Journalism ain't what it used to be
--A years late followup to some heated discussions about the future of journalism.
-- Which led to a process diagram sketched on the back of an envelope that was promptly ignored for years.
-- Then a media echo chamber of silliness effectively cauterized a Democratic leaning populace into a zombie-like apathy at the polls.
-- Not only must objective critical analysis occur (whether or not we call it journalism), that work needs to be given a fertile and sustainable soil from which to spring. The Growler is that soil. -- thegrowler.org
-- 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
All roads lead to impermissable Decision On No Notice (DONN)
--A) READ STATUTE--requiring service of all papers on attorneys.
- -- 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
--B) READ SHORT TREATISES--
--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
- --Notarize/Send Affidavit
- --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.
- 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 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:
--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.
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.
Judge Donald Scott Kurtz
“Some judges would have just read the papers and signed them,”
Judge Reinaldo Rivera
“we will get to the bottom of this”
“the 2nd department has an excellent reputation”