,1

2
J

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF MONROE KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, plaintiff

STATE OF NEW YORK

4 5
6 8

20't3-053
V

I
10
11

12 13
14

THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK by Attorney General, defendant STEVEN E. FEDER, defendant
t

rr,-:

{:1 |:

1- ':

r
.
.:-

li:
ffr

15 16 17
1B

NOTICE OF PETITION AND AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE TO THE PARTIES;

19

t* .$

20
21

r.,-'

22 23 24 25

t6
27 28 29 30
31

Upon the affidavits of Kevin Patrick Brady and order of Judge Matthew Rosenbaum, an action has commenced in the court above to, inter alia, render null and void certain uniawful restraints and money judgments issued from courts lacking persona'l and/or su bject matter jurisdiction.

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41

These unconstitutional and jurisdictionally defective orders have polluted my personal and professional record; professional licenses, ciedibility and even my credit rating.. They thwart my ability to earn a living in my profession of choice for the last twenty [20] years. They prevent me from leveraging and/or liquidating my real property despite continuin g deterioration,of market values. from Steven Feder and New york State.. I seek additional award of $100,000.00 punitive damages from Steven Feder. I seek $1,000,000 from New York State and the Department of Law for malicious prosecutions, gross abuse and negligence by its employees and officers of the court.
I seek compensatory damages of $7,844.00

42 43 44

45
46

Answers, if any, must be provided to the Court on or before They must be provided to Plaintiff on or about

47
48 49 50

TO THE COURT
BE ADVISED that on

2 3

ta

4 5
6 7

lserved a Notice and Petition on

second Notice on that same date.

On
I personally served Notice and Petition on the Rochester office of

I
10
11

-l

Attorney General/ Department of Law, 144 Exchange Blvd. Rochester.

12 13
14

15 16 17 18 19

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

except 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.

20
21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

eirf (u
,1

/
\
I

/'x77

,----\

KEVINPATRICK BRAD

508 Locust La East Rochester, New York 1444 585 381

lqalr.
o.cr

n1c cr r\11,-;

32 33 34 35 36

,l

"kJ>Ce{id

S-,-r,, .-}c,3;XlA{"

3l
38 39 40
41
KAREN A, SMITH NOTARY PUBLIC.STAIE OF NEW YORK

No. 0i SM624 t 4Ba

Quqllfled ln Monroe County

My eommlulon Fxplrel tr4oy

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

lg, aors

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT

2
3

COUNry OF MONROE
KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, plaintiff

STATE OF NEW YORK

4
5 6 7 8

2013-053
V

I
10
11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK by Attorney General, defendant STEVEN E. FEDER, defendant
PLAINTIFFS PLELI
M

INARY AFFIDAVIT

20
21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

This comes by original action not by motion in a previous action because (1) Monroe County Family Court purports to have lost jurisdiction of its judgments when the subject child reached the age of 21. Nevertheless, the attorney fraud at issue is extrinsic to the underlying proceedings and thus recoverable by independent action.
[2] There was no main action entitled 'the People of New York by Eliot Spitzer v Kevin Patrick Brady'. These two [2] quasi criminaljurisdictionally defective proceedings were a subterfuge for malicious prosecution by court officers acting without personal and subject mater ju risdiction. ,PREFILING ORDERS'

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41

Since March 1996 I have been unlaMully blocked of access to courts by a rhetorically ambiguous'prefiling order'. Although the order is expressly limited to'family court matters.'it has been arbitrarily construed and perpetuated by subsequent coufts and expanded to 'any court in the State of New york,.
The original order warned of 'further possible sanctions'for [proven] disobedience. submit this is obvious reference to financial punishment. See 22 NYCRR 130.1 .1

42

43
44 45 46

47
4B

49 50

Nevertheless this has caused summary dismissal of every collateral action I have filed, as a sanction, sua sponte, without a hearing, without notice, without opportunity to amend ostensibly defective pleadings, and without requiring answers from my opposing government attorneys.

2 3

4
5

The expressed limitations to'family court matters'was observed and duly ackn by Judge Thomas VanStrydonck when he arbitrarily imposed an additional provision that [Brady] 'shall not be allowed to commence any lawsuit in New York State unless represented by an attorney. This requirement may be waived by showing he has been denied representation by agencies which provide free legal services to poor persons' CONSTITUTIONALLY VOID

6 7 8

I
10
11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

't9 20
21

After a decade of legal research I have never found any authorization anywhere for a judge to order an unsuccessful pro se plaintiff to reimburse defendant judges of their actual expenses reasonably incurred defending a civil rights lawsuit, I have never found authority [2] to force a pro se party to hire an attorney before commencing legal action. It just can't be done. When the underlying facts of this pro se oppression unfold the conclusion is undeniable. I have been bankrupted and immobilized by perversions of proper legal procedures . Despite countless facially meritorious petitions for relief from this lawlessness; relief that is mandatory in New York, I have never gotten past the connplaint stage.
I have deposed essentially ad nauseumthat "it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that fformer AAG Carlos Rodriguez] has set in motion an unconscionabte

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41

scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate matter"Ov improperly or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party's claim or defense." ***

intl@

Every petition included a rebuttable presumption of supreme courts lack of jurisdiction abuse and restrain me in any way. To this date NO COURT has adjudicated so much a a single allegation on which jurisdiction was invoked.

42
43 44

lncluded here are legal memorandums entitled 'Law of Void Judgments'. Another addresses 'Vexatious Litigants in New York. I submit that when a court purports to
modify long established procedures for commencing legal action, it must provide unambiguous alternate instructions to the enjoined party..

45
46

47 48 49
50

Fraud on the Court as defined in Aoude v. Mobil, 8g2

.Zd

11

1S, ( j ggg)

lr lt tt
1

-l
to

2
3

4
5

lr
I
I

comes first? Commencement by New York's filing system followed by motion I permit filing Or submission of pleadings for approval before

tt

lWhich

commencement?

6 7
8

ln Fry v. Village Tarrytown [1997] the Court of Appeals

said
I

I
10
11

** specifies "f!-!ing" [payment] as the dispositive event. Until an ttas commenced, a court cannot conduct any type of proceeding because there I I nothing before the court. This is not a mere technicality. lt is the essential key to

l""ott.ncemenf'

12 13 14 15 16 17
1B

lcourthouse door and the exercise of judicial

I

li

power.

is the

"",,on

I I

19

the Itne lidentified agencies and have been denied representation because they don't take civil lcases such as this. They include but are not limited to

I submit that upon payment this action is lavrrfully commenced. Nevertheless, pursuant td OrOer of Judge Matthew Rosenbaum I hereby certify that I have contacted all
I I

20
21

lt t__l
I

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

MONROE COUNry LEGAL ASSISTANCE CORP. for some types of civil matters: benefits, landlord-tenant, disability claims, Social Security and special

public

education

VOLUNTEER LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT OF MONROE COUNTY lNC. finds attorneys who volunteer to handle certain types of civil matters; divorce, custody, child support,
bankruptcy and eviction and free counseling on consumer credit matters, bankruptcy and creditors

rights.

including
to

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41

GREATER UPSTATE LAW PROJECT provides training, research and litigation support legal advocacy groups around the

I
I

state.

MAIN WEST ATTORNEYS AT l.3W lNC. handles family law matters including divorce, chitdl support, visitation and Family Court, landlord-tenant disputes and wills on a sliding-scale feel basis for people with incomes slightly higher than eligibility for free

services.

I
I

42 43
44

MONROE COUNTY BAR ASSN. MODEST MEANS PANEL some private attorneys may ne willing to take certain cases at reduced

fees.

45 46 47 48 49
50

FARMWORKER LEGAL SERVICES OF NEW YORK,

INC.
farm

I
I

Legal representation, education and litigation only for indigent migrant and seasonal workers concentrating in Labor Law and Civil

Rights

l_
I I

2 3

4
5

As a result of reckless, unauthorized and profoundly unconstitutional restraints I have been immobilized in a labyrinth of extrinsic fraud for a decade. I have lost my business, my professional licenses, credibility and even my credit rating. Repugnant as the underlying facts/ motivations are they cannot be euphemized, discounted or ignored...
I have been taught the intended message of exercising these rights pro se and expecti
.

6 7
B

I
10
11

to be heard in court. I have essentially been punished time and again for the same alleged offense. The bold defiance of my rights to petition government, to equal protection under the law, due process of law, to represent myself in court and be meaningfully heard is infinitely
beyond my ability to articulate.
I come for an Order of

12 13 14

't5
16 17 18 19

20
21

this Court declaring

22 23 24

the order and injunction of Jerome Gorski contains defects and inconsistencies with law and the law of that case as to render it coram non-judice and void from the outset. that the money judgments made payable to Monroe County judges and other civil parties was obtained by fraud on the court by Carlos Rodriguez and aftorneys for the defendant parties. that Monroe County Family Courts finding of \rillful contempt'and judgment of October 13, 2000 is void for due process violations and lack of confirmation by a family court judge, AND attorney Steven Feder knowingly entered it anyruray. that because this pro se party objected to family courts due process violations and sought relief by Article 78, I was ambushed, prosecuted and incarcerated by supreme coufi

25
26 27 28 29 30
31

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41

on request of carlos Rodriguez and the New York Department of Law.

that supreme court proceedings of Nov. 13,2002 - Feb. 2004 under title of 'the People of New York by Eliot Spizer vs Kevin Patrick Brady'and alljudgments deriving from them are jurisdictionally void and must be vacated unconditionally. that based on said proceedings, I was subjected to another malicious prosecution in Feb. 20M, tried in absentia and incarcerated for another 30 days,

42

43
44 45 46

47
4B

49
50

2
3

This case essentially began with Steven Feder's entry of a void judgment lien on my propefty. I have incurred expenses of approximately $7,844.00 attempting to rid myself of the consequences; I submit hey must be made recoverable from Feder and the of New York.
I seek an additional award of $100,000 in compensatory and punitive damages against

4 5
6 7
B

I
11

10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Feder and $1,000,000 in damages from New York State and the Department of Law. The findings of this Court must be reported to the New York Court of Claims.
I request any other relief this Court deems appropriate.

't9
20
21

KEVINPATRICK B
Ea

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

sr

och este r,

i,:1\T'T',i1i
585 381 206

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

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41

tK=t {
(

nr-ft
(

i^r^'Gt

ci*

i-*; ,le)Q:ov.r\Iirx.
I

42 43 44 45 46

47
48

49
50

KAREN A. SMITH NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK

No. 0l SM6Z4l 498 Qusllfied in Monroe Counly

My Commlsslon Expllt! Msv 23, 20t
5

SYNOPSIS

2 3

4
5

6 7
B

ln March 2000, family court support magistrate Diane lrizarry, issued a procedurally finding of contempt against Dad [Brady] and included an award of attorney fees. ln August 2401, the Decision and Order of the assigned family couft judge, Gail Donofrio,
reversed the award. The aggrieved attorney, Steven Feder, entered the void judgment anyway as a judicial lien on Brady's property at Monroe County clerk.

I
10
11

't2
13 14 15 16 17
1B

With supreme courts permission, I filed an Article 78 action entitled 'Brady v Taddeo' . Upon notice from the court I appeared in the courtroom of Judge Thomas VanStrydonck on November 13, 20A2. I encountered VanStrydonck notably angered by my action to compel another judge to comply with family law, [FCA 439] He had essentially lured me
into his court under false pretense and accused me of ancient quasi crimes purported to have occurred by [former] AAG Carlos Rodriguez. He ordered me to stand trial immediately for an alleged contempt of seven [7] years before, scheduled multiple trial dates and warned me 'be prepared to testify because if this Court finds you guilty you may very well go to jail.

19

20
21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41

ln November 2003, after an overtly lawless malicious prosecutions lasting fourteen [14] months Vanstrydonck ordered me incarcerated for 90 days..He revived and arbitrarily modified the long dormant money judgment against me, substituted the real party creditors with' the People of New York, and authorized it's entry as another judgment lien on my property.
Without cause, without real party complainants and/or witnesses, without any evidence whatsoever, and without personal and subject matter jurisdiction he declared by fiat that

was prohibited from commencing any new litigation in any court in the State unless represented by an attorney.
I

42 43 44

45 46 47 48 49
50

After countless summarily dismissed attacks on these jurisdictionally void judgments, this action ensues.
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TO SHOW PROOF.

STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF MONROE KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, Plaintiff -against-

lndex No. 2013i00053 Hon. Matthew A. Rosenbaum

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND STEVEN E. FEDER, Defendants

DECISION AND ORDER

An emergency motion for reconsideration or to renew has been filed by Plaintiff
following denial by the Hon. Thomas Moran of Plaintiff's motion seeking io proceed
rn

forma pauperis. ln an application pursuantto CPLR 1101, the moving pariy is required,
in addition to providing financial information , to set fotlh "sufficient facts so that the merit

of the contentions can be ascedained." ln the case

of Mina v. Mina,

83 A.D.zd 776 (4th

Dept., 1981), the Court held "Petitioner's affidavit fails to contain any aliegations from
which Family Courl could have determined that his desired appeal had any merit." Thus, financial ability is not the only consideration in such an application.

ln addition, pursuant to the Decision and Order of the Hon. Thomas M. Van
Strydonck, dated September 9, 2003, which continued the restrictions set fotlh in the order

of the Hon. Jerome C. Gorski entered March 5, 1996, Plaintiff was also prohibited from

commencing any lawsuit unless represented by an attorney. Justice VanStrydonck

continued that the provision may be waived upon an application by Plaintiff that he is'a

poor person and has been denied representation by agencies which provide free legal
services to "poor persons." Plaintiff has failed to show he has been denied nay such representation by agencies. Filing of an application in forma pauperis with the county is
not sufficient under the order.

As Plaintifl has not show compliance with the requirements of prior orders and has also failed to set forth sufficient facts to show the merits of his contentions, the within motion is denied. Therefore, it is

ORDERED, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration or renewal is denied, and it is

further ORDERED, that the case will be dismissed if Plaintiff shall not pay the required fee within one hundred and twenty days from the date of this order.. Signed at Rochester New York this 14th day of J4ne, 2013.

A. Rosenbaum

Page

BACKGROUND FACTS [re-paginated]

2 3

4
5

ln September 1995; I filed a pro se civil rights action in the US WNY District Court
alleging, inter alia, that family court officials, [Taddeo, Orlando, et all acting in administrative capacities, had impulsively suspended my recently acquired parental rights, refused to provide me a vindication hearing, and threatened to prosecute me
criminally for having exercised my right to represent myself in family court.

6
7 8

I
10
11

12 13 14 15 16 17
1B

The action was ultimately dismissed, without appearances. Judge David Larimer cited
[1] on going state proceedings that [2] implicate important states interests, He found

that'[pllaintiff made no showing that his constitutional claims could not be adequately
adjudicated in the state courts." He also added "[allthough defendants allege plaintiff engaged in extensive, harassing litigation, there is no evidence of such pattern in the record before me'.
From this dismissal I concluded I had simply filed in the wrong court. However, upon

19

20
21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

filing again in New York Supreme Court, and after a brief preliminary appearance by the
parties, the action was dismissed again, on papers alone, by Judge Jerome Gorski.

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Regardless that one of the defendants Bradley Bennett, had defaulted, Gorski declared

the entire action 'frivolous'. Without so much as a hearing, he enjoined me of future access to the courts. The facts recited in his Memorandum Decision refer not to the complaint as initially filed, but on the subsequent Motion to Add Defendants.

40
41

ln pertinent part the Memo states;

"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 court matter, or its progeny, without prior permission from that courts presiding judge or designee. All Monroe County Courts

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
50

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

-2-

He also granted a motion that I reimburse all parties of their actual litigation costs and attornev fees. Consistent with New York Rules of the Court, Gorski directed;

2 3

4 5 6 7
B

fo tne extent

tnat tfie

fees and/or actualexpenses, same will be reimbursed. Said parties shall submit
detailed affidavits in support of claimed fees'.

10
11

12 13 14
'15

Although none of the parties incurred actual fees and/or expenses, [they were judges and lawyersl nor did they submit detailed affidavits, AAG Carlos Rodriguez drafted the
proposed finaljudgment to his own liking; to wit

16 17
1B

't9
20
21

'IBRADYT',

within 30 days of entry and servie of this order, shall pay the sum of $2,767.

to Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney General of New York, Carlos Rodriguez, Asst. Attorney
General, payable to the New York Department of Law, for reasonable attorney's fees and msts on behalf of the defendant iudges'
He arbitrarily appointed himself beneficiary and receiver of the unauthorized award. NO CAUSE AND NO AUTHORIry

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

32 33 34

35
36 37 38 39

The defendants request for injunction was not authorized. As a matter of New York law, parties seeking injunctive relief (CPLR S 6301) are required to demonstrate (1) the iikeiihood of uiiimaie success on the meriis; (2) irreparabie injury if the preliminary injunction is not granted; and, (3) a balancing of the equities in their favor. 2 And they bear the burden of proof as to each element of the clairn for injunctive relief. 3 These requirements were impossible to prove and yet completely abandoned. Neither
the failure to appeal and/or the passing of time makes it any more lawful. lt remains VOID for egregious due process violations.

40
41

42 43 44 45 46

47
48 49 50

'

Doe v. Axlerod, 73 NY2d 748,750 (1988); Time Square Books v. City of Rochester,2z3 AD2d27O,27z (4th

Dept.1996). t Aetna lns. Co. v. Capasso, 75 NY2d 860, 862 (1995).

-3-

"Because the purpose of a preliminary injunction tS 63011 is to prevent litigants from taking actions that thev are othenarise legallv entitled to take in advance of adjudication on the merits, they should be issued cautiously and in accordance with appropriate procedural safeguards. Uniformed Firefighters Assoc. v New York, 79 NY2d 236 (1992).

2 3

4
5 6
7 8

I
10
11

A [S 6301] injunction "should be awarded sparingly and only where the party seeking it has met its burden of proving both the clear right to the relief sought and the urgent
necessity of preventing irreparable harm." **** "preliminary injunctive relief is a drastic remedy that will not be granted unless a

12 13 14 15
16

17
1B

clear right to it is established under the law and upon undisputed facts found in the
moving papers, and the burden of showing an undisputed right rests upon the movant".

19

20
21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

The number of gross inconsistencies in fact and law found by Gorski and then perverted
by AAG Rodriguez rendered Gorski's final order ambiguous, void and unenforceable.
a

see Memo of Defects

FRAUD ON THE PLAINTIFF, FRAUD ON THE COURT. ln January 1996, Rodriguez knowingly submitted his defectively drafted 'final' order for signature. Gorski signed it shortly thereafter.

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41

BE THIS KNOWN

42 43 44

Fraud vitiates everything. To this day no realjudgment creditor has ever tried to enforce their alleged remedial award. lt lay dormant for the next 6

lryears.

45
46 47

48
49 50

City of Buffalo v. Mangan,49 AD2d 697, 697 (4th Dept. '1975);Anastasiv. Majopon Realty Corp., 181 AD2d 706,707 (2nd Dept. 1992)
3

-4-

THE FAMILY COURT MATTER

Mom's visitation violations continued unabated over the years. By August 1999, the alienation of our child was growing more apparent. Concluding that something needed tc

2 3

4
5 6 7
8

6 be done to protect the child, I petitioned family court again for a change of custody.
Respondent [Mom] answered by cross petition seeking to increase financial support for the child that had grown so 'alienated' that she ceased all contact with her father after barely reaching adolescence Later, Mom amended the cross petition to charge [P]with w{lfglfailure to pay. Following a hearing on March 27,2000, the hearing examiner flrizarry] issued the

't0
11

12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19

20
21

22 23
24

following Findings of Fact.

25 26 27
2B

. . . .

Mom's request for upward modification of support was DENIED.

Dad was declared guilty not for failure to pay basic child support, but for 'willful

29
30
31

failure'to reimburse Mom's incidental medical costs incurred for the child. Dad's 'willfulness'was said to be prima facie pursuant to Powers v Powers, thus
an award of attorney fees was [allegedly] mandatory

32 33 34 35 36

Dad filed timely written objections to the alleged 'willful' contempt and attorney fees

award on the basis that'Powers v Powers' had no application in this case. A'willful violation' is not made prima facie by a non-custodial parent's failure to reimburse expenses that are [1] subject to qualification and [2] contingent upon precursory action by the custodial parent. They become strict obligations only after the above conditions are met.

37
38 39

40
41

42
43 44 45 46

47
48 49
50

evidence that one parent alienates a child's affection for the other or "acts to discourage a continued relationship with the latter has been held to be so inconsistent with the best interest of a child as to raise the probability of the unfitness of the offending party as a custodian' (Matter of Grathwol v Grathwol, 285 AD2d 957, 960 [2001]; see Matter of Sloand v Sloand, 30 AD3d 784,785-786 [2006]; Matter of Youngok Lim v Sangbom Lyi, 299 AD2d 763, 764l2102l).

-5-

'l

'Willful' is tantamount to criminal contempt; requiring proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

County of Rockland v. Civil Service Employ Assoc., lnc. 62 N.Y.2d 11,14 [1984]

2 3 4 5 6 7
8

lnsofar as hearing examiners [magistrates] are non-judicial employees 7 they cannot adjudicate controversies or impose punishments. They must refer them to the judge..
FCA S 439.'a hearing examiner shall have the authority to make a determination that any person before the said examiner is in violation of an order of the court as authorized *"*" subject to confirmation by a judge of the murt "

I
10
11

12 13 14 15
16

't7
18 19

Dad's written objections included the failure to suspend or cancel ALL child support based on 'visitation as a defense'. This was allegedly referred to the assigned judge,

20
21

[Donofrio] but the objection was never adjudicated.

FCA S 439 [a]. "One of the issues [non-judicial employees] cannot hear is ** visitation as a defense, which must be referred to a judge."

22 23 24

25 26
27 28

29
30
31

CASE CONCLUSION

32 33 34

All litigation between the parties concluded with Donofrio's decision of August 16, 2001

35
36 37 38 39

Having been superseded by decision in the plenary action, lrrizarry's temporary findings and proposed judgment lost full force and effect at that time. To wit: "Pending review of

the

and rebuttal, if any, the order *"*shall be in full force

40
41

and effect and no stay of such order shall be granted'. FCA g a39(e).

42 43 44 45 46 47
4B

The plenary Decision was amended on August 17,for the sole purpose of denying
attorney fees, but Mom's attorney; Steven Feder, entered the void judgment anyway.

49
50
7

see22 NYCRR S 205.32 (bX1);

-6-

With many due process violations occurring and going unresolved, I petitioned family court, again, to acknowledge them and provide the mandatory hearing. Taddeo, citing Gorski's 1996 injunction, 'blocked'the petitions and refused to disclose the reason WRIT OF MANDAMUS ln September 20021 requested, and was granted, leave to file an Article 78 action in supreme court to compel family court judge, Ann Marie Taddeo, to grant me the facially meritorious petitions to the family court.
Responding to a notice from supreme couft | appeared in the courtroom of judge Thomas VanStrydonck on November 13,2A02, a date I will never forget.
S

4
5
6

7 8

I
11

10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

439

hearing I was entitled to, and to disclose the reason for having blocked a series of

20
21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

What I expected to be an appearance to argue the merits of Brady v Taddeo, invoked a

barrage of unsubstantiated allegations from VanStrydonck deriving solely from hearsay

and speculation. This appearance constructively commenced a jurisdictionally defective, quasi-criminal prosecution entitled 'the People by Eliot Spitzer v Kevin Patrick Brady'. lnside of two [2] minutes VanStrydonck was accusing me, sua sponte, of 'malicious use of the @urts', ostensibly for either violating Gorksi's 1996 injunction and/or failing to pay the money to judges as was purportedly ordered. He threatened me repeatedly with immediate incarceration and ordered that lstand trial on December1},2002. VanStrydonck, acting as courthouse policeman and Judge of his own cause', had essentially lured me into his courtroom under false pretence.s The issues I expected to confront that day were subverted to satisfy VanStrydonck's own agenda.
The following dialogue is taken from the transcripts of November 13, 2oo2

32 33 34 35 36 37
3B

39

40
41

42 43 44 45 46

47
48 49
50
8

Given such circumstances, service of process was procured by fraud and/or coercion and is, therefore, invalid (see, Terlizzi v Brodie, 38 A.D.2d 762).

-7-

VanStrydonck; "Well Mr. Brady, you have an uphill battle to convince this court that your paperwork filed in family court has any merit, that it is not brought simply out of maliciousness-" **r*** In fact, the matter brought in Family Court was done before you received such permission." *****
lnsofar as the 'paperwork filed in family coutt'was not at issue in the court that day, and that'comrnon barratry' is no longer cognizable in New York courts, VanStrydonck

2
3

4 5 6 7
8

I
10
'11

12
13 14

was infinitely outside of his authority. ln fact he presented as the accusing party. VanStrydonck; "There is a pattern here Mr. Brady of you abusing your rights as a citizen
to come to murt for malicious purpose. That's the point of Mr. Rodriguez' papers"
e

15
16 17
1B

"So

19 20
21

we'll address those issues as well on December 10, 11, and 12th. VanStrydonck; 'l assume Mr. Rodriguez will take testimony from you and others as to whether you were able and whether you complied with Judge Gorski's order." Whether Gorski's dormant money judgments remained unsatisfied as of that date was also not before the court. ln his responding papers [Brady v Taddeo] AAG Rodriguez had merely 'alled the nurts attention' upon his information and belief that Gorski's
sanction and imposed attorney fees had not been satisfied. Moreover, he challenged VanStrydoncks jurisdiction to revisit the 1996 judgment: a

22

23 24 25
26 27 28

29
30
31

32 33 34

35
36 37 38

challenge Vanstrydonck never answered.

Is.*Al

However, following adjournment to

39 40
41

December 10th, he abandoned the challenge and joined the malicious, conspiratorial prosecution that had begun.
Contrary to VanStrydoncks cover up, if Rodriguez intended his'callto attention'to be construed as a cross petition for contempt, why file again two [2] weeks later?

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

This is FALSE and VanStrydonck knew it to be false. '[A] court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief *** where that relief is not requested in the moving papers ICPLR 2214(a)j

-8-

On Nov

27th2002,

Rodriguez filed a fictitious special proceeding to punish for contempt

10

2
J

returnable at the hearing already scheduled for Dec 1Oth. This was procedurally defective. A special contempt proceeding must derive from an action already pending.
Nevertheless, from that point fonrard, without my knowledge; all proceedings were

4 5 6 7
B

I
11

docketed under the jurisdictionally defective criminal title.

[sd]

10 12
13 14 15

Rodriguez'alleged accusatory'Motion'was based on 'information and belief', and a 'hearsay' conversation he claimed to have had with an unidentified employee of the
Office of Court Administration. The growing examples of malice was astonishing. Both VanStydonck and Rodriguez knew or should have known that "enforcement of a

16 17
1B

19

20
21

judgment directing the payment of money is accomplished through execution rather tha 1'' through contempt proceedings *** They knew, or should have known that "since a direction to pay money is itself not a
mandate issuing from a court. as that term is used in the criminal and civil contempt provisions of the Judiciary Law, contempt proceedings cannot be initiated t'*** 12 Rodriguez, who had never actually been assigned as prosecutor, suddenly needed evidence to show probable cause. He applied for and was [twice] granted subpoena for my IRS returns to prove'ability to pay'. Note " privileged materials may be obtained only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need ** in the preparation of the case and is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent ** by'other means' CPLR 3101 (d)

22

23 24 25 26
27 28

29
30
31

32 33 34

35 36 37
3B

39

40
41

42 43 44 45 46

Since'ability to pay'was an element of the'crime', this violated my right against self incrimination. And yet two Supreme Court judges authorized the subpoena[s]. 13

10

47 48
49
50

tt CPLR 5104; SCPA 606; National Sur. Corp. v Silver,23 A.D.2d 398, revd on other grounds 17 N,Y.2d

Buffalo v. Thomas Pisa, 388 N.Y.S,2d 733;54 A.D.2d 821

(|Uzgnq.

t'

477).

CPLR 5251; O'Gara v Kearney, 77 NY 423: Matter of Watson v Nelson, 69 NY 536, 542-543; Hennig v Abrahams,

246 App Div 621, atfd 27O NY 626; Williamson Mill & Lbr. Co. v Valentine, 206 App Div 252:

tt The Honorable Tom VanStrydonck and the Honorable David Barry

-9-

DECEMBER 10, 2OO2 When court re-convened, I found Rodriguez and VanStrydonck acting in tandem to'get their stories straight'. First Rodriguez claimed I had 'sort of stipulated to my'crime', but then changed his story to that I had in fact stipulated to it. This was categorically false.
He admitted having lied to the court stenographer to obtain altered; more incriminating

2 3 4 5 6 7

I
11

10

12 13
14

transcripts and then claimed 'the judge made me do it."

It was not until I read VanStrydoncks recitation of facts in September 2003 that I learned

15 16 17 18
19

he had purportedly "denied the respondent [then Petitioner] the right to proceed and dismissed the Writ of Mandamus". This constructively meant that'Brady v Taddeo' had never commenced in the first place. But it did in fact commence at the moment I paid the commencing filing fee, obtained an index number and served the papers on the New York Dept. of Law. VanStrydoncks' recitation also raises additional inconsistencies.
[1] lf the Article 78 petition lacked merit on its face, why did VS allow it to be filed in the first place?
[2] Why require payment of fee if it lacked merit it would only waste supreme courts time?

20
21

22
23

24 25
26

27
28

29
30
31

32 33 34 35 36

37
38 39

[3] Why choose instead to lUfq the petitioner into court under false pretense? [4] and proceed as Judge of his own cause"? [5] Under whose authority was Rodriguez assigned to prosecute this quasicriminal action?

40
41

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

VanStrydonck; 'l assume Mr. Rodriguez will take testimony from you and others as to **** whether you have complied with Judge Gorski's order." Nov. 1 3,2002.

-1

0-

VanStrydonck knew who the real accuser was. This was his'tip the malicious prosecution scheduled for December
1Oth.

off lo Rodriguez

to join

2 3 4 5
6

He guided Rodriguez into the roll of prosecutor when Rodriguez was at best a mere

I
11

complaining witness. The following is dialogue is from a subsequent appearance

10 12 13 14 15 16

VanStrydonck; 'Do you understand what the real issues are?

BRADY: ' I understand what you say the issues are, yes.

17 18
19

VanStrydonck;' So we have narrowed the real issues for this hearing, haven't we? We
have narrowed them to whether or not you have purposely failed to comply with Judge Gorski's order. That's a fairly narrow issue.' BRADY: 'ls the objective here to punish me simply by the expense of having to appeal all these decisions?

20
21

22 23 24 25
26 27 28

29
30
31

VanStrydonck; 'The objective, as I understand Mr. Rodriguez' petition, is to determine whether or not you're in violation of Judge Gorski order. The obiective of that is to
ensure that people comply with the orders of these @urts, so that Justice will be served' This statement could not have been more hypocritical and incriminating. lf Rodriguez

32
33 34

35
36

37
38

intended his alleged'cross petition'to hold me in contempt, why did he also challenge VanStrydoncks authority to reopen Gorskis long dormant judgments? Why initiate 'special proceedings' under separate title only two weeks later?.
ln fact there was no 'implied' motion for special proceedings. lt was a veiled attempt to

39 40
41

42 43 44

45
46

obtain personaljurisdiction by luring me into court on false pretence. The case docketed for Nov 13 and Dec 10, z}O2was "Brady v Taddeo, et al. pro se petitioner. A'special proceeding' commences only from an underlying action already pending in the court, nol from Brady v Miller back in 1995. See Memo Piza / Ortis

47
48 49 50

-1 1-

VANSTRYDONCK'EXPLAI NS'
VanStrydonck "The punishment, if any, to be given in this case is not on behalf of anvone. lt's to demonstrate to you that if you are in purposeful violation of a murt order, then there is a punishment for that. lt has nothing to do with the individuals you were ordered to pay money to. lf you have failed to pay them the money, you have failed to

2
3

4 5 6
7 8 o 10
11

obey Gorskis order.... and THAT'S the issue.'

But this is grossly inconsistent with his comments on November 13,2002.14

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

VanStrydonck; "Well Mr. Brady, I want to tell you that you have an uphill battle to convince this court that your paperwork filed in family ourt has any merit, that it is not brought simply out of maliciousness." VanStrydonck; 'Apparently, the previous sanctions issued by Judge Gorski haven't given you the message of how serious the Courts address the malicious use of the courts by litigants. So it may be that this court will find that the appropriate way to sanction you will be to send you to jailfor a period of time'.
ff the issue 'had nothing to do with 'individualsl there was no justification for civil contempt. Rodriguez represented no civil parties; injured, aggrieved or otheruise. t5 ln

20
21

22 23

24
25 26 27 28

29
30
31

fact, there were no civil parties and no [real] party complainants.

32 33 34

35
36 37 38 39

Judiciary Law 753 requires a finding of "disobedience that defeated, impaired, or prejudied anothe/s rights'. The section requires 'a neglect or violation of duty, or other misconduct, by which a right or remedy of a party to a civil action or special proceeding, pending in the court may be defeated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced', ... These are not found in VanStrydonck's fictional recitation.
Because Judiciary Law 753 had no application, subject matter iurisdiction was lost. see Matter of Cat Hollow Estates, lnc. v Savoia, 46 AD3d 1293, 1294120071; Allstate Mgt. Corp. v Grand Union Co.,142 AD2d 344,346119881).

40
41

42 43 44 45 46

47
48 49 50

14

ln a WROC interview, Rodriguez'guffawed' "You can't keep bombarding the courts and not pay the price'

'5 Cliff v Vacco N.Y,App.Div . 1211611999

-12-

.THE

PEOPLE'S'BREECH OF STATUTE

2
3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11

'Where an action is brought by the attorney general on relation or information of a person having an interest in the question, the complaint shall allege, and the title shall show, that the action is so brought. As a condition of bringing an action for the benefit of

a person with interest in the question, the attorney general shall require the relator to give an undertaking to indemnify the state against costs and expenses. CPLR 1302 VANSTRYDONCKS OBSESSION VanStrydonck: 'lnstead of ranting and raving against the system, you would be better off seeking counsel of an attorney so he muld direct whatever issues you think you are
entitled to in the appropriate manner. ******'ln addition to speaking to some lawyers, bring vour checkbook and retain them, that would be my advice'-

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20
21

22 23
24 25 26

The record is replete with VanStrydonck obsessing that I obtain an attorney. ln fact, he signed an ORDER that I "seek the servies of an attorney." 16 His final recitation feigns that he was essentially looking out for my best interests. VanStrydonck; 'The respondent appeared pro se for this matter. On every occasion he was advised by this Court to obtain an attorney to represent his interests'.
The fact is that VanStrydonck never advised anWhing. He intimidated and threatened me with incarceration. His final recitation is fiction on essentially every point.

27
28

29
30
31

32
33 34

35
36 37 38 39

.PETITIONER'

BECOMES THE'RESPONDENT' and vice-versa

40
41

42 43 44 45 46

'This mafter comes before the court initially by Petition for Mandamus. Brady took issue with the original terms of visitation and support and has been prolific with lawsuits in state and federal courts'.

47
48 49
50
tu

January 2003 after'Brady v Taddeo' concluded.

-13-

ln fact, the matter appeared with Brady as the Petitioner, pro se. The Respondents were

2
J

judges Taddeo and Donofrio. At issue was Petitioners rights of procedure under the
Family Court Act; a.k-a. due process of law. lt had nothing to do with petitioner'taking issue with the terms of visitation and support'.

4
5

6
7 8 o 10
11

VanStrydonks claim that I had been 'prolific with lawsuits in state and federal courts' is fiction perpetuated. No supporting evidence has ever been submitted to any court.17 INTENTIONAL'INDIFFERENCE' TO THE REAL FACTS
VanStrydonck feigns: '[s]ubsequently, the People by Spitzer, commenced, by personal

12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20
21

service, a Notice of Motion to punish [respondelt]for criminal and civil contempt***** '[Rodriguez] brings this Motion (for) the [real] parties and served it on November 27lh;' This exemplifies the fiction. ln truth, the People by Spitzer v Brady' never existed. The
lack of proof of service renders the proceeding jurisdictionally void. After ostensibly

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

terminating 'Brady v Taddeo', supreme court no longer had personal and subject matter jurisdiction, but VanStrydonck continued ordering me to return to his court. VanStrydonck; 'The proceeding was brought under Judiciary Law
753 and 750.

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

g5

As already established those statutes are inapplicable to this case. Both VS and Rodriguez knew, or should have known that "since a direction to pay money is itself not

40

a mandate issuing from a ourt. as that term is used in the criminal and civil contempt provisions of the Judiciary Law, contempt proceedings cannot be initiated ****
18

4'l
42 43 44 45 46 47
4B

Judiciary Law

753 limits jurisdiction to cases 'pending in the @urt'at the time' NOT a

case adjudicated seven [7] years before.

tt Citing Judge David Larimer; "[a]lthough defundants allege plaintiff engaged in extensive, harassing litigation,
there is no evidence of such pattem in the record before me. tt CPLR 5251; O'Gara v Kearney, 77 NY 423; Matter of Watson v Nelson, 69 NY 536, 542-543; Hennig v Abrahams, 246 App Div 621 , affd2TO NY 626; Williamson Mill & Lbr. Co. v Valentine, 206 App Div 252;

49
50

-14-

Judiciary Law 750 allows punishment for [3] Wilful disobedience to its lawful mandate, not mandate of another court. This 'crime' has 3 years time limits which VanStrydonck
circumvented by claiming my'failure to pay money'constituted a cqnlinuqgs crime.

4
5 6 7 8

The following is only more'intellectual dishonesty'.

I
11

10 12 13 14 15 16 17
1B

VanStrydonck; 'Petitioners proof established that Justice Gorski's order was a lawful
mandate and that Respondent intentionally ignored the mandates [a flagrant disregard

for mandatesl
"This Order contained clear and unequivocal mandates which directed the Respondent

19

to pay clearly stated sums of money to specified individuals"

VanStrydock thus establishes this prosecution to have been without probable cause. lt was therefore by definition a malicious prosecution. The'mandate' is in fact evidence of

20
21

22 23 24 25 26 27
2B

Rodriguez'fraud on the court.

'2

Gorski's Memo Decision specifically states;

29 30
3'1

'To the extent the parties opposing plaintiff's complaint incurred actual attornevs fees and/or actual expenses, same will be reimbursed. Said parties shall submit detailed affidavits in support of claimed fees'. The opposing parties were judges, and thus indemnified under Public Officers Law. None had incurred actual fees and/or expenses, or submitted detailed affidavits and Rodriguez knew
it

32
JJ

34 35 36 37 38 39

it.

He simply drafted the finaljudgment to his own liking and submitted

40
41

for signature.

42 43 44

This constituted the crime of falsely obtaining a signature.

45 46 47
4B

49 50

t'22

NYCRR 130.1 is limited to reimbursement.

-1

5-

MULTIPLE DEMONSTRATIONS OF JUDICIAL FRAUD AND MALICE

2
3

4 5
6
7

Without the knowledge and/or consent of the real parties, VanStrydonck reopened and modified Gorski's seven [7] year old judgment[s],
20

rolled them into a new one naming

substituted panies and re-issued it under title of the void criminal proceedings. Since
Saperston and Day, LLC. no longer existed, Rodriguez' drafted the words 'or their

I
10
11

suressor' into this newly modified version and submitted it for signature.
ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE OF MALICE
Based on hearsay alone, without cause, without notice, without complainants, without any evidence AND, without personal and subject matter jurisdiction, VanStrydonck arbitrarily violated rules of comity, reopened and enlarged Gorskis injunction to prohibit me from '@mmencing any new litigation unless represented by an attorney'.

12 13 14 15 16 17

18 1g 20
21

22

23
24

25
26 27 28 29 30
31

VanStrydonck continues: 'The [respondent] requested a hearing'. This claim is absolutely delusional. My standing remained as the Petitioner, having by permission of the court to purge one crippling, procedurally defective judgment from
my record. lnstead, I left with another one on my record that eventually brought down business, poisoned my professional credibility, credit rating, and has impeded my ability to control my life and property ever since.

32 33 34

35
36 37 38 39

No I did NOT request a hearing. Upon my appearance I was ambushed, accused by a man under influence of common courthouse gossip, impacted with prejudice and acting without personaland subject matter jurisdiction who ordered that I "be prepared initially
to conduct a hearing on [my alleged] contempt for Judge Gorski's judgment of March 96 He atso claimed; 'Respondent has a long history of vexatious litigation ['frivolous and harassing, etc "l the evidence of which does not exist.
20

40
41

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
50

5 SOtS. A judgment or order shall not be stayed, impaired or affected by any mistake, defect or irregularity in the papers or procedures in the action not affecting a substantial right of a party.

-1

6-

Competent courts have clarified that'litigiousness alone cannot support a pre filing

2 3

injunction. De Long v. Mansfield (1990) 2t and that "a pre-filing order cannot issue
upon a showing of litigiousness." 2

4 5 6
7

The Ninth

19th1

Circuit has recognized how vexatious-litigation statutes can

I
10
11

against alleged vexatious litigants. They can invoke a witch-hunt that frees judges to

express their antipathy for them. That Court said, 'Among all other citizens, [he] is to be restricted in his right of acoess to the courts. As as he is concemed, his future filings run the risk of delay and even possible rejection before he can call upon defendants to respond to those filings. .We cannot predict what harm might come to him as a result, and he should not be forced to predict it either. He
knows the Sword of Damocles hangs over his hopes for access for the future. INDIRECT SUMMARY CONTEMPT

12 13 14 15
16

17 18 19 20
21

22 23 24 25
26

27
2B

29
30
31

VanStrydonck:: This finding (of contempt) is also based on assertions made by Respondent in his videotaped 'summationn***'as well as in his statements to the local media. ** 'he expressed his intent to be behind bars if necessary.' The oveft flaw in this logic is that I had not been charged with contempt for statements allegedly made during my summation. Thus, despite having asserted'while [Brady's] conduct could be [regarded] contemptuous, it requires more to fall into the category of contempt which can be punished summarily' that is preciselv what he did. This violated the long established rule that'before respondent can be adjudicated in ontempt of murt, the petitioner must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. ln re

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

40
41

42
43 44 45 46

winship,397 U.s.358,90 S. ct. 1068, 25L. Ed.2d 36s (1970), Hicks v Feiock,485 u.s. 624, 108 Sup ct1423,1429-1430 [1988]; People v shapolsky, 8 A.D.2d 122,12s
[1st Dept 1959]).

47
48 49 50

" "

g12F.2d1144
Moy v. United States (9th cir,1990) 906 F.2d 467,470j

-17-

2
3

VanStrydonck continues; 'the Respondent willfully and intentionally disobeyed the of Justice Gorski and is guilty of criminal contempt in violation of Judiciary Law S 750. NOTE; An accused cannot be found

4 5 6
7

GUlllry

of contempt of judgments never entered.

I
10
11

Jud Law S 750 in pertinent part, is limited to [3] willful disobedience to its lawful mandate and [4] resistance willfully offered to its lawful mandate, AND NO OTHERS
VanStrydonck disregarded the mandate that'there is NO ACT OR FAILURE TO ACT; not capital, for which a person can be criminally prosecuted and incarcerated beyond state and/or federal statutes of limitations. GOMPERS v US. The contemnor's actions must also be found "calculated to or actually did defeat, impair or prejudice the rights or remedies of the [complainant]." Powell v Clauss, 93 A.D.2d

12 13 14

15
16

17 18 19 20
21

22

23 24 25
26

883,; Matter of Planning Bd. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 75 A.D.2d 686, 687; Great Neck Pennysaver v Central Nassau Pub., 65 A.D.2d 616, also, Judiciary Law, $ 753, subd A; ss 754, 770.)
Although VanStrydonck claims 'Respondents disobedience defeated, impaired or prejudied another party's rights is thus also guilty of civil contempt violation of Judiciary Law $ 753', these are in fact mere empty words. Verdict by FIAT. And, the power of contempt under S 753 is limited to cases pendinq in the court in the time. Therefore, "[i]f a ourt is authorized by stiatute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular cerse only, and undertakes to exercise the jurisdiction conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void."

27 28 29
30
31

32
33

34 35
36

37
38 39

40
41

THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT MY ACCUSORS Although sometimes characterized as civil special proceedings, courts are still bound by SCOTUS to recognize that "criminal mntempt is a crime in the ordinary sense * and convictions are indistinguishable from ordinary criminal convictions. Bloom v. lllinois, 391 U.S. 194,201. People v Lennen 454 NYS 2d 621, 1 15 Misc 2d 738 citing Colombo v New York, 405 US g at 36, and People v Colombo, 31 NY 2d 947.

42

43
44

45 46 47 48 49
50

-18-

Not one of the alleged injured parties had authorized the 'People by Spitzer vs Brady', nor did any appear at or testify at trial. VanStrydonck refused to subject them to discovery.

2 3

4
5 6 7 8

I
11

VanStrydoncks' claim that 'Respondent offered no proof to the contrary' is irlelvant. ln all prosecutions, the presumption of innocence obtains. Proof of guilt must be bevond
reasonable doubt and the defendant mav not be compelled to be a witness aoainst himself, Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., supra, p,444. This trial was fiction. A criminal prosecution disguised as a 'civil action' or a 'civiljudicial proceeding' commenced by motion without an initiating petition are both non-waivable defects nullifying a court of jurisdiction. Brown v. VanKeuren, 340 lll. 118,122 (1930).
By the time VanStrydonck and Rodriguez were through with me fourteen [14] months later, I had been ambushed in court, falsely accused, maliciously prosecuted and

10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20
21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

unlawfully jailed for non-crimes and non-offenses under inapplicable statute [S 753] and long passed time limitations. tS 7501

THESE PROCEEDINGS AND ALL JUDGMENTS DERIVING FROM THEM ARE VOID'Conviction of a nonexistent crime results in a void judgment not subject to waiver.' People v. McCarty 94 lll. 2d28,37 (1983). 'where the statute describes the particular situations in which it is to apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or not included was intended to be omitted or excluded'. Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn of NY v City of NY 41 NY2d 205, (1976) 'When an officer of the court is found to have fraudulently presented facts to the court, so the court is impaired in the impartial performance of its legal task, the act, known as "fraud upon the court", is a crime deemed so severe and fundarnentally opposed to the operation of justice that it is not subject to any statute of limitation'.

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

40 4'l
42 43 44

45 46 47 48
49 50

SF

SERIAL PROSECUTION WITHOUT CAUSE, WITHOUT AUTHORITY AND BY TRIAL IN ABSENTIA ln October 2003, Rodriguez initiated a subsequent criminal proceeding against me unde the same title [#03-11838] and asking that I again be punished by incarceration for fai to report to jail as ordered on October 2nd.
Once again he knew, or should have, that due to the jurisdictionally void underlying

2
3

4 5 6 7
8

I
11

10
12 13 14 15 16

orders no cause existed. He knew he was acting under color of law, again, and outside the scope of his employment duties.

17
18 19

ln my responding papers I advised the newly assigned Judge Steven Sirkin, inter alia,
that the AAG had no authority to initiate and prosecution the action.
I asserted

20
21

22

23 24 25
26 27 28

that Rodriguez had a personal and professional conflict of interest and

requested judicial notice of 'Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton'where Supreme Court stated

that'counselfor a party who is the beneficiary of a court order may not be appointed to
undertake contempt prosecutions for alleged violations of that order'

29
30
31

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

SCOTUS has also declared '[c]riminal @ntempt proceedings arising out of civil litigation are between the public and plaintiff and are not part of the original civil action. A civil litigant ** adversely affected by a party opponent's unwillingness to omply with a judgment or injunction would be incapable of acting in a disinterested manner.
My pro se legal memorandums advised Sirkin that New York recognizes this same principle. People v. Calderone 573 N.Y.S.2d '1005; 151 Misc. 2d 530 (07126191) My responding objections were denied IMMEDIATELY

40
41

42 43 44 45
46

47 48 49
50

On Feb. 3,2O04; despite my absence from court, Rodriguez encouraged Sirkin to

proceed to trial in which I was declared guilty by FIAT and jailed for another 30 days.

-20-

On February 4, sheriff deputies again pounded on our door during early hours, climbed
through our bedroom window to arrest and take me off to jail. Upon my release I discovered no appeal would be possible. No trial order of disposition or mandate of commitment had been reduced to writing by the judge Stephen Sirkin.

2
3

4 5 6 7

I
11

10

THESE ARE NOT HARMLESS, NOR REVERSABLE ERRORS

12 13
14

All of these acts evidence an obvious pattern or practice by courts of discrimination

against a pro se litigant. New York case law holds that the continuing violation doctrine

15 16 17 18 19

can be satisfied when specific acts of discrimination are permitted to go un-remedied for so long as to amount to a policy or practice.
23

20
21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
31

Acts are continuous when defendants (1) engage in continuing wrongfulconduct; (2)
injury to the [claimant] accrues continuously; and (3) had the defendants at any time ceased their wrongful mnduct, further injury would have been avoided.
2a

This is precisely true in this case.

Under the continuing violation doctrine, "the existene of a continuous policy or practice delays the commencement of the statute of limitations until the last discriminatory act in

32
33

34 35 36 37
38

furtherane of that policy or practice."

I submit

25

there is NO COGNIZABLE DEFENSE for these bold malicious abuses. By

39

40
41

42 43
44 45

blocking me from coun, Vanstrydonck essentially declared fue can do anything we want to you'including preventing you from redress.

2t

46 47 48 49
50

Bloom v NYC Board Ed. 2003 WL 1740528 (SDNY 2008) Clark v State , 302 A.D. Branch v Guilderland School Dist. 239 F.Supp 242 (NDNY 2003)

2dgla(4h Dept. 2003)

2a 25

Hensley v. City of Columbus, 557 F.3d 693, 697 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations omitred). Salgado v. City of New York, 2001 WL 290051 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). See, Cornwell v. Robinson, 23 F.3d 694, 703 04 (2d Cir, 1994).

-21-

RELIEF IS MANDATORY

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

As a matter of law in New York and of public policy, previous courts have had no authority to ignore, deny, terminate and/or summarily dismiss the complaints I brought before them. After 50 or more lawfully commenced attempts for relief, these still unresolved issues have never been addressed by any court.
the order and injunction of Jerome Gorski contains defects and inconsistencies with law and the law of that case to render il conm non-judie and void from the outset. that the money judgments made payable to Monroe County judges and other civil parties was obtained by fraud on the court by Carlos Rodriguez and other attorneys for the defendant parties.

10
11

12
13

14 15 16
17 18 19

20
21

22 23 24

that Monroe County Family Courts finding of 'willful contempf and judgment of October 13, 2000 is void for due process violations and lack of confirmation by a family court judge. that because this pro se party objected to said due process violations and lawfully sought relief by Article 78, I was ambushed, prosecuted and incarcerated by Supreme Court on request of Carlos Rodriguez and the New York Department of Law.
that supreme court proeedings of Nov. 13,2002 - Feb, 2004 under title of 'the People of New York by Eliot SpiEer vs Kevin Patrick Brady'and alljudgments deriving from them are jurisdictionally void and must be vacated unconditionally.

25
26

27
28 29 30
31

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

that based on said proceedings, plaintiff was subjected to further abuse by prosecution in Feb. 2004, tried in absentia and incarcerated for another 30 days,
Contrary to judicial fictions based in hearsay, I have never filed any action in any court that legally or constructively rose to the level of frivolous, vexatious, and/or completely without

40
41

42 43 44 45 46 47
4B

merit. I have not broken any laws, destroyed my own livelihood, wrongly prosecuted and incarcerated myself, or violated my own constitutional rights.
ln the final analysis I have no complicitv whatsoever for the abuses I have suffered. And challenge every allegation to the contrary.

49
50

-22-

2
J

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

4 5
6 7
8 o

the best of my knowledge, except for matters alleged on information and belief and believe those matters to be true. Nothing is intended to be frivolous, harassing or completely without merit.

10
11

Kevin Patrick Brady

12 13 14 15 16 17

508 Locust Lane East Rochester 14445

't8
19

20
21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

O^ i\C-q I) -\r.,r-r \ c tJ 'Juif LJ*o,,-

yDrrrpr
JET.INIF!:R PHILLTPS
Pubtic, Slate of \ew Yorl ),btarv ifr''urin"a in Monro courP (+J_-Lt -

/ lt

\-{-',L c-Gv\,q- lc"U,,-..?. .rrtt{t(K_

l.:

ni '

No. O1PH6O4OO25

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41

W Cdnmissff Fxri'a'

I't

^ l

,, t1

42 43
44

45
46

47 48 49
50

@-