brooklynlyceum - once and future theater

brooklynlyceum / gowanagus / jafomaru / swaslu

ABOUTbrooklynlyceum
- Public Bath #7 (aka: the Brooklyn Lyceum):
  
  Bathhouse
  1910 - 1937
  
  Gym
  1942-1970?
  
  Theater
  sometime in the 70s
  
  ????
  1970s-1994
  
  Public Bath #7 / Brooklyn Lyceum
  Gym, Theater, Cafe, Public Square
  1995-2015
  
  Fight for procedural due process based on docket created solely by Plaintiff in foreclosure.
  2008-2020
  
  Fight for procedural due process based on
  Decision on No Notice to attorney for multiple Defendants.
  2021-?
  
  Roadmap to Decision On No Notice (DONN):
  
  Lower Court (Judge Donald Scott Kurtz): -A-rendered decision premised on Plaintiff atty sworn statement that no Defendant had appeared in the case.
  -B-ruled Lyceum (Defendant) later moved too late to allege Kurtz made decision Kurtz was prohibited by law from making
  by moving after very same decision Kurtz was prohibited by law from making.
  -C-ruled Plaintiff timely moved by incorporating documents (atty communications) not on docket
  that Plaintiff attorney withheld from court for some 36 months,
  until they were helpful in showing what they previously swore did not exist (Lyceum appearance by atty) ... existed.
  
  (after stating at oral argument that "the 2nd Department has an excellent reputation" and "we will get to the bottom of it") Appellate Court (Judges Reinaldo E. Rivera, John M. Leventhal, Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix and Valerie Brathwaite Nelson): -1-Couldn't stomach B, so they ruled, counter to decades of caselaw,
  that Lyceum moved too late by moving after entry of subsequent "final" judgment notwithstanding that the motion (Oct 17, 2012) acually came before entry of the judgment (Oct. 26, 2012.)
  We still haven't figured out why court made up, and refused to correct, that fact, that Oct 17 comes AFTER Oct 26.
  -2-Rubber stamped C by making ruling that Plaintiff timely moved, without doing the datemath,
  a ruling only possible if the Appellate Court necessarily incorporated same withheld from the court attorney communications (Lyceum appearance by atty).
  
  TL/DR: after Plaintiff swearing no Defendant appearance to obtain decision later swore otherwise to defend decision ...
  with lower/appellate court necessarily finding Defendant appearance by atty to validate that decision. If court finds appearance by atty, was notice of motion served on that atty (as required by statute)?
  If not,
  --court never empowered to rule on motion, and,
  --no rights vest from such a decision, and,
  --no deadline, aka Statute of Limitations, to vacate such a decision.
  
  Where we are: Decision on 1st motion in case
  on no notice to atty who lower/appellate courts found had appeared by way of
  --two written extensions of time to answer,
  --multiple undocumented oral extensions of time to answer and
  --service of answer on Plaintiff atty.
  --rejection of same answer by Plaintif atty.
  
  2021-
BEFOREPrior Events
- WHAT HAS GONE BEFORE: A growing list of acts that have graced the Lyceum stage. Contact us to tell us someone we have missed.
  
  MUSIC --- polyphonic spree --- marc ribot --- black dice --- nadine goellner --- yo la tengo --- seryn --- duck baker --- citizens --- dawn landes --- kelly zullo --- natalia zukerman --- rebecca pronsky --- jen chapin --- fiona apple
  
  THEATRE --- kafka: report to an academy --- moby dick: the sermon --- rocky: the musical --- richard II --- 31 bond --- project: ground control --- wax factory --- fallings --- little prinsinn --- neofuturists --- the nose and the overcoat --- charlie brown christmas --- leaving ikea --- swampking --- bindlestiff family circus
  
  COMEDY --- gentrify brooklyn --- big black car --- improv summit --- hot sauce
  
  ART --- marshall arisman --- janet morgan --- surge: nola
  
  DANCE --- dusan tynek --- chris elam --- all is full of love --- carrie ahern --- yanira castro
LOCATIONSinterim spots
- While we wait for the inevitable, either the court :
  
  accepts the original judicial checkmate complaint statutorily abandoned
  based on record provided to the Court by the Plaintiff.
  
  accepts the new judicial checkmate the court retroactively created
  in avoiding original judicial checkmate:
  ---failure to serve our atty any papers leading to a Decision On No Notice (DONN)!
  
  We are looking at a couple of interim sites in our other haunts
  (New York State, Philadelphia and Maine).
SWAGSelect Artisan works
- from the Brooklyn Lyceum and a few select artisans.
  
  brooklynlyceum
  
  swaslu
  
  jafomaru
CONTACTFB, Twitter, E-mail
- Add my email please! Contact brooklynlyceum.com Foll ow @brooklynlyceum
DONNDecision On No Notice
- Roadmap to Decision On No Notice (DONN):
  
  Lower Court (Judge Donald Scott Kurtz): -A-rendered decision premised on Plaintiff atty sworn statement that no Defendant had appeared in the case.
  -B-ruled Lyceum (Defendant) later moved too late to allege Kurtz made decision Kurtz was prohibited by law from making
  by moving after very same decision Kurtz was prohibited by law from making.
  -C-ruled Plaintiff timely moved by incorporating documents (atty communications) not on docket
  that Plaintiff attorney withheld from court for some 36 months,
  until they were helpful in showing what they previously swore did not exist (Lyceum appearance by atty) ... existed.
  
  (after stating at oral argument that "the 2nd Department has an excellent reputation" and "we will get to the bottom of it") Appellate Court (Judges Reinaldo E. Rivera, John M. Leventhal, Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix and Valerie Brathwaite Nelson): -1-Couldn't stomach B, so they ruled, counter to decades of caselaw,
  that Lyceum moved too late by moving after entry of subsequent "final" judgment notwithstanding that the motion (Oct 17, 2012) acually came before entry of the judgment (Oct. 26, 2012.)
  We still haven't figured out why court made up, and refused to correct, that fact, that Oct 17 comes AFTER Oct 26.
  -2-Rubber stamped C by making ruling that Plaintiff timely moved, without doing the datemath,
  a ruling only possible if the Appellate Court necessarily incorporated same withheld from the court attorney communications (Lyceum appearance by atty).
  
  TL/DR: after Plaintiff swearing no Defendant appearance to obtain decision later swore otherwise to defend decision ...
  with lower/appellate court necessarily finding Defendant appearance by atty to validate that decision. If court finds appearance by atty, was notice of motion served on that atty (as required by statute)?
  If not,
  --court never empowered to rule on motion, and,
  --no rights vest from such a decision, and,
  --no deadline, aka Statute of Limitations, to vacate such a decision.
  
  Where we are: Decision on 1st motion in case
  on no notice to atty who lower/appellate courts found had appeared by way of
  --two written extensions of time to answer,
  --multiple undocumented oral extensions of time to answer and
  --service of answer on Plaintiff atty.
  --rejection of same answer by Plaintif atty.
  
  2021-
PALADINSheroic due process warriors
- Do procedural due process violation stick in your craw?
  Become a Paladin for procedural due process!!
  
  6 Easy Pieces
  
  READ!---THINK!
  
  ...gain understanding...
  
  STEP 1
  
  read layman's roadmap to Decision On No Notice (DONN) to Defendant (Lyceum) attorney.
  
  STEP 2
  
  read short summary of common law v. statute &
  common law (informal) appearance v. statutory appearance in New York
  
  STEP 3
  
  read short summary of statute on requirement to serve atty all papers
  & of failure to serve atty notice failing to invoke power of the court.
  
  STEP 4
  
  read short summary of how failure to invoke power of the court:
  ---never empowers court to rule on the motion
  ---vests no rights
  ---creates no deadline, aka Statute of Limitations, to vacate (overturn) such a decision.
  
  STEP 5
  
  READ:
  ---portion of plaintiff atty sworn statement (in support of motion) swearing no appearance by any defendant.
  ---portion of lower court decision premised on that Plaintiff atty sworn statement.
  ---portion of subsequent plaintiff atty sworn statement swearing no communication whatsoever with any Defendant
  ---portion of subsequent plaintiff atty swearing communication between plaintiff atty and Defendant atty.
  (extensions of time to answer complaint and answer served on plaintiff atty and rejection of answer)
  ---1 page extension of time to answer submitted by plaintiff atty to show plaintiff did not abandon case.
  ---portion of subsequent decision premised upon atty communications prior to 1st motion of the case.
  ---proof of serice of motion NOT on Defendant (Lyceum) attorney.
  
  STEP 6
  
  Think: if plaintiff now swears plaintiff granted extension of time to answer to atty for Defendant Lyceum but proof of service of motion does not show sevice on that atty, how can decision on that un-served motion stand?
  
  6 Not So Easy Pieces
  
  ACT!---APPEAR!
  
  ...earn/use/transfer cultural programming votes...
  {or trade in those votes for time or cash for a cause}
  
  STEP 1
  
  choose / edit / notarize / send affidavit
  (? votes when accepted, ? vote each time submitted to any court by Lyceum until decision overturned)
  
  STEP 2
  
  1st to submit a case, from any jurisdiction, supporting (or contradicting) one of the following points ( ? vote ):
  ---Failure to serve attorney never invokes power of the court
  ---decisions made without invoking power of the court vest no rights
  ---decisions made without invoking power of the court create no deadline, aka Statute of Limitations, to vacate such a decision
  
  after having submitted an accepted affidavit:
  
  STEP 3
  
  ... appear live at hearing (? votes)
  .... appear zoomlike at hearing (? votes)
  .... appear live at event (? votes)
  donate to swaslu.com (coffee business) - ? vote per $?
  can draw down as coffee (?% discount)
  
  STEP 4
  
  convert former lyceum sweat equity to votes
  
  STEP 5
  
  convert remaining votes to time or $$$ for a cause.
  
  Too much time - effort - thinking:
  
  STEP 6
  
  I dont want to vote on programming, don't want to give indirectly to a cause and dont like coffee, i just want to help you offset costs incurred till the decision is overturned
  because PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS MATTERS!!.
  
  WHAT DO WE GET IN RETURN?
  
  Well, a warm fuzzy feeling is not enough. So ...
  
  Prove your work ...
  
  ... to Earn your votes!
  
  YOU:
  
  READ!
  
  THINK!
  
  ACT!
  
  APPEAR!
  
  WE:
  
  ADD UP VOTES!
  
  IMPLEMENT VOTING SYSTEM!
  
  A VOTING SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS FOR ....
  
  -- voting for events/acts at the Brooklyn Lyceum (or any proxy Lyceum), and
  -- temporary (or permanent) transfer of voting rights, and
  -- conversion of votes to future time spent and/or $ for another cause you prefer, and
  -- former Lyceum participants to garner extra votes for past Lyceum service!
  
  Since theorizing proof of work for votes in programming an arts facility
  
  it has been noted that what people are really doing is ensuring procedural due process and that the voting ought, also, be used to help others get procedural due process.
  
  The Lyceum may not be what floats everyone's long term boats.
  
  Exchange Programming votes for either hours of time or dollars for a cause you choose from our ever-expanding list.
  
  Have us help someone else once you help us and we come up for air,
  
  a procedural due process paying it forward!
  
  In addition to Lyceum programming votes, you get votes in directing the procedural due process engine jafomaru.com
  
  those votes can also help choose litigants to help and how to help them get procedural due process using a library arsenal of procedural due process information built from Brooklyn Lyceum experiences and any other sources we can scrounge.
DENIZENSBenefit from prior efforts
- Former Lyceum denizens
  
  ... garner extra votes for prior participation that vest with 1st JAFO jurat ...
  
  WHAT U DID : WHAT U GET
  
  CULTURE WARRIORS: - JAFOS who MARU
  tentative (subject to change)
  
  If you
  
  pulled espressos
  
  swept floors
  
  worked
  
  advised
  
  invested
  
  booked
  
  produced
  
  designed
  
  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 jurat
  as a Due Process Warrior (JAFO who MARUS)!
  
  LYCEUM CREWE = ? / participatory month.
  
  EVENT/FESTIVAL/MARKET/CONVENTION (EFMC) PRODUCER ENTITY.
  PARTNER (?), RENTAL(?), IN HOUSE PRODUCTION (?) / week of run.
  
  EFMC CREATIVE = ? / week of run.
  
  EFMC CREWE /PERFORMER = ? / performance
  
  FESTIVAL/MARKET/CONVENTION TABLER = ? / table day
  
  FESTIVAL ENTRY - LIVE = ? / festival performer/event day
  
  FESTIVAL ENTRY - NOT LIVE = ? / festival
  
  EVENT PERFORMER = ? per each day of performing
  
  CLASS = ? / rental date
  
  ADVISOR/INVESTOR = case by case offer from Lyceum.

Add yourself to brooklynlyceum.com email list.

First Name

Last Name

Email

^

^

all this judicial kicking of procedural due process can down the road has laid the groundwork for a unique community programming option at a venue that has seen the likes of ...

MUSIC
seryn

THEATRE
fallings

COMEDY
improv summit

ART
marshall arisman

Brooklyn Lyceum 2.0 Programming VOTES

Earn'em @ jafomaru.com

Burn'em @ gowanagus.com

Churn'em @ gowanagus.com

SWASLU

Due Process In Brooklyn

close ×

JAFOMARU

--JAFO: Just Another F--king Observer (necessary, but sometimes unwelcome, system observers)

-- MARU, either a Ship or Circle in Japanese.
Also, unwinnable situation won by resetting the rules by Captain James T. Kirk - Star Trek: TOS (Kobayashi Maru).

-- help others ensure procedural due process by focused attention to remove friction from the legal system for those who represent themselves.
-- help collect procedural due process laws, case-law an papers in a place where the self represented can research before it is too late in their case.
-- help observe at key junctures to make self represented not be ignored.
-- let the courts know you a have a functional brainstem.
... System Observers because : A watched court more likely to do its job.
--unwatched systems tend towards abuse, watched towards accountability-- JafoMaru.com

close ×

GOWANAGUS:

re-programming a
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS DEPRIVED Brooklyn theater
as the legal swamp settles.

Once the court addresses a decision on no notice (DONN) to Brooklyn Lyceum Attorney:

which became inevitable once Plaintiff attorney filed papers swearing multiple communications with Defendant Lyceum's attorney prior to 1st motion in the case some three years after swearing no appearance by any defendant in the papers in support of the 1st motion ...
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 when we get rolling, whether at the actual Brooklyn Lyceum or an interim one.
--YOU CAN ... participate in programming the Lyceum
by scoring curatorial votes by brain, body or past effort.

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

READ DOCKET

--Note that an attorney affirmation is attached to a notice of motion dated ... and entered ....
--Note affirmation says no appearance by any Defendant.
--Note motion decision premised on Plaintiff attorney affirmation of no appearance by any Defendant.
--Note date of affirmation by same attorney three years later.
--Note affirmation states Plaintiff attorney granted Defendant attorney two extensions of time, multiple oral exteensions of time and that Plaintiff rejected Defendant answer back to Defendant Lyceum's attorney.
--Note dates of extensions and rejection are prior to date of motion.
--Note same judge premising decision on extensions of time to Defendant Lyceum's attorney.
--Note proofs of service of 1st motion are not on Defendant Lyceum's attorney

READ STATUTE

--requiring service of all papers on attorneys.

READ SHORT TREATISES

-- common law v. statute and common law (informal) appearance v. statutory appearance

READ CASELAW

--case law showing extension of time to answer and service of answer are informal appearances
--caselaw showing informal appearance valid as appearance.
--case law showing failure to serve attorney never invokes power of the court, vests no rights and has no deadline (statute of limitations) to vacate the decision

ACT

--Notarize/Send Affidavit
--Submit caselaw from any jurisdiction (for or against our position)
--Appear live or zoomlike at a hearing
--Appear at event

VOTE ON

--Events Lyceum or proxy Lyceum .
--Assisting Other procedural due process cases.

GOWANAGUS.COM

close ×

SWASLU

... Inexorable Espresso Evolution ...

There ... WILL ... BE ... BETTER ... ESPRESSO ...

more flavor, less labor.

from our espresso cellar!

-- 15 years of a Brooklyn theatre/coffee shop/cafe and the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy taught us that there is another, better, more ecological, way to get the most out of your espresso.
-- When the espresso dusts dust settles, the new boss may well be different than the old boss.
--Till then we are pulling espresso shots the SwaSlu way, on the muddy road again!
--We make it a point not to be a roaster and will be highlight a cornucopia of espresso roasts at some home bases, some events, some markets and some fairs.
--Interested in better americanos/lattes than you could ever do at home?

Take a dip SWASLU.com

close ×

Procedural Due Process in the Boro of Brooklyn

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.