Richard Pryor once had a bit about justice ...

"If you're {going downtown..}looking for justice, that's just what you'll find -- just us."

JUDGES

The rules that judges are required to follow aren't that hard, and, in New York, you need to be an attorney for 10 years before you can be elected a judge.

The decade of service rule is a simple one that ensures, by way of ten (10) years of legal experience, that you probably know what due process is and what discretionary is, but probably has a sinister alternate reasoning,  ..ten years is enough time to learn what to do when you don't have any preconceived opinion and how to do what you want to do when you have a preconceived opinion.

RULES

Those rules are defined by hundreds of years of caselaw (the "common law"), the United States and New York State Constitutions, the statutes that approximate the "common law", and decisions since the statutes that expand the statute to encompass, minimally, the "common law" it "replaced", save for places where the statute explicitly replaced, removed (such as the removal of common law marriage in New York  State), modified or even expanded the "common law" (such as motions to vacate).

But with regards to due process, that thing without which we are nothing, it is excruciatingly simple, NOTICE and OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.

Anywhere Notice and Opportunity to be Heard are missing, the court never obtained the right to rule.

We have run into some stellar judges (Arthur Schack, Remy Smith), but most really beat up on the self represented by ignoring DUE PROCESS , and the beast that rears its head when due process is ignored/denied/violated, JURISDICTION, another spin on the court's right to rule.

ANY FOOL WITH A FUNCTIONAL BRAINSTEM CAN SEE:

That something is amiss.

Simple laws, simple facts, simple caselaw and different decisions for the self represented than those represented by counsel show how skewed the system is, unwatched by non-parties.

Thus, JAFO MARU

Seeking to compel the judicial system to do what the rules require, whether it is convenient or not.

After having watched about 30 hours or so of 2018 oral arguments the Lyceum was confident that, given the commentary by judges in those hours, and, after waiting more than 2.5 years to be calendared, justice would be done.

That justice would be the clear application of basic legal concepts, simple statutes, iron clad case law and the common law to simple fact patterns, especially the unequivocal lack of jurisdiction:

• --that, on the record before the court, doing simple addition and subtraction ((service date + proof of service date+10 days +365) < date of motion), the case was statutorily abandoned stripping the court of  any power it had in the case whatsoever, and,
• --failure to serve any motion or papers on attorney for two defendants, and,
• --no matter whom was served, noticing all parties to appear ten years in the past, and 
• --an attorney committed perjury swearing in an affidavit that  a document proving acquired standing existed when his client first appeared some 9 months prior, when, in fact, that document requisite for standing we mere days prior, some 9 months after appearing without standing.
• --an order served, not within 21 days, as per the order, but at 45 days, was not in effect, ever.

Nothing could be further from the truth than the court doing justice as the law required.

Presiding Judge Reinaldo Rivera's statements that the Second Department had "an excellent  reputation" and "we will get to the bottom" of this proved to be red herrings, if not flat out lies.

NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN

• --the court found that 19 was greater  than 26.
• the court went outside the record, contrary to all precedent on the issue, precedent that says if you can't be bothered to put it a necessary reason in the moving papers, you can't add it later.
• --the court, after having gone outside the record, failed to follow the judicial equivalent of the hippocratic oath to first, do no harm, when it, by accepting papers outside the record as being dispositive, failed to do what it had done as recently as two weeks prior to the oral argument, change the record nun pro tunc, but resetting both sides back to the nun pro tunc date.
• --the court, rather than addressing how and when the non-initiating plaintiff acquired standing, altered the appeal brief from alleging Ex-trinsic fraud(with no time limit to vacate) to In-trinsic fraud which has, historically, but no court dares cite the source, had a two year deadline to vacate.
• --the court, rather than address the requirement that contempt can only be found if the order was still in effect, ignored that part of the case cited that required the order still be in effect, setting precedent allowing contempt to exist of orders no longer in effect.

DOUBLE NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN

• --When asked to reconsider 19 is greater than 26 ... Denied.
• --When asked to reconsider affirming contempt without addressing whether the order was in effect ... Denied.
• --When asked to reconsider stealth nun pro tunc of evidence submission .. Denied.
• --When asked to reconsider failure to address jurisdictional arguments raised, and not rebutted, at oral argument ... Denied.
• --When asked to reconsider perjury allegation of non-initiating plaintiff acquiring standing from initiating plaintiff ... Denied.

PURPOSEFULLY UN-WINNABLE SITUATION

• --This situation is so kafka-esque, that something needs to be done.
• --If not now, then when?
• --If not the Brooklyn Lyceum, then who.

AD2-MARU

Captain Kirk reprogrammed an un-winnable test at Star Fleet Academy, the KOBAYASHI MARU.

We seek to make the slam dunk cases winnable by collecting enough information to fight the power.

Join us.

... is the primary force in elections.

With so much going on in everyone's lives outside the election of judges, very rarely is the public informed enough to make an informed decision when an attorney is first up for election as a judge, resulting in party-line votes without any substantive evaluation of the candidates.

But in the Kings County Supreme Court, they must come up for re-election every 14 years for Supreme Court and 10 years for Civil Court.

After a decade or more of being a judge, one has more than party-backing to go by.

Until recently, reviews of how a judge did during his or her 10/14 year term were hard to come by.

Now we present scorecard of sorts.