IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In Eric H. Richmond, Debtor. Eric H. Richmond, Appellant, v. No. 1:14-cv-5957 (BMC), No. 1:14-cv-7112 (BMC) P.B. #7, et al, Appellees. In 231 Fourth Avenue Lyceum, LLC, Debtor. In 231 Fourth Avenue Lyceum, LLC, Appellant, v. No. 1:14-cv-6557 (BMC), No. 1:14-cv-7113 (BMC) P.B. #7, et al., Appellees. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSALS OF APPEALS AS MOOT ERIC H. RICHMOND. APPELLANT AND PARTY IN INTEREST, PRO SE TO: THE HONORABLE BRIAN MARK COGAN, US DISTRICT JUDGE Appellant (No. 1:14-cv-5957 (BMC), No. 1:14-cv-7112 (BMC)) and Party in Interest (No. 1:14-cv-6557 (BMC), No. 1:14-cv-7113 (BMC)), Eric H. Richmond, Appellant and Party In Interest, hereby respectfully files this motion to vacate the February 25, 2015 Dismissals of Appeals as Moot (5957 224, 7412: 17, 6557 : 23, 7113: 20).MOTION TO VACATE MOOTING OF PREVIOUSLY DECIDED MOTIONS TITLE Vil. JUDGMENT > Rule 60. Relief from a Judgment or Order (b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (4) the judgment is void; (6) any other reason that justifies relief. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This motion is made under each of the prongs listed above of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. 2. They are 60b1, 60b4, 60b6. 3. Pro se movant expects, nay demands, that this court address each and every prong cited. Failure to do so is a violation of due process. 4. In fact, failure to directly address arguments presented is also a violation of due process. PAGE #2ARGUMENTS FRCP 60(b)1 Mistake #4 5, Judge Brian M. Cogan made an egregious mistake by refusing to treat the Notice of Presentment filed by William Curtin as a Notice of Presentment but as something to “Settle an Order” which has different rules. Judge Brian Cogan found “The United States Trustee settled the Order on 14 days’ notice... 6. This is belied by the actual document entitled “Notice of Presentment” which, by Eastern District Local Rule, requires 21 days notice and provides for a mandatory hearing if an objection is timely filed, no matter what the objection may be. FRCP 60(b)1 Mistake #2 7. Judge Brian M. Cogan made an egregious mistake by threatening an attorney for treating a Notice of Presentment as a Notice of Presentment. Finally, Lyceum’s invocation of the Due Process Clause is borderline sanctionable, something that would be expected from a pro se litigant, not a represented party. Lyceum does not contend that it lacked notice of the hearing on the motion to dismiss; nor that it lacked notice of the settlement of the Order, to which, as noted above, it timely objected. 8. Judge Cogan’s flippant disregard for statutorily required notice (21 days) for a Notice of Presentment is incredulous on its face. The paper was labeled as a Notice of Presentment and responded to as a Notice of PAGE #3Presentment. Any other discussion is a mistake. Judge Cogan says objection was timely filed. No other research of findings is relevant or necessary. An objection stating statutorily required notice was absent is enough to trigger the mandated hearing. In fact, the objection could have stated because .... pink unicorns ... and triggered the statutorily required notice. 9. Judge Brian Cogan put a chill on any attorney who might represent anyone as they could now expect to be randomly threatened with sanctions for responding to papers the government actually serves as opposed to what Judge Brian Cogan thinks the Government should have served. This impossible standard makes anything Judge Brian Cogan disfavors sanctionable in his eyes, be it illegal, unethical, immoral or unreasonable. FRCP 60(b)1 Mistake #3 10. Judge Brian M. Cogan made a mistake by allowing into evidence a deed that was magically notarized 5 days before it was signed. 11. Adeed executed on January 20, 2015 but notarized on January 15, 2015 is a sight to behold. And it is impermissible as evidence because it is impossible. As that evidence is the only evidence showing a completed sale, any and all findings made because the sale has occurred are mistakes. PAGE #412. This court could only have based its dismissals as moot on the impossible deeds presented by Glenn P. Warmuth as the Deed Exhibit to Document 14-5957 : 19 and by William K. Harrington, the United States Trustee as Deed Exhibit to 14-6557 : 18. FRCP 60(b)1 Mistake #4 13. Judge Brian M. Cogan made a mistake by determining that a stay on collecting a deficiency judgment made eliminating that judgment not “any effectual relief whatsoever.” FRCP 60(b)1 Mistake #5. 14. Judge Brian M. Cogan issued an order to show cause on February 8, 2015, the first business day after after the appeals were fully briefed 145. That action, based in the yet to be mentioned illegal internet search, could have been issued two months earlier. It is an absurd action that would only be taken by a judge who saw the papers and the obvious ‘outcome was not to his liking. 16. It is a mistake and an abuse of discretion. PAGE #5FRCP 60(b)1 Mistake #6 17. Judge Brian M. Cogan made a mistake by using a real estate blog as a basis to issue an order to show cause. http:/Awww.dnainfo.com/new-york/20141024/park-slope/developer-buys- landmarked-brooklyn-lyceum-for-76m-at-foreclosure-auction (last visited February 8, 2014) 48. It borders on the absurd that an entertainment site was the basis for an order to show cause : DNaAinfo.com is New York's leading neighborhood news source. We deliver up-to-the-minute reports on entertainment, education, politics, crime, sports, and dining. Our award-winning journalists find the stories - big or small - that matter most to New Yorkers. 49. What would the world think if Judge Brian Cogan’s fate were determined by one blog posting on the internet about Judge Brian Cogan? FRCP 60(b)4 Void 20. Judge Brian Cogan used the aforementioned internet blog dnainfo.com to conduct impermissible judicial research outside the papers filed , official legal research sites and outside city, state and federal databases. As such it violated due process and is void. PAGE #6FRCP 60(b)6 - any other reason that justifies relief. 21. Threatening an attorney for responding to what the government served is a threat to the Constitution and the amendments the court has sworn an oath to uphold. 22. As Judge Brian Cogan has recently sought sanctions against attorneys who Judge Cogan found did not know the Federal or Local Rules (Brian King), maybe Judge Cogan should sanction William Curtin instead of some poor attorney who responded to what William Curtin served as it is William Curtin’s paid job to know the rules. 23. _ In fact, if William Curtin does not come forward and inform the court that he served a Notice of Presentment and did not Settle an Order, he should be up on Judiciary Law 487 sanctions. WHEREFORE: As the court made several mistakes and the decision is void and the court must rectify the chilling effect of threatening sanctions for responding to what the government actually served instead of what the court thinks is obvious the government should have served, Debtor requests that the dismissals of the appeals be vacated and for any other relief this court finds just and proper. 4 ‘Sworn to this date: By: Z - Feb 25, 2016 Eric Richmond Brooklyn, NY Appellant, Party in Interest, pro se 2107 Regent Place Brooklyn, NY 11226 brooklynlyceum@gmail.com CC: Glenn Warmuth, Michael Macco, William Curtin PAGE #7