thesearchforspock - we miss our little monster

ABOUTthesearchforspock
- Flatbush is a tough place.
  We hope you found our lost kitty, SPOCK
  
  If so, PLEEEEAAASSSEE CONTACT US!!!!!
  
  REWARD!! NO QUESTIONS ASKED!!!
CONTACTFB, Twitter, E-mail
- Foll ow @brooklynlyceum Add my email please! Contact thesearchforspock.org
LyceumDue Process
- BASIC... WORK IN PROGRESS
  
  LowDown - 2 simple things lead to ... a new Brooklyn Lyceum
  
  as the procedural due process legal swamp settles:
  
  All litigants are entitled to .... --#1 Basic 5th grader math skills
  from 4 appellate court judges
  w/ 140 years of combined legal experience.
  --#2 Those same judges addressing,
  after it being brought to their attention
  at oral argument, the utter failure of Plaintiff
  to serve any papers on Lyceum attorney,
  not finding what is impossible if they did so,
  that the Plaintiff timely moved.
  
  HELP US pre-program the return of a
  PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS DEPRIVED Brooklyn theater.
  
  If you think, like us, this is utterly ridiculous,
  Help us as we take action to undo this situation.
  
  NEXT: KNOWDOWN to prepare for Procedural Due Process THROWDOWN/SHOWDOWN!
  
  KnowDown ---- Basic math and basic logic ...
  
  THE GOOD FIGHT : PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
  
  --Appellate Court, 4 judge panel w/ 140 years combined legal experience,
  slyly made a finding that the Brooklyn Lyceum moved too late
  because the Lyceum's motion, A (served/entered/argued on Oct 17/19/22),
  came AFTER the ENTRY of Judgment of Foreclosure, B (entered Oct 26)
  without ever citing the entry dates of the motion and the Judgment
  (whose entry date does not exist anywhere in the record on appeal).
  
  This is utter horseshit because the standard in New York
  ALWAYS starts and ends with NOTICE OF ENTRY, not just ENTRY.
  Also horseshit because:
  the motion (A) is datetime stamped AFTER the Judgment (B), not before.
  
  By making a finding premised on a bullshit standard
  and factually incorrect even with the bullshit standard,
  you have to wonder, who wrote this decision, why,
  and why it took four months to come up with the bullshit finding?
  
  -- Same court, same ruling, found, with no proof cited,
  that Plaintiff timely moved the 1st motion in case,
  despite the Lyceum raising the failure to serve Lyceum attorney
  at oral argument on appeal before the 4 judges,
  again without citing the dates of any actions or documents.
  
  Bullshit finding that a motion never served on Lyceum attorney
  is timely, or even done at all.
  ThrowDown --- Make noise with us ...
  Club JAFO: Send in affirmation along lines as decribed below. Get a curatorial vote.
  Club MARU: We use any affirmation in court filing. First use of any affirmation gets you another curatorial vote.
  Club JafoMaru: Appear at a JafoMaru Function. More votes based on what the action is.
  prior thoughts on THROWDOWN
  
  --A) READ STATUTE--requiring service of all papers on attorneys.
  --B) READ SHORT TREATISES--
  -- common law v. statute,
  --common law (informal) appearance v. statutory appearance
  --C) READ CASELAW--
  --showing failure to serve attorney never invokes power of the court, vests no rights and has no deadline (statute of limitations) to vacate the decision
  
  --showing informal appearance valid as appearance.
  
  --showing extension of time to answer and service of answer are informal appearances
  
  --D) READ DOCKET--
  --Note that a Plaintiff attorney affirmation swearing no appearance by any Defendant dated ... is attached to a notice of motion dated ... and entered ....
  
  --Note motion decision premised on that affirmation.
  
  --Note date of same attorney affirmation three years later swearing otherwise ... that Plaintiff attorney granted Defendant attorney two extensions of time, multiple oral extensions of time and that Plaintiff rejected Defendant answer back to Defendant Lyceum's attorney.
  
  --Note dates of extensions and service and rejection of answer are prior to date of previous sworn statement of no appearance in support of earlier motion.
  
  --Note same judge premising decision on extensions of time to Defendant Lyceum's attorney.
  
  --Note proofs of service of 1st motion are not on Defendant Lyceum's attorney
  
  --E) ACT--
  --Send Affirmation or notarized Affidavit or notarized Jurat
  
  --Submit caselaw from any jurisdiction (for or against our position)
  
  --Appear live or zoomlike at a hearing
  
  --Appear at event
  
  --F) VOTE ON--
  --Events Lyceum or proxy Lyceum .
  
  --Assisting Other procedural due process cases.
  
  GOWANAGUS.COM
  ShowDown --- Math and Logic and Noise for a new Lyceum!
  BASICS: We need to attack some decisions with some pretty specific arguments that the court exceeded its authority in acting, or had no authority whatsoever, largely due to lack of notice.
  
  ON THE HORIZON:
  With the help of some amount of the populace chiming in with brainstem sunlight, sunlight being the best disinfectant, these are a list of the options we think may be viable:
  1. Motion to reargue appellate panel of 4 judges with 140 years experience finding 17 or 19 or 22 > 26
  2. Motion to reargue appellate panel of 4 judges with 140 years experience failing to address what was raised at oral argumentand clear from the record on appeal, that Plaintiff failed to serve notice of motion on known to Plaintiff attorney for multiple defendants, rendering failure to respond to m otion or appear at oral argument irrelevant.
  3. Motion to appellate court as is allowed when lower court signs an order on no notice,
    failure to serve attorney being no notice.
  4. Motion to appellate court for clarification of exactly how it got Lyceum moved too late.

Add yourself to thesearchforspock.org email list.

First Name

Last Name

Email

^

^

Add my email please!