I

1 SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW YORK

2
APPELLATE DIVISION FOURTH JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
3
4
5 KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, petitioner
6
7
8 NOTICE OF ACTION
9 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
10
11
12
13 Be advised that an action was filed in the Court above on Oct. 19, 2018
14
15
16 Petitioner seeks an Order from the Court
17
18 [1] waiving filing fees, and reducing the number of briefs required to restore my
19
20 fundamental right to free access to the courts
21
22 [2] vacating the void orders of former Judge Thomas Vanstrydonck for lack of
23
24 jurisdiction to render such orders in November 2002.
25
26 [3] vacating the ‘copy cat’ injunction of the Perinton Town Court in 2005 and
27
28 restoring the CPL 440.10 motion filed in May 2017 to redress constitutionally
29 defective convictions.
30
31
32 [4] vacating the void judgment of East Rochester Court for excess of jurisdiction.
33
34 [5] restoration of actions blocked by Administrative Judge Craig Doran.
35
36
37 [6] granting judgment for incidental expenses
38 [7] any other relief deemed appropriate.
39
40
41 Answers, if any, are returnable to the court above on or before Nov 16, 2018 with
42 copies to petitioner at the following address.
43
44
45 Kevin Patrick Brady
46
Box 862 Henrietta, NY 14467
47
48 Email ‘kpatbrady@TWC.com
49 585 752 0778
50

6
 I

1 I hereby swear that on October 19, 2018 I provided a true and complete copy of everything
2
annexed here by US Mail to the following
3
4
5 Attorney General/ Depaftment of Law
6 144 Exchange Blvd.
7
Rochester, NY 14614
8
I
10 Monroe County Dept of Law
11 39 w. Main St
12
Rochester, NY 14614
13
14
15 Perinton Town Couft
16 1350 Turk Hill Road
17
Fairpoft, NY 14450
18
19
20 East Rochester Coutt
21
312 Main Street
22
23
East Rochester, NY 14445
24
) r.
25
.' ./
26 l/ .i
q /rttr/(
/,. r .-/
/-4'//,(,
27 / \ \--. - ./
28
29 Kevin Patrick
30
Box 862 Henrietta, NY 1
31
32 Email 'kpatbrady@Twc.
33 585 752 0
u
35
36
31
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
 I

1 SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW YORK

2
APPELLATE DIVISION FOURTH JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
3
4
5 KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, petitioner
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 MOTION FOR WAIVER OF FEES
15
16
17
18 Upon the annexed affidavits and exhibits, petitioner seeks to file this action pursuant to
19 CPLR 1101. Due to the protracted effects of the judgments at issue, I cannot afford to
20
21
pay application fees and expenses.
22
23
24 While I once enjoyed substantial success in my family, social and professional life; I am
25
26
today, at 67, unemployed and unemployable in my chosen profession. Due to serial
27 wrongful prosecutions, incarcerations and void money judgments on my record I am no
28
longer bondable nor employable in my profession of 20 years
29
30
31 My health, quality of life and life expectancy deteriorates daily. I am on the verge of
32 imminent bankruptcy
33
34
35 The reason is exemplified by the annexed letter of respondent Judge Craig Doran
36
37
38 No other party is beneficially interested in any recovery sought
39
40
41
Because the merits of this action are prima facie, I request reduction of the number of
42 briefs required.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

8
SUPREME COURT APPELLATE DIVISION
STATE OF NEW YORK FOURTH JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

ln re: KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, petitioner

PETITION FOR
WRIT OF PROHIBITION

KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, PETITIONER

BOX 862
HENRIETTA, NY 14467

1
COURT OF APPEALS
Kenford Co. v County of Erie, 537 N.E.2d 176
Matter of Doe v Axelrod, 71 N.Y.2d 484, 490 [1988],
Matter of Dondi v Jones 351 N.E.2d 650
Matter of Hogan v. Court of General Sessions,
296 N.Y. 1
Matter of Kraemer v. County Ct., 6 N.Y.2d 363;
Matter of Morhous v. New York Supreme Ct.,293 N.Y. 131, 140;
Matter of Proskin v. County Ct. of Albany County,
30 N.Y.2d 15;
Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 N.Y.2d 348, 353 [1986]
Matter of Schumer v Holtzman, 60 N.Y.2d 46 (1983)
Matter of Seidenberg v. County Ct. Rockland,34 N.Y.2d 499;
Matter of State of New York v King, 36 N.Y.2d 59, 64 [1975]).
Matter of Watson v Nelson, 69 NY 536
O'Gara v Kearney, 77 NY 423
People ex rel. Sloane v Lawes, 255 N.Y. 112
People v Brooks, 75 NY 2d 898, 899
People v Gilmour, 98 N.Y.2d 126 (2002)
People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136.
Royal Zenith Corp. v Continental Ins. Co., 63 N.Y.2d 975).
Sybron Corp. v Wetzel, 46 NY2d 197, 204 (1978);

1ST DEPT
Le Gros v Chain Shirt Shops, 187 App Div 368
Copeland v Gross, 39 Misc. 2d 619;
Devonia Discount Corp. v Bianchi, 241 App Div 838;
Lubben v. Selective Serv. Sys. Local Bd. No.453 F.2d 645, 649 (
People v McCullough (1994) 619 NYS2d 984,

2ND
Matter Brown v Blumenfeld, 103 A.D.3d 45, 56 [2012]
Byrne Compressed Air Equip. Co., Inc. v Sperdini,
123 AD2d 368, 369
Clarke v Wallace Oil Co., 284 AD2d 492, 493 [2001]
DeMartino v. Rivera, 148 AD2d 568, 569 [
Hennig v Abrahams, 246 App Div 621
Matter of Holtzman v Hellenbrand, 130 A.D.2d 749, 750,
Maxwell v First Port Jefferson., 31 A.D.2d 813).
Parry v Murphy, 79 AD3d 713, 715
Terlizzi v. Brodie, 38 AD2d 762 [

3RD
Schatz v O’Sullivan 288 AD2d 536
Andriola v. State, 53 AD2d 966,
Matter of Cat Hollow Estates, lnc. v Savoia, 46 AD3d 1293,
Matter of Wilcox v Dwyer, 73 A.D.2d 1016, 1017
Moore v Ruback's Grove Campers' Assn. 85 AD3d 1220, 1221

2
4TH SEPT
Buffalo Teachers v Thomas Pisa. 54 A.D.2d 821 (1976)
Doe v. Novello 39 A.D.3d 1168 (2007),
Legislature of the County 587 N.Y.S 2d 877,
Levin v McGovern,
Matter of Lee v. County Ct. of Erie County, 27 N.Y.2d 432;
Matter of Ryan, 73 App Div 137, 139;
Matter of Welch v. State, 71 AD2d 494,
Niagara Mohawk v Great Bend Aggregates, 181 A.D. 2d 948
People v Miran 107 A.D.3d 41 (2013)
People v Weathers , 94 AD2d 964. (1984).
Williamson Mill & Lbr. Co. v Valentine, 206 App Div 252
MISC
Lubben v. Selective Serv. Sys., 453 F.2d 645, 649
Knauer v. Long Is. Airports Limousine Serv. Corp.,
53 Misc.2d 1017
Beller & Keller v. Tyler, 120 F.3d 21, 23 (
Bauman v. United States District Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir.1977),
Dollard v Koronsky, 67 Misc 90;
People v. Calderone 573 N.Y.S.2d 1005; 1
Dowd v. U. S. ex rel. Cook, 340 U.S. 206, 71 S.Ct. 262,
Graciette v. Star Guidance, Inc., 66 F.R.D. 424, 426
Hodges v. US, 1960, 108 U.S. App.D.C. 375,
Kreindler v Irving Trust Co., 60 Misc.2d 441, 442;
Matter of Cammaratta, 60 Misc.2d 521, 522).
Matter of Culver Contr. Corp. v. Humphrey, 268 N.Y. 26, 39-40)
Matter of Kramsky, 172 Misc 935, 937-938;
Allstate Mgt. Corp. v Grand Union Co., 142 AD2d,
Associates Discount Corp. v Cabell, 164 N.Y.S.2d 189;,

Public Officer Law §17

22 NYCRR 130.1
46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments §§ 621-56 (1969 & supp. 1991).
49 C.J.S. Judgments § 401, at 792 (1947 & supp. 1991);
7 Moore's Federal Practice para. 60.25[3], at 240 (2d ed. 1983);
Court Claims Act §11[a][i
Court of Claims § 20-a
CPL 440.10
CPLR § 403. (c)
CPLR 217
CPLR 5019,
CPLR 5251;
Exec. Law § 63[1].
Executive Law 63(3)
Judiciary Law § 750
Judiciary Law § 756
NY Const. §11

3
4
1
2 SUPREME COURT APPELLATE DIVISION
3 STATE OF NEW YORK FOURTH JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
4

5
6 PETITION FOR WRIT
7 ln re: KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, OF PROHIBITION
8
9

10 Petitioner comes for mandatory relief from the jurisdictional defects and
11 abuses of power deposed herein. These derive from ‘unlawful use or abuse[s]
12 of entire action[s] or proceeding[s], not from proper purpose[s] of the
13 action[s] or proceeding[s]. (Matter Brown v Blumenfeld, 103 A.D.3d 45, 56
14 [2012], quoting Matter of State of New York v King, 36 N.Y.2d 59, 64 [1975]).

15 I assert my right to be meaningfully heard and respected by this Court, to be

16 liberally construed and provided a hearing to show proof for every allegation
17 made herein.

18 I submit that ‘where a clear legal right exists, such as here, CPLR 7803 (2)
19 authorizes a proceeding to inquire "whether a body or officer proceeded, is
20 proceeding or is about to proceed without or in excess of jurisdiction" AND/OR

21 where a court officer acts without jurisdiction or in excess of powers` in such a

22 manner as to implicate the legality of the entire proceeding'" Doe v. Novello
23 39 A.D.3d 1168 (2007), 834 N.Y.S.2d 603 (Matter of Doe v Axelrod, 71 N.Y.2d
24 484, 490 [1988], quoting Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 N.Y.2d 348, 353 [1986]

25 Confirmation of the injuries deposed herein is so long overdue.

26 I submit that prohibition is an appropriate remedy to void an improper or ultra

27 vires appointment of a prosecutor (Matter of Schumer v Holtzman, 60 N.Y.2d
28 46; Matter of Holtzman v Hellenbrand, 130 A.D.2d 749, 750, ; Matter of
29 Wilcox v Dwyer, 73 A.D.2d 1016, 1017; OR to restrain the ultra vires acts of a
30 prosecutorial usurper (Matter of Dondi v Jones, ).

5
31 Petitioner challenges the [1] propriety and enforceability of a permanent
32 injunction issued without a hearing in 1996 and still being applied today in an
33 unconstitutional manner. I challenge [2] the justiciabilty, personal and subject
34 matter jurisdiction of ‘special proceedings’ which unlawfully modified it in 2003.

35 This action is not about mere trial errors of substantive law or procedure. It’s
36 about ‘fatal jurisdictional defects and simulated court proceeding[s] that so
37 violated basic and fundamental as to deprive due process. This rendered the
38 courts’ jurisdiction VOID and authorizes [prohibition] in certain cases. (People
39 ex rel. Meers v Martin, 4 A.D.2d 659, 664, affd 4 N.Y.2d 898,

40 This is such a case. In fact, everything about the serial prosecutions entitled
41 ‘the People of New York by Attorney General v Kevin Patrick Brady’ grossly
42 violated due process, voided the courts subject matter and invalidated all
43 judgments from it.

44 These prosecutions establish that rogue courtrooms are not safe for pro se
45 litigants. For nearly two [2] decades, my life, liberty and opportunities have
46 been held hostage by a hostile, prejudiced and unaccountable legal culture. My
47 trust in government and in judicial integrity has been destroyed beyond
48 articulation.

49 However, your petitioner is absolutely entitled to relief by any means possible.

50 ‘Where there is a right, there MUST be a remedy’.

51 It is fundamental that every person accused of crime is entitled to a fair trial:

52 to be prosecuted only by valid accusatory instruments. Every defendant must
53 be informed of the nature and cause of the ‘crime’. [S]he cannot be seized of
54 privileged material by the court and/or an unauthorized prosecutor acting with
55 conflict of interest for his own fraud on the court.

56 PROCEDURAL HISTORY

57 This matter began with a supreme court Title 42 §1983 action that was
58 dismissed on papers alone in 1995. [Brady v Miller et al, # 8309/95]

59 IAS Judge Jerome Gorski granted respondents motion to enjoin your relator
60 from filing actions in family court without permission from the court AND
61 granted sanctions and remedial attorney fee awards.

6
62 Consistent with 22 NYCRR 130.1 Gorski wrote

63 ‘To the extent the parties opposing plaintiff’s complaint incurred actual
64 attorney fees and/or actual expenses, same will be reimbursed. Said parties
65 shall submit detailed affidavits in support of claimed fees’.

66 Although no respondent incurred actual fees and/or expenses [POL §17] nor
67 submitted detailed affidavits AAG Carlos Rodriguez drafted the proposed final
68 judgment to his own liking: to wit

69 ‘[BRADY]’, within 30 days of entry and service of this order, shall pay the sum
70 of $2,767. to Dennis Vacco, Attorney General of New York, Carlos Rodriguez
71 Asst. AG, payable to the NY Department of Law, for reasonable attorney’s fees
72 and costs on behalf of the defendant judges’

73 Gorski had summarily dismissed the action without plenary hearing and the
74 word 'permanent' appears nowhere in his Memorandum Decision. This too was
75 drafted into the proposed order by Rodriguez who then failed to enter the
76 signed judgment until 2003. Thus, Rodriguez’ threats in June 1997 [B] and
77 subsequent subterfuge in 2002 lacked probable cause.

78 Petitioner says this obviates a malicious prosecution with an unconstitutional

79 motive. It constitutes fraud on the court … and FRAUD VITIATES EVERYTHING.

80 I have therefore deposed essentially ad nauseum:’

81 "it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that AAG Carlos Rodriguez
82 has sentiently set in motion an unconscionable scheme to interfere with the
83 judicial system’s ability to impartially adjudicate a matter by improperly
84 influencing the trier of fact, or unfairly hampering presentation of my claims or
1
85 defense.***

86

87

1
Fraud on the Court defined in Aoude v. Mobil, 8g2F.2d 1115, (1989)

7
88 CHRONIC ADVERSITY IN FAMILY COURT

89 In August 2002, I requested permission to file for a writ of mandamus to

90 redress due process violations in a family court matter.

91 Having received permission [A] I appeared in the courtroom of Judge Thomas

92 VanStrydonck on Nov. 13, 2OO2. I found the judge noticeably agitated by my
93 proposed action to compel family court judges to comply with [FCA 439].

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

95 invoked a barrage of unsubstantiated allegations from VanStrydonck. Within
96 the first two [2] minutes this judge was accusing me of ‘malicious abuse of the
97 courts’ , ostensibly, for either violating Gorski’s 1996 injunction and/or failing
98 to pay money to the judges/respondents in that civil rights action.

99 Vanstrydonck threatened me with immediate incarceration if I failed to release

100 my IRS returns to Rodriguez; who he had surreptitiously appointed to
101 prosecute as yet undisclosed ‘special proceedings’. He scheduled multiple trial
102 dates and warned me 'be prepared to testify because if this Court finds you
103 guilty, you may very well go to jail.

104 Transcripts of November 13, 2002

105 Vanstrydonck: “Mr. Brady, what we are going to do is adjourn this until
106 December 10th. I am going to set aside Dec. 10, 11, and 12th in case we
107 need it. In addition to receiving your papers [sur reply to Brady v Taddeo] by
108 Dec. 1, you should be prepared on Dec. 10th initially to conduct a hearing on
109 why I shouldn’t find you in contempt of Judge Gorski’s judgment and order
110 which was filed in March 1996.

111 ’We will take testimony from you at that time as to ability to pay; whether or
112 not you have paid any of those amounts. And I want to tell you, you are well
113 advised to seek an attorney to give you advice on these matters, because if
114 this court finds you in contempt of Judge Gorskis order, you may very well go
115 to jail. Do you understand that? Do you have any questions about that ?”

116 My confusion was expressed in writing [C]

8
117 [cont]:“There’s a pattern here Mr. Brady, of you abusing your rights to come to
2
118 court for malicious purpose. That’s the point of Mr. Rodriguez’ papers. So we’ll
119 address those issues on Dec. 10, 11 and 12.

120 “I assume Mr. Rodriguez will take testimony from you and others as to
121 whether you were able and whether you complied with Judge Gorski’s order.
122 Apparently the previous sanctions haven’t given you the message of how
123 serious courts address the malicious use of courts by litigants. So it may be
124 the appropriate way to sanction you is to send you to jail for a period of time.

125 “You should be prepared on December 10th to demonstrate what your income
126 has been for the last 7-10 years, so you can demonstrate whether or not
127 you’ve had the ability to comply. Because if it is proven you’ve had the ability
128 to comply, but didn’t, then the sanctions that are available to me, as I told you
129 before, include a jail sentence.”

130 He then adjourned to December 10th. [D]

131 THE SUBTERFUGE BEGINS

132 On or about December 5, 2002 I received by mail a Notice of Motion to Punish

133 for Contempt. It was NOT personally served. The affidavit of service identified
134 the operative case as Brady v Taddeo and the return date as Dec. 10th

135 When court reconvened on Dec. 10th, I was not aware that the proceedings
136 were now docketed as ‘the People by Spitzer vs Kevin Patrick Brady’ [E]
137 I eventually concluded I had been lured back to court under false pretence and
138 ordered by threats to return for each future appearance.

139 At various points I made my objections known but they were all ignored. As to
140 my objections to prosecution by Rodriguez, Vanstrydonck replied

141 “I think Mr. Brady you are having a hard time coming to terms with the fact
142 that these proceedings are about the behavior of YOU, not Carlos Rodriguez.

2
allegations made on information and belief constitute hearsay and is insufficient to commence
criminal proceedings.

Violation Fifth Amendment USC. ‘Ability to pay’ is an element of the crime charged

9
143 ”We have ordered a hearing on whether Kevin Patrick Brady has complied with
144 Judge Gorskis order and if he has failed to comply, whether he has done so
145 contemptuously. It has nothing to do with Mr. Rodriguez.”

146 As to the cause and nature of the proceedings, he replied

147 “The punishment, if any, to be given in this case is not on behalf of anyone.
148 Its’ to demonstrate to you that if you’re in purposeful violation of a court
149 order, there is punishment for that. It has nothing to do with the individuals
150 you were ordered to pay money. If you have failed to pay them the money,
151 you have failed to obey Judge Gorskis order……..and THAT’S THE ISSUE.

152 Deponent was more condemned at each appearance. In April 2003, I

153 discovered Rodriguez had attempted to alter transcripts to make my
154 stipulation incriminating. When confronted he admitted it, and blamed it on
155 the judge. Vanstrydonck remained constructively coram non judice. His
156 agenda was clearly to proceed to trial, convict the defendant and ‘send him to
157 jail for a period of time’.

158 After the simulated trial on May 6, 2003, the parties were advised to submit
159 closing remarks. My remarks were submitted on videotape and requested very
160 specific findings to be placed on the record.’

161 On or about September 9rd, Vanstrydonck announced his ‘verdict’ in court. [F]
162 His unilateral recitation of ‘facts’ ignored every issue, every defense, and every
163 request I had made for specific findings to be placed on the record. As
164 expected I was declared GUILTY and ordered to report to Jail on October 1.

165 These ‘special proceedings’ had begun without due cause, without real party
3
166 complainants and/or witnesses, without any evidence and without personal
167 or subject matter jurisdiction. Although statutorily proscribed by CPLR 5019,
168 Vanstrydonck [1] reopened and modified Gorskis’ long dormant money award,
169 [2] substituted ‘the People of New York’ for the real party creditors, and [3]
170 authorized entry of his ‘judgment’ as a lien against my real property.

3
Other than my own tax returns

10
171 He arbitrarily expanded Gorskis’ injunction beyond family court matters by
172 writing ‘[Brady] is prohibited from commencing any new litigation in any court
173 in the State unless represented by an attorney.

174 On October 2, 2003, sheriff deputies pounded on my door in the early hours,
175 climbed through our bedroom window to arrest and take me off to jail.

176 The defective mandates of commitment are annexed. [G, H]]

177 THE UNILATERAL FICTION

178 Vanstrydonck claimed ‘This matter comes before the court initially by Petition
179 for Mandamus. Brady took issue with the original terms of visitation and
180 support and has been prolific with lawsuits in state and federal courts'.

181 This is demonstrable fiction. I had come to court with permission from the
182 court to redress family court statutory due process violations. [FCA 439]. To
183 this day these violations have never been heard.

184 Upon information and belief, acting as courthouse policeman and ‘judge of his
185 own cause', Vanstrydonck replaced Brady v Taddeo from the courts calendar
186 to satisfy his own agenda AND to enable Rodriguez to prosecute his earlier
187 threats and predictions. [B]

188 Contrary to his unilateral recitation, the Attorney General did not, and could
189 not bring an action on behalf of the parties to whom payments were owed.
190 Rodriguez represented no civil parties; injured, aggrieved or otherwise. ln fact,
191 there were no civil parties and no [real] party complainants. Rodriguez’ failure
192 to enter the Gorski judgment in 1996 rendered no payments required.

193 “Attorneys are not parties to the action and cannot bring motion for contempt.
194 Schatz v O’Sullivan 288 AD2d 536

195 “Enforcement of judgment directing the payment of money is by execution

4
196 rather than through contempt proceedings ***

4
CPLR 5104; SCPA 606; National Sur. Corp. v Silver,23 A.D.2d 398, revd on other grounds 17 N.Y.2d 477).

11
197 'Since a direction to pay money is itself not a mandate issuing from a court, as
198 that term is used in the criminal and civil contempt provisions of the Judiciary
199 Law (§ 750, a) par 3; § 756), contempt proceedings cannot be initiated
200 against a recalcitrant judgment debtor absent a violation or impairment of
201 legal process issued under the judgment, such as an execution pursuant to
202 CPLR 5230 (subd [b]) (see CPLR 5251;

203 See O'Gara v Kearney, 77 NY 423; Matter of Watson v Nelson, 69 NY 536,

204 542-543; Hennig v Abrahams, 246 App Div 621, affd 270 NY 626; Williamson
205 Mill & Lbr. Co. v Valentine, 206 App Div 252; Le Gros v Chain Shirt Shops, 187
206 App Div 368; Matter of Ryan, 73 App Div 137, 139; Matter of Kramsky, 172
207 Misc 935, 937-938; Dollard v Koronsky, 67 Misc 90;

208 Judiciary Law § 753 requires a finding of "disobedience that defeated,

209 impaired, or prejudiced another’s’ rights'. It requires 'a neglect or violation of
210 duty, or other misconduct, by which a right or remedy of a party to a civil
211 action or special proceeding, pending in the court may be defeated, impaired,
212 impeded, or prejudiced', ... These are absent in VanStrydonck's recitation.

213 “In order for a court to obtain subject matter jurisdiction in a proceeding
214 governed entirely by statute, there must be strict compliance with statutory
215 requirements. Matter of Cat Hollow Estates, lnc. v Savoia,46 AD3d 1293,;
216 Allstate Mgt. Corp. v Grand Union Co.,142 AD2d, in special proceedings there
217 must be strict compliance with statutory requirements to give the court
218 jurisdiction" (Clarke v Wallace Oil Co., 284 AD2d 492, [2001]

219 NOTE. Judiciary Law § 753 had no application to the ‘special proceedings.
220 Therefore, the court had no subject matter jurisdiction.

221 CPLR §403.(c) A notice of petition shall be served in the same manner as a
222 summons in an action. The record here contains no Affidavit of Service at all.
223 [see I, J]

224 Personal jurisdiction cannot be obtained by trickery, Terlizzi v. Brodie, 38

225 AD2d 762 [2nd Dept.]; accord, DeMartino v. Rivera, 148 AD2d 568, [2nd
226 Dept. 1989]) Buffalo Teachers v Pisa. 54 A.D.2d 821 (1976) [4th Dept]

12
227 ‘A motion must be addressed to a pending action’ NIMO v Great Bend
228 Aggregates, A.D. 2d [1992]; Kenford Co. v County of Erie, Legislature of the
229 County 587 N.Y.S 2d 877, 185 A.D 2d 658. [1992]

230 “There is no statutory basis to commence an action by motion. The court was
231 therefore without jurisdiction to make a judgment. Kreindler v Irving Trust 60
232 Misc.2d 441, 442; Matter of Cammaratta, 60 Misc.2d 521, 522).

233 “Furthermore, a court lacks jurisdiction of an action or special proceeding

234 begun by inappropriate process: a jurisdictional defect that cannot be waived
235 by an appearance. (Knauer v. Long Is. Airports Limousine Serv. Corp., 53
236 Misc.2d 1017.)

237 SERIAL PROSECUTIONS

238 Executive Law 63(3) authorizes only the agency head to authorize a criminal
239 prosecution. People v Gilmour, 98 N.Y.2d 126 (2002) 773 N.E.2d 479 People v
240 Miran 107 A.D.3d 41 (2013) [ see Memo, Fundamental Defects]

241 Nevertheless on October 2003, Rodriguez initiated another [solely] criminal

242 action against me under docket #03-11838. He falsely claimed to be acting on
243 behalf of the ‘OCA’ and under authority granted to the Attorney General to
244 defend and represent state agencies under POL § 17.

245 He falsely affirmed ‘the facts set forth in my Affirmation are believed to be
246 true and correct. He claimed that in the initial action, ‘[Brady] filed numerous
247 motions which were denied on the merits and ‘the court addressed all the
248 remaining motions and requests filed by [Brady]

249 Finally, he requested I be incarcerated again for failing to report to jail on

250 precisely ordered.

251 My defense papers advised the court [Sirkin] of the manifest lawlessness that
252 permeated the previous proceedings, and rendered its judgments VOID. They
253 asserted Rodriguez to have serious conflicts of interests that disqualified him
254 from prosecution. People v. Calderone 573 N.Y.S.2d 1005; 151 Misc. 2d 530

255 The judge dismissed my ‘pro se’ objections IMMEDIATELY

256

13
257 TRIAL IN ABSENTIA

258 As of Feb. 2, a trial date had been scheduled for Feb. 3, but no specific time
259 had been determined. Because I was not in court when the case was called,
260 Rodriguez moved to proceed to trial without me. Thus, I was tried in absentia,
261 declared guilty by FIAT and jailed for another 30 days.

262 My business, a sole proprietorship, did not survive these serial protracted
263 incarcerations. [R, S]

264 NO INQUIRY was made on the record for a possible reason for my absence,
265 which constituted another non waivable constitutional defect.

266 The Court of Appeals has mandated a constitutional waiver analysis in such
267 cases to determine if a defendant voluntarily waived his right to be present at
268 trial. People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136. People v Weathers. 94 AD2d 964. (1984).

269 “Before proceeding in defendants absence, the court should have inquired and
270 recited facts on the record and it’s reasons for determining defendants
271 absence was deliberate. People v McCullough (1994) 619 NYS2d 984, 209
272 AD2d 965. People v Brooks, 75 NY 2d 898, 899 See also People v Parker

273 Upon my release from jail I found NO RECORD had been filed in the county
274 clerk file. [I] Consequently, there could be NO APPEAL.

275 FAILURE T0 APPEAL

276 At the time Vanstrydonck rendered his unilateral, non-final judgment, I was
277 unable to determine if the proceedings were civil or criminal. I nevertheless
278 filed a timely Notice of Appeal and served it on the Attorney General.

279 Perfection of the appeal was frustrated by [1] my incarceration [2] the Depts.
280 refusal to stipulate to the record [K, L] and [3] my fear of returning to the trial
281 court for any reason.

282 Considering the fatal jurisdictional defects, I concluded that appeal would
283 simply be dismissed, sua sponte. I therefore sought remedy by collateral
284 attack.

285

14
286 COLLATERAL ATTACK

287 “the Rule is silent on collateral attack as a method of challenging the validity of
288 a judgment, but there can be no doubt that if the judgment is void, collateral
289 attack may be made in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the
290 judgment comes into issue.’ 7 Moore's Federal Prac. para. 60.25[3], at 240 (2d
291 ed. 1983); Lubben v. Selective Serv. Sys., 453 F.2d 645, 649 (1st Cir. 1972);
292 Graciette v. Star Guidance, Inc., 66 F.R.D. 424, 426 (S.D.N.Y. 1975)

293 As held in Hodges v. US, 1960, 108 U.S. App.D.C. 375, 282 F.2d 858:" Of
294 course, if the Government has obstructed the accused in his efforts to take an
295 appeal, that is another story. Cf. Dowd v. U. S. ex rel. Cook, 340 U.S. 206, 71
296 S.Ct. 262, 95 L. Ed. 215 (1951) AND

297 ‘Although a courts determination from which an appeal has not been taken
298 should "remain inviolate," that rule applies "[a]bsent the circumstances shown
299 here and cognizable under CPLR 5015" (Matter of Huie [Furman], 20 NY2d
300 568, 572 [1967]; Lacks v Lacks, 41 NY2d 71-75 [1976] Defects pursuant to
301 CPLR 5015 (a) (4) survive even a final judgment]; Third Preliminary Rep of
302 Advisory Comm on Prac and Pro, 1959 NY Legis Doc No. 17 at 204-205
303
304 EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES

305 Since 2003, I have invoked supreme courts’ jurisdiction ad nauseum to redress
306 these VOID judgments. EVERY petition included proof of jurisdictional defects.

307 EVERY petition was timely served on the Attorney General. EVERY ONE was
308 dismissed on sight, without notice, without a hearing, without answers from
309 state attorneys AND without the mandatory relief requested.

310 "On motion to vacate a judgment for want of jurisdiction, the court, on finding
311 that service of process was not made, must vacate the judgment absolutely, and
312 may not impose terms or conditions upon the vacatur.

313 Copeland v Gross, 39 Misc. 2d 619; Associates Discount Corp. v Cabell, 164
314 N.Y.S.2d 189;, Levin v McGovern, 53 A.D.2d 1042; Devonia Discount Corp. v
315 Bianchi, 241 App Div 838; Maxwell v First Port Jefferson., 31 A.D.2d 813).

316 To this day NO COURT has adjudicated even a single issue raised therein. I have
317 never been given opportunity to litigate the merits.

15
318 BRADY v PEOPLE, FEDER [June 2013]

319 This action also included the evidence of lack of service. However, Judge Richard
320 Dollinger summarily dismissed it with prejudice and ordered sanctions of $50.00
321 per day. As of this writing his sanctions [albeit void] have accrued to more than
322 $80.000 and substantially ‘chill’ my inclination to return to supreme court.

323 I submit that the Department knows of their inability to rebut the evidence and
324 presumption of lack of regularity. Accordingly, AAG Hilel Deutsch moved for, and
325 Dollinger granted, an order stating ‘Respondents and their counsel are not to
326 respond to any papers filed or served by [Brady] in this or any other action he
327 may file in the future, [w/exceptions ]. See Misc

328 It is thus apparent that New Yorks highest law enforcement agency will never
329 confirm the fraud and ultra vires abuses.5 of Carlos Rodriguez.

330 However, Court Claims Act §11[a][i] identifies the Attorney-General as the
331 "officer responsible for the investigation and litigation of the claim" (Andriola
332 v. State, 53 AD2d 966, Matter of Welch v. State, 71 AD2d 494, Exec. Law §
333 63[1] and who must ascertain the agency's liability.

334 §20-a says ‘the attorney general shall cause a review to be made within the
335 department of law of all cases filed in the court of claims to determine which
336 cases are appropriate for possible settlement.

337 PREDATORY PRACTICES AND NONFEASANCE IN LOCAL TOWN COURTS

338 Petitioner submits that prejudice by my ostracism from superior courts has
339 spread to local town courts. At a time when judicial intervention became
340 absolutely necessary to defend predatory practices and other unauthorized
341 acts and by local town courts, I found my complaints ‘blocked’ of remedy by
342 Judge Craig Doran without regard for the merits.

343 Strict interpretation of the void injunction has rendered it constructively ‘open
344 season’ on my ability to defend myself in any court in the 7th judicial district.

5
Carlos Rodriguez of Pittsford, was, at this time, an assistant attorney general with the office of
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of New York State employed in the Public Advocey/ consumer fraud
bureau. His role was to protect consumers and to seek injunctive relief against individuals and
businesses that engage in deceptive and illegal conduct of business.

16
345 PERINTON TOWN COURT

346 Since May 2015 Judge Michael Arnold, had refused to act on a CPL 440.10
347 motion to redress his constitutionally defective traffic convictions in 2005. He
348 refuses to identify his authority to ignore my lawful exercise of a remedial
349 statute in the manner it was intended.

350 His defective convictions were then aggravated by subsequent data entry
351 errors by a Perinton court clerk, resulting in wrongful suspensions of my
352 driver’s license, subsequent arrests, prosecutions, bails and fines all deriving
353 from hearsay and jurisdictionally insufficient accusatory instruments.

354 Upon information and belief Arnolds refusals derive from the courts previous
355 ‘copy cat’ injunction issued in 2005 in violation of due process’ [ O ]
356
357 In November 2016, I petitioned supreme court for a plenary hearing of the
358 consequences I have suffered, and continue to suffer, from the defective
359 convictions and ministerial errors by the Perinton Court

360 Dorans continuous blocking of facially meritorious actions impede my recovery

361 of funds unlawfully withheld from me by town courts. Such behavior violates
362 Penal Law 195

363 AVON TOWN COURT

364 Since June 2015, I have sought recovery of [$2000] from bail[s] wrongfully
365 withheld from me by [Piampiano]: the now retired, non-lawyer, defacto justice
366 for Avon Town Court. His ‘findings’ were never reduced to writing.

367 The merits of my claim were enunciated in affidavits filed in the court and in
368 an action which was pending in Livingston County Court when Doran ordered it
369 removed from the docket.

370 Petitioner challenges the validity of affirming decisions of a trial court that had
371 failed to reduce its findings to writing. See P-P2

372 EAST ROCHESTER TOWN COURT

373 An additional $1, 500.00 in bail has been wrongfully withheld from me by the
374 East Rochester Court since 2016. The jurisdictional defects have been deposed
375 repeatedly ignored by this court.

17
376 Before his sudden ‘retirement’ in Sept. 2017, Judge Terrance Brown Stiener
377 ignored the pro se motions to dismiss fatal accusatory instruments and return
378 the bail. His nonfeasance was further enunciated in the action filed in supreme
379 court in March 2018 but was ‘blocked’ by Doran.

380 While the controversy remains in limbo, I have recently learned that successor
381 judge: Amy Monachino signed a money judgment against me in May 2018:
382 seven [7] years after the case was disposed. [R]

383 I submit that said judgment is void for lack or excess of jurisdiction

384 ROCHESTER CITY COURT

385 In April 2018, I was forced to file a small claim to recover $1,500.00 pursuant
386 to a breach of contract. Insofar as the claim was subject to imminent time
387 limitations Dorans’ unrestrained obstruction may have caused the loss of this
388 claim, regardless of its showing of consumer fraud.

389 While Vanstrydoncks’ ill-conceived, unlawfully modified prohibitions are void, it

390 continues to serve not as remedial, but as punishment and oppression.

391 It definitively violates Art. 1 §1 of the NY Constitution ‘No member of this state
392 shall be disfranchised, or deprived of any rights or privileges secured to any
393 citizen thereof ‘ AND §11: No person shall be denied equal protection of the
394 laws of this state or any subdivision

395 SUMMARY

396 Petitioner concedes that the relief requested here is generally left to discretion
397 of the court. However, in this case such relief is mandatory.

398 "On motion to vacate a judgment for want of jurisdiction, the court, on finding
399 that service of process was not made, must vacate the judgment absolutely, and
400 may not impose terms or conditions upon the vacatur. Copeland v Gross, 39
401 Misc. 2d 619; Associates Discount Corp. v Cabell, 164 N.Y.S.2d 189;, Levin v
402 McGovern, 53 A.D.2d 1042; Devonia Discount Corp. v Bianchi, 241 App Div 838;
403 Maxwell v First Port Jefferson., 31 A.D.2d 813).

404 A judgment is void if the court acted "in a manner inconsistent with due
405 process of law." Beller & Keller v. Tyler, 120 F.3d 21, 23 (2d Cir. 1997)

18
143 ”We have ordered a hearing on whether Kevin Patrick Brady has complied with
144 Judge Gorskis order and if he has failed to comply, whether he has done so
145 contemptuously. It has nothing to do with Mr. Rodriguez.”

146 As to the cause and nature of the proceedings, he replied

147 “The punishment, if any, to be given in this case is not on behalf of anyone.
148 Its’ to demonstrate to you that if you’re in purposeful violation of a court
149 order, there is punishment for that. It has nothing to do with the individuals
150 you were ordered to pay money. If you have failed to pay them the money,
151 you have failed to obey Judge Gorskis order……..and THAT’S THE ISSUE.

152 Deponent was more condemned at each appearance. In April 2003, I

153 discovered Rodriguez had attempted to alter transcripts to make my
154 stipulation incriminating. When confronted he admitted it, and blamed it on
155 the judge. Vanstrydonck remained constructively coram non judice. His
156 agenda was clearly to proceed to trial, convict the defendant and ‘send him to
157 jail for a period of time’.

158 After the simulated trial on May 6, 2003, the parties were advised to submit
159 closing remarks. My remarks were submitted on videotape and requested very
160 specific findings to be placed on the record.’

161 On or about September 9rd, Vanstrydonck announced his ‘verdict’ in court. [F]
162 His unilateral recitation of ‘facts’ ignored every issue, every defense, and every
163 request I had made for specific findings to be placed on the record. As
164 expected I was declared GUILTY and ordered to report to Jail on October 1.

165 These ‘special proceedings’ had begun without due cause, without real party
3
166 complainants and/or witnesses, without any evidence and without personal
167 or subject matter jurisdiction. Although statutorily proscribed by CPLR 5019,
168 Vanstrydonck [1] reopened and modified Gorskis’ long dormant money award,
169 [2] substituted ‘the People of New York’ for the real party creditors, and [3]
170 authorized entry of his ‘judgment’ as a lien against my real property.

3
Other than my own tax returns

10
171 He arbitrarily expanded Gorskis’ injunction beyond family court matters by
172 writing ‘[Brady] is prohibited from commencing any new litigation in any court
173 in the State unless represented by an attorney.

174 On October 2, 2003, sheriff deputies pounded on my door in the early hours,
175 climbed through our bedroom window to arrest and take me off to jail.

176 The defective mandates of commitment are annexed. [G, H]]

177 THE UNILATERAL FICTION

178 Vanstrydonck claimed ‘This matter comes before the court initially by Petition
179 for Mandamus. Brady took issue with the original terms of visitation and
180 support and has been prolific with lawsuits in state and federal courts'.

181 This is demonstrable fiction. I had come to court with permission from the
182 court to redress family court statutory due process violations. [FCA 439]. To
183 this day these violations have never been heard.

184 Upon information and belief, acting as courthouse policeman and ‘judge of his
185 own cause', Vanstrydonck replaced Brady v Taddeo from the courts calendar
186 to satisfy his own agenda AND to enable Rodriguez to prosecute his earlier
187 threats and predictions. [B]

188 Contrary to his unilateral recitation, the Attorney General did not, and could
189 not bring an action on behalf of the parties to whom payments were owed.
190 Rodriguez represented no civil parties; injured, aggrieved or otherwise. ln fact,
191 there were no civil parties and no [real] party complainants. Rodriguez’ failure
192 to enter the Gorski judgment in 1996 rendered no payments required.

193 “Attorneys are not parties to the action and cannot bring motion for contempt.
194 Schatz v O’Sullivan 288 AD2d 536

195 “Enforcement of judgment directing the payment of money is by execution

4
196 rather than through contempt proceedings ***

4
CPLR 5104; SCPA 606; National Sur. Corp. v Silver,23 A.D.2d 398, revd on other grounds 17 N.Y.2d 477).

11
485
486
487
488
489
490
491

492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499 'I depose under penalty of law that everything alleged herein is to the best of my
500 knowledge true and complete, except for matters alleged on information and belief
501 and I believe those to be true. I further depose that I have never filed any action in
502 any court that legally, or constructively, rose to the level of frivolous, vexatious, and/or
503 completely without merit pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130.1.
504
505 NO REAL PARTY has ever alleged otherwise and NO EVIDENCE to the contrary has
506 ever been shown to any court. I haven't broken any laws, wrongfully prosecuted and
507 incarcerated myself, violated my own constitutional rights or destroyed my own
508 livelihood. In fact I have no complicity whatsoever for the abuses alleged here.
509
510
',/,o/
511

512
ft/'--r/t drr"(t trick Brady
PO Box 862
513 Henrietta, NY 14467
514 585 752 0778
515

0 t 4 4c,- '/3 Ja'/ f

516 -.//
511