exhibits b
TRANSCRIPT
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.