june 2013 complaint

8/12/2019 June 2013 Complaint

1/31

1234567II

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

TO THE PARTIES;

NEW YORK SUPREME COURTCOUNTY OF MONROE

KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, plaintiffv

STATE OF NEW YORK

2013-053

THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK byAttorney General, defendantSTEVEN E. FEDER, defendant

NOTICE OF PETITION ANDAFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

Upon the affidavits of Kevin Patrick Brady and order of Judge Matthew Rosenbaum, anaction has commenced in the court above to, inter alia, render null and void certainunlawful restraints and money judgments issued from courts lacking persondl and/orsubject matter jurisdiction.These unconstitutional and jurisdictionally defective orders have polluted my personaland 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 despitecontinuing deteriorationlof market values.I seek compensatory damages of $7,844.00 from Steven Feder and New York State.. Iseek 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

1"#e

{i r.?

Gr3

They must be provided to Plaintiff on or about


2/31

12345678I

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

TO THE COURTBE ADVISED that on I served a Notice and Petition onsecond Notice on that same date.On I personally served Notice and Petition on the Rochester office ofAttorney Gerieral/ Department of Law, 144 Exchange Blvd. Rochester.

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 isintended to be frivolous, harassing or completely without merit.

KEVINPATRICK508 Locust

East Rochester, New York 1585 381

b el

trcc T: c4+V1 r rG9iibd/cf 5ipp, .-;613fQ

KAREN A. SMITHNOTARY PUBIIC-STATE OF NEW YORKNo.0lSM624l488Quollfied ln Monroe CounlyMy Commlillon Erptru Msy ?s, 20l5

t


3/31

12345678I

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

NEW YORK SUPREME COURTCOUNTY OF MONROE

KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, plaintiffv

STATE OF NEW YORK

2013-053

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

PLAINTI FFS PLELIMINARY AFFI DAVITThis comes by original action not by motion in a previous action because (1) MonroeCounty Family Court purports to have lost jurisdiction of its judgments when the subjectchild reached the age of 21. Nevertheless, the attorney fraud at issue is extrinsic to theunderlying proceedings and thus recoverable by independent action.[2] There was no main action entitled the People of New York by Eliot Spitzer v KevinPatrick Brady . These two [2] quasi criminaljurisdictionally defective proceedings weresubterfuge for malicious prosecution by court officers acting without personal andsubject mater jurisdiction.

.PREFILING ORDERSSince March 1996 I have been unlav rfully blocked of access to courts by a rhetoricallyambiguous prefiling order . Although the order is expressly limited to family courtmatters. it has been arbitrarily construed and perpetuated by subsequent courts andexpanded to any court in the State of New York .The original order warned of Turther possible sanctions for [proven] disobedience. Isubmit this is obvious reference to financial punishment. See 22 NYCRR 1 30.1 .1Neveftheless this has caused summary dismissal of every collateral action I have filed,as a sanction, stta sponte, without a hearing, without notice, without opportunity toamend ostensibly defective pleadings, and without requiring answers from my opposinggovernment aftorneys.


4/31

12345678I

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

The expressed limitations to'family court matters'was observed and dulyby Judge Thomas VanStrydonck when he arbitrarily imposed an additional provisionthat [Brady] 'shall not be allowed to commene any lawsuit in New York State unlessrepresented by an attorney. This requirement may be waived by showing he has beendenied representation by agencies which provide free legal services to poor persons'

CONSTITUTIONALLY VOIDAfter a decade of legal research I have never found any authorization anywhere for ajudge to order an unsuccessful pro se plaintiff to reimburse defendant judges of theiractual expenses reasonably incurred defending a civil rights lawsuit, I have never foundauthority [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 thatis mandatory in New York, I have never gotten past the complaint stage.I have deposed essentially ad nauseumthat it can be demonstrated, ctearly andconvincingly, that fformer AAG Carlos Rodriguezl has set in motion an un@nscionablescheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicatematter bv improperlv influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentationof the opposing party's claim or defense. *** 1Every petition included a rebuttable presumption of supreme courts lack of jurisdictionabuse and restrain me in any way. To this date NO COURT has adjudicated so mucha single allegation on which jurisdiction was invoked.lncluded here are legal memorandums entitled 'Law of Void Judgments'. Anotheraddresses 'Vexatious Litigants in New York. I submit that when a court purports tomodify long established procedures for commencing legal action, it must provideunambiguous alternate instructions to the enjoined party..

1 Fraud on the Court as defined in Aoude v. Mobil, 8g2F.Zd 1115, (1989)


5/31

12345678I

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

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

ln Fry v. Village Tarrytown [1997] the Court of Appeals said"Commencement'"* specifies "f I-09" [payment] as the dispositive event. Until an actionhas commened, a couft cannot conduct any type of proceeding because there isnothing before the court. This is not a mere technicality. lt is the essential key to thecourthouse door and the exercise of judicial power.I submit that upon payment this action is lawfully commenced. Nevertheless, pursuantthe Order of Judge Matthew Rosenbaum I hereby certify that I have contacted all theidentified agencies and have been denied representation because they don't take civilcases such as this. They include but are not limited toMONROE COUNTY LEGAL ASSISTANCE CORP. for some types of civil matters: publicbenefits, landlord-tenant, disability claims, Social Security and special education.VOLUNTEER LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT OF MONROE COUNTY lNC. finds attorneyswho volunteer to handle certain types of civil matters; divorce, custody, child support,bankruptcy and eviction and free counseling on consumer credit matters, includingbankruptcy and creditors rights.GREATER UPSTATE LAW PROJECT provides training, research and litigation support tolegal 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-scalebasis for people with incomes slightly higher than eligibility for free services.MONROE COUNTY BAR ASSN. MODEST MEANS PANEL some private attorneys may bewilling to take cenain cases at reduced fees.FARMWORKER LEGAL SERVICES OF NEW YORK, INC.Legal representation, education and litigation only for indigent migrant and seasonal farmworkers concentrating in Labor Law and Civil Rights


6/31

12345678I

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

As a result of reckless, unauthorized and profoundly unconstitutional restraints I havebeen 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 theunderlying facts/ motivations are they cannot be euphemized, discounted or ignored... .I have been taught the intended message of exercising these rights pro se andto be heard in couft. I have essentially been punished time and again for the samealleged 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 infinitelybeyond my ability to articulate.I come for an Order of this Court declaring

. the order and injunction of Jerome Gorski contains defects and inconsistencies withlaw and the law of that case as to render it conm non-judie and void from the outset.

o that the money judgments made payable to Monroe County judges and other civilparties was obtained by fraud on the court by Carlos Rodriguez and attorneys for thedefendant parties.

o that Monroe County Family Courts finding of \rrillful contempf and judgment ofOctober 13, 2000 is void for due prooess violations and lack of mnfirmation by a familyoourt judge, AND attomey Steven Feder knowingly entered it anyray.

o that because this pro se party objected to family courts due process violations andsought relief by Article 78, I was ambushed, prosecuted and incarcerated by supreme courton request of carlos Rodriguez and the New York Department of Law.

o that supreme court proceedings of Nov. 13,2002 - Feb. 20M under title of thePeople of New York by Eliot Spiaer vs Kevin Patrick Brady and alljudgments deriving fromthem are jurisdictionally void and must be vacated unmnditionally.

r that based on said proceedings, lwas subjected to another malicious prosecution inFeb. 20il, tried in absentia and incarcerated for another 30 days,


7/31

12345678I

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444s(46474849s0

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

KEVINPATRICK508 Locust

East Rochester, New York 1s85 381

I hereby depose that everything contained herein is conect and truthful to the best of my knowtedge,except for matters alleged on information and belief and I believe those matters to be true. Nothing isintended to be ftivolous, harassing or completely without merit.

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

KAREN A, SMIIHNOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORKNo.01sM624t488Quollflcd ln Monroe CountyMy Commlstlon Explrrr Mqy 23, 20ls


8/31


9/31

. srlre og NEw yoRr(MONR,Ob COUNTY FAMTLY COURT. m|L oFJrrsrcECMCCENTER PII;TAFOCHESTER. r{W YoH( rtgrt.ztgr7tc..2s.aoooFex Ngrt6rr: t t6-a2&t6gtAfii Urtb Trddro.rtr.lryfrrt FOECBT A. XORTO'ICr.'Ctnvt|lltltAlt A. co{,Attrllo.arr chat Ghr nt.GROUND ZERO'

lptil r9,19e4ltr. K, Pdtrleh Brady50 french Creek DrlveRocheeteri Nes Tork 14618Fle. Je ----.3--c1020 Gleason CircleEast Rochester, New Iork 14{50

RE; ERnDt VS. teStBgS,DoCtrET tVU86-91 :Dear tlr. tirady & irt6. F*

Because of the number.of unreeolved and pending petition$ onthis matter, r am instructing th9-l.tonroe couniy ramily courtclerk'a office not. to accept or fire any furthir petitions orappJ.icationg by either parly. please c6rnply with'""ieiintorderg . -rt hae c?rn: o rny attintion thar u l - Brady haa repeatecllycalled eeveral Judgee and the Clerk'e office. 'Unless Ltris coirrseof conduct ceacesi I will be forced to contact the DistrictAttorney's office regarding prosecution.

0,/.t, lo:i;: 'fn''fLe"" q,{rrr,cc3 Robert Norton

Very TruIy Your6,.fu,lkWupervieing Judge of MonroeCounty Fanily Court,Hon. Arnold CiaecioHon. Anthony 'F. BonadioHon. Hiehael J. Miller


10/31


11/31

12345678I

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

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

fo tne extent tnat tne pafees and/or actualexpenses, same will be reimbursed. Said parties shallsubmitdetailed affidavits in support of claimed fees'.

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

'IBRADYI', within 30 davs of entry and service of this order, shall pay the sum of 2,767.to Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney General of New York, Carlos Rodriguez, Asst. AttorneyGeneral, payable to the New York Department of Law, for reasonable attorney's feesand oosts on behalf of the defendant iudges'He arbitrarily appointed himself beneficiary and receiver of the unauthorized award.

NO CAUSE AND NO AUTHORIryThe 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) thelikelihood of ultimate sucoess on the merits; (2) ineparable injury if the preliminaryinjunction is not granted; and, (3) a balancing of the equities in their favor. 2 And theybear 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. Neitherthe failure to appeal and/or the passing of time makes it any more lavyful. lt remainsVOID for egregious due process violations.2 Doe v. Axlerod, 73 NY2d 748,750 (19SS); Time Square Books v. City of Rochester,223 AD2d270,272 (4thDept. 1996).3 Aetna lns. Co. v. Capasso, 75 NY2d 860, 862 (1995).

-3-


12/31

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

Because the purpose of a preliminary injunction tS 63011 is to prevent litigants fromtaking actions that they arq othenrise legally entitled to take in advance of adjudicationon the merits, they should be issued cautiously and in accordance with appropriateprocedural safeguards. Uniformed Firefighters Assoc. v New York, 79 NY2d 236 (1992).

A [S 6301] injunction should be awarded sparingly and only where the party seeking ithas met its burden of proving both the clear right to the relief sought and the urgentnecessity of preventing ineparable harm.**** preliminary injunctive relief is a drastic remedy that will not be granted unless aclear right to it is established under the law and upon undisputed facts found in themoving papers, and the burden of showing an undisputed right rests upon the movant'.The number of gross inconsistencies in fact and law found by Gorski and then pervertedby AAG Rodriguez rendered Gorski's final order ambiguous, void and unenforceable. asee Memo of Defects

FRAUD ON THE PIAINTIFF,FRAUD ON THE COURT.

In January 1996, Rodriguez knowingly submitted his defectively drafted 'final' order forsignature. Gorski signed it shortly thereafter.

BE THIS KNOWN

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

3 City ot Buffalo v. Mangan, 49 AD2d 697, 697 (4th Dept. 1975); Anastasiv. Majopon Realty Corp., 181 AD2d706,707 (2nd Dept. 1992)

4-


13/31

12345678I

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

THE FAMILY COURT MATTER

Mom's visitation violations continued unabated over the years. By August 1999, thealienation of our child was growing more apparent. Concluding that something needed tcbe done to protect the child, 6 I petitioned family court again for a change of custody.Respondent [Mom] answered by cross petition seeking to increase financial suppott forthe child that had grown so 'alienated'that she ceased all contact with her father afterbarely 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 thefollowing 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 'willfulfailure' 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

Dad filed timely written objections to the alleged 'willful' contempt and attorney feesaward on the basis that'Powers v Powers' had no application in this case. A'willfulviolation' is not made prima facie by a non-custodial parent's failure to reimburseexpenses that are [1] subject to qualification and [2] contingent upon precursory actionby the custodial parent. They become strict obligations only after the above conditionsare met.

6 evidence that one parent alienates a child's affection for the other or "acts to discourage a continuedrelationship with the latter has been held to be so inconsistent with the best interest of a child as to raise theprobability of the unfitness of the offending pafty as a custodian' (Matter of Grathwol v Grathwol, 285 AD2d957, 960 [20011; see Matter of Sloand v Sloand, 30 AD3d 7U,785-786 [2006]; Matter of Youngok Lim vSangbom Lyi, 299 AD2d 763, 76/ 2O02D.

-5-


14/31

12345678I

10111213141516171819202'l2223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

'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 t1984Ilnsofar as hearing examiners [magistrates] are non-judicial employees 7 they cannotadjudicate 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 thatany 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 *

Dad's written objections included the failure to suspend or cancelALL child supportbased on 'visitation as a defense'. This was allegedly referred to the assigned judge,[Donofrio] but the objection was never adjudicated.

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

CASE CONCLUSION

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 findingsand proposed judgment lost fullforce and effect at that time. To wit:Pending review of the obje and rebuttial, if any, the order ***shall be in fullforceand effect and no stay of such order shall be granted'. FCA g a39(e).

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

7 see22 NYCRR S 205.32 (b)(1);

-6-


15/31

12345678o

101 l12131415161718192021222324252627282930313?333435363738394041424344454647484950

With many due process violations occurring and going unresolved, I petitioned familycourt, again, to acknowledge them and provide the mandatory hearing. Taddeo, citingGorski 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 insupreme court to compel family court judge, Ann Marie Taddeo, to grant me the S 439hearing lwas entitled to, and to disclose the reason for having blocked a series offacially meritorious petitions to the family court.

Responding to a notice from supreme court I appeared in the courtroom of judgeThomas VanStrydonck on November 13,2O02, a date I will never forget.What I expected to be an appearance to argue the merits of Brady v Taddeo, invoked abarrage of unsubstantiated allegations from VanStrydonck deriving solely from hearsayand speculation. This appearance constructively commenced a jurisdictionally defectivequasi-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 useof the @urts , ostensibly for either violating Gorksi s 1996 injunction and/or failing to paythe money to judges as was purportedly ordered. He threatened me repeatedly withimmediate incarceration and ordered that I stand trial on December1l,2002.VanStrydonck, acting as courthouse policeman and Judge of his own cause , hadessentially lured me into his courtroom under false pretence.s The issues I expected toconfront that day were subverted to satisfy VanStrydonck s own agenda.The following dialogue is taken from the transcripts of November 13, 2002

8 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-


16/31

12345678I

10111213't4151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

VanStrydonck; Well Mr. Brady, you have an uphill battle to convine this court thatyour papenrork filed in family court has any merit, that it is not brought simply out ofmaliciousness. **r*** In fact, the matter brought in Family Court was done before youreceived 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, VanStrydonckwas 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 citizento come to court for malicious purpose. Thafs the point of Mr. Rodriguez' papers e Sowe'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 towhether you were able and whether you complied with Judge Gorski's order.

Whether Gorski's dormant money judgments remained unsatisfied as of that date wasalso not before the court. ln his responding papers [Brady v Taddeo] AAG Rodriguezhad merely'elled the murts altention' upon his information and belief that Gorski'ssanction and imposed attorney fees had not been satisfied.

Moreover, he challenged VanStrydoncks jurisdiction to revisit the 1996 judgment: achallenge Vanstrydonck never answered. tsn Al However, following adjournment toDecember 10th, he abandoned the challenge and joined the malicious, conspiratorialprosecution that had begun.

Contrary to VanStrydoncks cover up, if Rodriguez intended his'call to attention' to beconstrued as a cross petition for contempt, why file again two [2] weeks later?

e This is FALSE and VanStrydonck knew it to be false. '[A] court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief ** where thatrelief is not requested in the moving papers ICPLR 221a@)l

-8-


17/31

12345678I

10111213141516't7181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

On Nov 271h2002, Rodriguez filed a fictitious special proceeding to punish for contemptreturnable at the hearing already scheduled for Dec 1Oth. This was procedurallydefective. A specialcontempt proceeding must derive from an action already pending. 10

Nevertheless, from that point forward, without my knowledge; all proceedings weredocketed under the jurisdictionally defective criminal title. [sd]Rodriguez'alleged accusatory'Motion'was based on'information and belief', and a'hearsay' conversation he claimed to have had with an unidentified emplovee of theOffice of Court Administration. The growing examples of malice was astonishing.Both VanStydonck and Rodriguez knew or should have known that enforoement of ajudgment directing the payment of money is accomplished through execution rather tharthrough contempt proceedings **1 1'''

They knew, or should have known that since a direction to pay money is itself not amandate issuino from a court. as that term is used in the criminal and civil contemptprovisions of the Judiciary Law, contempt proceedings cannot be initiated **** 12

Rodriguez, who had never actually been assigned as prosecutor, suddenly neededevidence to show probable cause. He applied for and was [twice] granted subpoena formy IRS returns to prove'ability to pay'.Note privileged materials may be obtained only upon a showing that the party seekingdiscovery has substantial need ** in the preparation of the case and is unable withoutundue 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 selfincrimination. And yet two Supreme Court judges authorized the subpoena[s]. 1310 Buffalo v. Thomas Pisa, 388 N.Y.S.2d 733;54 A.D.2d 821 (1}t2gni).11 CPLR 5104; SCPA 606; National Sur. Corp. v Silver,23 A.D.2d 398, revd on other grounds 17 N.Y.2d 477).t2 CPLR 5251; O'Gara v Keamey, 77 NY 423; Matter of Watson v Nelson, 69 NY 536, il2-543; Hennig v Abrahams,246 App Div 621 , afid 27O NY 626; Williamson Mill & Lbr. Co. v Valentine, 206 App Div 252;t3 The Honorable Tom VanStrydonck and the Honorable David Barry

-9-


18/31

12345678I

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

DECEMBER 10, 2OO2

When court re-convened, I found Rodriguez and VanStrydonck acting in tandem to'gettheir stories straight. First Rodriguez claimed I had 'sort of stipulated to my'crime', butthen 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 incriminatingtranscripts and then claimed 'the judge made me do it.

It was not until I read VanStrydoncks recitation of facts in September 2003 that I learnedhe had purportedly denied the respondent [then Petitioner] the right to proceed anddismissed the Writ of Mandamus . This constructively meant that'Brady v Taddeo' hadnever commenced in the first place.

But it did in fact commence at the moment I paid the commencing filing fee, obtained anindex 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 fae, why did VS allow it to befiled in the first plae?[2] Why require payment of fee if it lacked merit it would only waste supremeoourts time?[3] Why choose instead to lg1q the petitioner into court underfalse pretense?[4] and proceed as Judge of his own cause ?[5] Under whose authority was Rodriguez assigned to prosecute this quasi-criminalaction?

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-


19/31

12345678I

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

VanStrydonck knew who the real accuser was. This was his'tip off lo Rodriguez to jointhe malicious prosecution scheduled for December 1Oth.

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

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

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

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

VanStrydonck; 'The objective, as I underctand Mr. Rodriguez'petition, is to determinewhether or not you're in violation of Judge Gorski order. The objective of that is toensure 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 Rodriguezintended his alleged'cross petition'to hold me in contempt, why did he also challengeVanStrydoncks 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 toobtain personaljurisdiction by luring me into court on false pretence. The case docketedfor Nov 13 and Dec 10, 2002 was Brady v Taddeo, et al. pro se petitioner. A'specialproceeding' commences only from an underlying action already pending in the court, notfrom Brady v Miller back in 1995. See Memo Piza / Ortis

-1 1-


20/31

12345678I

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404'l424344454647484950

VANSTRYDONCK'EXPLAINS'VanStrydonck The punishment, if any, to be given in this case is not on behalf ofanyone. 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 wereordered to pay money to. lf you have failed to pay them the money, you have failed toobey Gorskis order.... and THAT'S the issue.'But this is grossly inconsistent with his comments on November 13,2002.14VanStrydonck; Well Mr. Brady, I want to tell you that you have an uphill battle toonvince this oourt that your paperwork filed in family court has any merit, that it is notbrought simply out of maliciousness.VanStrydonck; Apparently, the previous sanctions issued by Judge Gorski haven'tgiven you the message of how serious the Courts address the malicious use of thecourts by litigants. So it may be that this court will find that the appropriate way tosanction 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 civilcontempt. Rodriguez represented no civil parties; injured, aggrieved or otherwise. t5 lnfact, there were no civil parties and no [real] party complainants.Judiciary Law 753 requires a finding of disobedience that defeated, impaired, orprejudiced anothe/s rights'. The section requires 'a neglect or violation of duty, or othermismnduct, 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. seeMatter of Cat Hollow Estates, lnc. v Savoia,46 AD3d 1293,1294120071; Allstate Mgt.Corp. v Grand Union Co.,142 AD2d 344,U0 tl988D.la ln a WROC interview, Rodriguez'guffawed' You can't keep bombarding the courts and not pay the price'tu Cliffv Vacco N.Y.App.Div. 12/16/1999

-12-


21/31

12345678I

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

.THE PEOPLE'S'BREECH OF STATUTE'Where an action is brought by the attomey general on relation or information of aperson having an interest in the question, the complaint shallallege, and the title shallshow, that the action is so brought. As a ondition of bringing an action for the benefit ofa person with interest in the question, the attomey general shall require the relator togive an undertraking to indemnify the state against oosts and expenses. CPLR 1302

VANSTRYDONCKS OBSESSIONVanStrydonck: 'lnstead of ranting and raving against the system, you would be betteroff seeking ounsel of an aftomey so he ould direct whatever issues you think you areentitled to in the appropriate manner. ******'ln addition to speaking to some lawyers,bring your checkbook and retain them, that would be my advie'.The record is replete with VanStrydonck obsessing that I obtain an attorney. ln fact, hesigned an ORDER that I seek the services of an attomey. 16 His final recitation feignsthat he was essentially looking out for my best interests.VanStrydonck; 'The respondent appeared pro se for this matter. On every omsion hewas advised by this Court to obtrain an attomey to represent his interests '.The fact is that VanStrydonck never advised anything. He intimidated and threatenedme with incarceration. His final recitation is fiction on essentially every point.

.PETITIONER' BECOMES THE'RESPONDENT'and vice-versa

'This matter @mes before the court initially by Petition for Mandamus. Brady took issuewith the original tenns of visitation and support and has been prolific with lawsuits instate and federal courts'.

tu January 2003 after'Brady v Taddeo' concluded.

-13-


22/31

12345678I

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

ln fact, the matter appeared with Brady as the Petitioner, pro se. The Respondents werejudges Taddeo and Donofrio. At issue was Petitioners rights of procedure under theFamily Court Act; a.k.a. due process of law. lt had nothing to do with petitioner'takingissue with the terms of visitation and support'.

VanStrydonks claim that I had been 'prolific with lawsuits in state and federal courts' isfiction 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 personalservi@, 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. Thelack of proof of service renders the proceeding jurisdictionally void. After ostensiblyterminating 'Brady v Taddeo', supreme court no longer had personal and subject matterjurisdiction, but VanStrydonck continued ordering me to return to his court.VanStrydonck; 'The prooeeding was brought under Judiciary Law g S 753 and 750.

As already established those statutes are inapplicable to this case. Both VS andRodriguez knew, or should have known that sin@ a direction to pay money is itself nota mandate issuing from a court. as that term is used in the criminal and civil contemptprovisions of the Judiciary Law, oontempt proceedings cannot be initiated **** 18

Judiciary Law 5 753 limits jurisdiction to cases 'pnding in the @urt' at the time' NOT acase 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 vAbrahams, 246 App Div 621 , affd 270 NY 626; Wlliamson Mill & Lbr. Co. v Valentine, 206 App Div 252;

-14-


23/31

1234567II

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

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 VanStrydonckcircumvented by claiming my'failure to pay money'constituted a cqq]inUgUs crime.

The following is only more 'intellectual dishonesty'.

VanStrydonck; 'Petitioners proof established that Justice Gorski's order was a lawfulmandate and that Respondent intentionally ignored the mandates [a flagrant disregardfor mandatesl

This Order contained clear and unequivocal mandates which directed the Respondentto pay clearly stated sums of money to specified individualsVanStrydock thus establishes this prosecution to have been without probable cause. ltwas therefore by definition a malicious prosecution. The 'mandate' is in fact evidence ofRodriguez'fraud on the court. 12 Gorski's Memo Decision specifically states;

and/or actual expenses, same will be reimbursed. Said parties shall submit detailedaffidavits 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 andRodriguez knew it. He simply drafted the finaljudgment to his own liking and submittedit for signature.

This constituted the crime of falsely obtaining a signature.

-15-

t2 22 NYCRR 130.1 is limited to reimbursement.


24/31

12345678I

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

MULTIPLE DEMONSTRATIONS OF JUDICIAL FRAUD AND MALICE

Without the knowledge and/or consent of the real parties, VanStrydonck reopened andmodified Gorski's seven [7] year old judgment[s], m rolled them into a new one namingsubstituted parties and re-issued it under title of the void criminal proceedings. SinceSaperston and Day, LLC. no longer existed, Rodriguez' drafted the words 'or theirsucoessor' into this newly modified version and submitted it for signature.

ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE OF MALICE

Based on hearsay alone, without cause, without notice, without complainants, withoutany evidence AND, without personal and subject matter jurisdiction, VanStrydonckarbitrarily violated rules of comity, reopened and enlarged Gorskis injunction to prohibitme from'@mmencing any new litigation unless represented by an aftomey'.

VanStrydonck continues: 'The [respondent] requested a hearing'.

This claim is absolutely delusional. My standing remained as the Petitioner, havingby pefmission of the court to purge one crippling, procedurally defective judgment frommy record. lnstead, I left with another one on my record that eventually brought downbusiness, poisoned my professional credibility, credit rating, and has impeded my abilityto control my life and property ever since.

No I did NOT request a hearing. Upon my appearance lwas ambushed, accused by aman under influence of common courthouse gossip, impacted with prejudice and actingwithout personaland subject matter jurisdiction who ordered that I be prepared initiallyto conduct a hearing on [my alleged] contempt for Judge Gorski's judgment of MarchHe also claimed; 'Respondent has a long history of vexatious litigation ['frivolous andharassing, etc ] the evidence of which does not exist.20 5 SOt9. A judgment or order shall not be stayed, impaired or affected by any mistake, defect or irregularity inthe papers or procedures in the action not affecting a substantial right of a party.

-16-


25/31

12345678I

101112131415161718'1920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

Competent coufis have clarified that'litigiousness alone cannot support a pre filinginjunction. De Long v. Mansfield (1990) 21 and that a pre-filing order cannot issueupon a showing of litigiousness. 2

The Ninth 19th1 Circuit has recognized how vexatious-litigation statutes canagainst alleged vexatious litigants. They can invoke a witch-hunt that frees judges toexpress their antipathy for them. That Court said,

'Among all other citizens, [he] is to be restricted in his right of ac@ss to the courts. Asas he is conemed, his future filings run the risk of delay and even possible rejectionbefore he can call upon defendans to respond to those filings. .We cannot predict whatharm might come to him as a result, and he should not be forced to predict it either. Heknows the Sword of Damocles hangs over his hopes for access for the future.

INDIRECT SUMMARY CONTEMPTVanStrydonck:: This finding (of contempt) is also based on assertions made byRespondent in his videotaped 'summation'r**'as well as in his statements to the localmedia. ** '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 Iallegedly 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.This violated the long established rule that'before respondent can be adjudicated inoontempt of oourt, the petitioner must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. ln rewinship, 397 u.s. 358, 90 S. ct. 1068, 25L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970), Hicks v Feiock, 485u.s. 624, 108 sup ct1423,1429-1430 [1988]; Peopte v shapotsky, 8 A.D.2d 122,12s[1st Dept 1959]).

21912F.2d1144 Moy v. United States (9th cir,1990) 906 F.2d 467,470.1

-17-


26/31

12345678I

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

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

The contemnods actions must also be found calculated to or actually did defeat, impairor prejudice the rights or remedies of the [complainant]. Powell v Clauss, 93 A.D.2d883,; Matter of Planning Bd. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 75 A.D.2d 686, 687; Great NeckPennysaver 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 orprejudiced another party's rights is thus also guilty of civil oontempt violation of JudiciaryLaw $ 753', these are in fact mere empty words. Verdict by FIAT. And, the power ofcontempt 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, andundertakes to exercise the jurisdiction confened in a case to which the statute has noapplication, the judgment rendered is void.

THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT MY ACCUSORSAlthough sometimes characterized as civil special proceedings, courts are still bound bySCOTUS to recognize that criminal@ntempt is a crime in the ordinary sense * andconvictions 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 Colombov New York, 405 US 9 at 36, and People v Colombo, 31 NY 2d 947.

-18-


27/31

12345678I

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404't424344454647484950

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 todiscovery.

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 bevondreasonable doubt and the defendant may not be compelled to be a witness aoainsthimself, Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., supra, p.444.This trial was fiction. A criminal prosecution disguised as a 'civil action'or a 'civiljudicialproceeding' commenced by motion without an initiating petition are both non-waivabledefects 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] monthslater, I had been ambushed in court, falsely accused, maliciously prosecuted andunlaMully jailed for non-crimes and non-offenses under inapplicable statute [S 753] andlong passed time limitations. tS 7501THESE 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 irrefutableinferene must be drawn thatwhat is omifted or not included was intended to be omittedor 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 asTraud upon the court , is a crime deemed so severe and fundamentallyopposed to theoperation of justice that it is not subject to any statute of limitation'.

*F


28/31

12345678I

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

SERIAL PROSECUTION WITHOUT CAUSE, WITHOUT AUTHORITYAND BY TRIAL IN ABSENTIA

ln October 2003, Rodriguez initiated a subsequent criminal proceeding against me uthe same title [ 03-11838] and asking that I again be punished by incarceration for faito report to jail as ordered on October 2nd.

Once again he knew, or should have, that due to the jurisdictionally void underlyingorders no cause existed. He knew he was acting under color of law, again, and outsidethe 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.

I assefted that Rodriguez had a personal and professional conflict of interest and Irequested judicial notice of 'Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton'where Supreme Court statedthat 'counselfor a party who is the beneficiary of a murt order may not be appointed toundertake contempt prosecutions for alleged violations of that ordefSCOTUS has also declared '[c]riminal contempt proceedings arising out of civil litigationare between the public and plaintiff and are not part of the original civil action. A civillitigant ** adversely affected by a party opponent's unwillingness to oomply with ajudgment or injunction would be incapable of acting in a disinterested manner.

My pro se legal memorandums advised Sirkin that New York recognizes this sameprinciple. 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 toproceed to trial in which I was declared guilty by FIAT and jailed for another 30 days.

-20-


29/31

12345678I

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

'//On February 4, sheriff deputies again pounded on our door during early hours, climbedthrough 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 dispositionor mandate of commitment had been reduced to writing by the judge Stephen Sirkin.

THESE ARE NOT HARMLESS, NOR REVERSABLE ERRORS

All of these acts evidence an obvious pattern or practice by courts of discriminationagainst a pro se litigant. New York case law holds that the oontinuing violation doctrinecan be satisfied when specific acts of discrimination are permitted to go un-remedied forso long as to amount to a policy or practice. 23

Acts are continuous when defendants (1) engage in continuing wrongfulconduct; (2)injury to the [claimant] accrues continuously; and (3) had the defendants at any timeeased 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 practicedelays the ommencement of the statute of limitations until the last discriminatory act infurtheranoe of that policy or practioe. 25

I submit there is NO COGNIZABLE DEFENSE for these bold malicious abuses. Byblocking me from court, Vanstrydonck essentially declared 1re an do anlthing treto you'including preuenfr:ng you from rcdrcss.

23 Bloom v NYC Board Ed. 2003 WL 1740528 (SDNY 2008) Clark v State , 302 A.D. 2dgM (4h Dept. 2003)Branch v Guilderland School Dist. 239 F.Supp 242 (NDNY 2003)2a Hensley v. City of Columbus, 557 F.3d 693, 697 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted).25 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-


30/31

12345678I

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

RELIEF IS MANDATORYAs a matter of law in New York and of public policy, previous courts have had no authorityto 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 havenever been addressed by any court.

o the order and injunction of Jerome Gorski contains defects and inconsistencies withlaw and the law of that case to render it nnm non-judie and void from the outset.

o that the money judgments made payable to Monroe County judges and other civilparties was obtrained by fraud on the court by Carlos Rodriguez and other attomeys for thedefendant parties.

o that Monroe County Family Courts finding of killful contempf and judgment ofOctober 13, 2000 is void for due prooess violations and lack of confirmation by a familycourt judge.

o that because this pro se party objected to said due process violations and lawfullysought relief by Article 78, I was ambushed, prosecuted and incarcerated by SupremeCourt on request of Carlos Rodriguez and the New York Department of Law.

o that supreme court proeedings of Nov. 13,2002 - Feb. 20M under title of thePeople of New York by Eliot Spitzer vs Kevin Patrick Brady and alljudgments deriving fromthem are jurisdictionally void and must be vacated unonditionally.

o that based on said proceedings, plaintiff was subjected to further abuse byprosecution 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 thatlegally or constructively rose to the level of frivolous, vexatious, and/or completely withoutmerit. I have not broken any laws, destroyed my own livelihood, wrongly prosecuted andincarcerated myself, or violated my own constitutional rights.ln the final analysis I have no complicity whatsoever for the abuses I have suffered. And Ichallenge every allegation to the contrary.

-22-


31/31

12345678I

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

I depose under penalty of law that everything contained herein is correct and truthful tothe best of my knowledge, except for matters alleged on information and belief and Ibelieve those matters to be true. Nothing is intended to be frivolous, harassing orcompletely without merit.

&,LKevin Patrick Brady

508 Locust LaneEast Rochester 14445

O*, f\c,* J -\ tr i -r \ CtJ )'Jutf \.JY\t L fhL cGv"su |, u,^. ?o l. i.L A6Ptq\oENNIFER PHILLIPSNo. 01PH6O4OO25)lotaw Pubric, State of t{w Yotl' --Ou'.rnea in Uon'* WF J, qMyco.nmiss'YJl Fxchr - SLF-Ia'vF---- t t

.^n,U

june 2013 complaint

Documents