The SmeeRoving art show - like a pirate on the seven seas, The Smee Art Show is always on the move.
The Smee says ... make it so. -
Art makes us what we are, and, when it is ignored, takes away a part of what we could be.
Most importantly, art is often, no matter the talent or effort or time to make the piece, far too expensive for most of us.
Artist have to eat and so do the buyers.
What is usually the answer is for the artist to eschew exposure to the masses until they have reached great acclaim.
That road to fame is almost always fatal to the earnings of the artist, and to the career of the artist as well.
Enter The Smee, an art exhibit intending to get the art into the hands of a wider audience before that artist has become so famous the average joe cannot afford their art.
Some artists may choose not to participate having looked deep into their soul and finding the process lacking.
Other artists will seize the day and enter The Smee.
Make it so.
Brookyln Lyceum MaruLyceum Maru - or, you only get the rights you fight for ... - MORE
LYCEUM ATTENTION TODAY -
OR NO JUSTICE FOR ANYONE TOMORROW.
The Brooklyn Lyceum (LYCEUM), aka Public Bath #7 (designed by Raymond Francis Almirall), and a community fixture for 20 years as a theater and cafe, needs your help.
The way is clear and certain for the LYCEUM, but can be shortened tremendously with a little help from some friends, be they artists, locals, arts organizations or people / organizations (Brooklyn or otherwise) who think the rule of law and due process are good things, thinks the NYS Supreme Court and the Appellate Courts need to follow (and that the Appellate Court should not be in the business of suborning perjury or making up facts).
Quite simply, we had/have four slam dunk due process related appeals, waited forever to be heard, more than 2.5 years, and the Appellate Court actually lied at oral argument, failed to address jurisdictional arguments legally raised at oral argument, made up facts (19 > 26), altered our appeal brief, ignored dealing with an inconvenient fact (45> 30) and retroactively altered perjury away for the Plaintiff in order to avoid the lower court being "dunked on".
With a little help from some friends, we may be able to resurrect the rule of law and due process, if even for a little while.
Pay it forward: Read, review, sign and send affidavit. Maybe an hour of your life. Maybe two.
By doing so you get some say in future LYCEUM programming, or, if that is not exciting, we offer a few other options for your time.
More info below, but the process by which we seek your eyes, brainstem and body will be managed by jafomaru.com, which handles bringing attention to systems run awry and voting by gowanagus.com, our programming arm.
>>>> Don't be scared, just :
- --learn simple rules about Jurisdiction in the next few tabs,
- --read about what went down (from the LYCEUM perspective),
- --watch/listen to parts of an oral argument,
- --look at 5 pages (3 pages of meat) of decision (noting the failure of the court to even acknowledge what went on at oral argument) and
- --look at the timing of a few docket items
- --Sign an affidavit and send it to us.
>>>>Look at what we offer in return and make up your mind about paying it forward in the tab labelled OPTIONS.
>>>>You can see our ever growing list of prior activities/performers in the tabs at the end.
The Brooklyn Lyceum waited patiently for a decision after oral argument, more than three (3) months.
That was after waiting more than 2.5 years to be calendared (after the appeals were fully briefed by both sides and ready to be argued).
This was after filing four appeals revolving around 4 incredibly simple issues, sure shot wins that should have corrected lower court shortcomings:
- --non-initiating plaintiff appearing without standing seeking a judgement of default and later committing unequivocal, yes unequivocal, perjury to cover up that appearance without standing,
- --lack of standard / court ordered notice of a judgment at least 30 days prior to sale of collateral (the Lyceum itself),
- --failure to serve another order within 30 days as mandated buy the order itself,
- --refusal to allow attorney to appear who had filed motion (by way of Order to Show Cause), and
- --whether, on the record before the court, created and submitted by only the plaintiff, was it more than a year from default (statutory time allotted to respond) to the motion seeking a judgment of that default (if so the case was abandoned).
As we had put non-trivial effort into the appeals and addressed both the strong points of our argument and any perceived weak points with argument, logic and case law specifically on point, we awaited decisions in 4 appeals expecting that the court would address the arguments and the case law presented and synthesize it with the facts of the case and the record on appeal and come to a reasoned decision.
Additionally, after we raised jurisdictional arguments for the first time at oral argument, a basic right for all people, the lead judge said the Second Department had an excellent reputation to uphold and that the court would get to the bottom of the issues.
We were shocked that the panel did not address, or even acknowledge, the jurisdictional arguments.
We were also sorely disappointed with decisions in the four appeals where :
- -- the Appellate Court made up facts,
- -- the Appellate Court misrepresented appellants's allegation of extrinsic fraud as one for intrinsic fraud thereby invoking a statute of limitations for intrinsic fraud that does not exist for extrinsic fraud,
- -- the Appellate Court selectively quoted a case directly on point to ignore the dispositive fact that an order was no longer in effect,
- --and, in the most interesting appeal, the Appellate Court just reiterated a challenged conclusion of law the lower court while citing the same case as the lower court without addressing the arguments and decades of cases noted in the Appeal Brief finding exactly the opposite.
This is especially troubling since the case cited by both courts makes absolutely no sense when actually broken into component parts.
The fourth appeal was procedurally dismissed in a way we found appalling as it puts a ridiculous burden on all litigants, especially pro se (self represented) litigants, when it is clear from the record presented that the lower court refused to hear a motion filed by an attorney without a notice of appearance when the client and filing attorney were present at the hearing, a situation where a notice of appearance is not required or useful, resulting in a clear lack of Opportunity to be Heard, a due process violation negating any subsequent decisions.
We long fought, some 20 years, to make the Brooklyn Lyceum an arts facility and we are not willing, after waiting 2.5 years just to get the appeal heard, to be brushed off like so much dandruff.We will continue to fight for due process for as long as it takes, as the numerous and repeated jurisdictional violations of the court never go away, never expire and have no statute of limitations.
To that end, shining a little light on these simple issues, issues that are core to the American justice system, seems like a good idea such that others in the future can see things for what they are sooner.
If you, JAFO, find yourself convinced of these simple issues we will shortly explain, you can help, and maybe we can help you.
Help by becoming J.A.F.O., Just Another F***ing Observer.
It is simple. Read some documents, watch a couple of minutes of court video and evaluate what you have read. Sign and mail/email an affidavit to us.
Help the Brooklyn Lyceum by paying it forward by paying attention now to ensure others due process later.
Old Guard still standing ...
Indie news of note ...
Science feeds of note ...
Evolution feeds of note ...
Espresso feeds of note ...