You are on page 1of 31

7

2
3

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

STATE OF NEW YORK

4
5 6 7

2013-053

I I
10
11

v
THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK byAttorney General, defendant STEVEN E. FEDER, defendant
NOTICE OF PETITION AND AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE TO THE PARTIES;
Gr3

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

1"#e

{i!

.?

20
21

22 23 24 25 26 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 unlawful restraints and money judgments issued from courts lacking persondl and/or subject matter jurisdiction.

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

These unconstitutional and jurisdictionally defective orders have polluted my personal and professional recordl professional licenses, ciedibility and even my credit rating.. They thwart my ability tb earn a living in my profession of choice for the last twenty [20] years. They prevent me from leveraging andlor liquidating my real property despite continuing deteriorationlof 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. Answers, if any, must be provided to the Court on or before They must be provided to Plaintiff on or about
I seek compensatory damages of $7,844.00

40
41

42 43
44

45
46

47 48 49
50

TO THE COURT
BE ADVISED that on

2 3 4 5
6

b el

I served

a Notice and Petition on

7
8

second Notice on that same date.


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

I
10
11

Attorney Gerieral/ 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

KEVINPATRICK

508 Locust East Rochester, New York 1 585 381

trcc

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41

T:

c4+V1'r

rG9iibd/cf 5ipp, .-;613fQ

KAREN A. SMITH NOTARY PUBIIC-STATE OF NEW YORK

42 43
44

No.0lSM624l488 Quollfied ln Monroe Counly My Commlillon Erptru Msy ?s, 20l5

45
46

47
48

49
50

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF MONROE KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, plaintiff 2013-053 STATE OF NEW YORK

2
3

4
5

6
7 8

I
10
11

v THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK by Attorney General, defendant STEVEN E. FEDER, defendant
PLAINTI FFS PLELIMINARY AFFI DAVIT

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20
21

22 23 24

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 subterfuge for malicious prosecution by court officers acting without personal and subject mater jurisdiction. .PREFILING ORDERS'

25
26 27 28 29 30
31

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

40
41

Since March 1996 I have been unlav'rfully 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 courts and expanded to 'any court in the State of New York'.
The original order warned of Turther possible sanctions'for [proven] disobedience. submit this is obvious reference to financial punishment. See 22 NYCRR 1 30.1 .1

42 43 44 45
46

47 48 49
50

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

2 3

4
5 6 7

The expressed limitations to'family court matters'was observed and duly by Judge Thomas VanStrydonck when he arbitrarily imposed an additional provision that [Brady] 'shall not be allowed to commene 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

I
11

10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

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 [2lto 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 complaint stage.
I have deposed essentially ad nauseumthat "it can be demonstrated, ctearly and convincingly, that fformer AAG Carlos Rodriguezl has set in motion an un@nscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate

20
21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

matter bv improperlv influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party's claim or defense." ***
1

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 single allegation on which jurisdiction was invoked.

40
41

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, 8g2F.Zd 1115, (1989)

2
3

Which comes first? Commencement by New York's filing system followed by motion to permit filing Or submission of pleadings for approval before commencement? ln Fry v. Village Tarrytown [1997] the Court of Appeals said

4
5 6 7 8

I
10
11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

"Commencement'"* specifies "f!I-09" [payment] as the dispositive event. Until an action has commened, a couft cannot conduct any type of proceeding because there is nothing before the court. This is not a mere technicality. lt is the essential key to the courthouse door and the exercise of judicial power.
that upon payment this action is lawfully commenced. Nevertheless, pursuant the Order of Judge Matthew Rosenbaum I hereby certify that I have contacted all the identified agencies and have been denied representation because they don't take civil cases such as this. They include but are not limited to
I submit

20
21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

MONROE COUNTY LEGAL ASSISTANCE CORP. for some types of civil matters: public benefits, landlord-tenant, disability claims, Social Security and special 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, including bankruptcy and creditors rights. GREATER UPSTATE LAW PROJECT provides training, research and litigation support to legal advocacy groups around the state. MAIN WEST ATTORNEYS AT LAW lNC. handles family law matters including divorce, support, visitation and Family Court, landlord-tenant disputes and wills on a sliding-scale basis for people with incomes slightly higher than eligibility for free services. MONROE COUNTY BAR ASSN. MODEST MEANS PANEL some private attorneys may be willing to take cenain cases at reduced fees.

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
50

FARMWORKER LEGAL SERVICES OF NEW YORK, INC.


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

2
3

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

4
5

6
7 8

I
11

10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

to be heard in couft. 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 this Court declaring

20
21

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 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 attorneys for the defendant parties. that Monroe County Family Courts finding of \rrillful contempf and judgment of October 13, 2000 is void for due prooess violations and lack of mnfirmation by a family
oourt judge, AND attomey Steven Feder knowingly entered it anyray.

25
26 27 28 29 30
31

32 33 34

35
36 37 38 39

40
41

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 court

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


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

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
50

2
3

This case essentially began with Steven Feder's entry of a void judgment lien on my property. 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 8

I
10
11

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.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20
21

KEVINPATRICK 508 Locust East Rochester, New York 1 s85 381


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

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

except for matters alleged on information and belief and I believe those matters to be true. Nothing is intended to be ftivolous, harassing or completely without merit.

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

40
41

a naecr*f\i)acj2;U* 5r"rv,3A3.

42 43 44

4s(
46 47 48 49 s0

KAREN A, SMIIH NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK

No.01sM624t488 Quollflcd ln Monroe County My Commlstlon Explrrr Mqy 23, 20ls

SYNOPSIS

2 3

4 5
6 7 8

I
10
11

ln March 2000, family coutt support magistrate Diane lrizarry, issued a procedurally void finding of contempt against Dad [Brady] and included an award of attorney fees. ln August 2001, the Decision and Order of the assigned family court 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.
With supreme courts permission, I filed an Article 78 action entitled 'Brady v Taddeo' . Upon notice from the court I appeared in the coufiroom of Judge Thomas VanStrydonck on November 13, 2OO2.l 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 purpofted to have occurred by fformerlAAG 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 Courtfinds you guilty you may very well go to jail. In 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

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20
21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

40
41

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.

. srlre og NEw yoRr( MONR,Ob COUNTY FAMTLY COURT m|L oFJrrsrcE CMCCENTER PII;TA FOCHESTER. r{W YoH( rtgrt.ztgr .

Fex

7tc..2s.aooo Ngrt6rr: t t6-a2&t6gt

Afii Urtb Trddro

.rtr.lryfrrt

Cr.'Ctnvt |lltltAlt A. co{,Attrll

FOECBT A. XORTO'I

.GROUND ZERO'

o.arr

chat Ghr nt

lptil r9,19e4
ltr. K, Pdtrleh Brady 50 french Creek Drlve Rocheeteri Nes Tork 14618 Fle. Je ----.3--c 1020 Gleason Circle East Rochester, New Iork 14{50 RE; ERnDt VS. teStBgS,
DoCtrET

tVU86-91

tlr. tirady & irt6. F* ! Because of the number.of unreeolved and pending petition$ this matter, r am instructing th9-l.tonroe couniy ramily court on clerk'a office not. to accept or fire any furthir petitions or appJ.icationg by either parly. please c6rnply with'""ieiint orderg . rt hae c?rn: !o rny attintion thar u! l - Brady haa repeateclly called eeveral Judgee and the Clerk'e office. 'Unless Ltris coirrse of conduct ceacesi I will be forced to contact the District Attorney's office regarding prosecution.
Dear

0,/.t,

lo:i;: 'fn''f

Le"" q,{rrr,
cc3 Robert Norton

.fu,lkW

Very TruIy Your6,

Supervieing Judge of Monroe County Fanily Court,

Hon. Arnold Ciaecio Hon. Anthony 'F. Bonadio Hon. Hiehael J. Miller

BACKGROUND FACTS [re-paginated]

2
3

4 5 6 7 8

ln September 1995; I filed a pro se civil rights action in the US WNY District Court alleging, inter alia, that family court officials, ffaddeo, 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
criminallv for having exercised my right to represent myself in family court.

10
11

12

13'
14 15 16

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

17 18 19 20
21

that'[p]laintiff made no showing that his mnstitutional claims could not be adequately
adjudicated in the state @urts." He also added "[a]lthough 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

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

29
30
31

32 33 34

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.

35
36 37 38 39

40
41

ln pertinent part the Memo states;

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
50

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

in

an1lcourt [state or federal] based on the family court mafter, or its progeny, without prior permission from that oourts presiding judge or designee. All Monroe County Courts should be made aware as to forestallthe 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 attorney fees. Consistent with New York Rules of the Court, Gorski directed;

2 3

4 5 6 7

fo tne extent

tnat tne pa

I
11

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

10
12 13 14 15 16

17
18 19

'IBRADYI', within 30 davs of entry and service of this order, shall pay the sum of $2,767.

20
21

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 oosts 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

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 likelihood of ultimate sucoess on the merits; (2) ineparable 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 claim 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 lavyful. lt remains VOID for egregious due process violations.
2

37 38 39

40
41

42 43
44

45 46 47 48
49 50

Doe v. Axlerod, 73 NY2d 748,750 (19SS); Time Square Books v. City of Rochester,223 AD2d270,272 (4th Dept. 1996).

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 they arq othenrise legally 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 9 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 ineparable harm." **** "preliminary injunctive relief is a drastic remedy that will not be granted unless a

12 13 14

15
16

17 18
19

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'.

20
21

22

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

23
24 25 26 27

see Memo of Defects


FRAUD ON THE PIAINTIFF, FRAUD ON THE COURT.
In January 1996, Rodriguez knowingly submitted his defectively drafted 'final' order for

28
29 30
31

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

signature. Gorski signed it shortly thereafter.


BE THIS KNOWN

40
41

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
50

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 Yzyears.

City ot Buffalo v. Mangan, 49 AD2d 697, 697 (4th Dept. 1975); Anastasiv. Majopon Realty Corp., 181 AD2d

706,707 (2nd Dept. 1992)

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 be done to protect the child, 6 I petitioned family court again for a change of custody.

2 3

4
5 6 7 8

10
11

Respondent [Mom] answered by cross petition seeking to increase financial suppott for

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

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 willlglfailure to pay. Following a hearing on March 27,2000, the hearing examiner firizarry] issued the

20
21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

following Findings of Fact.

o . . .

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 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 37 38 39

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.

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 pafty as a custodian' (Matter of Grathwol v Grathwol, 285 AD2d

957, 960 [20011; see Matter of Sloand v Sloand, 30 AD3d 7U,785-786 [2006]; Matter of Youngok Lim v Sangbom Lyi, 299 AD2d 763, 76/!2O02D.

-5-

'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 t1984I

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 **** subiect to confirmation bv a iudqe of the court *

I
11

10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

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

20 2'l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
31

[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."

CASE CONCLUSION

32
33 34

All litigation between the parties concluded with Donofrio's decision of August 16, 2001,
Having been superseded by decision in the plenary action, lrrizarry's temporary findings and proposed judgment lost fullforce and effect at that time. To wit: "Pending review of the

35 36
37

38
39

obje

and rebuttial, if any, the order ***shall be in fullforce

40
41

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

42
43 44 45

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

46 47 48 49
50
7

see22 NYCRR S 205.32 (b)(1);

-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 2OA2l 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 S 439 hearing lwas entitled to, and to disclose the reason for having blocked a series of facially meritorious petitions to the family court.
Responding to a notice from supreme court I appeared in the courtroom of judge Thomas VanStrydonck on November 13,2O02, a date I will never forget.

2 3

4
5 6

7
8 o 10

1'l
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20
21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

29
30
31

quasi-criminal prosecution entitled 'the People by Eliot SpiEer 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 I stand trial on December1l,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, 2002

3? 33 34

35
36

37
38 39

40
41

42
43 44 45

46 47 48 49
50

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

-7-

VanStrydonck; "Well Mr. Brady, you have an uphill battle to convine this court that your papenrork 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 court'was not at issue in the court that day, and that'common barratry' is no longer cognizable in New York courts, VanStrydonck

2
3

4 5 6 7 8

10
11

12 13

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 court for malicious purpose. Thafs the point of Mr. Rodriguez' papers" e "So 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'elled the murts altention' 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

't4
15
16

17 18 19 20
21

22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

32 33

34 35 36 37
38

challenge Vanstrydonck never answered.

tsn 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'call to attention' to be

42

43
44 45 46

construed as a cross petition for contempt, why file again two [2] weeks later?

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 221a@)l

-8-

On Nov

271h2002,

Rodriguez filed a fictitious special proceeding to punish for contempt


10

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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

docketed under the jurisdictionally defective criminal title.

[sd]

10
11

12 13 14 15 16

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

't7
18 19

20
21

judgment directing the payment of money is accomplished through execution rather thar **1 1''' through contempt proceedings They knew, or should have known that "since a direction to pay money is itself not a
mandate issuino from a court. as that term is used in the criminal and civil contempt provisions of the Judiciary Law, contempt proceedings cannot be initiated **** 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

22 23 24 25 26 27
28

29 30
31

32 33

34 35 36 37
38

39 40
41

undue hardship to obtain the substantialequivalent ** by'other means'CPLR 3101 (d) 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

42 43 44

45
46
10
11

47 48 49
50

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

(1}t2gni).

CPLR 5104; SCPA 606; National Sur. Corp. v Silver,23 A.D.2d 398, revd on other grounds 17 N.Y.2d 477). CPLR 5251; O'Gara v Keamey, 77 NY 423; Matter of Watson v Nelson, 69 NY 536, il2-543; Hennig v Abrahams,
27O NY 626;

t2

246 App Div 621 , afid


t3

Williamson Mill & Lbr. Co. v Valentine, 206 App Div 252;

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 admifted having lied to the court stenographer to obtain altered; more incriminating

2 3

4
5 6 7 8

I
11

10 12 13 14 15
16

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

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 filed in the first plae?

20
21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

fae, why did VS allow it to be

32
33 34

35 36 37 38 39

[2] Why require payment of fee if it lacked merit it would only waste supreme oourts time? [3] Why choose instead to lg1q the petitioner into court underfalse pretense?

40
41

[4] and proceed as Judge of his own cause"? [5] Under whose authority was Rodriguez assigned to prosecute this quasicriminalaction?

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 7 8

He guided Rodriguez into the roll of prosecutor when Rodriguez was at best a mere complaining witness. The following is dialogue is from a subsequent appearance

I
11

10

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


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

12 13
14

15 16 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

20
21

Gorski's order. That's a fairly narow issue.'


BRADY: 'ls the objective here to punish me simply by the expense of having to appeal all these decisions?

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

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

32 33
34

35 36 37 38 39

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

40
41

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
50

obtain personaljurisdiction by luring me into court on false pretence. The case docketed

for Nov 13 and Dec 10, 2002 was "Brady v Taddeo, et al. pro se petitioner. A'special proceeding' commences only from an underlying action already pending in the court, not from Brady v Miller back in 1995. See Memo Piza / Ortis

-1 1-

VANSTRYDONCK'EXPLAINS'
VanStrydonck "The punishment, if any, to be given in this case is not on behalf of anyone. lt's to demonstrate to you that if you are in purposeful violation of a oourt 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

I
11

10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

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


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

VanStrydonck; "Well Mr. Brady, I want to tell you that you have an uphill battle to onvince this oourt that your paperwork filed in family court 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 jail for a period of time'.
lf the issue 'had nothing to do with 'individualsi there was no justification for civil

19 20
21

22 23 24 25 26

27 28
29 30
31

contempt. Rodriguez represented no civil parties; injured, aggrieved or otherwise. t5 ln fact, there were no civil parties and no [real] party complainants. Judiciary Law 753 requires a finding of "disobedience that defeated, impaired, or prejudiced anothe/s rights'. The section requires 'a neglect or violation of duty, or other mismnduct, by which a right or remedy of a party to a civil action or special prooeeding, 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, subiect mafter jurisdiction was lost. see Matter of Cat Hollow Estates, lnc. v Savoia,46 AD3d 1293,1294120071; Allstate Mgt. Corp. v Grand Union Co.,142 AD2d
la
tu

32 33 34

35
36 37 38 39

40

4'l
42

43
44 45 46

47
48 49 50

344,U0 tl988D.

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

Cliffv Vacco N.Y.App.Div. 12/16/1999

-12-

.THE

PEOPLE'S'BREECH OF STATUTE

2 3

4
5 6 7 8

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

I
11

10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

a person with interest in the question, the attomey general shall require the relator to give an undertraking to indemnify the state against oosts and expenses. CPLR 1302 VANSTRYDONCKS OBSESSION VanStrydonck: 'lnstead of ranting and raving against the system, you would be better off seeking ounsel of an aftomey so he

ould

direct whatever issues you think you are

entitled to in the appropriate manner. ******'ln addition to speaking to some lawyers, bring your checkbook and retain them, that would be my

20
21

advie'.

22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
31

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

His final recitation feigns

32
33 34

35
36 37 38

39 40
41

.PETITIONER' BECOMES THE'RESPONDENT'


and vice-versa

42 43 44 45 46

'This matter @mes before the court initially by Petition for Mandamus. Brady took issue with the original tenns 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 3 4 5 6
7 8

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'.

I
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 SpiEer, @mmened, by personal

12 13
14

15
16

17 18 19

20
21

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

22

23 24 25 26
27 28

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 prooeeding was brought under Judiciary Law
753 and 750.

29 30
31

32 33 34

gS

35
36 37 38 39

As already established those statutes are inapplicable to this case. Both VS and Rodriguez knew, or should have known that "sin@ 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, oontempt proceedings cannot be initiated ****
18

40
41

42 43 44 45 46

Judiciary Law

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

case adjudicated seven [7] years before.


tt Citing Judge David Larimer; '[a]lthough defundants albge plaintiffengaged in extensive, harassing litigation,
there is no evidence of such pattem in the record before me. 18 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 , affd 270 NY 626; Wlliamson Mill & Lbr. Co. v Valentine, 206 App Div 252;

47 48
49 50

-14-

2
3

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 cqq]inUgUs crime.

4 5 6
7

I I
10
11

The following is only more 'intellectual dishonesty'.

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

12 13 14

for mandatesl

15
16 17 18

This Order contained clear and unequivocal mandates which directed the Respondent
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
12

19 20
21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

Rodriguez'fraud on the court.

Gorski's Memo Decision specifically states;

and/or actual expenses, same will be reimbursed. Said parties shall submit detailed affidavits in support of claimed fees'. The opposing parties were judqes, and thus indemnified under Public Officers Law. None had incurred actualfees and/or expenses, or submitted detailed affidavits and Rodriguez knew
it for signature.

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

it.

He simply drafted the finaljudgment to his own liking and submitted

40
41

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
50

This constituted the crime of falsely obtaining a signature.

t2

22 NYCRR 130.1 is limited to reimbursement.

-15-

MULTIPLE DEMONSTRATIONS OF JUDICIAL FRAUD AND MALICE

2
3

4
5

6
7 8

Without the knowledge and/or consent of the real parties, VanStrydonck reopened and modified Gorski's seven [7] year old judgment[s], m rolled them into a new one naming

substituted parties 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
11

10
12

sucoessor' 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

13
14

15
16

17 18 19

20
21

arbitrarily violated rules of comity, reopened and enlarged Gorskis injunction to prohibit
me from'@mmencing any new litigation unless represented by an aftomey'.

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 pefmission 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 lwas 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 He also claimed; 'Respondent has a long history of vexatious litigation ['frivolous and harassing, etc "] the evidence of which does not exist.
20

40
41

42 43 44

45
46

47
48 49
50

5 SOt9. 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.

-16-

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

2 3

injunction. De Long v. Mansfield (1990)


upon a showing of litigiousness." 2

21

and that "a pre-filing order cannot issue

4
5
6

7
8

The Ninth

19th1

Circuit has recognized how vexatious-litigation statutes can

I
11

against alleged vexatious litigants. They can invoke a witch-hunt that frees judges to express their antipathy for them. That Court said,

10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
'19

'Among all other citizens, [he] is to be restricted in his right of ac@ss to the courts. As as he is conemed, his future filings run the risk of delay and even possible rejection before he can call upon defendans 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

20
21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
31

VanStrydonck:: This finding (of contempt) is also based on assertions made by Respondent in his videotaped 'summation'r**'as well as in his statements to the local media. ** 'he expressed his intent to be behind bars if neoessary.' The overt flaw in this logic is that I had not been charged with contempt for statements allegedly made during my summation. Thus, despite having asserted Vhile [Brady's]
oonduct oould be [regarded] ontemptuous, it requires more to fall into the category of @ntemptwhich can be punished summarily' that is preciselv what he did.

32
33 34

35 36 37 38 39

40
41

This violated the long established rule that'before respondent can be adjudicated in oontempt of oourt, the petitioner must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. ln re

42 43 44 45
46

winship, 397 u.s. 358, 90 S. ct. 1068, 25L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970), Hicks v Feiock, 485 u.s. 624, 108 sup ct1423,1429-1430 [1988]; Peopte v shapotsky, 8 A.D.2d 122,12s
[1st Dept 1959]).

47 48 49
50

21912F.2d1144

"

Moy v. United States (9th cir,1990) 906 F.2d 467,470.1

-17-

2
3

VanStrydonck continues; 'the Respondent willfully and intentionally disobeyed the of Justice Gorski and is guilty of criminat contempt in violation of Judiciary Law $ 750. NOTE; An accused cannot be found GUlLlry of contempt of judgments never entered.

4
5 6 7 8

I
11

10 12 13 14 15
16

Jud Law S 750 in pertinent part, is limited to [3] willful disobedience to its lawful and [4] resistance willfully offered to its laMul mandate, AND NO OTHERS VanStrydonck disregarded the mandate that'there is NO ACT OR FAILURE TO ACT; not capitral, for which a person can be criminally prosecuted and incarcerated beyond state and/or federal statutes of limitations. GOMPERS v US.
The contemnods 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

17 18 19 20
21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

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.)
Althou gh Va nStrydonck cla i ms'Respondents
d

isobediene defeated, im pa ired or

prejudiced another party's rights is thus also guilty of civil oontempt violation of Judiciary Law $ 753', these are in fact mere empty words. Verdict by FIAT. And, the power of

32 33
34

contempt under S 753 is limited to cases pendinq in the court in the time. Therefore,
"[i]f a court is authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a partianlar case only, and undertakes to exercise the jurisdiction confened in a case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void."

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@ntempt 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 2d621, 115 Misc 2d 738 citing Colombo v New York, 405 US 9 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
10
11

VanStrydoncks' claim that'Respondent offered no proof to the contrary' is iryelgyant. ln all prosecutions, the presumption of innoence obtains. Proof of guilt must be bevond
reasonable doubt and the defendant may 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 1l,1.118,122 (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

12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20
21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

unlaMully 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).
\ryhere the statute describes the particular situations in which it is to apply, an irrefutable

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

inferene must be drawn thatwhat is omifted 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 f;acts to the court, so the court is impaired in the impartial performane of its legal trask, the act, known as

40 4't 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
50

Traud upon the court", is a crime deemed so severe and fundamentallyopposed to the operation of justice that it is not subject to any statute of limitation'.

*F

SERIAL PROSECUTION WITHOUT CAUSE, WITHOUT AUTHORITY AND BY TRIAL IN ABSENTIA ln October 2003, Rodriguez initiated a subsequent criminal proceeding against me u 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 17
18

orders no cause existed. He knew he was acting under color of law, again, and outside the scope of his employment duties. 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. assefted that Rodriguez had a personal and professional conflict of interest and

19 20
21

22 23 24 25
26 27

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 murt order may not be appointed to
undertake contempt prosecutions for alleged violations of that ordef

28
29 30
31

32 33 34 35

SCOTUS has also declared '[c]riminal contempt 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 oomply 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

36 37
38 39

40
41

42 43 44 45 46 47 48

principle. People v. Calderone 573 N.Y.S.2d 1005; 151 Misc. 2d 530 (07126t91)
My responding objections were denied IMMEDIATELY

On Feb. 3,2004; 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.

49
50

-20-

'//
1

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 popsible. No trial order of disposition

2
3

4 5 6 7 8

or mandate of commitment had been reduced to writing by the judge Stephen Sirkin.
THESE ARE NOT HARMLESS, NOR REVERSABLE ERRORS

I
11

10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

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 oontinuing violation doctrine

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

eased their wrongful conduct, 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 ommencement of the statute of limitations until the last discriminatory act in furtheranoe of that policy or practioe."
25

32 33 34 35 36 37
38

I submit

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

39 40
41

blocking me from court, Vanstrydonck essentially declared 1re


to you'including preuenfr:ng you from rcdrcss.

an

do anlthing

tre

42 43 44 45
46

23

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)

2dgM (4h Dept. 2003)

2a 25

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

M(2d Cir,1994).

-21-

RELIEF IS MANDATORY 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 lavufully 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 it nnm non-judie and void from the outset. that the money judgments made payable to Monroe County judges and other civil parties was obtrained by fraud on the court by Carlos Rodriguez and other attomeys for the defendant parties.

2 3

4
5 6 7 8

I
11

10 12 13
14

o o

15 16 17 18 19 20
21

22 23 24 25
26 27 28

that Monroe County Family Courts finding of killful contempf and judgment of October 13, 2000 is void for due prooess 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. 20M under title of the People of New York by Eliot Spitzer vs Kevin Patrick Brady'and alljudgments deriving from them are jurisdictionally void and must be vacated unonditionally.

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

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 complicity whatsoever for the abuses I have suffered. And challenge every allegation to the contrary.

47
48 49
50

-22-

r-rE--

2 3

4 5
6 7 8

depose under penalty of law 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.
I

I
11

10 12 13 14 15 16

Kevin Patrick Brady

&,L

508 Locust Lane East Rochester 14445

17
18 19

20
21

22 23 24

O*, f\c,* J)'Jutf \.J tJ -\ tr i -r \

Y\t L fhL

cGv"su

|,

25
26 27 28 29 30
31

u,^. ?o l.

i.L

.^n,

!6Ptq\o
Myco.nmiss'YJl

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

a'vF----Fxchr - SLF-IJ, t t

t{w Yotl Pubric, State of )lotaw ' --Ou'.rnea


in

JENNIFER PHILLIPS No. 01PH6O4OO25 Uon'*

WF

40
41

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
50