New York Bar Applicant Robert E. Brown, Plaintiff, and New York Attorney General Schneiderman, Defendant -- Motions to Dismiss to be Heard April 4, 2013

Share Article

Defense Attorney Sheehan will argue Lack of Jurisdiction and Dismissal of Action; Plaintiffs will Argue Canon 3 (E), (Disqualification and Supremacy Clause)

New York Bar Applicant Robert E. Brown, Plaintiff, and New York Attorney General Schneiderman, Defendant, will be headed to court April 4, 2013 regarding current Motions to Dismiss in the New York State Court of Appeals (C, A. No.1-12 CV- 1615 GLS; RFT and complaint # 12-1426). Defense Attorney Sheehan will argue lack of jurisdiction and move for dismissal of action. The plaintiffs will argue Canon 3 (E), Disqualification and Supremacy Clause.

The issues presently at Bar are Article VI of the United States Constitution referred to as the Supremacy Clause (Law of the Land) are Unalienable Rights that Judge or Court of Law cannot be taken away, sold or given away, which are guaranteed by Treaties and the Constitution, they are given to us by the “Supreme Creator” (Sovereignty). For a more detailed explanation, please visit http://Writof-habeascorpus.com, see Exhibits A, B, C and D, versus Rules of Procedure created by an agency, organization, Department, Court, Government, a Plaintiff or Defendant cannot rely on the invoking of a Judicial Rule of Procedure to deny a Party an Unalienable Right in a Court proceeding nor should a Judge allowed it to be done.

To provide some background, here is a timeline of previous court actions surrounding the current case:

  •     On June 25, 2012, Brown served copies of Application on New York State Court of Appeals (hereinafter NYSCA) Pursuant to 22 NYSRR § 520.10 Admission without Examination on NYSCA under New York Chapter 14. Art. 5 § 72, (Special Proceedings) Statue and New York State Constitution Article I § 4 Writ of Habeas Corpus (Ad Subjiciendum) and Memorandum in Support by certified Mail.
  •     Defense Attorney Cathy Y. Sheehan states in Defendant's Memorandum to the New York State Court of Appeal's sent Brown a letter notifying Brown that his Application to the New York State Court of Appeal's complaint # 12-1426 had been denied even though the New York State Court of Appeal's claimed never receiving Brown’s Application.
  •     The letter to sent to Brown from the New York State Court of Appeal's was dated June 20, 2012, 5 days before Brown applied to the New York State Court of Appeal's for admission to the New York State Bar pursuant to 22 NYSRR§ 520.10 (Admission without Examination) .
  •     Brown produces evidence from FedEx that the NYSCA had in fact received Brown’s Application to New York State Court of Appeal's.
  •     Brown requested New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman (hereinafter A.G. Schneiderman) to intervene pursuant to FRCP 5.1 on Brown's behalf under FRCP 5.1 to enforce Brown’s Constitutional Right under § 520.10 Admission without Examination to the New York Bar.
  •     Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman never responded to Brown’s New York State Court of Appeal's complaint # 12-1426 request to intervene which is required by the FRCP 5.1 of A. G. Schneiderman.
  •     Brown filed Complaint under Article I § 4 Writ of Habeas Corpus (Ad Subjiciendum) with A. G. Schneiderman.
  •     A.G. Schneiderman disregards Brown’s request of which is also required by Article I § 4 Writ of Habeas Corpus (Ad Subjiciendum).
  •     FRCP 5.1 (mandates intervention by the State Attorney General of violation of state legislative statutes within 60 days of the filing of a complaint.
  •     The New York State Attorney General and New York State Court of Appeals fails to enforce the New York Legislative Statutes 22 NYSRR Rule § 520.10 (Admission without Examination)
  •      A. G. Schneiderman et. .al. was given written "Notice" of the legislative mandate by law of Brown's charges of Title 18 USC § 3 (Accessory after the Fact), 18 USC § 4 (Misprision of Felony) and the charge made by Brown of Canon 3, (E), (Disqualification against Judge Treece..
  •     Brown charges A. G. Schneiderman et. al. NYSCA of Brown’s Federal Constitutional rights of 42 USC § 1983 and 42 USC 1985 Civil Rights Act, raised in Brown’s Complaint No. 12-1426 (2012) have yet to be address by A. G. Schneiderman, et. al. and the New York State Court of Appeal's.
  •     The charge of Canon 3 (E), Disqualification by Judge Treece, as Presiding Judge over the Brown v. Eric Schneiderman, et. al. (Defendant of the State of New York) and Kathy Y. Sheehan Lawyer for the Defendants in New York State Court of Appeal's complaint # 12-1426 controversy, "draws in to question" Judge Treece's actions prescribed by Law.
  •     On November 9, 2012, Judge Treece became presiding judge over the Brown v. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman et. al. case and Assistant Attorney General Kathy Y. Sheehan as Lawyer for the Attorney General Eric Schneiderman et. al. (Defendants).
  •     In this case (Plaintiff) Robert E. Brown Pro se , resided of 1024 Walnut Street, in Wilmington Delaware had charged Defendants of violations of Brown’s 42 USC § 1983 and 42 USC § 1985 Civil Rights had been granted the right of Status of Appearing as Counsel in the Brown v. Schneiderman controversy.
  •     On February 29, 2012, Judge Treece entered a Report of Recommendation and Order on all parties in compliance with the NYSCA Local Rules, in the case of; Derrick Hamilton Pro Se, Plaintiff v. Defendant Eric Schneiderman et. al. (Attorney (General) and Assistant Attorney General Cathy Y. Sheehan as Defense Attorney.
  •     Judge Treece presiding over two separate cases involving the same parties whether as (Plaintiff or Defendant) as in the case of Derrick Hamilton v. Schneiderman, et. al. or Robert E. Brown v. Schneiderman et. al., constitutes violation of Canon 3, (E), (Disqualification), Title 18 USC § 3 (Accessory after the Fact), 18 USC § 4 (Misprision of Felony) by appearing in the same capacities in the Brown’s current case constitutes violations of 42 USC § 1983 (Deprivation of Rights) and 42 USC 1985 (Conspiracy to interfere with Civil Rights) Acts.

Brown seeks public acknowledgement of admission to the New York Bar and payment of $500,000 for cost of litigation, lost opportunity, damages, and any other relief this Court may deem appropriate, as a “Matter of Law. Brown’s experience, approach and credentials of Law parallel those of two former Presidents, “John Quincy Adams who had some college training attended Harvard University, Phi Beta Kappa and served an apprenticeship as an attorney under Theophilus Parson in Newburport, Massachusetts, from 1787, to 1789. He gained admittance to the bar in 1791 and began practicing law in Boston Massachusetts...”

“Lincoln was a self-taught lawyer, he move to Illinois, and began to practice law under John T. Stuart, he became an able and successful lawyer with a reputation as a formidable adversary during cross-examination and closing arguments. He was admitted to the bar in 1836.”

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