Courtesy of a little sunlight is best disinfectant
AD2 Maru - year in the valley jurisdiction ain't what is used to be ...
AD2 ignores jurisdiction, makes up facts and treats pro se litigants differently?
The Brooklyn Lyceum went into the belly of the judicial beast on September 6, 2018:   oral argument of four slam dunk appeals at the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department.

The Brooklyn Lyceum was seeking to overturn lower court rulings regarding abandonment of a claim, perjury by an attorney, and contempt of an order that never was in effect.

After having watched about 30 hours or so of 2018 oral arguments the Lyceum was confident that, given the commentary by judges in those hours, and, after waiting more than 2.5 years to be calendared, justice would be done.

That justice would be the clear application of basic legal concepts, simple statutes, iron clad case law and the common law to simple fact patterns, especially the unequivocal lack of jurisdiction:

  • that, on the record before the court, doing simple addition and subtraction ((service date + proof of service date+10 days +365) < date of motion), the case was statutorily abandoned stripping the court of  any power it had in the case whatsoever, and,
  • failure to serve any motion or papers on attorney for two defendants, and,
  • no matter whom was served, noticing all parties to appear ten years in the past, and 
  • an attorney committed perjury swearing in an affidavit that  a document proving acquired standing existed when his client first appeared some 9 months prior, when, in fact, that document requisite for standing we mere days prior, some 9 months after appearing without standing.
  • an order served, not within 21 days, as per the order, but at 45 days, was not in effect, ever.

Nothing could be further from the truth than the court doing justice as the law required.

Presiding Judge Reinaldo Rivera's statements that the Second Department had "an excellent  reputation" and "we will get to the bottom" of this proved to be red herrings, if not flat out lies.


  • the court found that 19 was greater  than 26.
  • the court went outside the record, contrary to all precedent on the issue, precedent that says if you can't be bothered to put it a necessary reason in the moving papers, you can't add it later.
  • the court, after having gone outside the record, failed to follow the judicial equivalent of the hippocratic oath to first, do no harm, when it, by accepting papers outside the record as being dispositive, failed to do what it had done as recently as two weeks prior to the oral argument, change the record nun pro tunc, but resetting both sides back to the nun pro tunc date.
  • the court, rather than addressing how and when the non-initiating plaintiff acquired standing, altered the appeal brief from alleging Ex-trinsic fraud(with no time limit to vacate) to In-trinsic fraud which has, historically, but no court dares cite the source, had a two year deadline to vacate.
  • the court, rather than address the requirement that contempt can only be found if the order was still in effect, ignored that part of the case cited that required the order still be in effect, setting precedent allowing contempt to exist of orders no longer in effect.


  • When asked to reconsider 19 is greater than 26 ... Denied.
  • When asked to reconsider affirming contempt without addressing whether the order was in effect ... Denied.
  • When asked to reconsider stealth nun pro tunc of evidence submission .. Denied.
  • When asked to reconsider failure to address jurisdictional arguments raised, and not rebutted, at oral argument ... Denied.
  • When asked to reconsider perjury allegation of non-initiating plaintiff acquiring standing from initiating plaintiff ... Denied.


  • This situation is so kafka-esque, that something needs to be done.
  • If not now, then when?
  • If not the Brooklyn Lyceum, then who.


Captain Kirk reprogrammed an un-winnable test at Star Fleet Academy, the KOBAYASHI MARU.

We seek to make the slam dunk cases winnable by collecting enough information to fight the power.

Join us.


The goal is to improve judicial efficiency by having more people know what should be done in contrast to what is done.

If you read the PREAMBLE, there are some shocking failures replete throught some decisions.


  • collect video of oral argument for all of 2018.
  • collect all decisions of cases argued
  • read all decisions for cases argued in 2018.
  • scan record for all cases with questionable, sloppy or fail to make either findings of fact or conclusions of law.
  • synthesize a scorecard, by judge, regarding due process and jurisdiction.
  • create report such that future litigants can see where each judge lies on the issues presented in the briefs as well as argued orally.
  • have lawyers, law professors, reporters review odd cases and give feedback/opinions.
  • write articles on highly suspect cases and cases were the court clearly nailed it.


  • Download all oral arguments for 2018.
  • Download all decisions for cases argued in 2018.
  • Get portable book scanner to scan all papers in many cases.
  • Get timecode for each case. 
  • Get image of each case  page
  • Watch oral arguments.
  • Note interesting statements by the court
  • Note all jurisdictional comments by he court
  • SECOND UP (fuzzy, incomplete thoughts):
  • Convert text to transcript with day, justices, case number, plaintiff and defendant representative.
  • Invite lawyers and law professors to comment on and give opinion of cases by just oral argument alone.
  • Summarize and collate statistics and observations, especially pro se appeals.

  • Downloading 2018 oral arguments.
  • Downloading Decisions for 2018 and 2019,1-2019.6


While the walk through the valley of judicial death is a righteous battle the Brooklyn Lyceum will continue to fight and inspired this project to fix, by sunlight,  a systemic problem, inefficient and inconsistent courts that use trickery to hurt litigants often when the litigant has a slam dunk case.

It is a time consuming (watch, transcribe and collate oral arguments and scan briefs) and  resource sucking (book scanner, scanning, conversion of scanned documents to text (OCR)) collection of information.

It cannot be done without adequate funds.

To that end, we ask you to contribute to the cause or subscribe to the results or hire us to talk about what we saw in our year in the valley.

We are not a not for profit, too much time and effort to get there, so no tax deduction for donations.

If you feel the urge, donate through stripe, or send us a check or just buy something from a vendor found at the bottom of the home page.


We are offering a monthly report about what we learn of the year in review of AD2.

$25 per month of review (summary of what was learned during a month, not a full review of a month of 2018 cases).


We expect to absorb an incredible amount of information.

Want to pick our brain?

$50 per hour (for now), minimum of 2 hours.

Why? Want more specifics?  HAve a question you think we may be able to address? Have your own tale to tell?