1

23

45b

7

8I

10

11

1213't415

16

17

18

192A

21

22232425262728293031

32333435363738394A

41

424344454647484950

IN NEW YORK SUPREME COURT

SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

APPELLATE DIVISION

STATE OF NEW YORK

In the Matter of mandatqry,unconditional relief owed toKevia Patrick Brady, pro #

EXHIBITS d

Pursuant to Kevin Patrick Brady v People of New York by Attorney Generaland Steven E. Feder Attorney

Fourth Dept Docket # CA 13-02202Supreme Court Docket # 2012-053

1

2

34567

8

I10

11

1213

14

15

16

17

18

19

2021

2223242526272B

293031

32333435363738394041

424344454647484950

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT

FOURTH JUDICIAL DEPT.

KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, petitionerMAR 2 * 2014

APPEI,I,ATE DT\rISION4TH BEPARTWTENF.C.

THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK by Attorney General , respondent

STEVEN E. FEDER, Aftorney respondent

NOTICE

APPELLATE DIVISION

Kffiilffi. vffi#^'=OF NEWYORK

'\.1-fi T:* 'd'F

s Bffioe*zo€Ss$

rrr.11' N)frirr*t (3*": I-r I

ti.--, '€"''"-'4

4'4*\ {-frl-:=

-4 r!.1 +li's: @r

BE lr KNowN that a motion has been filed in the court above tlV{W for an

EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF ERROR based on an extraordinary series of dirty tricks,

life altering ministerial errors, and malicious due process violations by officers of New

York supreme court and the Department of Law.

The Court is asked to review the latest in a decade plus of government abuse, dirty

and courthouse thuggery manifest by a malicious summary termination, with preiudice,

of a facially meritorious pro se petition to supreme court by Judge Richard Dollinger.

The proceedings below were so defective as to be VOID on due process violence

alone. ln fact they rise to the level of extrinsic fraud. Having already been cheated out of

nearly $8,000 in filings fees and production costs, it rises to the level of 18 U,S. S 1346

HONEST SERVICES FRAUD.

Please note that

[1] Jurisdiction was properly invoked by proper pleadings. [2lthe relief requested was

mandatory; [3] the opposition by the State was jurisdictionally defective; disingenuous,

and a cover up that violated inter alia, NY DR 7-102( )(7) EC 7-5 EC 7-6 NY EC 7-26

an allegedly laMul, but unconstitutional manifestation of ABA Rule 1.6 at my expense

-1-

1

2

3

456

7

8

I10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2021

22232425262728293031

32333435363738394041

424344454647484950

[a] The alleged neutralfact finder [Dollinger] elevated a benign civil motion, sua sponte,

into criminal contempt inquiry, later feigned acknowledging the error, but imposed

criminal punishment anyway. NO HEARING WAS HELD

[5] State actors have again exploited an ambiguous 'pre-filing' order to the level of

extrinsic fraud. [6] Dollinger arbitrarily expanded it to relieve respondents from due

process mandates and to constructively block Brady from court completely.

'lJnder color of 'a quasi lavrrful 'pre-filing' order, unconstitutionally applied, they have

unanimously deprived Brady of access to court; to redress grievances; once minor, but

have grown extemporaneously and caused unfathomable, life-altering injuries.

New York courts and attorneys general clearly do not have a functioning grasp of the

constitutional limitations of 'pre-filing'orders and clearly do not care. This pro se victim

has repeatedly advised them of the statutory scheme and controlling legal precedents

that establish their wrongful interpretation of the order. They don't care.

[7] Owing to the subject matter ABA Rule 1.6 dictates that 'permission' will never be

granted for pro se's petitions. .

[8] They act under color of 'the Rule'to the level of extrinsic fraud.

[9] Dollinger acknowledged having received but ignored a post summary termination

Motion to Show Cause and refused to return my filing fee. The motion constructively

remains on supreme court docket at this time..

Pro se victim demands to be free from two [2] decades of 'anything goes' lawlessness,

consumer fraud, no win litigation and direct and indirect punishnents; including

unlawful incarcerations for lawful exercises of constitutional rights

The Court is asked to consider, in context, two [2]additional actions * pending review

by this Court at this time and declare that so many patently fataljurisdictionaldefects

cannot be coincidental.

NOTICES ATTACHED Brady v People of New York; [coram nobis]

Wells Fargo Bank, v Kevin Patrick Brady

-2-

1

2345

6

7

8

I10

11

12

13

14

1516

17

18

192021

22232425262728293031

32333435363738394041

424344454647484950

On Law Day, 2010 Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman lamented 'iudicial salaries must be

raised for the societal value of the work judges perform; for their incredible dedicatian

to the rule of law and well-being of the citizens of New York.

He said '[the PeoplesJ abitity to live the American dream is in question, that the

judiciary more than ever holds together the fabric of socieqr and our way of life,

fostering the rule of taw, protecting individuat liberties, and meeting the constitutional

mandate to provide 'equaliustice for all.

This pro se Americans protracted nightmare with the judiciary belies his every word.

ln so far as I have been shut down, shut out, unanimously punished and abandoned by

New York supreme court ON EVERY OCCASION cognizable remedies for me are

exhausted. This is ostensibly the only state judicial forum accessible'

I request a hearing to submit the proof supreme court cannot accept given Rule 1.6

Any allegation made here not clearly understood will, on demand,

More Definite Statement. Any relevant document which should be

will be made immediately available on demand.

be enunciated in a

included but is not

This Motion is made returnable to the Fourth Department op or befo," sfr/,/With copies provided to the undersigned on or before 2/27 ft

HOWEVER, PLEASE NOTE;

Although NO PLENARY HEARING WAS HELD BELOW, the November B, 2013 order of

Judge Richard Dollinger declares " frJespondents [the StateJ and their caunsel are notto respond to any papers filed or serued by BRADY in this or any other action he has

previously filed or may file in the future unless fapprovedJ etc. etc.

I submit this misfeasance to be infinitely unconstitutional, and duplicitous of Rule 1.6.

It exemplifies my two [2J decades of up close and personal experiences as a pro se

litigant in New York's Unified Court System.

-J-

1

2

3456

7

8

I10

1'l

12

13

14

15-16

17

18192021

22232425262728293031

32333435363738394041

4243444546474B

4950

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

Be advised that I Be@{yserved a true and complete copy of this Notice and Action to the

following pafties on the dates indicated, 5V t/S ftl*[Ct\

AAG Hilell Deutsch, Public lntegrity Officer

New York Department of Law

144 Exchange Blvd.

Rochester, New York 14614

Steven E. Feder, Afty I

-"j:i::ffi ;;,?,;.,, uJ *

J, +

Courtesy Copy

Monroe County Department of Law

39 W. Main Street

Rochester, 14614

I hereby depose that everything alleged herein is, to the best of my knowledge, correct and truthful except

for mafters alleged on information and belief and I believe those to be true. Nothing is intended to be

frivolous, harassing or completely without merit.

ln fact as a matter of numerous court records I have nevef filed any action in any court that legally or

constructively rose to the level of frivolous, vexatious, and/or completely without merit. I have not broken

any laws, unlawfully prosecuted and incarcerated myself, violated my own constitutional rights and/ or

destroyed my own livelihood,

ln the final analysis I have no complicity whatsoever for the decade plus of abuse[s] I have suffered from

officers of the courts AND I challenge every allegation to the contrary.

Kevin Patrick Brady508 Locust Lane

East Rochester, New York '14445

TONI LCOONUc. #01C06050144

Notary Publiostate of l'l€r , YorkQualifi€d in MONROE

My Commission Expire6 '!0n0/2014

'l"l r

-4-

NEWYORK STAIE SUPREME COURTAPPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT

M. DOLORES DENMAN COURTHOUSE50 EAST AVENUE, SUITE 2OO

ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 14604

(585) 530-3100 Fax (585) s30-3247FRANCES E. Carenill

CLERK OF TIIE COURT

Ar,au L. RossDEPUTY CLERK OF THB COI,JRT

Re:

March 3,2014

..:::

Kevin Patrick Brady I

508 Locust LaneEast Rochester. NY 14445

Brady v State of New York, et al.

Docket No. CA 13-02202

Dear Mr. Brady:

I am returning your motion entitled "Notice of Constitutional Violations, Abuse ofDiscretion and Continuous Obstruction ol.Tustice" because you failed to have your affidavitnotarized and did not provide a proper affidavit of service. Please re-serve all parlies if you re-

submit a compliant motion.

Ivan E. LeePrincipal Appellate Court Attorney

IEL/s1Enc.pc: Eric T. Schneiderman, Esq.

Merideth H. Smith, Esq.

www. courts. state. ny. us/ad4

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

9pp elts te Wtbisr 0 n, f ourtll Vu[ f cf s t 4 ep s r tment

DOCKET NO. CA 13-02202

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P. J., SMITH, CENTRA, FAHEY, AND PERADOTTO. JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF KEVIN PATzuCK BRADY, PETITIONER.APPELLANT,

V

PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK BY ATTORNEY GENERAL,STEVEN E. FEDER, ES Q., RESPONDENTS -RESPONDENTS.

Appellant having moved for permission to proceed as a poor person on the appeal taken

herein from an order of the Supreme Court entered in the Office of the Clerk of the County of

Monroe on November 20,2013,having applied for an order to show cause, and having moved

for other retee

Now, upon reading and filing the affidavit of Kevin Patrick Brady sworn to Decemb er 17,

2013, the statements of Kevin Patrick Brady received December 18,20l3,the notice of motion

with proof of service thereof, the proposed order to show cause, and all documents attached

thereto, and due deliberation having been had thereon,

It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is denied.

FRaNcps E. C.qrannll, Clerk -: -Entered: January 22, 2014

A Legal Center:

Pirrello, Missal, Personte & Feder2040 Ridge Road East

Rochester, I\rY 14622-2488Mario J. PirrelloPaul T, Missal (1933-2011)

Michael J. Personte

Steven E. Feder**also admitted in Florida

New York Supreme CourtAppellate DivisionFourth Department50 East AvenueRochester, New York 14604Attn: Court Clerk

RE: Kevin Patrick Brady vs.The People of New York byAttorney General andSteven E. Feder, Attorney

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I have received some largely incomprehensible papers, including an Affidavit, withregard to the above matter.

I respectfully remind the Court of Judge Gorski's standing Order, disallowing the

Plaintiffthe use of any Court in New York State without the specific permission of the ChiefJudge of that Court, with respect to his ex-wife, his previous custody actions, or anything related

to same. For the Court's convenisnce, I have enclosed a copy of that Order.

Inasmuch as the matter appears to have been submitted without the specific permission ofthe Chief Judge of the Appellate Division, it should be ignored and sent back to Mr. Brady.

Respectfully yours,

SEF/cbsEncs.

Telephone: (585) 544-7090Facsimile: (585) 544-7093Website: PMPFLegal.com

June 5,2013I

ht:

f,I

Steven E. Feder

A Legm$ Cem€er:

FfrreflXw, &&&ssmK, ffiews&Kefe & Feder?S4S Rie$ge Roact East

ft.oq:hester" $iY i4622'248&h{ario "}. FirrelloFaul T, Missal (1933-201n)

&'lichaetr J. Fersonte

Steven E. Feder'e{'also adrnitted in Florida September 9,2013

Honorable Matthew A. Rosenbaun;Supreme Court Justice545 Hall of JusticeRochester, New York 14614

Frances CaffarellChief Clerk, Appellate Division50 East AvenueRochester, New York 146A4

SEFicbsEncs.cc rv/encs: Kevin Patrick Bradv

Teneplione: (5E5) 544-709CI

Facsimile: {5E5) 544-7893

Website: FMPFn-egaX.corn

RE: In the Matter of Kevin Patrick Brad,r' vs.People of New York, et alIndex Number 2013-053

Dear Judge Rosenbaum and Chief tllerk Caffarell:

I received copies of the sornewhat incomprehensible documents sent to you by KevinPatrick Brady with regard to the above matter. *

First of all, I don't believe tirat the matter;s even a case that is before the Court.

Second of all, Mr. Brady is prohibited from using the Courts rf the State of New York atall in this fashion, absent specific pennission from the Chief Judge ;f the relevant Court in whichhe seek to proceed. Along those lines, please find Judge Gorski's Order to that effect.

Mr. Brady had defied this Clrder on numerous occasions, and on numerous occasionsvarious Court have refused to allour him to proceed because he has failed to obtain the necessarypermission.

Respectfully yours,

PIRRELLO, MISSAL, PERSONTE & FEDER

C ft&u{t

A Legal Center:

Pirrello, Missal, Personte & Feder2040 Ridge Road East

Rochester, NY 1'4622'2488Mario J. PirrelloPaul T. Missal (1933-2011)

Michael J. Personte

Steven E. Feder**also admitted in Florida October 10" 2013

Honorable Richard A. DollingerSupreme Court Justice545 Hall of JusticeRochester, New York 146t4

RE: Kevin Patrick Brady vs.People of the New York, et alIndex Number 053/13

Telephone: (585) 544-7090Facsimile: (585) 544-7093Websitq PMPFLegal.com

Dear Judge Dollinger:

I received the enclosed papers from Kevin Patrick Brady on October 8, 2013; they areentitled "Notice of Due Process Requirements".

Other than the fact that I have no idea what this means, and other than the fact that it is aprocedural nullity, I am aware of Your Honor's recent ruling with regard to Mr. Brady. It is myunderstanding that he has failed to sign a Stipuiation of Discontinuance (even though JudgeRosenbaum dismissed this case last summer), and that you are imposing sanctions and will besigning an Order to that effect.

I would appreciate receiving a copy of that Order once it has been signed and filed.

In the meantime, given the Court's ruling in this matter and the Court's position, I do notintend to respond to this iatest missive from Mr. Brady. If for some reason the Court requires meto respond to it in any way, I certainly will do so if so informed.

Thank you for your courtesy in this matter.

PIRRELLO, Mi PERSONTE & FEDER

SEF/cbscc dencs; Hillelcc w/o encs: Kevin

Respectfully yours,

Deutsch, Esq. /Patrick Brady'1/

ven E. Feder

a-L-

cc w/encs: Craig Doran, JSCMonroe County District AttomeyNew York State Dept. of LawMonroe County Bar AssociationKevin Patrick Brady

etr4t"r-" V"* r 71*../"r"rzr &//*E*z;*

9/,n/*hr, e-//L &4 r'ttrr't-zr'a,,

eZtz/*'t Qd %"tt- /*r"-44.-,*t;y o6/f%a'r eZr"- %r*.a

e7;tt-Z*{'Z:*''/@;a"zrOctober 31,2013

Kevin Patrick Brady508 Locust LaneEast Rochester, New York 14445

Dear Mr. Brady:

Judge Rosenbaunr is unable to grant you any relief on the paBers which the Court

receivedonOctober30,20l3bearinglndexNo.20l3100053. lfyoudonotagreewiththeDecision rendered in the matter, the proper avenue to pursue is an Appeal to the Appellate

Division.

Very truly yours,

/!', j'a-.-..,1:--a*^-,t-- .-i *'t<-n'{.- -tu,r-,,""

Maryanne H. Townsend, Esq.Law Glerk to Hon. Matthew A. Rosenbaum

cc: Hon. Richard DollingerHon. Craig Doran

7*,". /nr) .?zr'--?zfig,- /nr) ztz-tsatr

A Legal Center:

Pirrello, Missal, Personte & Feder2040 Ridge Rcad East

Rochester, NY 14622-2488Mario J. PirrelloPaul T. Missal (1933-2011)

Michael J. Personte

Steven E. Feder'!'

'"also admitted in Florida

Appellate Division50 East AvenueRochester, New York 14604Attn: Motion Clerk

RE: Kevin Patrick Brady vs.People of New York,Steven E. FederIndex #20t3-53

Ladies and Gentlemen:

December 20,2013

ln accordance with Judge Doiiinger's recent directive, I am not responding to the mostrecent papers filed by Kevin Patrick Brady.

Such a lack of response in no way indicates acquiescence or agreement.

In accordance with Judge Dollinger's ruling (and Judge Gorski's ruling before him), Mr.Brady's filing is a nullity.

Respectfully yours,

PIRRELLO, MISSAL, PERSONTE & FEDER

Steven E. Feder

Telephoner (585) 544-7090Facsimile: (585) 544-7093Website: PMFFLegal.com

SEF/cbs /cc: Kevin Patrick Bradf,/

Hillel Deutsch, Esq.

A Legal Cenatee':

Pirrello, h$issaX, pu*q-gry&q &S*dq*202*S R.idge

Rociaester, NYRoad flas$

14622-2488Mario J. FirrelloPaul T. Missal (1933-2011)

V[ichaeX J. Fersonte

Steven E. Feder'3

':'also admitted in Florida

Supreme Court545 Hall of Justice

Rochester, New York 14614

Attn: Motion Clerk

Telephone: {585) 544-?890

Facsixnitre: {585) 544"-7093

Wehsite: FMPFn-egal.con'r

March 24,2014

RE: Kevin Patrick Brady vs. POSNY, et aI

Index Number 53113

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I have received a number of,mostly incomprehensible papers with regard to the above

matter.

Enclosed please find the Decision and Order of the Honorable Jerome Gorski with regard

to this petitioner. As you will see, this Petitioner is barred from utilizing any Court in the State

of New York for this and related matters without first obtaining the permission of the

Supervising Judge of the Court in rvhich he seeks to move forward.

It does not appear that such permission has been obtained here, and the motion is

therefore a nullity.

Given Judge Gorski's Order, I will refrain from responding to this latest missive from this

Petitioner, wirich itseif is riie with iechnical errors.

If for some reason the Court is even going to consider the application that has been

brought by the Petitioner, please so advise, and I will respond.

Respectfully yours,

teven E. F

SEF/cbsEncs.cc wlencs: Kevin

HiIleIPatrick BradYr iDeutsch, Esq.