FIRST MOTION IN CASE

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

GRAB BAG OF JURISDICTIONAL GOODIES

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

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

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

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

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)  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 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.

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.

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

LONG VERSION

Maru stands for circle or ship in Japanese.

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

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

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

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

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

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)  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 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.