New York Bar Applicant Urges Attorney General to Enforce FRCP 5.1 of Habeas Corpus Violation Malum Prohibitum

Share Article

Robert E. Brown, an applicant to the New York Bar, is urging New York State Attorney General to enforce Title 22 NYSRR 520.10., Admission without Examination to Bar.

New York Bar applicant Robert E. Brown is urging New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman's to enforce Brown's Constitutional Right under 22 NYSRR 520.10 Admission without Examination to the New York Bar.

Schneiderman received amended Complaint No. 12-1426 of FRCP 5.1 from Robert E. Brown of Wilmington, Delaware by certified mail on or about October 5 or 8, 2012, that mandates intervention by the State Attorney General of violation of state legislative statutes within 60 days of the filing of a complaint.

Schneiderman received Brown’s first complaint 13-1426 by certified mail via Fed Ex on or about July 28, 2012, of the New York State Court of Appeals (hereinafter NYSCA) denial of admission to the New York State Bar Association, Pursuant to 22 NYSRR § 520.10 (Admissions without Examination) (a), (1), (I).

The Clerk of the NYSCA’s claimed the Clerk’s Office never received Brown’s application. Brown produced a certified return receipt, confirming the fact that NYSCA Clerk's Office had received Brown’s Application by Fed Ex Ground delivery on June 25, 2012. At the New York State Court of Appeals in Albany New York, and Brown filed complaint # 12-1426, showing proof of the receipt.

Brown says his argument is compelling, clear and convincing according to NYSRR Statutes and FRCP 5.1 mandate and the expiration the last 99 days to the date of October 5, 2012 of the more than 60 days require by FRCP 5.1 for Intervention by the Attorney General who has the knowledge of a State Statute being violated (22 NYSRR § 520.10 (a), (1), (I), (Admission without Examination) of Browns Constitutional Right to be Admitted to the NYSCA Bar is a miscarriage of justice.

Brown maintains he holds credentials that meets the standards of the New York State Legislatures definition of “The Practice of Law” as a “Matter of Law,” for admission to the New York State Court of Appeals under New York Statute 22 NYSRR § 520.10 (a), (1), (I), (Admission without Examination).

Brown relies on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Title 18 § FRCP 5.1, Title 18 USC § 2, Title 18 USC § 3 and Title 18 USC § 4:

  •     Federal Rule Civil Procedure 5.1 Constitutional Challenge to a Statute – Notice, Certification and Intervention
  •      “(A) Notice by a Party. A party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute must promptly:” writof-habeascorpus.Com
  •     “(1) File a notice of constitutional question stating the question and identifying the paper that raises it,”
  •     “(2) serve the notice and paper … on the state attorney general if a state statute is questioned—either by certified or registered mail…”
  •     Brown’s complaint charges the New York State Court of Appeals of “Restraining” Brown’s Liberty of admission to the New York State Bar, and contending that the NYSCA actions are “Unconstitutional.”

Brown says federal law requires strict compliance “To Block Whistleblower Exposing High Level Corruption “Title 18 USC § 2. Principles, is defined “Whoever Commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces its commission, is punishable as a principle, and; Federal Rule also states in Title 18 USC § 3.” writof-habeascorpus.Com That whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assist the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact” is an “Accessory after the fact.” … And, Title 18 USC § 4. Says “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some Judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be imprisoned not more than three years, or both, for Misprision of felony.

The fact that Brown qualifies to be admitted to the NYSCA Bar Association is based on the fact that it is by Legislative Statute 22 NYSRR 520.10 an referred to in Common Law of Jurisprudence as “Malum Prohibita” (A Latin Term), which literally means that it is established that it is a Legislative Law which would make it a violation of that Legislative Law to deny Brown Admittance to the NYSCA Bar Association as a “Matter of Law” and therefore “Unconstitutional."

For a more authentic and in depth analysis of this story, visit

Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

Robert Brown
Member of Cable Muse Network - VN# C 108 1077
Email >

Shirley H. Brown
From The Desk Of R. E. Brown (Paralegal Service)
Email >
Visit website