brooklynlyceum - once and future theater

brooklynlyceum / gowanagus / jafomaru

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 foreclosure docket created solely by Plaintiff.
  Was case abandoned?
  2008-2020
  
  if case not abandoned,
  Fight begins for procedural due process based on
  Judicial Order on No Notice to attorney for multiple Defendants.
  2021-?
LOWDOWN
- as the procedural due process legal swamp settles:
  HELP US pre-program the return of a
  PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS DEPRIVED Brooklyn theater.
  
  Schrodinger indeed! This is what you get when court is determined to use existence of Defendant's attorney as sword for Plaintiff without using it as shield for Defendant!
  
  Appellate court DODGED addressing Plaintiff's statutory abandonment of case, that abandonment being derived solely on the docket available to court at time of 1st motion, a Docket created entirely by the Plaintiff who failed to inform court of opposing counsel.
  
  In defiance of 5th grader math and basic logic and w/o preserving rights of Defendants
  (Procedural Due Process: NOTICE and OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD), Appellate Court
  illogically gave lower court a pass on violating jurisdiction, ruling w/o authority to rule.
  
  It did so by finding 19 > 26 (not possible, let alone with record on appeal or full record)
  & by finding Plaintiff whose appeal brief admits interaction with opposing counsel early and often starting 16 months before initial motion while failing to serve that attorney 1st motion.
  
  Appellate court, 4 judges w/140 years legal experience, clearly did such mishegoss to avoid dealing with lower court's illegal re-animation of statutorily abandoned case.
  
  That re-animation was by lower court's validation of its own initial decision, judgment of default, premised on no Defendants' attorney, in subsequent decision by same judge, case not abandoned at time of judgment of default, premised on Defendants having an attorney.
  
  If you think, like us, this is utterly ridiculous,
  Help us as we take action to undo this situation.
  
  NEXT: KNOWDOWN to prepare for Procedural Due Process THROWDOWN/SHOWDOWN!
KNOWDOWN
- THE GOOD FIGHT : PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
  TYPICAL WAY CASE GETS ASSIGNED TO A JUDGE👇
  
  Case is filed, along with fee ... with county clerk.
  Case is not yet in court system.
  
  Plaintiff serves all Defendants.
  
  Parties do some things without court involvement,
  such as rejection of pleadings or extensions of time.
  
  Eventually, a party wants to get things rolling and files:
  RJI, a Request for Judicial Intervention.
  --That RJI has a spot on it to place contact info for opposing counsel, if any.
  --That RJI gets a judge assigned and case placed within the court system.
  
  Along with the RJI, the thing that made the RJI necessary,
  usually a motion, is filed simultaneously.
  
  The court, before accepting the RJI and motion, checks to see if all parties,
  or if they have counsel, their attorneys, have been served the RJI and motion.
  --Implicit is the requirement that both the RJI and the motion must be served
  on any attorney for a party known to the filer of the RJI and motion.
  
  3 WAYS WAYS OF JURISDICTION FAILS.👇
  
  TOP DOWN --- APPELLATE COURT COVERUP
  
  HIGH LEVEL
  
  4 judges with a combined 140 years legal experience,
  but not, apparently, 5th grade math expertise:
  FOUND #1: Lyceum(Defendant) moved too late because ...
  One of 17 or 19 or 22 are greater than 26.
  --It's almost as if the judges didn't fact check the staff attorney work before they told the clerk to enter the judgment premised on a math dog that don't hunt.
  
  FOUND #2: Plaintiff moved on time because ... well, nothing, not a word on how.
  A simple analysis shows that, absent communications with Lyceum attorney,
  case abandoned 173 days prior to not served on Lyceum attorney 1st motion.
  
  IGNORED: jurisdictional argument raised at oral argument!
  ARGUMENT: Court had no authority to rule on motion not served on attorney.
  
  DEEPER
  --LIED (OR CAN'T DO 5TH GRADER MATH),
  --WENT OUTSIDE RECORD ON APPEAL TO SAVE PLAINTIFF,
  --NEW PRECEDENT - UNSUBSTANTIATED ATTORNEY AFFIRMATIONS NOW FACT.
  --FAILED TO ADDRESS JURISDICTIONAL ARGUMENT
  CLEAR FROM RECORD ON APPEAL AND RAISED AT ORAL ARGUMENT.
  
  Defendant moved too late
  Appellate court found Defendant moved too late to have case dismissed as abandoned.
  This is odd (bullshit) #1 - because it implies a case abandoned by Plaintiff inaction can become unabandoned by Plaintiff action --- AND --- Court that is forbidden from entering judgment because case abandoned by Plaintiff inaction gets power to rule back if Plaintiff subsequently takes action in abandoned case. Our heads hurt!
  This is odd (bullshit) #2 - because that math dog don't hunt.
  The motion served October 17, 2012, entered October 19, 2012 and argued on October 22, 2012 can't possibly come, as the court found, AFTER the October 26, 2012 entry of judgment of foreclosure and sale the court references, especially as that entry date is nowhere to be found in the record on appeal.
  
  Plaintiff timely moved
  For the Plaintiff to have timely moved, Plaintiff needed to move within a year
  of any Defendant default, default either in appearing, or, if appearing,
  in answering, or if appearing and answering, proceeding to trial.
  The lower court and the appellate court failed to do any math.
  Odd, but the math is unnecessary due to an overriding issue.
  It all boils down to did Defendants have an attorney?
  If not, case clearly abandoned as it was 173 days late.
  That math is exceedingly simple. Date of service on LLC
  via Secretary of State+30 days to answer +365 (one year).
  If they had an attorney, did Plaintiff serve the
  purportedly "timely" motion on that attorney? (Short answer:NOOOOO!)
  Appellee brief cites communications with Defendants' attorney, extensions of time to answer, service of an answer and rejection of that answer between Plaintiff attorney and that attorney, an attorney not listed in affirmation of service of 1st motion!
  No service ... no power/authority to rule! Q.E.D.!!!!
  
  BOTTOM UP --- FAILURE TO SERVE KNOWN OPPOSING COUNSEL.👇
  
  HIGH LEVEL
  FAILURE TO INFORM COURT OF, OR TO SERVE PAPERS ON, OPPOSING COUNSEL: STRIPPED COURT OF AUTHORITY TO RULE ON 1ST MOTION!!!
  
  DEEPER
  Same as Top Down issue ...
  Jurisdiction raised at oral argument.
  Plaintiff knew there was an opposing counsel ....
  and failed to serve the RJI and initial motion ....
  OR ANYTHING ELSE
  (notices of motions or decisions/orders)
  upon that known to Plaintiff opposing counsel
  (as in the affidavits of service do not swear to having served opposing counsel)
  
  IN THE MIDST --- PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS EVERYWHERE?👇
  
  HIGH LEVEL
  The best place to start is at the beginning ...
  There appears to be a cornucopia of procedural due process issues
  that each stop the case dead in its tracks at many, many points.
  
  DEEPER
  DOCKET-ISMS
  (building list for evaluation. Just one thing so far.)
  
  RJI/ Initial Motion
  
  Failed to inform court of opposing counsel in RJI
  
  Failed to serve RJI on opposing counsel
  
  Failed to serve Notice of Motion #1 on opposing counsel.
  
  Notice of Motion, unserved on attorney, asks for something,
  "Judgment of Foreclosure", under a statute that does not allow that.
  
  Notice of motion, unserved on attorney,
  premised on non-existant attorney affirmation.
  
  Decision, also unserved on attorney,
  premised on, not one, but, two non-existant attorney affirmations.
  Rest of meandering thoughts.
  Ignore unless you realy want to see some snippets of past thoughts/logic..
  
  Some things to keep in mind ...
  Dr. Egon Spengler knows-do not to cross the streams ...
  
  Mathematicians know-do not to divide by zero ...
  
  Science fiction fans know-do not alter the timeline ...
  
  Schrodinger knew it can't be both heads and tails ...
  
  SCOTUS knows-do not to violate Procedural Due Process ...
  
  Any fool knows not to think 19 > 26 ...
  
  because ...
  if so ...
  it
  always
  ends
  BADLY.
  
  EZ Pieces
  
  Plaintiff failed to inform court of existence of attorney for multiple defendants, and,
  simultaneously, Plaintiff also failed to serve motions papers on that attorney.
  
  when case, subsequent to decision, is challenged under mandatory dismissal statute,
  Plaintiff submits information it had withheld in filing unserved motion in case 36 months earlier,
  communications w/Defendant's attorneys 18 months prior to that unserved motion.
  
  Court uses newly submitted proof of communications with unserved attorney
  to validate prior decision premised on no communications with unserved attorney.
  
  Appellate court finds both:
  --Defendant move too late, Oct 19 being after Oct 26, to avoid mandatory dismissal statute.
  --Plaintiff timely moved, IMPOSSIBLE unless court ignores failure to serve motion on attorney
  and the court also ignores abundant caselaw that unsubstantiated attorney affirmations are shit.
  
  ---when you raise failure to serve your attorney at oral argument ---
  & presiding judge in a 4 judge appellate panel says:
  "???"
  BUT then .... that 4 judge Appellate Court:
  
  finds 19 is a larger number than 26
  as way to say you moved too late ... to avoid one jurisdictional statute. ---Case is abandoned---
  
  doesn't substantiate finding your opposition moved on time ... to avoid another jurisdictional statute. ---power of court not invoked as ...
  Plaintiff failed to serve motion papers on attorney for Defendant---
  
  TIME TO LOOK UNDER THE HOOD
  
  SO LATE IT'S ABANDONED
  When the court entered judgment,
  on a motion made 173 days too late,
  based on the record before the court at the time -
  a motion which did not even bother
  with a purported "sufficient cause"
  for this tardy filing:
  statute bound the court by the words
  "shall not enter judgment,
  but shall dismiss the case as abandoned."
  
  NO LEGAL OPTION
  EXCEPT FOR CASE DISMISSAL
  ---But thats what the court did,
  break the law by doing
  something other than dismissal,
  as, if more than 365 days
  from default to motion,
  the case was statutorily abandoned.
  
  simple facts ... math ... law ... caselaw ...
  you can help put some sunlight on the issue, publicly
  and earn curatorial votes for a NYC based theater
  when that sunlight takes effect.
  
  FACTS
  
  April 7, 2008 (the date of the service of the summons and complaint on defendant Lyceum )
  
  October 26, 2009, date of purported service of first motion in case.
  
  No other communications between Plaintiff and defendant Lyceum presented to court on or before January 18, 2011, the date of decision/order on motion.
  
  MATH
  Time Calculations
  --Time for defendant Lyceum to answer : 30 days=April 7,2008 + 30= May 7, 2008.
  --Time for Plaintiff to act : 365 days, 1 year=May 7, 2008+ 365=May 7, 2009.
  --Days late : October 26, 2009- May 7, 2009-365=538-365= 173 days late!
  
  LAW
  
  When an LLC is served processs at secretary of state.
  SERVICE ON LLC VALID UPON SECRETARY OF STATE -
  NY LLC LAW § 303. Service of process on limited liability companies. (a) Service of process on the secretary of state as agent of a domestic limited liability company or authorized foreign limited liability company shall be made in the manner provided by paragraph one or two of this subdivision. Either option of service authorized pursuant to this subdivision shall be available at no extra cost to the consumer. (1) Personally delivering to and leaving with the secretary of state or his or her deputy, or with any person authorized by the secretary of state to receive such service, at the office of the department of state in the city of Albany, duplicate copies of such process together with the statutory fee, which fee shall be a taxable disbursement. Service of process on such limited liability company shall be complete when the secretary of state is so served.
  TIME TO ANSWER
  CPLR 3012(c) Additional time to serve answer where summons and complaint not personally delivered to person to be served within the state. If the complaint is served with the summons and the service is made on the defendant by delivering the summons and complaint to an official of the state authorized to receive service in his behalf or if service of the summons and complaint is made pursuant to section 303, paragraphs two, three, four or five of section 308, or sections 313, 314 or 315, service of an answer shall be made within thirty days after service is complete.
  
  Time for Plaintiff to act
  
  Case abandoned 365 days after time to answer expires (default) unless Plaintiff acts towards Judgment
  CPLR 3215(c) : If the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed. A motion by the defendant under this subdivision does not constitute an appearance in the action.
  
  What is "the record before the court?"
  In its loosest sense, anything filed with the court by any party (or the court itself)and served on the other side up to and including the date of a decision/order.
  It is stricter than that but that strictness irrelevant in this case, so it is not addressedd here.
  
  SHORT SUMMARY
  
  ---Defendant had until May 8, 2008 to answer the summons/complaint served on April 8, 2008.
  ----Plaintiff had one year from then to seek judgment of default, until May 8, 2009.
  ----Plaintiff did not take that action until October 26, 2009, 173 days too late.
  ----With only a proof of service and a motion submitted 173 days late, statute mandated dismissal as abandoned absent the Plaintiff submission of any alleged "sufficient cause".
  ----Absent even a "dog ate my homework" alleged sufficient cause, the case no longer existed, it was a nullity requiring dismissal as abandoned.
  ----Instead, the court enterred judgment in violation of a jurisdictional statute.
  ----When challenged on that judicial violation, court allowed Plaintiff to submit an alleged "sufficient cause" that was not before the court when the court ruled in initial motion.
  NEXT: MOVE ON TO THROW DOWN ...
THROWDOWN
- Club JAFO: Send in affirmation along lines as decribed below. Get a curatorial vote.
  Club MARU: We use any affirmation in court filing. First use of any affirmation gets you another curatorial vote.
  Club JafoMaru: Appear at a JafoMaru Function. More votes based on what the action is.
  prior thoughts on THROWDOWN
  --A) READ STATUTE--requiring service of all papers on attorneys.
  --B) READ SHORT TREATISES--
  -- common law v. statute,
  --common law (informal) appearance v. statutory appearance
  --C) READ CASELAW--
  --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
  
  --showing informal appearance valid as appearance.
  
  --showing extension of time to answer and service of answer are informal appearances
  
  --D) READ DOCKET--
  --Note that a Plaintiff attorney affirmation swearing no appearance by any Defendant dated ... is attached to a notice of motion dated ... and entered ....
  
  --Note motion decision premised on that affirmation.
  
  --Note date of same attorney affirmation three years later swearing otherwise ... that Plaintiff attorney granted Defendant attorney two extensions of time, multiple oral extensions of time and that Plaintiff rejected Defendant answer back to Defendant Lyceum's attorney.
  
  --Note dates of extensions and service and rejection of answer are prior to date of previous sworn statement of no appearance in support of earlier 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
  
  --E) ACT--
  --Send Affirmation or notarized Affidavit or notarized Jurat
  
  --Submit caselaw from any jurisdiction (for or against our position)
  
  --Appear live or zoomlike at a hearing
  
  --Appear at event
  
  --F) VOTE ON--
  --Events Lyceum or proxy Lyceum .
  
  --Assisting Other procedural due process cases.
  
  GOWANAGUS.COM
SHOWDOWN
- BASICS: We need to attack some decisions with some pretty specific arguments that the court exceeded its authority in acting, or had no authority whatsoever, largely due to lack of notice.
  
  ON THE HORIZON:
  With the help of some amount of the populace chiming in with brainstem sunlight, sunlight being the best disinfectant, these are a list of the options we think may be viable:
  1. Motion to reargue appellate panel of 4 judges with 140 years experience finding 17 or 19 or 22 > 26
  2. Motion to reargue appellate panel of 4 judges with 140 years experience failing to address what was raised at oral argumentand clear from the record on appeal, that Plaintiff failed to serve notice of motion on known to Plaintiff attorney for multiple defendants, rendering failure to respond to m otion or appear at oral argument irrelevant.
  3. Motion to appellate court as is allowed when lower court signs an order on no notice,
    failure to serve attorney being no notice.
  4. Motion to appellate court for clarification of exactly how it got Lyceum moved too late.
BEFOREPrior Events
- WHAT HAS GONE BEFORE: Acts that have graced the Lyceum stage. Contact us to tell us someone we have missed.
  
  MUSIC --- jen chapin --- polyphonic spree --- black dice --- seryn --- rebecca pronsky --- kelly zullo --- dawn landes --- citizens --- duck baker --- fiona apple --- yo la tengo --- marc ribot --- natalia zukerman --- nadine goellner
  
  THEATRE --- richard II --- leaving ikea --- salome --- neofuturists --- moby dick: the sermon --- the nose and the overcoat --- 31 bond --- fallings --- kafka: report to an academy --- bindlestiff family circus --- rocky: the musical --- swampking --- wax factory --- project: ground control --- charlie brown christmas --- little prinsinn
  
  COMEDY --- gentrify brooklyn --- big black car --- hot sauce --- improv summit
  
  ART --- marshall arisman --- surge: nola --- janet morgan
  
  DANCE --- all is full of love --- chris elam --- carrie ahern --- dusan tynek --- yanira castro
  
  LYCEUM MARKETS/FESTIVALS --- brooklyn mutt show --- brooklyn blogfest --- king con brooklyn --- brooklyn craft market --- brooklyn zinefest
  
  FILM --- asbury shorts of new york --- brooklyn underground film festival --- brooklyn international film festival
LOCATIONSinterim spots
- While we wait for the inevitable, either the court accepts:
  
  the original judicial checkmate of the complaint being statutorily abandoned
  based on record provided to the Court by the Plaintiff.
  
  the alternate judicial checkmate of the complaint not being statutorily abandoned
  ---failure to serve our atty any papers leading to a Judicial Order on No Notice (JONONO)!
  
  See how Judicial Orders on No Notice have been dealt with ...
  In New York State (and various other jurisdictions)....
  and a mockup of our papers ... jonono.org
  to have the court deal wth us the same.
  
  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
JONONOJudicial Order on No Notice
- TL/DR: After Plaintiff MISLED the court that ...
  multiple defendants did not have an attorney to obtain decision,
  an attorney upon whom the Plaintiff failed to serve the Notice of Motion
  
  Plaintiff three years later swore otherwise to defend decision ...
  with lower/appellate courts necessarily finding:
  Defendant appearance by attorney to validate that decision.
  
  If appearance by atty 15 months prior to 1st motion in case ...
  was the notice of 1st motion (or any paper) served on that atty (as required by statute)?
  
  If not,
  --court never empowered to rule on motion (lacked jurisdiction), and,
  --no rights vest from such a decision, and,
  --no deadline, aka Statute of Limitations, to vacate such a decision.
  --absent participation in motion, impossible to waive jurisdiction.
  
  Where we are: Judicial Order on 1st motion in case
  on no notice to attorney
  who lower/appellate courts found had appeared by way of
  --two written extensions of time to answer,
  --multiple oral extensions of time to answer and
  --service of answer on Plaintiff atty.
  --rejection of same answer by Plaintif atty.
  
  Roadmap to Judicial Order on No Notice (JONONO):
  
  Lower Court (Judge Donald Scott Kurtz): -A-rendered an order premised, unwittingly,
  on Plaintiff's sly failure to inform court
  that multiple defendants had appeared by attorney
  and that the Plaintiff had failed to serve motion papers on that attorney.
  -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).
  
  2021-
PALADINSheroic due process warriors
- Procedural due process violations stick in your craw?
  Become procedural due process Paladin!!
  
  6 Easy Pieces
  
  READ!---THINK!
  
  ...gain understanding...
  
  STEP 1
  
  read layman's roadmap to Judicial Order on No Notice (JONONO) 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 Request for Judicial Intervention (RJI) that Plaintiff slyly leaves the spot for opposing counsel blank.
  ---portion of plaintiff atty sworn statement (in support of motion)
  not informing court that parties have appeared by attorney
  when slyly stating:
  "that all parties had either not appeared or, having appeared, failed to answer and their time to do so had expired."
  ---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 service 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:
  which vests votes from steps 1 and 2 as well as subsequently earned votes (3-6).
  
  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
  
  threw down time
  
  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.
MEHWhy does this matter?
- MEH, WHY DOES THAT MATTER?:
  because procedural due process matters... duh!
  
  Power of the court MUST be invoked
  
  by proper procedure
  
  else decisions the court makes
  
  never attain any authority,
  even if perceived to have authority for decades.
  see United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882)
  USA had to rebuy Arlington National Cemetery
  18 years after it became a cemetery ... for lack of proper procedure.
  
  Only proper service of the complaint
  
  invokes the power of the court.
  
  As a motion is a mini-case
  
  improper or lack of service of the notice of motion on the parties
  or facial insufficiency of the notice of motion fail to invoke the power of the court.
GOTCHASWhat are they?
- OK, WHAT ARE THE GOTCHAS?:
  
  Participation, on the merits, in motion
  w/o raising lack of procedural due process
  
  can waive lack of procedural due process.
  (did not happen, so unwaived)
  
  Defendant forwarding papers
  inappropriately served on Defendant to Defendant atty.
  
  can waive lack of procedural due process.
  (did not happen, so unwaived)
  
  Attorney appearing at oral argument
  w/out arguing lack of procedural due process
  
  can waive lack of procedural due process.
  (did not happen, so unwaived)
  
  Attorney serving opposition papers
  w/out arguing lack of procedural due process
  
  can waive lack of procedural due process.
  (did not happen, so unwaived)
  
  Passage of time, even decades
  
  cannot waive lack of procedural due process.
  
  Facially, fatally defective notice of motion
  absent waiver of fatal facial defects ...
  
  cannot invoke the power of the court.
NEXTThe battle continues ...
- NEXT?
  
  We are starting to prepare
  a motion to undo 1st order in the case:
  an illegal order on no notice to Lyceum atty.
  
  This will NECESSARILY require vacating the foreclosure sale
  of the Brooklyn Lyceum.

This is where you get to talk to the Brooklyn 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
dawn landes

THEATRE
31 bond

COMEDY
hot sauce

ART
janet morgan

Brooklyn Lyceum 2.0 Programming VOTES

Earn'em @ jafomaru.com

Burn'em @ gowanagus.com

Churn'em @ gowanagus.com

Due Process In Brooklyn

close ×

JAFOMARU

--JAFO: Just Another F--king Observer (necessary, 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 and 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: a publicly curated NYC based theater!

... A little public participation goes a long way ...
---and gets you voting rights ... in curating ---
what becomes of the Brooklyn Lyceum, or any spiritual interim proxy.

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS MATTERS .... FOREVER!

PERSERVERANCE MAKES IT HAPPEN ........ EVENTUALLY !

PARTICIPATION MAKES IT HAPPEN ... FASTER!

PARTICIPATION, PAST, PRESENT & FUTURE ... EARNS VOTES!

Unintended consequences happen when:
--Lower & Appellate courts penalize Defendant for what Plaintiff withheld from the lower court until convenient.
--Appellate court uses the term "insofar as appealed from" when Defendant raised jurisdiction at oral argument.

Either: Plaintiff communicated with, but failed to serve motion papers upon, attorney for multiple defendants, rendering decisions/orders on motions nullities

or: case, absent Plaintiff seeking default judgment, or any communications with defendants w/in 12 months after their default, is statutorily abandoned, a nullity.

---Six of one (decisions nullities), half dozen of another (case is a nullity)---.

Earn Votes: JafoMaru.com

Burn Votes: Gowanagus.com

close ×

SWASLU

... Inexorable Espresso Evolution ...

In the beginning ... a giant, abandoned looking former bathhouse on 4th Avenue in Brooklyn, NY.

Passed it by for about a year, made offer, was accepted ... cobbled together down payment. Closed on purchase December 1994.

After a year or so triaging the internals, opened as a coffee shop (and sometimes theater) using a pretty good local roaster for coffee in our Bunn brewer.

Business boomed as we took deep dive into monster La Marzocco triple headed monster using -Philly's own La Colombe -then Intelligentsia.

Then a hurricane where we ditched the electric double boiler espresso machine beast ---for the ROK --- for a week saving us counter space and electric whilst making excellent espresso.

In the middle ... it got string theory level complicated.

String theory has a whole lotta dimensions, parameters, if you will. So does espresso ...
--Farm: Type of plant, elevation, sunshine, humidity, seasonal temp ... 5 dimensions
--Roasting: Time, temp, mix of beans, length of roast ... 4 more dimensions.
--Grinding: Time from roast to use, amount, fineness, humidity ... 4 more dimensions.
--Drawing: Tamping, pre-infusion, pressure, time ... 4 more dimensions.

17, seventeen, SEVENTEEN degrees of freedom to get you that espresso for your latte.
Is it any wonder it is a rabbit hole to do at home, even the 8, eight, EIGHT dimensions for Grinding and drawing?

In the end ... we launched SWASLU to get better espresso straight to the consumer, you!

We have drawn thousands of shots on the ROK and find, as an instrument of fine espresso, it makes far better espresso than most cafes or you can make from home for less than a $3,000 investment and a hundred hours, at a minimum, of experimentation and learning.

In the end, if that is your bag, have at it. If not, we can provide you flavor and convenience and variety with minimal labor on your part.

We sell two ounce "double shot" jars of frozen espresso, done individually on the ROK.

>>>>>They are not a commodity and come in at $5 per double shot jar.<<<<<

We have a limited number of member slot discounts which get you a bankable 12 jars a month.

If you don't use the 12 jars, that is, don't order then that month, anything less than 12 is bankable.

Membership is a refundable $100 per $.10 discount on the price.

Returnable on 90 days notice.

For example, a $100 option with get you 12 jars, bankable, per month, @ $4.90 per jar.

Discount maxes out at $2.50 for a $2,500 refundable option.

That saves you $2.50 for 12 jars per month, or $30 for the $2,500 returnable option

We have a limited number of slots as we are restricting it to a number of members we can readily handle @ 12 double shot jars per month.

There ... WILL ... BE ...

BETTER ... ESPRESSO ...

more flavor, less labor.

from our espresso cellar!

-- 15 years of a Brooklyn theatre/coffee shop/cafe --
a blackout 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 sediment 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 highlighting 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 into our SWAmp of espresso SLUrry - 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.