Brooklyn Lyceum Maru - Just Us?
cultural town hall seeks due process programming warriors - facts, law and caselaw are unequivocally on the side of the Brooklyn Lyceum, the courts, not so much.

WORSE THAN KOBAYASHI MARU

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.


PREAMBLE

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 (what you are supposed to do) and how to do what you want to do when you have a preconceived opinion (what you are being influenced to do).

RULES defined by:

  • hundreds of years of caselaw (the "common law"),
  • the United States and New York State Constitutions,
  • the statutes that approximated the "common law" when they were written so as to make it appear that the rules were top down instead of bottom up,
  • and decisions (case law) since the statutes came into being that expand the statute to encompass, minimally, the "common law" it "replaced", save for places where the statute explicitly replaced (Article 78 in place of some Writs) , removed (such as the removal of common law marriage in New York  State),  or even modified/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 or 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 (pro se) by ignoring DUE PROCESS, and the beast that rears its head when due process is ignored/denied/violated, JURISDICTION, the court's power 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, to bring the BROOKLYN LYCEUM  back.

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


WHY SHOULD ANYONE CARE?
 ... if due process falls by the wayside for a theater (Brooklyn Lyceum, AKA Public Bath #7)?

This is a very important question.

Why should anyone care about anything not directly related to themselves?

Well, if it is OK for due process, also known as notice and opportunity to be heard, to be repeatedly and continuously ignored for the Brooklyn Lyceum, you can probably expect due process to erode such that you, your children and your children's children don't have any real rights left whatsoever.

Primarily, you should care:

  • If you value the rule of law (constitutions and statutes).
  • If you want that rule of law to apply to both rich and poor.
  • If you want that rule of law to apply to judges.
  • If you want the court to not grant what is not requested absent notice.
  • If you think due process (notice and opportunity to be heard) is a part of the rule of law.
  • If you want the court to actually address your arguments in a decision.
  • If you want the court to actually address the cases you cite in support of your arguments.
  • If you want the judges to not flat out lie to you.
  • If you want the courts to avoid any appearance of favoritism.
  • If you want the courts to follow similar results for similar fact patterns, that is, rely on precedent that all can see (stare decisis).
  • If you want to be able to handle simple things absent an expensive lawyer.
  • If you want your lawyer to be a zealous advocate for your position, not just someone fearful of a vengeful court should the attorney challenge the status quo.
  • If you want to make sure that all of the above apply to you, your children and their children.

    Secondarily, you should care:

    • If you want there to be another arts facility in Brooklyn.
    • If you want moby dick: the sermon, a Charlie Brown Christmasrocky: the musicalRichard IIThe Nose and the OvercoatNeofuturists ... at the Brooklyn Lyceum again (or any other theater production).
    • If you want  a home near the shores of the Gowanus Canal for such acts such as Fiona AppleJose GonzalezYo La TengoAmanda Palmer or the Knights Orchestra.
    • If you think just a gym is a less than stellar use of the Brooklyn Lyceum.
    • If you want affordable opera.
    • If you want Shakespeare.
    • If you ever attended an event at the Brooklyn Lyceum.
    • If you ever performed at the Brooklyn Lyceum.
    • If you got married at the Brooklyn Lyceum.
    • If you really like Mutt Shows or Comic-cons or epic Markets.
    • If line dancing matters.
    • If film festivals are cool.
    • If you want better coffee.


MINUTES FOR ART JUSTICE

.. to make sure this doesn't happen to anyone you know.

You can help a theater, the Brooklyn Lyceum  (aka Public Bath #7), and others by doing any of the following simple things:

  • a little document review, a bit more than a functioning brainstem, a trip to a notary, and a stamp.
  • and/or an appearance at a hearing
  • and/or buy a tee-shirt or tote or tea towel or woodwork from a website
  • and/or give some cash to some due process projects if active participation is not your thing.


NOTARY = SKIN IN GAME

This is where you really pay it forward.  

Time is one thing, but swearing to the truth of something is another.

We lay it all out both simply and by references to unimpeachable sources.

We think this is how people have to pay attention to get noticed as internet based petitions have peaked and waned and are never part of the public record.

Here, by way of an affidavit/appearance fr from/by you, due process may have the slightest sliver of a chance of rising from the dead in Brooklyn.

Just provide a notarized affidavit that you have seen some things in one decision and supporting documents, and sought out what does not exist but must in that decision's supporting documents and two affirmations by attorneys for the court telling the court that the Plaintiff had multiple months long communications with the hired counsel, advocate, for Richmond and the Defendant Mortgagor.


PROJECT

Collect LYCEUM DUE PROCESS WARRIORS who, in return, get votes in programming the Brooklyn Lyceum, an arts facility with two 300 person venues in a NYC Landmark and National Historic Register building that will be resurrected, in no small part, by their attentions.

LYCEUM DUE PROCESS WARRIORS do a combination of :

  1. reviewing simple papers from the Lyceum foreclosure case.
  2. complete and send affidavits swearing to what they have reviewed
  3. appear at hearings (a watched system of justice more likely to produce justice).
  4. buy a product from list of artisans
  5. donate dollars (not required) to helping keep these due process violations from happening to others.

The first affidavit that meets the minimum requirements of being properly filled out and notarized vests an individual or group with their votes as they accrue.

ONCE WE ARE SUCCESSFUL, we will reach out to have you register in the voting process at gowanagus.com

OR, if we lock into an alternate transitory location (in negotiations for sites in NYC, coastal Maine, Upstate New York and Philadelphia for 2020), we will start the voting process with those facilities.  Think house concerts, stand up comedy nights, ten-minute play tournaments, art exhibits, music, etc.

VOTES:

  • can be proxied  to another person or group for a time,
  • permanently transferred to a person or group,
  • traded back in to the Brooklyn Lyceum for work time for an evolving list of Not-For-Profits/Projects, or,
  • if you fail to use the votes for a year and fail to proxy and fail to transfer and fail to return to the Brooklyn Lyceum for time,  the votes revert back to the Brooklyn Lyceum at the Brooklyn Lyceum discretion.


DUE PROCESS WAY IS CLEAR

The Due Process Way is CLEAR and CERTAIN for the BROOKLYN LYCEUM, but can be shortened tremendously with a little help from some friends, be they ARTISTSLOCALSARTS ORGANIZATIONS or PEOPLE / ORGANIZATIONS  (Brooklyn or otherwise) who think the rule of law and due process are good things, things the NYS Supreme Court and the Appellate Courts must follow, and that the Appellate Court should not be in the business of suborning perjury or making up facts.

We had/have four slam dunk due process related appeals and waited forever to be heard, more than 2.5 years.

The Appellate Court actually:

  • lied at oral argument,
  • failed to address jurisdictional arguments legally raised at oral argument,
  • made up facts (19 > 26),
  • altered our appeal brief,
  • ignored dealing with an inconvenient fact (45> 30),
  • and retroactively altered perjury away (nun pro tunc) for the Plaintiff in order to avoid the lower court being "dunked on" while failing to prevent harm to another party by such altering away perjury (analogous to the hippocratic oath doctors take).

The appeal decisions themselves gave the Plaintiff a mulligan to the detriment, seemingly, of the Brooklyn Lyceum.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, the law of unintended consequences of such judicial chicanery gave the Brooklyn Lyceum a gift.



APPELLATE DECISION COLLATERAL DAMAGE

As the appeal decisions backed the use of evidence outside the record at the time of the decisions in question, they necessarily acknowledged appearances by counsel for the defendants Richmond and the Lyceum.

With the record having Defendant appearances by counsel (attorney) being retroactively inserted into it, it also necessarily retroactively created the need that the attorneys be served the initial motion papers, and since the requirement of service was in place, the motion papers and decision needed to be jurisdictionally sound.

Well, here are some sticky wickets:

  • The Plaintiff failed to serve any papers, let alone the initial Motion papers, on the counsel for Richmond and the Lyceum. 
  • The Notice of Motion is dated before the documents referenced documents therein (affidavits/affirmations), an impossibility.
  • The Notice of Motion references affirmations/affidavits that do not exist.
  • The Notice of Motion seeks Judgment of Foreclosure under a statute that only allows for Judgment of Default.
  • The Decision references, and is premised upon, non-existent affidavits/affirmations.
  • The Decision grants what was not requested in the Notice of Motion (Judgement of Default and Order of Reference) instead of the relief requested (Judgment of Foreclosure).

All six of these are jurisdictional, impact the court's power to rule, as:

  • Failure to serve known counsel for Defendants did not invoke the power of the court.
  • A Notice of Motion referencing documents that could not exist when Notice of Motion is written did not invoke the power of the court.
  • A Notice of Motion referencing, and premised upon, non-existent affidavits/affirmations did not invoke the power of the court.
  • A Notice of Motion seeking Judgment of Foreclosure under a Judgment of Default statute did not invoke the power of the court.
  • The Court did not have the power to issue a judgment premised upon non-existent affidavits/affirmations. 
  • The Court did not have the power to issue a judgment granting what was not requested in the notice of Motion.


WITH A LITTLE HELP

FROM SOME FRIENDS

we may be able to resurrect the rule of law and due process, if even for a little while.

Pay it forward: Read, review, sign and send an affidavit.  Maybe half an hour of your life.

By doing so you get some say in future BROOKLYN LYCEUM programming, or, if that is not does not do it for you, we offer a few other options.

The process by which we seek your eyes, ears, higher order brain functions and body will be managed by jafomaru.com, which handles bringing attention to systems run awry, and voting by gowanagus.com, our programming arm for when the judicial swamp gets cleared.


LYCEUM AFFIDAVIT SALVO #1 ...

this first affidavit should help break a judicial logjam:

>>>>> From the JANUARY 18, 2011 DONALD SCOTT KURTZ DECISION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

  • Review the Notice of Motion (3 simple pages, Pages 14-16) noting:
    •     The date of the Notice of Motion (Page #16 - October 13, 2009).
    •     The notice is premised on an Affidavit by Claude Castro dated October 26, 2009 (Page #14), in the future from the notice of motion (could not exist when creating Notice of Motion).
    •     The notice seeks a 'judgment of foreclosure' under CPLR 3215 (Page 15, 1st 2 lines)
    •     Note that under CPLR 3215  you can only get a judgment of default, not foreclosure.  From CPLR 3215(a):

CPLR 3215(a) Default and entry.  When a defendant has failed to appear, plead or proceed to trial of an action reached and called for trial, or when the court orders a dismissal for any other neglect to proceed, the plaintiff may seek a default judgment against him. 

  • Review the Proof of Service of the Notice of Motion (Pages 140-141)
    •     Note they do not claim to have served David Blum.
  • Review the decision of the judge :   
    •     Note it is premised upon an affidavits by Claude Castro dated October 26, 2009 and October 22, 2009 (Page #2, Lines 3-9).
    •     Note it grants Judgment of Default, not Judgment of Foreclosure (4th paragraph of page 4):

"ORDERED, that a default judgment in favor of the Plaintiff be granted as to the claim described in the Plaintiff's Complaint herein; and it is further"

  •     Note that in the 142 pages (this is the real work, everything to this point has been  point and shoot, so to speak):
    •         Look for any affirmations dated October 26, 2009 or October 22, 2009, by anyone, let alone Claude Castro.   
    •         We have highlighted (in bold) the pages of any affirmations in the DOCUMENT REVIEW INDEX but you should peruse the whole document anyways. 

>>>>>> From the NOVEMBER 16, 2012 AFFIRMATION OF CLAUDE CASTRO

  •     Review a sworn affidavit (Pages 2-4, Paragraphs 6-19) documenting, under penalty of perjury, several communications with Attorney David Blum and acknowledgement of David Blum as attorneys for Richmond and the defendant Mortgagor (The Lyceum) .
  •     Review a one page extension of time between Claud Castro and that attorney, David Blum, dated May 9, 2008 (Page 19).
  •     Review a two page incomplete extension of time between Claud Castro and that attorney, David Blum. (Pages 20-21)
  •     Review David Blum answer on behalf of Richmond and Defendant Mortgagor (the Lyceum)  served upon Claude Castro dated January 21, 2009 (Pages 23-27).
  •     Review a one page rejection of that answer by Claude Castro sent to the offices of David Blum dated February 19, 2009 (Page 22).

>>>>>> From the NOVEMBER 19, 2012 AFFIRMATION OF CHRISTINA  BOST-SEATON

  •     Review paragraph #8  wherein Christina Bost-Seaton admits that her client was never informed that the Defendants had appeared by counsel.

8. As outlined in the Castro Affirmation and the exhibits attached thereto, unbeknownst to present Plaintiff and its counsel, Mr. Castro granted Mr. Richmond, both on his own behalf, and on behalf of the Defendant Mortgagor, through their counsel at that time, David Blum, Esq. ("Blum"), repeated adjournments of answering time, as there were ongoing settlement talks between the parties.

  •             Review Paragraph #13 where in Christina Bots-Seaton swears, under penalty of perjury, that she misrepresented to the court  that there had been more than a 12 month delay in filing  the first motion in the case.

13. On the October 24, 2012, return date, I represented to the Court that Plaintiff conceded that there had been a greater than twelve month delay in moving for default judgment after the defaults of Richmond and the Defendant Mortgagor. Now, based on the information that we learned from Mr. Castro, as set forth in the Castor Affirmation, we no longer make this concession. Now, in addition to the arguments set forth in our Memorandum of law in Opposition to the Cross-Motion, we also believe that Plaintiff has strictly complied with the requirements of CPLR 3215 (c).

>>>>> From the statute on how what must be in a Notice of Motion  (in red): 

        CPLR 2214 - Rule 2214. Motion papers; service; time

(a) Notice of motion. : A notice of motion shall specify the time and place of the hearing on the motion, the supporting papers upon which the motion is based, the relief demanded and the grounds therefor. Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded.

  •     Note that the listed supporting papers in the Notice of Motion include an October 26, 2009 affirmation by Claude Castro that does not exist.
  •     Note that the relief requested, Judgment of Foreclosure, is not available the grounds stated in the Notice of Motion, CPLR 3215, just a Judgment of Default which is not the same thing.

With that being done, YOU CAN HELP SAVE THE BROOKLYN LYCEUM!

All you need is an affidavit swearing to what you have read (good job inspectors, you have spent more time on this case than the judge did).

We are working on that affidavit at the moment, so, if you want to let us know you have done the requisite docket review and are ready willing and able to sign and send a notarized affidavit, contact us (https://brooklynlyceum.com/contact ) telling us you are ready to do Affidavit #1 and we will reach out when we have the Affidavit #1 ready.

ONCE MORE UNTO THE BREACH INDEED! (our motion paper mockup (for the first motion premised on Affidavit #1),  opinions welcome.


LYCEUM AFFIDAVIT SALVO #2 ...

this second affidavit should help break a judicial logjam:

RECAP:

The existence of the case at all was challenged as, based on the record before the court on the date the first motion was made, it was more than a year from the default of Richmond and the Lyceum to the date of the first motion.

To avoid the case being deemed abandoned, the court,  Judge Donald Scott Kurtz, went outside the record to use facts not presented to the court by the time of the initial motion or with the initial motion.  That is extremely uncool as it is a judicial rule that they can only rule on what was on the record and cannot go outside the record to make the decision or to latter justify the decision.  But that is what Judge Donald Scott Kurtz did.  Shame on him.  The appellate court backed that play.  Shame on them.

Those decisions opened quite a can of unintended consequences worms.

The first affidavit deals with the unintended consequences on the first motion in the case.  If there was an appearance by counsel that counsel needed to be served and, since the case is not abandoned, the papers (motions and decision) in the case were reviewed and found lacking.  Thus the first affidavit that will help unwind the first decision by the court in the case.

Having given the plaintiff a mulligan on the abandonment of the case,

should the court give the Plaintiff another mulligan on:

  • the bad service of the first Notice of Motion
  • the bad content of the first Notice of Motion
  • the court premising its decision on non-existent documents
  • the court granting what was not requested

 we move to DEFCON 2 - Nextstep to nuclear war,

BATTLE AGAINST THE TIME TRAVEL MULLIGAN.

That is the second affidavit, which is blazingly simple. 

Since the court and appellate court have ruled, in effect, that Richmond and the Lyceum appeared by an attorney, all Notices of Motion needed to be both served on that attorney, and, they must conform to statute, specifically did they serve the attorney for Richmond and the Lyceum and, the facially fatal defect in the Notice of Motion, is notice to appear a decade in the past, proper advance notice of the motion?

    >>>>> From the MARCH 17, 2011 NOTICE OF MOTION  FOR JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE


    • Note the date of the Notice, March 17, 2011 (Page #2).
    • Note the date of the noticed hearing, April 18, 2001 (Page #1), a decade in the past.

    >>>>> From the statute on how much notice is required to invoke the power of the court (in red): 

    CPLR 2214 - Rule 2214. Motion papers; service; time

    (a) Notice of motion. : A notice of motion shall specify the time and place of the hearing on the motion, the supporting papers upon which the motion is based, the relief demanded and the grounds therefor. Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded.

    (b) Time for service of notice and affidavits.A notice of motion and supporting affidavits shall be served at least eight days before the time at which the motion is noticed to be heard. Answering affidavits shall be served at least two days before such time. Answering affidavits and any notice of cross-motion, with supporting papers, if any, shall be served at least seven days before such time if a notice of motion served at least sixteen days before such time so demands; whereupon any reply or responding affidavits shall be served at least one day before such time.

    >>>>>> FROM THE CASELAW

    All you now need is caselaw, and there are hundreds of cases that say that less than statutory notice never invokes the power of the court.

    We are creating a list of those cases to choke the court with.  They will all be here.

    With that being done, YOU CAN HELP SAVE THE BROOKLYN LYCEUM!

    All you need is an affidavit swearing to what you have read, TWO WHOLE PAGES and that the Notice of Motion instructs all parties, on March 17, 2011 to appear on April 18, 2001 (good job inspectors, you are smarter than a fifth grader;) )

    We are working on that affidavit at the moment, so, if you want to let us know you have done the requisite docket review and are ready willing and able to sign and send a notarized affidavit, contact us (https://brooklynlyceum.com/contact ) telling us you are ready to do Affidavit #2 and we will reach out when we have the affidavit ready.

    ONCE MORE UNTO THE BREACH INDEED! (our motion paper mockup (for the first motion premised on Affidavit #1),  opinions welcome.


    DUE PROCESS WARRIOR AFFIDAVITS: 

    FOR DUE PROCESS WARRIOR AFFIDAVITS

    • SUBMITTED AND ACCEPTED NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT = 10 votes
    • EACH USE OF AFFIDAVIT = 1 vote

    NOTE: VOTING RIGHTS VEST WITH FIRST ACCEPTED NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT.


    DUE PROCESS WARRIOR APPEARANCES:

    EACH DUE PROCESS WARRIOR APPEARANCE:

    On occasion, warm  bodies with a more than a functional brainstem would be nice at a hearing. When summoned, each appearance is worth 20 votes. Appearance votes vest with first accepted affidavit.


    MARKET WARRIORS


    CULTURE WARRIORS


    CULTURE WARRIORS

    If you pulled espressos, swept floors, worked, booked, produced, designed or 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 affidavit fas a Due Process Warrior (subject to change so act soon ... NOW!).


    • --LYCEUM CREWE                         = 1 per participatory month.
      • --RUN PRODUCER ENTITY            = 10  per week of run.
      • --RUN CREATIVE                             = 2 per week of run.
      • --RUN CREWE                                 = 1  per week of run
    • --RUN PERFORMER                        = 1 per performance
    • --MARKET/CONVENTION TABLER  =  1 per table day (2/day if booth)
    • --FESTIVAL PRODUCER ENTITY     = 20  per festival week
    • --FESTIVAL CREATIVE                     = 2  per festival week
    • --FESTIVAL ENTRY LIVE                  = 1 per festival performer
    • --FESTIVAL ENTRY - NOT LIVE        = 1 per festival
    • --PUBLIC EVENT RENTAL                = 5
    • --PUBLIC EVENT PERFORMER        = 1 per each day of performing
    • --PRIVATE RENTAL                             = 1 per week




    MARU WARRIORS

    THROW DOWN DOLLARS IN PLACE OF AFFIDAVITS OR APPEARANCES

    In addition to the fight for Lyceum Due Process Rights, we are working on the following:

    • DUE PROCESS CANARY:  As soon as we are alerted to a judge who ignores the requisite rules, the recent case history of that judge should be reviewed and a scorecard kept.  That scorecard should be made available to the nominating organization and the general public significantly before election and in time to matter prior to nomination.
    • AD2 MARU : The same court that has us improperly blockaded, New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department (AD2) has, for  the first time, oral arguments available online.  We seek to watch all oral arguments for a calendar year (2018), take notes and predict a decision based on the notes and video.  We then look at the decision (which comes out 2-4 months later) and see if the courts follow the science of procedure properly.  If not, we dig into the actual papers presented to the appellate court in a deep dive of sorts. 


    PROGRESS

    Word getting out to DUE PROCESS WARRIORS, THRESHOLD WARRIORS, MARKET WARRIORS, MARU WARRIORS):

    Votes allocated to date:

    As of :

    • 09/07/2019:        272
    • 08/08/2019:        188
    • 08/01/2019:        163
    • 07/01/2019:        120
    • 06/10/2019:        104
    • 05/21/2019:        82
    • 05/09/2019:        48
    • 05/05/2019:        17
    • 05/02/2019:        6


    HELP THE CAUSE

    USE WARRIOR BRAIN STEM:

    Accomplish the affidavit tasks to garner votes (10 per affidavit and one per use) for programming the Brooklyn Lyceum.

    USE WARRIOR BODY:

    Appear when called on and garner 20 votes per appearance with proxy ability as in affidavits.

    USE WARRIOR WALLET:

    While dollars are not the purpose, they can help.

    Buy something by clicking on a vendor :


    or help a larger cause, such as 

    • a review of one year of decisions of the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division, Second Department, the one with "the excellent reputation" that gets "to the bottom" of things.  Do so here: https://jafomaru.com/wip/10090

    Or get votes for helping financially : https://jafomaru.com/viewart/5.



    VOTES

    Voting for those who helped the Brooklyn Lyceum since December 16, 1994.

    VOTES  (this is tentative and classes and ratios subject to revision)

    DUE PROCESS WARRIORS

    • --SUBMITTED AND ACCEPTED AFFIDAVIT = 10 votes
    • --EACH USE OF AFFIDAVIT = 1 vote
    • --EACH APPEARANCE = 20 votes
    MARKET WARRIORS - Ongoing

    CULTURE WARRIORS

    • --LYCEUM CREWE                         = 1 per participatory month.
      • --RUN PRODUCER ENTITY            = 10  per week of run.
      • --RUN CREATIVE                             = 2 per week of run.
      • --RUN CREWE                                 = 1  per week of run
    • --RUN PERFORMER                        = 1 per performance
    • --MARKET/CONVENTION TABLER  =  1 per table day (2/day if booth)
    • --FESTIVAL PRODUCER ENTITY     = 20  per festival week
    • --FESTIVAL CREATIVE                     = 2  per festival week
    • --FESTIVAL ENTRY LIVE                  = 1 per festival performer
    • --FESTIVAL ENTRY - NOT LIVE        = 1 per festival
    • --PUBLIC EVENT RENTAL                = 5
    • --PUBLIC EVENT PERFORMER        = 1 per rental
    • --PRIVATE RENTAL                             = 1 per week

    MARU WARRIORS

    LEGAL SCHOLAR WARRIORS

    • One vote for each on-point citation submitted that supports or casts doubt on any of our points with the vote for that citation going to the first scholar who gets us the citation.  Send us the citation HERE (coming soon).
    • LEGAL POINT SUMMARY:
      • COMING SOON.

    VOTING

    We are developing a secure online voting mechanism with transfer and proxy mechanism your votes, forever or for a time, to another entity.

    Probably blockchain based for openness.


    BECOME WARRIOR

    The Due Process Warrior project is under way.

    We could use some affidavits of review of court documents.

    Each issue affidavit is 10 votes, each use in court is 1 vote.

    We could use some warm bodies to watch some judicial hearings.

    Show up at one of these hearings and you will get 20 votes that will accrue when you your first affidavit is credited.

    Hearings to be amazed at:  TBA

    PAST HEARINGS:

    We have a hearing in front of Judge Devin Cohen on 8/14/2019 @ 10:15AM where:

    • we show that you cannot avoid a motion to dismiss by amending a complaint, especially if that amended complaint fails to correct what inspired the motion to dismiss.
    • we show that you cannot fail to address a challenge to standing.
    • we show that you cannot fail to address a challenge to jurisdiction.
    • we show that faith in the work of a man (David Siegel) cited 250+ times by the New York State Court of Appeals is not misplaced.  
    • That is Judge Devin Cohen, he of the "You have to know which rules you can break and which you can’t break."

    Show up, watch the hearing and chat with us after.


    DOCUMENT REVIEW INDEX

    Appellate Decision finding defendant moved too late and plaintiff moved soon enough.

    Page 3 - Last Paragraph : 

    "The cross motion was untimely since it was made after entry of the judgment of foreclosure and sale (see Fuentes v Virgil, 88 AD3d 643)." 

    NOTE -  Blatant finding of incorrect fact: The Cross Motion was entered on October 19, 2012 and the Judgment of Foreclosure and sale on October 26, 2012.

    Page 3 - Last Paragraph :

    "In any event, Lyceum Bathhouse took the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving for an order of reference (see RPAPL 1321[1]) within one year of Richmond’s default in answering the complaint (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Roldan, 155 AD3d 942, 944; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Gross, 139 AD3d 772, 774; Klein v St. Cyprian Props., Inc., 100 AD3d 711, 712)."

    NOTE #1 - Blatant finding of incorrect fact: the Plaintiff moved for, whatever Plaintiff moved for, under CPLR 3215 which does not allow for an order of reference.  Nowhere in the moving papers is RPAPL 1321[1] mentioned, a requirement in the Notice of Motion:

    Rule 2214. Motion papers; service; time (a) Notice of motion. A notice of motion shall specify the time and place of the hearing on the motion, the supporting papers upon which the motion is based, the relief demanded and the grounds therefor.

    NOTE #2 - OUTSIDE THE RECORD: The only way any court could find that the Plaintiff moved within a year of failure to answer would be for the court to go outside the record and use Plaintiff affidavit dated November 2012 to support a decision made on January 18, 2011.

    DECISION (with supporting papers) ON INITIAL MOTION IN:

    Kings Supreme 10035/2008 (and supporting papers)

    •         Page 1 - Page 6 : Order 
    •         Page 7 - Page 8 : Request for Judicial Intervention (RJI) submitted by Plaintiff.
    •         Page 9 - page 10 : RJI worksheet added by the court
    •         Page 11 - Page 13: Affidavit of service of RJI.
    •         Page 14 - Page 16: Notice of Motion
    •         Page 17 - Page 21: Affidavit dated October 13, 2009.
    •         Page 22 - Page 23: Affidavit dated October 13, 2009.
    •         Page 24 - Page 34: Summons and Complaint
    •         Page 35 - Page 82 : Mortgage Documents (irrelevant to this review)
    •         Page 83 - Page 91 : Proofs of service (Lyceum - Page 84, Richmond - Page 87)
    •         Page 92 - Page 95 : Notice of Pendency
    •         Page 96 - Page 102 :  2nd copy of RESTATED MORTGAGE NOTE
    •         Page 103 - Page 103 - Missing Assignment of mortgage memo from Plaintiff
    •         page 104 - Page 110 - Assignment of Mortgage not provided in moving papers
    •         Page 111 - Page 113 - AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT AND AMOUNT DUE - not in moving papers
    •         Page 114 - Page 117 - SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT AND AMOUNT DUE - not in moving papers
    •         Page 118 - Page 120 - Default Letter
    •         Page 121 - Page 123 - Affidavit of Service of AFFS OF MERIT
    •         Page 124 - Page 129 -  Proposed Order
    •         Page 130 - Page 130 - Affidavit of service on  non RICHMOND/LYCEUM Party
    •         Page 131 - Page 131 - Attorney explanation of why service late on that party
    •         Page 132 - Page 135 - Extension of time for non RICHMOND/LYCEUM party 
    •         Page 136 - Page 139 - Plaintiff communication with non RICHMOND/LYCEUM party.
    •         Page 140 - Page 142 - Affidavit of Service of October 26, 2009 Notice of Motion

    THE BOGEYMEN

        •         AFFIRMATION OF CLAUDE CASTRO (11/16/2012) showing Claude Castro knew of David Blum as Counsel/attorney on May 8, June 9, 2009 and January 21, 2009 as well as "months and months of adjournments".
        •             Page 1 - Page 8 - Affirmation of Claude Castro and proof  of service.
        •             Page 9 - Page 18 - Summons and Complaint
        •             Page 19 - Page 19 - Extension of Time #1 granted to David Blum, counsel for Richmond and the defendant Mortgagor (the Lyceum).
        •             Page 20 - Page 21 - Extension of Time #2 granted to David Blum, counsel for Richmond and the defendant Mortgagor (the Lyceum). 
        •             Page 22 - Page 22 - Claude Castro rejection of answer from David Blum on behalf of Richmond and the defendant Mortgagor (the Lyceum).
        •             Page 23 - Page 27 - answer from David Blum on behalf of Richmond and the defendant Mortgagor (the Lyceum).
        •         AFFIRMATION OF CHRISTINA BOST-SEATON (03/17/2011) showing subsequent Plaintiff admits it was never informed by Prior Plaintiff or Prior Plaintiff's counsel that Richmond and the Lyceum had appeared by an attorney
        •             Page 1 - Page 8 - Affirmation of Christina Bost-Seaton and proof of service.
        •             Page 10 - Page 22 - Memorandum of Law premised on Defendants failure to appear, not as later argued, failure to answer having appeared.
        •             NOTICE OF MOTION TO APPEAR A DECADE IN THE PAST (11/19/2012) showing subsequent Plaintiff admits it was never informed by Prior Plaintiff or Prior Plaintiff's counsel that Richmond and the Lyceum had appeared by an attorney
        •             Page 1 - Page 8 - Affirmation of Christina Bost-Seaton and proof of service.

    AskMeAnything
    1. --No way this is true, you made it up!
    2. --Appellate division can't afford to let a self represented (pro se) win.
    3. --The issues can't be this simple.
    4. --There must be a flaw in your logic!
    5. --The courts wouldn't make things up!

    You may be incredulous. 

    You may be an an enemy.

    You may just want more information.

    All of these are valid thoughts. We understand that what we are saying might seem incredulous. We understand that you might think we are leaving out things that should come before our arguments. Well, here is where you can ASK ME ANYTHING!

    Email us any question at jafomaru@gmail.com.


    Unelecteds

    Two of the judges who have been slack in enforcing their oaths, constitution, laws and the rules are Judge Donald Scott Kurtz and Judge Reinaldo Rivera.

    Both are up for re-election after their 14 year term on November 5, 2019.

    If they can't be bothered to follow the rules and law and such after 14 years, lets put someone, anyone, in their place.

    Quite simply, don't re-elect judges who are not smarter than a 5th grader.

    The Unelected process can be found here : https://haruchai.com/wip/10092.