title 42 section 1983 october 2013

7/27/2019 Title 42 Section 1983 October 2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/title-42-section-1983-october-2013 1/33

1

2

3

4

trJ

6

7

8

9

10

11

72

13

I4

15

16

]- 1

18

1q

20

2L

22

22,

24

z5

IN THE UNITED STATES WESTERN NEW YORK DISTRICT COURT

KEVIN PATRICK BRADY

Plaintiff,vs.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN,

Attorney General, New York State CV

Official and personal capacity

CARLOS RODRIGUEZ

formerAAGI


THOMAS VANSTRYDONCK

(retired administrative judge)


HILLEL DEUTSCH

Assistant Aftorney General


RICHARD A. DOLLINGER, JSC


CRAIG DORAN JSC

Offidal and personal capacity

LAWRENCE X. DALTON

law clerk, appellate division


Defendants

COMPIAINT FOR DECI-ARATORY

AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ANDDAMAGES WH ERE AUTHORIZED

JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

Kevin Patrick Brady, pro se

508 Locust Lane

East Rochester, NewYork 1445585381 2063



1

a

3

1

E

6

7

a

9

10

11

L2

13

t4

i 5

16

]-'7

18

r.9

2A

27

22

23

24

25

DEFENDANTS;

ERIC SCHNIEDERMAN,

New York State Attomey General,The Capital

Albany, NY 12224-0341

CARLOS RODRIGUEZ,

NY Assistant Attomey General

8 Cricket Drive

Pittsford NY 14534

HILLEL DEUTSCH,NY Assistant Attorney General

New York Department of Law

l44Exchange Blvd.

Rochester, New York 14614

CRAIG DORAN,

Administrative Judge, New York supreme court

99 Exchange Blvd.

Rochester New York 14614

RICHARD DOLLINGER, judge,

New York supreme court

99 Exchange Blvd.

Rochester New York 14614

LAWRENCE X. DALTON

NY supreme court appellate division

50 East Avenue

Rochester, NY 14604

-3-



PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Pro se plaintiff submits after eighteen [18] years of ghastly life altering destruction

from an ambiguous, misapplied 'pre-filin(;, 'gatekeeper' or vexatious litigant' order,

that I am the 'poster child'for modification or establishment of new relevant law.These labels poison litigant's cases before they get started. ln fact they poison them

into never getting started. They free judges to express their natural antipathy and

prejudice for non lawyers in their courtroom.

Should this Court find any of these pro se pleadings frivolous, totally implausible,

attenuated, essentially fictitious and/or obviously without merit, take specific notice.

The WRANNY of Judge Richard Dollinger exemplifles the continuous unrestrained,

unconstitutional punishment I have lived with 2417 for the last ten [10] years. My right

to lawfully petition my government is an established PREEMINENT RIGHT.

I am NOT asking this Court to sit in review of family court determinations. The child

identified in previous actions is now long grown and emancipated from her waning

parents. l am not complaining about acts taken ..

There are NONE to complain of.

The unfathomable damages I have accrued are allfrom administrative acts and/or

acts taken in exoess of orwithout personaland subject matter jurisdiction. So long

as I remain BLOCKED from courts my government tortfeasors will remain undercolor of regularity while evidence to the contrary remains prima facie.

These are not'repackaged'claims. They are continuous unconstitutionalacts that

MUST be acknowledged, declared and enjoined now. lf it appears I am attempting

to paint a poftrait of constructive conspiracy against pro se litigants ifs because I am.

Law in this society, including constitutional, has clearly become only as good as one's

pbility to enforce. Pro se litigants need not apply.

Rochester attorney Amy Bach says it best'Ordinary lnjustioe' results when an entirecommunity of legal professionals become so accustomed to a pattem of lapses that

they can no longer see their own role in them,.1

1 'How America Holds Courtl Metropolitan Books 2009



1

.>

3

4

5

6

l

I

9

10

11

IZ

13

L4

15

16

I7

1B

aa

23

at

25

19

20

27

JURISDICTION

Subject matter jurisdiction is invoked by 42 U.S.C. $1983, 51331, 51343. Supplemental

jurisdiction comes under 28 U.S.C 51367: Declaratory relief by 28 USC SS 22A12202

VENUE

Plaintiff is a natural born American; resident of New York since 1962 and of Monroe

County since 1982- Defendants are all state officers who have acted in personal and

official capacities to deprive me of rights secured by state and federal Constitutions and

New York statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage.

Every known cognizable remedy for relief in state claims has been exhausted. Despite

my countless facially meritorious petitions NO COURT has ever adjudicated a single

issue on which I had invoked jurisdiction. EVERY action has been terminated at the

complaint stage; essentially sua sponte, without notice, without clpportunity to amend

ostensibly defective pleadings, without requiring answers from government attorneys,

AND, in bold violation of plaintiffs rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

I attribute this to an ongoing, undisclosed selective practice of terminating pro se

complaints against government before they can obtain discovery and proceed to trial.

DISABILITY

Despite my pre-filing disability lgatekeeper ordersl it has always appeared that the

appellate division, Fourth (+*) O.pt. remained accessible to me. Generallv, as long as I

paid the filing fee and my pro se papers were in compliance, I had access to the court.

However that changed in Aug. 2013

Please note that Younger abstentions'are not applicable here 1

1 Where a prosecution is in bad faith; 2. is part of some pattem of harassment against

an individual; or 3. where the law being enforced is utterly and inedeemably

unconstitutional.

tDollinger allegations

*1-



5

6

7

8

9

10

11

72

13

I4

15

16

t1

18

19

20

ZI

aa

23

z4

25

PREVIOUS ACTIONS

My previous civil and parental rights complaints to state and federal courts were never

intended to be about family court mafters; custody, child support and/or civil family court

orders prosecuted in local criminal courts. The action in this court

2

and subsequently insupreme court

3 sough only to redress substantialdue proess violations incidental to

those matters.

My earlier pleadings may have been amateurish, but not frivolous and/or vexatious .

With the exception of Brady v Kearns [19941 every subsequent action has identified

substantial failures to provide me Due Process of Law and Equal Protection of Law.

lnstead of providing me a judicialforum in which to be meaningfully heard I have been

maliciously and impulsively punished, disfranchised, and abandoned by every state andfederal court in the world. Subsequently honorable officers of my courts have punished

me unanimously for exercise of my state and federal rights. Those who advocate their

authority NEVER have answers for their conflicts with superior ldw.

The instant complaint is NOT to re-litigate any matter previously decided.a 5

I seek only

meaningful access to a non hostile judicial venue to redress continuous state and

constitutional violations by state actors and the crippling infumia facti I have accrued

along the way.

I come for declaratory and injunctive relief and, where appropriate damages authorized,

by law. I am infinitely aware of judicial immunities, ln fact, I am aware of all government

immunities. But I too have constitutional immunities that have been steamrolled by

defendants, under color law AND at my unfathomable expense.

Alljudges identified here acted in administrative capacities as gatekeeper to the

Only Dollinger acted with color of office. Nevertheless his impulsive imminent threats,

rise to the level of WRANNY. They are utterly and inedeemably unonstitutional. I am

entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief from a decade of government oppression andthreats of more abuse and incarceration.

2Brady v Keams, et al 94 w 06572

3Brady v Miller, et al 95-8309

aBrady v. Marks 7 F.Supp.2d 247 (1998) m4 U.S. App. LEXIS 6112,*;93 Fed. Appx. 325

sAs shown within I have never had opportunity to litigate any case.

-2-



10

1lr

L2

13

14

15

16

L7

1B

19

20

27

22

23

24

25

-3-

,PREFILINGORDERS'

My ostracism, abuse and abandonment by my judiciary began in1996 with a pre-filing

injunction issued on papers alone, without hearing, by Judge Jerome Gorski apparently

to remedy an adverse family court mafter6.

I had not been previously deemed 'frivolous,harassing or vexatious'to any real parry. 7

Subsequently however I have been forced to sue rogue STATE ACTORS multiple times

for fraud, aftorney fraud, govemment attomey fraud, fraud on the courts perpetuated by

fraud on the @urt, due proess violations and unanimous denials of areqs to @urt,'8

Contrary to the fnfamia bcti' I accrued, I have never filed any action in any court that

legally or constructively rose to the level of frivolous, vexatious, and/or completely

without merit. The actions which have permanently labeled me 'government adversary'

fail to meet the standards of statutes, court rules and case decisions. See Memo e'

Gorskis'Memorandum Decision stated, in pertinent part,

This Court will grant an injunction so that Plaintiff may not bring any other lawsuits in

an)Lcourt [state or federal] based on the family ourt matter, or its progeny, without prior

permission from that courts preskting judge or designee. All Monroe County Courts

should be made aware as to forestall the filing of further baseless lawsuits. A violationPlaintiff shall subiect him to possible imposition of further sanctions, costs and fees.

He also ordered that I reimburse all pafties for their actual litigation @sts and attomey

fees. Consistent with22 NYCRR 130.1.1. Gorski's Memo [B]directed;

6Brady v Miller, et al. # 8309-95 . The childs rnother was not a party to the action

7An earlier action was dismissed, without appearances, by US Judge David Larimer who cited [1] on going

state proceedings fiat [2] implicate important states interese. Larimer found that '[p]laintiff made no shorrring

that his constitutionalclaims could not be adequately adiudicated in the state courr.

He also noted although debndants allege plaintiffengaged in extensive, harassing lfigation, there is no

evklence of sucfr pafiem in the [insbntl record.

8 Plead with specificity hereins

Vexatious Litigants' Memo A



1

a

3

4

5

6

'7

8

9

10

11

T2

13

I4

15

16

L'7

18

19

20

2L

22

ZJ

z4

25

fo tne extent nat the paftie

fees and/or actualexpenses, same will be reimbursed. Said parties shall submit

affidavits in support of claimed fees'.

Although none of the real parties incurred actualfees and/or expenses, nor did theysubmit detailed affidavits, AAG Carlos Rodriguez drafted the finaljudgment to his own

liking; to wit: [C]

'IBRADYT'within 30 days of entry and servie of this order, shall pay the amount of

$2,767.00 to Dennis Va@o, Attomey General, Carlos Rodriguez, AAG, payable to the

New York Department of Law, for reasonable attomey's fees and costs on behalf of the

defendant judges'

He also arbitrarily drafted the word 'permanenf into the'gatekeeper order' and

it for signature. Despite my objections Gorski signed the proposed Tinal orders' in Ma

1996. Rodriguez never entered them until November 2003. '

ln September 1996 Rodriguez filed a false affidavit causing my appeal to be dismissed.

BE lT KNOWN that Carlos Rodriguez has a long demonstrable record of falsely stating

materialfacb known to him to be false when he made them. ln fact he has admifted

tampering with transcripts to make my statements more incriminating.

ln the years since I have deposed in court affidavits essentially ad nauseumthat

it can be demonstmted, clearly and onvincingly, that [Rodriguez] has set in motion an

unconscionable scheme calculated to interferc with the judicial system's ability to

impartially adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly

hampering the presentation of the opposing parfy's claim or defense. *** '10

I hereby reiterate this allegation and support it with countless additional examples to be

found herein

r0Fraud on the Court as defined in Aoude v. Mobil, 892 F.2d 1 1 1 5, (1 989)

-4-



1

z

3

4

5

6

1

8

9

10

-L -L

L2

13

14

15

16

I1

18

19

20

2I

22

23

24

25

-5-

ln March 2000, a family court support magistrate issued a procedurally void finding of

contempt against Dad [Brady] including an award of attorney fees. ln August 2001, the

Decision/Order of the assigned judge, Gail Donofrio, reversed the award.

ln October 2001 the aggrieved attorney, Steven Feder, entered the void judgmentanyway as a judicial lien on my property at Monroe County clerk. With supreme courts

permission, I filed an Article 78 action entitled Brady v Taddeo

MALICE AND RETALIATION

Upon notice from the court I appeared in the courtroom of Judge Tom VanStrydonck on

Nov.13, 2002.1 immediately found him angered by my pro se petition to compelanother

judge to comply with family law, I concluded he had essentially lured me into court unde

false pretense and accused me of ancient judicial non-crimes on the unsubstantiated

allegations of AAG Carlos Rodriguez

After subjecting me to serial malicious prosecutions over a fourteen [14] month period,

Vanstrydonck ordered me incarcerated for 90 days. He revived and arbitrarily modified

Gorskis dormant money judgments, substituted the real party creditors with the People

of NewYork, and authorized it s entry as another judgment lien on my properly.

Without cause, without real party complainants and/or witnesses, without any evidencewhatsoever AND without personal and subject matter jurisdiction he arbitrarily enlarged

Gorskis order to prohibit me from @mmencing any new litigation unless represented by

an aftomef. [Memo Dl

ln the years since I have been required to petition countless times for relief from these

jurisdictionally void judgments. Every petition included prima facie evidence of supreme

courts lack of jurisdiction to issue them; to abuse and restrain me in any way. 11

To date NO COURT has adiudicated so much as a single allegation. The only times I

have been allowed to appear in court was to defend against trumped up charges and

jurisdictionally void criminal proceedings. 12

11 Certificates Monroe County Clerkt

I believe Rodriguez was implicated in them too.



8

9

10

11

L2

13

L4

15

16

77

18

L9

20

27

22

ZJ

zq

25

ln October 2003, Rodriguez initiated another prosecution against me13

requesting I be

punished again by incarceration for failing to timely report to jail as allegedly ordered.

With NO REMEDIAL RELIEF REQUESTED this was solely a criminal prosecution. .

He again knew, or should have known that because the underlying orders were void nocognizable cause existed against me. He knew he was again acting outside the scope

his duties, under color law, under color of office..

ln my responding papers I advised the newly assigned Judge Steven Sirkin, inter alia,

that Rodriguez had NO AUTHORITY to initiate and prosecute the action. I deposed that

Rodriguez had a personal and professional conflict of interest and I requested judicial

notice of Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton where SCOTUS stated oounsel for a party who

is the beneficiary of a ourt order may not be appointed to undertake oontempt

prosecutions for al@ed violations of that ordef

SCOTUS also said [c]riminal contempt proceedings arising out of civil litigation * not

part of the original civil action. A civil litigant * adversely afiected by a pafty opponenfs

unwillingness to @mply with a judgment or injunction would be incapable of acting in a

disinterested manner.

I advised Sirkin to note that New York law remgnizes this same principle. People v.

Calderone 573 N.Y.S.2d 1005; 151 Misc.2d 530 (07126t91\

MY PRO SE DEFENSES WERE DENIED IMMEDIATELY

On Feb. 3,20M; despite my absence, Rodriguez encouraged the court to proceed to

trial in which I was declared guilty, again, and incarcerated for another 30 days.

On February 4, sheriffs deputies again pounded on our door during early hours,

through our bedroom window to arrest and take me off to jail.

Upon my release I discovered that no appealwould be possible. No trial disposition or

mandate of commitment had been reduced to writing by the judge Stephen Sirkin.

13[*og-t tggS]

-6-



1

8

9

10

11

1-2

13

I4

15

16

1- l

18

19

20

ZI

ZZ

ZJ

24

25

I1I NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT

l5l lN RE KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, PETITIONER, v. HON. JEROME GORSKI, ET AL.,

RESPONDENTS. October 19, 2006

171 Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General,(Owen Demuth of counsel), for respondents.

t10l Buckley, P.J., Tom, Saxe, Sullivan, McGuire, JJ.

111l Application for an order pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR denied, the cross motion granted

and the petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioner s request for sanctions

denied. Allconcur. No opinion. Orderfiled.

This decision is interesting because there was no cross motion to dismissla

This Articte 78 was

screened in advance by the Fourth Dept, permission to file was granted and subsequently,

without notice, it was transfened to the First Department. lt was timely served on the Attorney

Generalwho then failed to timely respond. The honorable appellate justices simply and

unanimously defied the law and overtly violated the petitioner s rights.

Even if there was no default, dismissal without answers, without opinion, and without the relief

requested were not among the options limited by statute. Note the relevant statutes rules of

procedure.

CPLR S 3011. There shall be a complaint and an answer.

CPLR S 3012. Service of an answer or reply shall be made within twenty [20] days after service

of the pleading

CPLR S 3012 (d) the court may extend the time to appear or plead, or compelthe acceptance o1

a pleading untimely served.

CPLR S 7804 [el Should the body or officer fail either to file and serve an answer or to move to

dismiss, the court may either issue a judgment in favor of the petitioner or order that an answer

be submitted.

raNote that the time prescribed for a motion to dismiss in CPLR article 78 proceeding coincides with the time

to answef . (see CPLR 7804(0 Perez v Perez, 131 A.D.2d 451, 516 N.Y.S.2d 236

-l-



10

11

1,2

13

74

15

16

17

18

l9

ZU

2L

22

23

24

25

-8-

A CULTURE OF PRO SE DISCRIMINATION

Having been blocked from Monroe County courts for a decade, with ever declining

income and depleting assets, I sought emergency relief by petition to Saratoga County

Supreme Court in September 2008. I pleaded to the court as follows:

As of April 2007, I am no longer bondable and thus no longer employable in my chosen

profession. Void judgments on my record have destroyed my professional credibilaty

credit rating and block my a@ss the equity in my property. ***

To avoid further eonomic loss by foreclosure and/or bankruptcy, I must remove these

douds immediately and sell it as quickly thereafter. For reasons deposed within, Sris

action, in this venue, is the only remedy I have.

Despite my extreme financial emergency, this action was dismissed, sua gponte.

notice, before service AND as a sanction by Judge Frank Williafts based on an 'excelpt'

from the 1996 injunction. Upon information and belief, no attempt was made to verify

the years old injunction, [or the one page excerpt], even remained in effect.

When summarily terminating the action, Williams wrote 'matters not decided are denied'

This was an inexcusable dismissal of a laMully commenced action to purge the

destructions in my life, And it exemplifies how void court orders come to exist in the firstplace. ffootnotes

tt,'u, ,ttl

tu'supreme oourt ened in dismissing the oomplaint wihout notice to the partbs' Grimes v Kaplin, 305 AD2d

1024; Gibbs v Kinsey, 120 AD2d 701) plaintiffwas improperty deprived the opporurnity to submit proof in

opposiuon to &e dismissal of his complaint Hoefrrer v John F. Frank, lnc., 302 ADZd 428,43O;

to 'sua sponte dismissab are not appeal able as a right Sholes v. Meagher, 100 N.Y.2d 333, 794 N.E.2d 664,

763 N.Y.S.2d 522 (N.Y. 06/10/2003) Northside Studios, lnc. v Treccagnoli, 262 AD2d 469 [2d Dept 1999];

Village of Savona v Soles, 84 AD2d 683, 684 [4th Dept 1981]; see also Siegel, NY Prac S 526 at 860 [3d ed.];

12 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac lf 5701 .6)

t7'suasponte dismissal must be resticted to tte most extraordinary circumstances . Myung Chun v N.

American Mortgage Co., 285 ADzd 42,46 [1st Dept 2001 dbmissalwihout notice to the pailbs was

improper.' Hoeffner v John F. Frank, lnc., supn



1

2

3

.l

trJ

6

7

B

9

10

1t-

1,2

13

I4

15

16

t7

1B

19

20

ZI

22

ZJ

z4

25

ln March 2009, I applied for the 'required' permission from Vito Caruso the district

administrative judge. On his instruction I filed another emergency action in Schenectady

County supreme court where it was assigned it to Judge Barry Kramer,.

Having served Rodriguez but before filing my RJl, Kramer dismissed, sua sponte, asa sanction citing the void injunction of VanStrydonck. Kramer however, failed to disclose

how it had come to his attention since I hadn't included it when I filed.

I submit that after being served, Rodriguez [or his accomplice] simply phoned Kramer's

office and requested dismissal. This conspiracy occurred shortly before or shortly after

Rodriguez retired from the Department of Law and from state employment.

RODRIGUEZ'FRAUD ON PLAINTIFF AND FRAUD ON THE COURTS

lgnoring the shocking pro se allegations, Kramer also raised, sua sponte, what would

have been a waivable defense; sbtute of limitations, and then pdrported to decide the

defense in favor of defendants. Thas'ruling'; albeit void, was not even factual.

Under New York law, the doctrines of equitable tolling or equitable estoppel may be

invoked to defuat a statute of limitations defense when the plaintiff was induced by

misrepresentations or deception to refrain from filing a timely action.

These two [2] petitions were my last chance to clear the void judgment liens from my

property to avoid foreclosure AND the crash of real property values. I was left victimized

and immobilized by the scandalof foreclosure fraud and pretender lenders to come.

WELLS FARGO v BRADY

On or about December 19, 2009, Ark terminated this action which he knew, or should

have known to be fraudulent and jurisdictionally defective by signing a boilerplate

proposed order of foreclosure knowing it would be entered into Monroe County records

and become subject to enforcement by other public servants.

This order states

*9-



1

2

3

5

6

1

I

9

10

11

L2

13

74

15

16

I1

1B

19

20

2J_

22

ZJ

24

25

'Upon reading the affidavit of Herman John Kennertytt

the Summons, Complaint, and

Answer of Defendant, Kevin Patrick Brady, AND'no one'heard in opposition thereto, it

is ORDERED that the Answer of KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, be and is hereby dismissed

and summary judgment graned in favor of Plaintiff, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.;'

Ark knew this to be totalfiction. My response[s] to this action were timely and valid and

they included a iurisdictional challenge due to the Banks lack of standing and it's failure

name the additionaldefendants required by law. ICPLR 1001]

The words'no one' intended to taunt this pro se litigant and remind me that courts pay

little or no attention to those who come to court without a lawyer.

As of this date Ark refuses to acknowledge my multiple proofs of foreclosure fraud and

his jurisdictionally void judgments. He refuses to allow this profioundly injured and

immobilized pro se party to prevail.. This constitutes harassment under color of law.

COURT OF CIAIMS/THIRD APPEL1ATE DEPARTMENT

The only written opinions I have received over the years from my lawfully commenced,

facially meritorious complaints have come from Court of Claims judge Rictard E. Sise.

His conclusions have been unanimously disingenuous and have essentially no basis in

law. ln fact they often mntradict.

Plaintiff says that in New York, as in other jurisdictions, once an action is commenced by

filing and paying the fee, a court's power to dismiss is limited to circumstances not

instantly applicable. And in fact, Sise agrees 20

***New York practie, ** does not expressly give courts authority to dismiss even

frivolous actions, *** there is scant authority for such dismissals, no matter the reason*****i] As a general rule, **'* sua sponte dismissals are discouraged and ultimately

invalidated.2l

'e Herman John Kennerty has since admitted to knowingly signing fraudulent mortgage documents. ln fact he is

widely regarded as one of the most prolific'robosigners' in the foredosure scandal.s Frasier v. State, 11 Misc.3d 497, 810 N.Y.S.2d 818 (N.Y.CI. Cl. '1112112ffi51

21 Myung Chun v N.A. Mortgage 285 AD2d 42, [1st Dept 2001][ sua sponte dismissal must be restricted to the

most extraordinary circumstances l).

l

-10-]

1

i



1

I

9

10

11

l2

13

74

15

16

17

18

19

20

27

22

23

24

25

Sua sponte dismissal as a sanction for allegedly disobeying another courts order is

summary punishment for exercise of a constitutional right. The only laMul authority to

punish is by motion of the aggrieved party AND only in the court allegedly aggrieved.

it is elementary that the court against which a @ntempt is committed has exclusiveiurisdiction to punish for such contempt. ln re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 15 S. Ct. 900, 910, 39

L. Ed. 1092; Ex parte Bradley, 74 U-S. 36/,7 Wall. 3il, 19 L. Ed. 214,

AND Exdusive jurisdiction means exdusive jurisdic'tion. Fritz v. U.S. 535 F.2d 1192

To justify his dismissals Sise resorted to FIAT; to wit: 'in the absence of permission *

movant did not oommenoe an action against the State and, thus, the State had no duty

to ansver or otherwise respond'.

He declared that a 'gatekeeper order' allows a timely filed claim to be subjugated into a

motion to permit late filing of claim. Plaintiff/claimant DISAGREED. Such discrimination

is not only arbitrary punishment without a hearing Sise lacked authority to ignore my

requests to identify such authority.

These defenses were nol frivolous, vexatious or without merit. They SHOULD have

alerted every court officer to the various elements which manifest a legal scheme to

protect litigants' right of access to the courts.

FAILURES TO BE MFANINGFULLY HEARD

ln attempting to assert this scheme I have asked courts essentially ad nauseum to note

the New York Court of Appeals finding, 'the right'* derives from guarantees of freedom

of association, [NY Const, Art l, S 9] and, will not yield unless mnfronted with some

oveniding competing public interest. ****'aldlough not absolute, law and public policy

mandate any restriction imposed on that rightwill be carefully scrutinized

SCRU'TI'NIZE. verbl. to examine in detailwith careful or criticalattention.

I know of not one time where my allegations were scrutinized for facial merit.

- 11-



5

6

'1

I

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

I6

T1

18

19

20

2T

22

23

24

25

Every petition, every on point citation, every argument I have ever made has proven an

exercise in futility. Even citations establishing relief to be mandatory [by use of the

words MUST or SHALLI have been ignored and dismissed. To wit:

Section 206.10 Uniform Rules for the Court of Claims.

(a) ln all matters, except appnrpriation daims and prisoner pro se claims, the ourtshall order a preliminary onfunence as soon as pnacticable, but no later than six

months, after the action has been assigned.

GROSS VIOLATIONS OF DUE PROCESS, FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR

On the other hand the constructive scheme to ignore my rights extended to the

division of the Third Department My January 2009 appeal brief said

'[t]he claims dismissed belou, seek redress and damages from adecade of judicial

nonfeasance, failures of state employees to perform specific ministerialacts rcquired by

law, AND, for void rnoney judgmens, serialfalse anests, unlawfirl prosecutions and

incarcerations by an unauthorized Department of Law proaecutor acting ultn vires with

a personal and professionalconflict of interest and in collusion with two [2] supreme

court judges who lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction.

Appellate justices Peters, Rose, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and Stein unanimously agreed toaffirm the sua sponte dismissal 'on the opinions of Judge Richard Sise .

My subsequent motion objecting to this bizarre affirmation asked the court to note the

unanimous findings of SCOTUS in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.,# 534 U.S. (2002),

[1] it is a gross violation of proedures to dismiss a lawsuit at the threshold stage

[2] that a judge's opinion of whether or not a litigant will prevail is inelevant;

[3] it is fundamentally unfair to dismiss ** before the whole body of facts can be

revealed through discovery.

I asked the Court to note its own observation that 'no right sf appeal 2 exists fi'om ****

order[sl entercd sua sponte.

2Brown v. State I A.D.3d 23,776 N.y.s.2d et3 ( 05113/2004)

-72-



1

Z

3

rJ

6

7

oo

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1a

18

I9

20

27

22

z5

24

25

Regardless of these manifest violations of state and federal law, it ostensibly remains

the position of the Department of Law that that 'the opinions of Judge Sise'constitute

law of this case. I submit that to suggest a pro se litigant who has never even survived

preliminary Motions to Dismiss has been afforded full and fair opportunity to litigate is

egregious beyond articulation. lt is a frivolous and degrades the integrity of the court.

Note these alleged LAWS of New York State. Court of Claims Act 51 1[a][i],

'[Al claim *** must be served on the AttomeyGeneralthe offier responsible for the

investigation and litigation of the daim 23 and who must asertain the aqency's liabilitv.

Court of Claims Act $ 2O-a

The attomey general SHALL_cause a review by the department of law of ALL casesfiled in the court of claims to determine [those] appropriate for possible settlement

Accordingly the following opinions of Judge Sise are also the laW of the case.

[As] Movanf cannot commene actinn without the Courts permission and no suchpermission has been granted, there is no Claim that must be answered, [or

PRO SE LITIGANTS NEED NOT APPLY

I challenge these FIATS. ln the final analysis these feigned principles are left to apply

only to this disfranchised pro se litigant AND do not comply with the scheme identified in

the Memo; (Vexatious Litigant)

I submit that this pro se litigant raised important issues of first impression that were ripe

for adjudication by my emergency petitions. Had they been raised by a duly registered

member of the bar, I would not be living in poverty from judicial prejudice and

six [6] years later. 2a

Upon information and belief my appellate brief to the Third Department was not even

read or not sufficiently read.

a Andriola v. State, 53 AD2d 966,, Welch v. State, 71 AD2d 494, Exe. Law g 63[1]2o

Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149 (1967).

-13-



1

2

3

4

5

6

'7

8

9

10

11

L2

13

I4

15

1,6

L7

18

19

20

a14L

zz

23

24

25

DUTIES IMPOSED ON GOVERNMENT

My pleadings to the Court of Claims also asserted the following

Gonstitutions assign rights to individuals and impose duties on govemment to regulatethe govemmenfs actions to protect them. lt is the failure to fumil a stiated onstitutional

duty whicfr supports a claim for damages in a constitutional tort action.

'* [Wte conclude frrat Court of Claims jurisdiction is not limibd to @mmon law tort

causes of action and that damage claims against the SAte based upon violations of the

State Constitution come within ifs iurisdiction.

*** ln New York, constitutional provisions are presumptively self-executing.25 Manifestly

Art.1 , S 12 of the NY Constitution and that part of $1 1 relating to equal protec{ion are

self+xectrting. They define judicialty enbreable rights and provide citizens a basis for

judicial relief against the State il those rights are violated. Acts of State and local

violating these constitutiona I g ua rantees a re VO I D.

The rights were defined by the Court of Appeals in Brown v State26 They were ignored

The Court also found 27'a private right of action may be implied when (1) the plaintiff is

one of the dass for whme particular benefit the statute was enacted; (2) recognition of[the] rightwould promote the legislative purpose of the goveming statute; and (3) is

consistent with the legislative scheme. 28

NOW NOTE; The New York Constitution and CPLR S 321 provides a party, '** may

prosecrte or defend a civil action in person or by attomey.

The word attomey includes a Frty prosecuting or defending an action in person.

CPLR S 105 (c)

25effective immediately.

6Ricky Brown v. State New York, 674 N.E. 2d 1129,89 N.Y. 2d 172 11/19/96

27 Pelaez v. Seide, Nos. 23, 24 (N.Y. A312S120O4)28

see Sheehy v Big Flats Community Day, 73 NY2d 629, 633 [19890.

-L4-



10

11

L2

13

T4

15

r6

7'7

18

19

20

2t

22

z-7

24

25

- 15-

Due to pro se prejudice the acts and failures to act manifest a constructive conspiracy to

deprive me of access to court, equal protection of the laws, and/or equal privileges and

immunities under the laws. These lapses have caused me unfathomable emotional and

financial damage.

DEPARTMENT OF LAW COLLEAGUES,

AAG's Robert Geliormi, Debra Martin, Thomas Ramsay, Hilel Duetsc{t and colleagues

have'locked arms' in a conspiracy of silence to prevent me from redressing the nasty

things Rodriguez did to me under color of law and office. They don't want to admit his

many false representations of materialfacts known to him when he made them.'They

don't want to allow a pro se litigant to prevail.

They don't want to admit that all the elements of Rodriguez' malicious prosecution existexcept for one: the proceeding terminated in the plaintiffs favor. The evidence that no

lawful proceeding to punish even existed is prima facie. lt has be,en submitted to court

after court and yet summarily dismissed to avoid answers being filed.

Regardless that they are advocates for the State, loyal Department employees and

colleague, they must be aware that the 2002-2004 supreme court proceedings were so

infested with fraud and malice as to constitute'misuse of power, possessed by virtue of

state law and po*sible only because fie wrongdoers were dothed with state authority.2e

They must know the due prooess clause of the fourteenth [14ol amendment ggarantees

citizens access to courts to present claims of wrong doings .30, AND that the

has consistently obstructed me from me from doing so..

They know, or should know that the AG is the offier responsible for the investigation

and litigation of the daim 31and who must ascertain the agenqy's liability. AND wfio

SHALL cause a review of ALL cases filed in the court of daims to determine [thoselappropriate br possible settlement .

32

'e United States v. Classic, (194.1)s

Brown v. Grabowski,922F.2d 1097, (3d Cir. 1990) (citing Wolff v. McDonnell,418 U.S.539-579,94 S. Ct.

2963,298H6,41 L. Ed.2d 935 (1974)3t

Andriola v. State, 53 AD2d 966,, wetch v. State, 71 AD2d494, Exe. Law g 63[1]? Court of Claims Acr $ 20-a makes no exceptions for ostracized and abandoned pro se litigants.



I

9

10

11

t_2

13

4

15

76

T1

18

19

20

27

22

23

24

25

Upon information and belief NO INVESTIGATION has ever occurred. While even their

former boss knows that the laws of this strate are supposed to ensure each and every

New Yorker has their day in @urt,"tt ry honorable state attorneys have got their story

and are sticking to it.

All one needs to do to establish Rodriguez'fraud and perpetuation of fraud on the court

is to compare Gorskis'Memorandum Decision to the finalorders drafted by him. The

counttess FATAL DEFECTS are memorialized in pro se plaintiffs Memo Eil

Rodriguez cared so little about the mandatory prerequisites [safeguards] of pre filing

orders he failed to provide procedures to comply with New York's '@mmencement by

filing system'. His recklessness and the ministerial negligence of Judge Jerome Gorski

constituted a'Strate Created Dangef that inevitably occurred.

They failed to see the dangers because pro se ostracism was the preeminent agenda.

As the Seventh ;ll Circuit said, "liability exists when Sre strate dffirmatively places a

particular individual in a position of danger [hel would not have othenrise faed."

It is beyond credibility that a judge would 'permanently' enjoin a pro se plaintiff who had

no previous record of frivolous lawsuits AND sanction him, without a hearinq, to the

maximum allowed by law. But Gorski did this solely on Rodriguez'affirmations.

It is beyond credibility that a judge would order an unsuccessful pro se plaintiff to

reimburse defendant judges'actual expenses reasonably incuned defending a civil

rights lawsuit.' ln fact Gorski did not do this. lt was more 'sleigh of hand' by Rodriguez'

And the arbitrarily reopened, modified and expanded orders of Thomas VanStrydonck

are constitutionally void;AND void for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction.

'[i]udgments entercd where ourt lacked subject matter or penionaljurisdic{ion, or that were

entered in violation of due proms of lalr, must be set aside, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt,

s.D.N.Y.1994, 158 F.R.D. 278.

s AG Andrew Cuomo. April 20093

Memo of Defects. E

-1 6-



o

9

10

11

L2

13

I4

15

16

L7

18

19

20

2L

22

23

24

25

RICHARD A. DOLLINGER, Official Capacity

On October 3, 2013 I walked into another due process ambush by the pre-decision of

Judge Richard Dollinger that'his attorneys'were infinitely more credible than this pro se

litigant. [see NOTICE; G] lt was immediately clear he had pre-decided my GUILT of civilcontempt. He ORDERED I either voluntarily discontinue the action orface coercive

incarceration. This threat constitutes extrinsic fraud and more fraud on the @urt. .36

Dollingers rush to judgment exemplifies my judiciary's chronic refusals to hear and duly

consider any grievance on which I invoked jurisdiction OR any defense I am forced to

raise in the ambush. Deutstch and Dollinger have NO CAUSE and NO AUTHORITY for

this serial malicious prosecution. However, if history repeats higher courts will turn a

deaf ear and remain unresponsive. I will suffer the consequences anyway.

Regardless of how AAG Deutsch colors his allegations they lack merit. The controlling

principles for a case like this were enunciated in motions/correspondences to Judge

Matthew Rosenbaum before Dollinger was even assigned. lsee HI

Dollingers' prejudiced rush to conclusions claims that there is no exonerating way to

interpret Rosenbaums Order. This claim is egregious beyond my ability to describe. The

EVIDENCE to the contrary is pro se plaintiffs letter to Rosenbaum dated June 16 2013..

ln fact it likely gave Deutsch 'the color'to move for malicious sanctions again.

My motion for reconsideration of Artide Eleven relief was submitted to then assigned

judge Moran. To this day the only decision I've receiued is the order of Rosenbaum and

concluded it decided BOTH applications; including permission to file.

lf it is alleged NOT apply to the latter [as Dollinger suggests]where is the decision for

permission to file that I have been waiting forsince January 2013?

I submit that supreme and county court ministerialerors cannot be limited to pro se

cases, AND, I am categorically NOT responsible for them. This egregious conclusion

results from the ambiguous procedure left after varying from long established civil rules

of procedure.

sExtrinsic ftaud induces one not to present a case in court or deprives one of the opportunity to be heard

tr



1

2

3

4

5

6

't

I

9

10

11

T2

l-3

74

15

16

77

18

19

20

27

22

23

24

25

/B

THE MAIN TORTFEASOR

January 2013. lmmediately upon learning of Thomas VanStrydoncks' retirement I filed a

new plenary complaint against these void proceedings and other judgments. I notified

Administrative Judge Matthew Rosenbaum that he must now serve as gatekeeper'.

BRADY v PEOPLE OF NEW YORK, et al lf2013-053

Annexed and incorporated here are the results of that plenary attempt to rid my life of

crippling government restraints and void judgments. lthe Dollinger papers]

OFFICE OF PUBLIC INTEGRITY

Then came AAG Hilel Duetsch to thwart the action by unlawful motion to subject me to

more hearsay, discrimination and unrestrained abuse of power. His reckless MTD itself

rises to the level of frivolous, vexatious and without merit. lrebutt6l F] Considering his

newly appointed position as Public lntegrity Officer I should be as much part of his

fiduciary duty as every other citizen. I have complained to the Department of his

colleagues fraud countless times and received no response whatsover.

I depose once again that my decade long 'no win' litigation vortex DID NOT begin over

my alleged 'dissatisf,action over a family court ruling'. This is chronic legal fiction. AfterGorskis injunction I've been unable to obtain any judicial ruling at all.

Every attempt to do so has been summarily dismissed by administrative gntekeepers.

These were not adjudications of controversies. They were based on adversarial gossip

and hearsay. As a matter of record I haye nevel bee.n_ meaninqfully hgard on any issue

The 'affirmations'of AAG Deutsch is chronic propaganda;3s evidence of an unretenting

conspiracy to block me from a fair non hostile venue. I submit this was the agenda of the

Trivolous, vexatious label in the first place. His allegations appear with a color of truth bu

ultimately derive from Rodriguez'fraud which has succeeded countless times before.

The Ninth [9\ Circuit has confirmed that vexatious labels can poison courts against non lawyer liligants. They

can invoke a witcfi-hunt that ftees iudges to (press their antipahy for them.



1

z

3

4

5

6

'l

8

9

10

11

L2

13

I4

15

16

L1

1B

19

20

2L

22

23

l4

25

- 19-

I RREDEEMABLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Dollinger opines that the injunction[s] prohibit me from suing an attorney for fraudulently

encumbering my property because it constitutes family court subject matter. This is why

his arbitrary, ill-informed enforcement is utterly and irredeemably unconstitutional. I amstupefied by a decade of similar punishing constitutionalviolence. ln fact it has literally

changed my personality.

Given these circumstances, the Departments motion to dismiss with sanctions is

patently in bad faitr. lt is part of an ongoing pattern of harassment and ostracism of a

pro se victim under color of authority. The basis for this motion by government is utterly

and inedeemably unconstitutional.

Dollinger has presented a real and immediate threat that I will be raped, plundered and

abused again, including possible incarceration. As a matter of law, I am entitled to an

Order enjoining this threat..37 This Court has an obligation to hear my pleas not simply

throw me bac* to the wolves.

Like countless before him, Dollinger has simply'steamrolled' over my defenses, leaving

me to find relief elsewhere, lF I can and at my expense. I submit this is to teach me the

lesson of having a fool for a client. However, his lesson violates due orocess of law and

equal protection rights under state and federal constitutions. lt supports my allegedconstructive conspiracy against pro se litigants.

The Attorney General notes that I have filed '35 cases and appeals against the state of

New York and its offtcers'. I note that EVERY ONE complained of fatal constitutional

jurisdiclional defects. EVERY ONE was terminated at the complaint stage.

And the evidence of wrongdoing is not limited to my civil disabilities. Please note that th

pro se defenclant cannot even protect against JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS.

I hereby incorporate and reference the annexed petition for coram nobis under title of

Brady v People of New York and Administrative Judge Craig Doran .[see I and J]

ttC,ty of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 97-98 (1983).



1

2

3

6

1

8

4

5

9

10

11

L2

l_3

T4

15

16

I7

18

19

20

.A

25

21

22

After eighteen [18] years of up close and personal experiences I attest with 150%

conviction that I have been continuously and unanimously blocked of my fundamental

rights by 'misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and possible only bcause

the wrongdoers rrere dothed with strate authority. 38

DORAN, DOLLINGER AND DALTON

Said abuse is exemplified by the chronic obstruction[s] of JUDGE CRAIG DORAN. As

'gatekeeper' he has only one duty to perform and has repeatedly refused to perform it.

lnstead he acted in a different capacity and then lied about it to summarily trash an

absolutely valid action to exonerate myself. Upon information and belief he participated

Dollingers arbitrary denial of benefits granted me by another court judge. [Fisher]

Dollingers letter established his inclination to act on hearsay and implicates his malicetowards me long before he was assigned to the instant action.

The August 2013 rejection of my pro se papers by Fourth [4h] Department intake clerk

LAWRENCE X. DALTON implicates his participation in the conspiracy. Both Doran and

Dalton have a demonstrable history of thwarting my access to courts; seemingly as if it

was a game which they always win AND at my expense.

DORAN has instructed supreme and county aourt clerks to forward EVERY document I

attempt to file in court to him and to require even my most minute courtesies to berequested in writing. His staff then usually fails to respond.

DORAN and his staff knew, or should know that the Gorski injunction does not target the

subject matter in the petition for coram nobis. lt DOES however contain evidence of

public official wrongdoing AND the due prcr@ss clause quarantees citizens access to

courts to present claims gf wrong doings .3s,

All one needs to do to confirm Doran's intent to keep me unlavyfully convicted of eleven

[11] jurisdictionally VOID convictions to read the questions posed in pro se plaintiffspetition for coram nobis and confirm the merits. Obviously Doran failed to do so.

sUnited States v. Classic, (1941)

s Brown v. Grabowski,922F.2d 1097, (3d Cir. 1990) (citing Wotff v. McDonnell,418 U.S. 539-579, 94 S. Ct.

2963,298 86,41 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1974)

-20*



5

6

'7

8

9

10

11

T2

13

I4

15

16

1 1

18

19

20

2T

22

z5

24

25

There was no authorized €use for Daltons rejection. He apparently acted on hearsay of

a prohibitive order from a yet unknown party. Days after I obstructed I received a letter

from the court citing the Gorski injunction.

I responded immediately to advise that the subject matter [elevenjurisdictionally

voidcriminal convictions] was not prohibited by the injunction. lwent to extremes to inform

the court why they did not apply and to express the urgency of the rejected action.

I provided a September 2004 order of Judge John Lane declaring plaintiff needs no

permission to commence an action [there]. .

Over many years Dalton has engaged in similar conduct; in what is best described as a

'pissing matcfi', 'power trips'; rejecting and tuming my expensive to produce pro se

petitions into worthless piles of paper, He has ridiculed my pleadings in rejection letterssent to my adversaries, constructively advising them of defenses they could have lost

Dalton is one of many hostile uncooperative court attorneys who failto recognize the

difference between 'legal advice'and procedures for getting matters before the courts.

T/hen govemment makes it more dfficrult for members of one group to benefit than

others, it violates the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the Fourteenth Amendmenf.

Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. at 362

Without cause and without authority Dalton has maliciously interfered with my access to

the court and has caused more than financial injury.a0

He has not only prevented me

from filing the exonerating action that Doran previously attempted to prevent thwart,

their actions render ineffective any remedy that I might otherwise have had.a1

Although Dollingers threat of imminent punishment and incarceration COULD have been

enjoined by Article 78 in the Fourth J+th1 Oepartment, I have absolutely no confidenc-e

that any such action would pass intake clerks and even reach an appellate judge.

{ Kampfer v. Vonderheide, 216 F.Supp.2d 4, 7 (N.D.N.Y. 2002).*fn16ot

City of New York v. Beretta, Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, (20A2)

-21-



10

11

t2

l_3

74

15

L6

1-7

1B

19

20

2t

22

z3

24

25

-22-

SUPERVISORS, FIDUCIARIES, GUARDIANS OF THE PEOPLES RIGHTS

Plaintiff says the Department of Law [Schniederman] and Craig Doran are liable for civil

rights violations because their negligence in supervisory capacities and fiduciary duty is

causally related to constitutionatviolations committed by his subordinate.A2

In fact, as alleged Public lntegrity Officer, MG Deutsch has definitively trashed a

preeminent fiduciary duty. All have participated in or acquiesced to the constitutional

deprivations identified herein.'d3 Their negligence to supervise rogue employees is so

apparent that future misconduct and injured victims is almost inevitable.aa

I submit that [retired] AAG Carlos Rodriguez has proved such a demonstrable liar and

menace that he very likely has other victims. His malicious ultra vires prosecutions of

me

ou

AND his conflict of interest could not have gone unnoticed by Dept colleagues.

The District Attorney and all Department of Law employees'are duty bound to alert the

court to circumstances they know might present a conflict of interest'46

Exeptwtrere speciftcally permitted by statute, the Attomey General* is given no qeneral

prosecutorialauthority. As Judiciary Law does not specifically authorize [such] authority, the

Attomey Generalcould not prosecute the case.o7

PRO SE PREJUDICE AND CONSUMER FRAUD

I submit that it cannot be clearer. Owing to circumstances of which I have no complicity

whatsoever, I must confront every day of my life a clearly hostile, secretive, closed door

judiciary. I have been forced over many years to pay fees for legal services that were

never provided;to courts that WILL NOT RESPOND to my clearly enunciated, facially

meritorious petitions for what is ultimately MANDATORY relief.

n2Greason v- Kemp, 891 F.2d 836 (citing, Wilson v. Attaway, 757 F.2d 1227,1241(1lth Cir. 1985) causal

connection between the actions of the superior and the alleged deprivation); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362,

375-76, 96 S.Ct. 598, 606 L.Ed.2d 561,572 (1976) (for liability under $1983,6

Kite v. Kelley,546 F.2d 3U,337 (1Oth Cir.1976).*

Hays v. Jefferson County, 668 F.2d 869, (6th Cir.), (1982n5

Rodriguez worked in the Public Advocacy/Consumer Frauds Bureau. His role was to protect consumers and

seek injunctive relief against individuals and businesses engaging in deceptive and illegal conduc{ of business.s Matter Rocco A. De Pemo EtId. v. Anthony J. Ganamone (08/12y83) 466 N.Y.S.2d 909; 120 Misc. 2d 881.a7

Peoplev. Gilmour, 2U A.D.2dU1,725 N.Y.S.Zd 668 (N.Y.App.Div.06/04/2001)



1

2

3

4

EJ

6

t

I

9

10

11

L2

13

I4

15

L6

I7

18

19

20

2I

22

23

24

25

The Attorney General notes that I have filed '35 cases and appeals against the State of

New York and its officers'. I trust the instant record explains why since 1991 the number

of motions, cross motions, claims and appeals I have filed is closer to 85. I can only

estimate the cost [$5,472.00], but the number of issues resolved by the courts is easier.

NONE. ZERO. NADDA,

Parenthetically, an annexed spreadsheet identifies the New York court officers who

have participated in, or observed, and kept the secrets of colleagues who have

wrongfully prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated me over the years and who

sustained the unlawful convictions on appeal. Please note the fatal defects of these

convictions are so obvious that it could not have been 'inadvertent'or coincidental.

I submit that my gatekeeper orders are merely the color underwhich STATE OFFICERS

including defendants, have unanimously and continuously deprived and punished me

for lawful exercises of my state and federal rights. Those who advocate their validity

however NEVER answer for their conflicts with superior law or why my requests for

permission have been disingenuously denied or not even answered at all.

Admittedly, I have never attended law school. ln fact I had much different aspirations for

my life than being ambushed by court officers, abused, disfranchised, criminalized,

bankrupted; emotionally and financially, immobilized in my wrongfully foreclosed home

waiting for the honorable courts that left me here to deny, punish and incarcerate meagain for trying to escape the inevitable consequence of this nightmare.

I DO however know politicalabuse and insurmountable pro se prejudice when I live it,

up close and personalfor a decade and more. lt has been definitively articulated as

Ordinary lnjusthe, a.k.a Just us justice'. lt is the clear unmistakable reason why my

honorable, entrusted officers of my courts can rally round an ambiguous, misapplied

injunction shouting 'crucifr him'cnrcify him.'

I submit that New York's Offie of Public lntegnty should investigate my claims

Although my emotional and financial damages are essentially impossible to calculate

with precision I know that they began precisely on GROUND ZERO. I had not

known that representing one's self in court could be a criminal matter.

-23-



s,TArE of r.Ew yoiRMONROE COUNTY FAMTLY COURT

HAIL OF JUSIEEctvtc cENt€q Pr_^zl

FOCHESIEI|. N€W YCfi( raara.2tat'ti3,a2a.a@o

F.t N6a..: tl6.a2G259t

, ,'Anlt

9'Yl'lo'4

//

i* ll

FOI€BT A. XOrrOrl

lltllta a. cQ(Atat

GROUND ZERO

April r9, r 994

Mr, X, Pdlrl,ck Br.dy50 frcnch creet Dr-lveRochealer; Ner Yorh I il6l8

lls . lalt '.I Tt=:a1020 Gl6a6on CircleEasl Roche6ter, Nqv York 14450

RE; ERI'I VS. TETG''DOCXET lvl,[46-91 ]

Dear l'tr. irady r e , f-ss I

Becau6e of the numbe of unre6olved and pendj.ng petitiong on

thi6 nstter, Iqt

in6tructj,og Lhe ltonroe couDLy FamiIi courtClcrk's offj,c6 not to accapt-or fite ary furthir petifions or.pplicotion€ by either parly. pleaE€ comply with'exj-6ringorder€ -

-. tt har comG to my attcntio'l th.g Mr, Brady h6s rcpc.tedlyc lled Eeveral ,rudgqs and the clerk'a office. -unl.esE Lhls colrs"of conduqt cea6e6; I will be forced to contdct the DistrictAttorney's of fice tegardlng prosgculi.on.

lt"r' Very Truly lou 6,

.fu,MM-upervi6irg Judge ot Monroe

County Farll.ly Court.

ye"'-Uifu

ccl Robert Nortotr8on. Arnold Circciollon. Anthony F. aonadio

tlon. Michqel J. M-iller



*;-' tta,

. f .

lblankl

1

z

3

I5

6

7

I

9

10

L1

L2

13

L4

L5

76

1 7

r.B

L9

20

27

22

23

24

25



10

l1

L2

l3

L4

15

l6

L1

18

19

20

,/, I

ZZ

25

-27 -

I submit I have provided sufficient factual basis to support a constructive meeting of

minds that defendants have been in agreement, express or tacit, to achieve unlawful

end. Their acts manifest deep cultural prejudice and animosity for a pro se litigant for

having lawfully exercised my rights under state and federalonstitutions.'* 48

The New York Constitution and CPLR 321 provides a PU, *** may prosecute or

defend a ciuit action in prcon or by attomey.ae

The right * derives from guannte+s of fteedom of association, [Art l, S 9J and will not

yietd untess anfrond with some oveniding @mpeting pubtic interest s0

ln New York, law and public policy mandata any restriction im@ on that rigfu Allbe arcfullysmttinked. 5l

I therefore ask my honorable and entrusted defendant State court officers

Are pro se litigants not allowed to participate in inquiries that affect their fundamental

rights of society ? Are such inquiries far too complicated for legal laypeople?

The New York Constitution mandates no abridgment of the rights of the people *** to

petition the govemment, or any department thereof;' NO ABRIDGMENT

AAG Rodriguez, in conspiracy with the Department of Law and supreme court judges

VanStrydonck and Sirkin, AND, without any complainants and without any evidence,

arbitrarily modified Gorskis pre-filing order into a malicious toolto block me from every

court in the world.

I submit the provision 'unless represented by an attomey'intended to protect their

secrets under color of ABA Rule 1.6. However, pursuant to CPLR S 105 (c) I am an

attornev.

otWebb v. Goord, 340 F.3d 105, (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting Romerv. Morgenthau, 119 F.Supp.2d 346, (S.D.N.Y.).

osJAMES L. SEAGO v. JILL P. ARNOLD (11l}7t8/.) Fourth Department

$ Matter of Kelly, 23 N.Y.2d 368, People v Doe, 98 Misc. 2d 805 Matter of Gopman, 531 F2d262,.ut

US v Hobson, 672F2d825; People v Doe, 98 Misc. 2d 805 Prodell v. State, 125 AD2d 805, Matter of

[Anonymous],62 NY2d 183, 196



1

z

3

4

5

6

1

B

9

10

11

12

13

I4

15

16

L1

18

19

2A

21,

22

23

24

25

-28-

THE CONSEQUENCES

While these criminal tortfeasors get to live their remaining years on comfortable state

pensions, my family has split under years of government abuse and negligence. Our

remaining years are delegated to abject poverly. I submit this constitutes the ultimatefailure to provide equal protection AND ultimate crueland unusual punishment.

I depose under penalty of perjury that NO COURT has ever been shown proof of my

alleged long history of [bad faith] litigation. lt s a MYTH. Contrary to this fiction I have

never filed any action in any court that legally or constructively rose to the level of

frivolous, vexatious, and/or without merit. I have not broken any laws, destroyed my own

livelihood, prosecuted and incarcerated myself, or violated my own constitutional rights.

ln the final analysis I have no pomplicity whatsoever for the abuses I have suffered.

AND I challenge every allegation to the contrary.

While I once enjoyed success in my professional life, and family life, I am today, at 63,

unemployed and unemployable in my profession of choice for the last [20] years. Due to

serial protracted incarcerations, l ve lost my career in financialseryices, my professional

licenses and credibility, my credit rating and even my license to lawfully drive, 52

My real property is slandered by VOID judicial liens obtained by fraud, attomey fraud,govemment attomey fraud, fraud on the ourtfsl perpetuated by fraud on the court[sl,

countless due process violations, including continuous denial of access to courts.

ln fact I technically lost this home and property to foreclosure fraud when Judge Ark

signed a proposed order of summary judgment based on forged mortgage documents

and perjured affirmatiqns of foreclosure millattorneys. Having ignored my jurisdictional

challenge, and in the absence of a hearing, he handed these assets over to a now well

known corporate fraudster and pretender lender.

For simply having exercised my right to lawfully petition government for my grievances,

I have lost my right to lawfully petition govemment for my grievances. My courts have

consistently accepted my application fees but NO COURT has ever adjudication even a

single issue on which I invoked jurisdiction.

s2Perinton Town Court. Jurisdictionally void DMV violations



1

z

3

4

tr

6

'1

8

9

10

11

L2

1?TJ

I4

15

16

1a

1B

79

20

2L

ZJ

24

25

lnstead I have been gang raped, plundered, tyrannized and defrauded, criminalized,

ostracized, disfranchised of my fundamental rights, driven into poverty and abandoned

all under color of law. My quality of life deteriorates daily while I have no choice but wait

for courts to provide the mandatory relief I am entitled to including restoration of my civil

rights. I'm alive, but living in a constructive ghetto; surviving on welfare benefits thathave now EXPIRED before I've even gotten to court.

For me the CHEAT lS ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE

Although my mortgage fraudster has not attempted to enforce Arks jurisdictionally void

order, I nevertheless remain immobilized, under house arrest and infinitely bottlenecked

from unresolved grievances.

Throughout my voluminous pro se pleadings to consistently unresponsive courts I have

alfeged ad nauseum that if 'We the People'were to learn of the wrath I have suffered

due to lawful exercise of my rights, it would be the ultimate chill. ln fact this case

establishes how vulnerable 'We' are to unrestrained judicial power and government

unac@untability.

REQUESTS FOR RELIEF

I submit that this Court must immediately enjoin New York Judge Richard Dollingersarbitrary and unconstitutional ordbr for excessive fines and coercive incarceration and

declare the relevant facts;

[1] that Supreme Couft has held that plaintifb govemment cannot sue him for

malicious prosecution because itwould chillthe right to petition.s3

[2] Aocess to oourts is a fundamentral tenet of our judicial system; legitimate claims

should receive a fulland fair hearing no matter how litigious plainffiappears il

[3] 'it is not unlavrfiil to file and prosecute a meritorious action. A court does not

have the duty to protect itsetf from non-frivolous litigation. 55

*C,ty of Long Beach v. Bozek (1932) 31 Cal.3d 527, 538-9

illn re Oliver, at682 F.2d4/;6.

-29-



10

11

L2

13

I4

15

16

I1

18

19

2A

al

22

23

25

-30-

[4] 'There is no absolute prohibition against filing new lawsuits'. 'When a 'vexatious

litigant' knocks on the courthouse door with a ffacially meritoriousl olorable claim,

he may entef 56

[5]that by his own admission Dollingers act is notjudicial

but mere acquiesoene tothe request of 'his' attomeys,

[6] His disposition is only one in a long unanimous series of obstrudions to the

courts by offiers knowingly acting under olor of misapplication of 'gatekeepe/

orders.

[7] As a matter of state and federal law AND public policy, previous courts have

lacked authority to lgnore, deny, and/or summarily terminate the facially meritorious

complaints I have brought before them.

[8] The 1996 orders of Judge Jerome Gorskiviolate the US supremacy clause and

federal standards for imposition of pre-filing injunctions. They also contain defects

and inconsistencies with law and the law of that case to render il onm non-judie

and void from the outset. 57

[9J the money judgments awarded to Monroe Gounty judges and other civil parties

made Fyable to New York Aftomeys General was obtained by fraud on the court by

Carlos Rodriguez and other attomeys for the defendant parties.

[10] New York supreme court proceedings of Nov. 13, 2002 - Feb. zO0/. under title of

'the People of New York by Eliot SpiEer vs Kevin Patrick Brady' and alljudgments

deriving from them arc jurisdictionallyvoid. s

uu BillJohns Restaurants, lnc v NLRB 461 U.S. 731,753 (1983) Luckett v Panos 161 Cal. App. 4* 77,81 I2WT

5'A AoilJ'ludgment grounds no rights, brms no defense to actions taken h€reunder, and is vulnerable to anv

manner otgollateral anack. No statute of lim}laticns or repose runs on its holdings. Maners thought to be

thereby are not res judicata, and years later any disgrunded litigant may reopen probe its depths. And it is then

as though trial and adjudication had never been. Fritts v. Krugh, 92 N.W. 2d 604,

sfludgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdktion, or that were otherwise

entered in violatbn of due process of law, must be set aside, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994, 158

F.R.D.278.



10

11

1a

'l?

T4

15

16

L'7

18

19

20

27

22

ZJ

24

25

[1 1] that based on said proeedings, AAG Rodriguez /New York Department of Law

subjected plaintffito further abuse by proseantion in Feb. 2004, tripd in absentia and

incarcerated him and thus violated his right to be present at trial.

[12] the eleven (11) criminal convictions identified in Exhibit I and J were void ontheir fa@s and thus wrongfully sustained for allegations that do not oognizable crime

or offenses.

[13] Since 20021 have incuned at least 5,472.00 in application fees, productions

costs and other expenses to obtain legal services thatwere never rendered. These

expenses plus interest must be reimbursed by Carlo Rodriguez.

[14] The cost of producing tudve [12t appellate briefs and exhibits ( 1g2.00) that

then arbitrarily reiected without authority must be reimbursed by defendant Dalton.

[15] I request compulsory and punitive damages where authorized of 5,000,000.00

to be allocated by tris Couft or jury based on the defendants contribution to my

destruction.

And I request any other relief this Gourt is authorized to provide.

I depose under penalty of law that everything contained herein is correct and truthful to the best of my

knowledge, exc€pt for matters alleged on information and belief and I believe those matters to be true.

Nothing is intended to be frivolous, harassing or completely without merit.

Kevin Patrick Brady

508 Locust Lane

East Rochester 1M45

title 42 section 1983 october 2013

Documents