Brooklyn Lyceum
a once and future theatre, coffee shop, gym and sometimes public square
(if Brooklyn procedural due process has any meaning whatsoever)
help "MAKE IT SO" - Read! Think! Act! Appear!
Brooklyn Lyceum needs
YOUR
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS ASSIST:
(You only get the rights you fight for)
Read! --- Think! --- Act! --- Appear!
help usher
the arc of Brooklyn justice towards procedural due process
via inevitable
unwinding of the illegal foreclosure sale of the Brooklyn Lyceum
as Court of Appeals
confirms throwing Greystone from frying pan (abandoned case)
into the fire (lack of un-waived procedural due process):
& EARN
STAKE in programming the Brooklyn Lyceum 2.0
HELP
"make it so?"
read up on some excruciatingly simple legal concepts.
read a few simple documents from our docket
note lack (or presence) of something in a docket
note dates in notices and clerk timestamps on those papers.
look at simple statute
look at simple case law
sign affidavit/jurat
send us a case citation
appear at a hearing or event (if you ever have the time)!

9 Easy Pieces
IS IT REALLY THIS SIMPLE?
these is the facts jack

STEP 1
Court failed to do what statute says it shall
(dismiss case as abandoned).
STEP 2
Court denies motion to dismiss case as abandoned
(because, get this,
defendant moved to vacate decision court not allowed to make
after entry of decision court not allowed to make)
---that is as stupid as it sounds---
STEP 3
Defendant appealed denial of motion to dismiss case as abandoned.
STEP 4
oral argument YEARs later
(where defendant informed court of ramifications
if court somehow finds case not abandoned)
STEP 5
decision affirmed on different grounds
(without actually stating it was on different grounds)
the primary different ground being
defendant moved too late (really?)
by moving on (October 17, 2012) which came
AFTER entry of different judgment than lower court ruling used (October 26, 2012)
STEP 6
defendant moves to re-argue
whether October 17 really comes after October 26. (which is denied)
STEP 7
defendant moves to higher court for permission to appeal
whether October 17 really comes after October 26. (which is denied)
STEP 8
defendant files appeal
whether October 17 really comes after October 26.
(which is dismissed because arcane & arbitrary rule application
as court refuses to deal with 1st decision in case
by pointing to last decision in case
as the only one they will deal with)
STEP 9
that last decision, irrelevant if case is abandoned, critical if not,
is product of fatally, facially flawed NOTICE OF MOTION ...
--never served on defendant atty
( an atty appellate court retroactively inserted into the record.)
--noticing whomever to appear a decade in the past
-- that fails to notice what statute allows court to grant what is requested

9 Not So Easy Pieces
Just need an attention span ...?
use your brain jane!

STEP 1
waiver of proceudral due process violations
STEP 2
jurisdiction: authority to rule,
lost if procedure relating to due process is violated
and that violation is not waived.
STEP 3
unwaived jurisdiction violations are forever (laches, inapplicability of)
STEP 4
no rights can vest from unwaived procedural due process violations.
STEP 5
requirement to give minimum notice of hearings
STEP 6
requirement to state,
in notice of motion,
statute that allows court to grant what is requested in notice
STEP 7
appearance, appearance by atty
STEP 8
requirement to serve all papers on atty for party
STEP 9
requirement of court
to ensure procedural due process rights of other parties
when court alters history
to the benefit of one party

BROOKLYN LYCEUM RISES FROM PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS ASHES?

TL/DR:
(old saying)
Never enough time (for the courts) to do it (foreclosure) right,
always enough time (for the courts) to do it (foreclosure) over.
TL/DR:
(Brooklyn literary reference)
Joseph Heller (author of Catch-22) ... would be proud
of the double edged judicial sword
that cuts through jurisdiction
no matter which side of the legal finding coin the court chooses ...
A WEE BIT MORE INFO:
the Brooklyn Lyceum needs a little help from our friends --the court didn't do what it was required to do (dismiss case as abandoned).
--the appellate court avoided correcting the lower court by finding that:
------October 17 comes AFTER October 26, and,
------because 17 > 26 the Appellant moved too late
------the Appellant had an attorney
who had timely appeared
but then failed to timely answer the complaint.
------the decision the Appellate Court cared about
was not the one appealed from
but the Judgement of Foreclosure and Sale.
--the court of appeals ignored jurisdictional challenges
and rubber-stamped the appellate court decision
freezing the schrodinger's cat of a case
in an immutable position.
HELP US UNWIND THE JUDGEMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE!
as ... attorney never served
a facially, fatally defective notice to appear,
a notice to appear a decade before date of notice! ...
a notice that does not cite the statute that permits court to grant what is requested.
(lets do the TimeWarp Again!)
EITHER:
No Lyceum attorney appearance
case statutorily abandoned
Lyceum Foreclosure sale illegal
OR:
Lyceum attorney appearance
unwaived violations of procedural due process
(atty not served notices, notice to appear a decade in the past)
Lyceum Foreclosure sale illegal
ONE SENTENCE CLIFF NOTE:
Appellate Court (Reinaldo Rivera) thrusts failure to serve notice of motion to appear a decade in the past on Brooklyn Lyceum attorney into the forefront of Brooklyn Lyceum case when he, Rivera, found 17 > 26 & Brooklyn Lyceum had attorney (an atty the now suspended from the practice of law Plaintiff atty withheld from the court).
CAN YOU GIVE US A CAR ANALOGY?:
NO. But I can give a fish market analogy. --Hand wrapped fish back to the fish monger because the sell by date is two weeks ago
... he goes into a back room, comes back out
& hands you the same package with a new sell by date on it ...
You have __NOT__ lost the right to see if the previously expired fish is bad!!
--That is, in sum and substance, the current Brooklyn Lyceum problem. Brooklyn Lyceum alleged case abandoned (expired), Appellate Court does some back room surgery on the record & comes back w/a case that is rotten to the core.

MEH, WHY DOES THAT MATTER?:

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
a decade after it became a cemetery for lack of proper service.
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.

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.

HOW DOES THIS APPLY TO THE LYCEUM?:

The Appellate Court and Court of Appeals
both refused to address the case as presented to the court
by the Plaintiff on October 26, 2009, ...
going as far as making up a fact
(October 17, 2012 comes after October 26, 2012)
to avoid one procedural due process trap
That trap was,
if the court limits itself to that record,
the case was abandoned
by the time (Oct 2009) the Plaintiff
filed/served the first action in a case
where the Plaintiff later
repeatedly swore Defendant had not appeared.
The Appellate Court stuck in
(& Court of Appeals rubber-stamped)
a little gem that can only be interpreted as ....
The Appellant had an atty
who appeared
(by way of Plaintiff granting extension of time to answer).
The Appellate Court and Court of Appeals finding of
"within a year of failing to serve an answer"
is a very dodgy way of saying
You timely appeared, but failed to subsequently timely answer.
The Appellate Court and Court of Appeals
artfully failed to do the math
or point to the facts about appearance
Which would show that the only way
to an unabandoned case
by way of getting to appearing and not answering
would be to go outside the record
and use proof of communication with Appellant Attorney
that the Plaintiff withheld from the court.
That artful avoidance of procedural due process (by way of making up a fact and hiding an necessary atty appearance)
just opened a pandora's box of other, later procedural due process issues.
In just the motion that allowed for the sale of the collateral, the Brooklyn Lyceum
--the Plaintiff withheld from the court that there was a Defendant attorney,
--that Defendant attorney was never served
the Notice of Motion for a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale and
-- the entities that were noticed, were noticed to appear a decade in the past, and
--the unserved notice failed to specify the statute that allowed for a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale.

THE LYCEUM WAS SOLD AT AUCTION, WHY RAISE THIS NOW?:

The auction terms announced were
the sale was subject to the pending (ongoing) litigation (the foreclosure case that allowed for the auction)
The pending litigation at the time of the sale of the collateral, aka the Brooklyn Lyceum, was
an appeal arguing that the case,
based on the record made available to the court
by the Plaintiff at the time of the 1st motion in the case (October, 2009),
was, pursuant to CPLR 3215c ...
abandoned precluding entry of ANY judgment by the court
& mandating its dismissal as abandoned.
Judge Donald Scott Kurtz broke the law
by ruling on the motion.
Kurtz broke the law again
by going outside the record to support initial breaking of law when challenged on his initial breaking the law.
Kurtz even went further by finding that
since defendant moved () after the decison was entered () ...
the against the law decision became valid.
Thusly an appeal was pending
at the time of the auction (10/23/14) and subsequent sale (1/20/15)

APPEAL PENDING AT TIME OF AUCTION AND SALE. WHAT HAPPENED?:

Oral argument occurred, finally, almost 2 years after the appeals were ready to be calendared ...
on September 6, 2018.
At that oral argument
Appellant raised jurisdictional questions that come into play if the case is not deemed abandoned
Specifically noted as jurisdictional to the court:
--failure to serve Lyceum atty any notices of motion and, the kicker,
--the unserved on Lyceum atty Notice of Motion for Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale dated March 2011... instructed all to appear a decade earlier in April 2001 ....
Lyceum was hopeful when,
in response to these issues
(and one more about the ridiculousness of the decision the appealed decision was premised upon),
the lead Appellate judge (Reinaldo Rivera) said
--The 2nd Department has an excellent reputation.
--We will get to the bottom of it.

THE ABJECT APPELLATE DECISION

The decison went against all hope to the extent ...
that the Appellate Court
was either shockingly lazy
or wanted to put a fork in the Lyceum
to benefit a developer
the Appellate Court
made up a fact
(October 17 comes after October 26)
the Appellate Court
went outside the record (again, illegally)
to necessarily retroactively
insert an appearance of counsel into the record
some 11 years earlier
thereby invoking the lack of juridiction
appellant raised at oral argument.
Suffice it to say
we were dumfounded as
the court retroactivly altered the docket
without doing exactly what it did
in a case some two weeks prior to oral argument,
reset another case back
to the point of retroactively altering the docket
to preserve the due process rights of a defendant.
We were
flabbergasted
by the unequal treatment of under the law
and the fabication of a fact
in order to avoid ruling
on the record available to the court
at the time of the first motion in the case (October 26, 2009)
We were
double flabbergasted that
the decision,
clearly based on other grounds than the lower court,
was not labelled with the magic words ...
"affirmed, on different grounds"
which impact many things.

PRESERVING LYCEUM RIGHTS

We made motion to reargue the fake fact and the alteration of the docket or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
it was denied by the finders of fake fact
(trust us, 17 is not greater than 26)
We made a motion to the Court of Appeals for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
It was denied.
We appealed to the Court of Appeals as of right we thought.
Mid-pandmic the Court of Appeals (Janet DiFiore) found the time to dismiss the appeal as not a final determination absent the pre-requisite analysis of whether the lower appellate court had jurisdiction as highlighted extensively in pre-appeal statement of the issues.

FRYING PAN INTO THE FIRE

We had our own battle with covid in March and April of 2020
with the covid fog lingering, sadly, even until now..
As the fog lifts, with help from Spock,
we try to understand the apparently
stacked deck against the Brooklyn Lyceum.
In the end it became clear
that the abundantly wrong decision
against the Brooklyn Lyceum
actually
made another issue shockingly clear
in that it was irrelevant
before the abject appellate decision,
but front and center
post abject appellate decision.
so we can run with
that decision as
"the law of the case"
whilst we fight the appellate court decision.
When, before,
there was a nuanced law (abandonement)
that would have reset the clock back to no case at all ...
we now have
a straightforward set of
procedural due process violations
a 5th grader could see
these issues,
at a minimum ...
reset the case back to
March, 2011,
almost 4 years
prior to the sale of the Brooklyn Lyceum.
For starters:
failure to serve Lyceum atty
the notice of Motion
for a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale
That notice was
in and of itself
facially and fatally flawed
for a couple of reasons:
First, it notices
People to appear a decade in the past,
to a time before when the complaint even existed.
Second, it fails
the requirement
that the notice state the statute
under which all are being noticed
provides for the relief requested
(judgment of foreclosure and sale)
These are simple issues
are akin to ...
shooting fish in a barrel -or-
like drawing to an inside royal flush!

WHAT IS NEXT?

  • We are starting to prepare
    a motion to vacate the foreclosure sale
    of the Brooklyn Lyceum and
    vacate the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale
    that allowed for the foreclosure sale.


WHAT DOES THE BROOKLYN LYCEUM NEED?

---- We need case law ----
Send us some! From any jurisdiction around these core issues:
failure to serve atty notice of motion
unserved notice of motion
to appear in the past,
failure to state in notice of motion the statute allowing the court to grant the requested relief
failure to cite statute that permits court to grant what is requested in notice of motion.
waiver of procedural due process
---- We need eyeballs and brainstems, yum! ----
walk with us thru some of our docket to see what any 5th grader should be able to see
---- We need affidavits (well jurats which are a special affidavit) ----
swearing to what you have seen and to your belief in the applicability of laws to the facts!
---- We need bodies ----
as witnesses and disseminators of information when covid become essentially a non-threat

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 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.

SIGN ME UP!!!

We have split off the
earning stake/votes to:
jafomaru.com
application of curatorial (programming) votes to
gowanagus.com

CAN'T WE JUST GIVE YOU MONEY?

  • ANSWER BEING PREPARED

^
^