New York Attorney General and State Court of Appeals Efforts to Deny Applicant Robert E. Brown’s Admission to Bar Looms Inevitable

Share Article

New York attorney seeks second bite of the apple to answer Habeas Corpus complaint for client’s Attorney General and State Court of Appeals

On December 17, 2012, Assistant Attorney General Cathy Y. Sheehan filed a Notice of Appearance of Counsel on behalf of Attorney General and New York State Court of Appeals and a letter of request for extension of time to answer the complaint in the Brown v. Attorney General and New York State Court of Appeals Case No. 1-12-cv-1615 (GLS)(RFT) filed by Brown in the New York District Court for the Northern District of New York.

  •     The letter Sheehan filed in Clerk's Office of the New York State District Court for the District of New York was directed to the presiding Judge Randolph F. Treece U.S. Magistrate of the Brown v. Attorney General and New York State Court of Appeals Case No. 1-12-cv-1615 (GLS)(RFT).
  •     The letter Attorney Sheehan wrote to Judge Treece requested and extension of time from December 31, 2012 to February 15, 2013, for the purpose of avoiding violation of FRCP 12 Default Judgment by the Civil Complaint filed against the Attorney General and State Court of Appeals by Brown.
  •     There are three (3) Latin terms (Doctrines) that best describe Plaintiff’s (Brown’s) position that are on point. They are:1) “Res Ipsa Loquitur,” from the Latin for, "the thing speaks for itself," which in tort law is a principle that allows plaintiffs to meet their burden of proof with what is, 2) “Res Judicata," Latin for, “The thing has been decided,” the principle that a final judgment of a competent court is conclusive upon the parties in any subsequent litigation involving the same cause of action,” and 3) “Stare Decisis," Latin for "Let the decision stand,” the policy of courts to abide by or adhere to principles established by decisions in earlier cases (in the United States and England).

Attorney Sheehan suggested to Judge Treece the same Judge that placed this case No. 1-12-cv-1615 (GLS)(RFT), under 6 separate Court Orders, who is now granting Attorney Sheehan an extension of time to file an answer to the complaint to avoid Default Judgment and to give Sheehan the opportunity to file a depository Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in its entirety in February 15, 2013, and not have to answer the complaint.

On December 17, 2012, Judge Treece file and Order granting Attorney Sheehan the extension of time to answer the complaint and to file the Motion to Dismiss Brown’s Complaint which is due to expire December 31, 2012, just 14 days before Attorney Sheehan’s client’s will have defaulted.

  •     Robert E. Brown received “Notice” on December 23, 2012 of Judge Treece actions to Attorney Sheehan’s letter request for extension of time to answer Brown's complaint and Sheehan’s intention to file for Default Judgment on February 15, 2013.
  •     The Notice receive by Brown from Judge Treece went on to say, Judge Treece had considered that Sheehan’s letter requesting extension of time to answer Brown's complaint and Sheehan’s intention to file for Default Judgment on February 15, 2013 obviously felt the extension should have been granted.
  •     Judge Treece states that “because of the nature of Brown’s Writ of Mandamus, the fact that a dispositive Motion is forthcoming, presumptively Brown would not agree with the extension of time, “The Court Sua Sponte granted attorney Sheehan’s extension request.”
  •     On December 23, 2012, Robert E. Brown received a letter from the U.S. District Court (Clerk of the Court), of a copy of the “Notice” of Judge Treece Order.
  •     Brown took immediate action devoting his time reading the response to what he says appears to be an illegal act according to the six separate court orders Brown and the Attorney General and New York State Court of Appeals were placed under by Judge Randolph F. Treece on November 9, 2012.

On November 9, 2012 the Brown v. Attorney General and New York State Court of Appeals case was placed under court orders 25 imposed by Judge Randolph F. Treece who instructed the Plaintiff and Defendants to meet in person or by phone to discuss General Order #25 filing (Order), Case Management Plan (A Attachment B), Case assignment/Motion\ Schedules and Filing Locations (A Attachments C), of which neither of the Defendant even attempted to meet with Brown by phone or in person.

  •     Sheehan has never diligently prosecuted the Complaint, engaged in Order #25, ADR or responded to Brown, except one time on or about November (11 or 15) of 2012, as directed by Judge Randolph F. Treece Court Order.
  •     Sheehan as Attorney in the above caption case Brown v. Attorney General and New York State Court of Appeals Case No. 1-12-cv-1615 (GLS)(RFT) writing a letter to the Judge requesting an extension time to respond to the Complaint is a violation of L.R. 41.2 (a) Dismissal of Action in pertinent part:

“No explanations communicated in person, over the telephone, or by letter shall be acceptable. If a party fails to respond as this Rule requires, the Court shall issue a written order dismissing the case for failure to prosecute or providing for sanctions or making other directives to the parties as justice requires. Nothing in this Rule shall preclude any party from filing a motion to dismiss an action…”

  •     The “Letter” sent to Judge Randolph F. Treece by Attorney Sheehan is a violation of the “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”: 12 (a) TIME TO SERVE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING.

(1)    In General. Unless another time is specified by this rule or a federal statute, the time for serving a responsive pleading is as follows: (A) A defendant must serve an answer: (i) within 21 days after being served with the summons and complaint

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
302-652-6578
Email >

Shirley H. Brown
From The Desk Of R. E. Brown (Paralegal Service)
302-652-9959
Email >
Visit website