Justice Cynthia Kern
Motion Part 55
New York Supreme Court
Centre Street, New York

August 24th 2013

Dear Justice Kern,

This is an open letter to you and the New York Supreme court, which is also being published by Phoenix Ark Press today. It enquires about the circumstances in your judgement in the action David Clement-Davies v. Harry N. Abrams et al this year and whether the only way to challenge that decision is through an appeal, that a pro se litigant simply cannot afford to fight. You will notice that I have accused you either of ‘corruption’ or ‘legal incompetence’. Perhaps the word corruption needs to be tempered with the fact that I have no evidence whatsoever of any undue influence and so it is only meant to reflect the general fact that pro se litigants seem to make such little headway and that it seems that Judges and courts will side so easily with licenced attorneys, whether honest or not, that is absolutely highlighted in this case.

As you know, both from articles at Phoenix Ark Press and two recent emails to your chambers the question of legal incompetence seems to me glaringly obvious though, when you have allowed proven perjury by the other side. That occurred in argument within a Motion to Dismiss, so there can be no defence that you did not even get to it, in refusing to even turn to a Motion for Summary Judgement, that further exposed the falseness of the other side’s position, and the case law they provided too. In the documents in that first Motion though New York attorney Edward Davis claimed he had no knowledge of specific circumstances at the heart of both events at Abrams in 2009 and the misrepresentation of those events, in so calculatingly scarring the face of my own Complaint, despite their obvious understanding of it. Yet I then evidenced an email between us proving it was discussed between us last Christmas, so Mr Davis was lying in a sworn statement to the court. It reflects their distortion of facts throughout, and of ‘agreements’ forced on me too, that since they also lied about the dates of the documents they evidenced, I argued constituted a fraud on the court. Is perjury not important to you or a court of law though, especially the New York Supreme Court, and why did you not even answer or address that in your ‘judgement’, or consider an accusation of fraud both important to assessing the case and significant of itself? A judgement is no judgement that fails to address the arguments and evidence on both sides. You seem to make so much of other kinds of CPLR rules it seems to me that you might give far more weight to much more important principles of law, like not lying to a court. My arguments in affidavits and memoranda about it in that Motion to Dismiss certainly precipitated the sworn affirmation by Edward Davis denying knowledge of facts that he did have knowledge of, before the other side produced their answer. My evidenced email proves it, so your judgement has openly licenced perjury.

As I have said elsewhere, that act of proven perjury should itself be indicative of an entire case too, and perhaps quite regardless of what I consider the unjust grounds for your dismissal on terms of CPLR form rules, that itself does not stand up to existing case law, ignores leniency demanded by New York Civil and Human Rights laws, and the fact, also stated in argument, that the other side were out of time in opposing in terms of form alone, under CPLR rules. Prevailing Case Law also requires courts to actively seek cause in Motions to Dismiss on behalf of the plaintiff, and not only did you do the opposite, but seemed to close your eyes to how clearly those causes are stated anyway. A fact the opposition’s very active reply also made glaringly obvious. As for ‘relevance’, how is it you could claim anything I said irrelevant, when, apart from CPLR rules on Evidence Generally Admissible, the psychological state of the party involved, an author dealing with both fact and creative fiction, working under threats and intimidation for years, was blatantly relevant to and part of a claim against NIED? Because perjury has been involved though, I am forced to ask whether the New York Supreme Court has any kind of process of judicial review in such circumstances, without forcing a party back through the court system in an appeal, which cannot happen if they cannot even afford it. Thank you for your consideration and I hope that I am wrong in using words like corruption or incompetence and that you have a real belief that even if mistakes have been made, justice should somehow always be done and seen to be done too. That includes not countenancing perjury. I would be grateful for a reply at your best convenience.

Sincerely, David Clement-Davies

Pro Se plaintiff and author

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s