease, scientists at EPFL have reconstructed the process by whic
  • PHYS.ORG
  • --A scaffold at the center of our cellular skeleton
  • --Laser writing enables practical flat optics and data storage in glass
  • --Earthquakes disrupt sperm whales' ability to find food, study finds

Evolution feeds of note ...

  • FRONTIERS IN
  • --More Than DNA Methylation: Does Pleiotropy Drive the Complex Pattern of Evolution of Dnmt1?
  • --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
  • CELL.COM
  • --The IPBES Global Assessment: Pathways to Action
  • --Williams’ Prediction Will Often Be Observed in Nature
  • --The (Under)Use of Eye-Tracking in Evolutionary Ecology
  • NATURE.COM
  • --Egg genotyping reveals the possibility of patent Ancylostoma caninum infection in human intestine
  • --Decimated little brown bats show potential for adaptive change
  • --Relaxed sequence constraints favor mutational freedom in idiosyncratic metazoan mitochondrial tRNAs
  • EVOLUTION INSTITUTE
  • --Why Terrorists Are Misunderstood
  • --Evolving a Sustainable Future in the United Kingdom
  • --Hidden Figures: The Untold Story of Terrorist Recruiters

Espresso feeds of note ...

  • SPRUDGE
  • --The 2020 US Coffee Championships Orange County Events Portal
  • --Starbucks and McDonalds Are Experimenting With Reusable Cups
  • --Nominate Your Heroes Today For The Sprudge Twenty Presented By Pacific Barista Series
  • REDDIT COFFEE
  • --[MOD] The Official Deal Thread
  • --[MOD] Inside Scoop - Ask the coffee industry
  • --Why does coffee taste so drastically as it cools
  • I NEED COFFEE
  • --Life is Coffee Comics #30
  • --Roast in Parchment (RIP) Coffee
  • --How to Make Coffee Cookies in the Shape of Coffee Beans
  • PERFECT DAILY FEED
  • --Ingresar al Mercado Del Café Emergente de China
  • --Catuai & Yellow Bourbon: Exploring Brazil’s Coffee Varieties
  • --How Roasters & Producers Can Improve Green Bean Sampling