Tag Archives: Edward Davis

With so much in the press about American might in tracking down whistle blowers or so called traitors, like Edward Snowden, but when apparently open and free societies also need to raise a constant eyebrow to what their Governments do in their name, (like the use of drones in push-button warfare), what happens when a prominent branch of the US Government, the New York legislature, conspicuously fails to act in the interest of truth, law and its own rules too?

Like an appeal statement sent to the New York Supreme court this year, Phoenix Ark Press openly accuses Justice Cynthia Kern, of Motion Part 55 at The Supreme Court in New York, of corruption then, in her siding so automatically and so lazily too with licensed New York attorneys, at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP and Fox Rothschild, without assessing either evidence or merit, or at the very least of legal incompetence. Supposedly, if Phoenix Ark Press are in the wrong, we should be obliged to remove this article, apologise or pay a penalty, and if the Courts simply fail to act, or the named attorney does, Edward Davis, it simply proves growing abuses of power and responsibility, and that both Cynthia Kern and Mr Davis have a telling lack of concern for their own reputations too. This article has been sent both to the opposing attorneys involved and to the appropriate clerks of the Court at the US Supreme Court in New York, so ignoring it will also speak for itself.

But if an increasingly paranoid US want to use all that frightening muscle against individuals like Snowden, perhaps they might use it to uphold the principles on which their own Constitution is based too, to protect people’s rights, or fundamental tenates of process and Common law too, taken from an ancient British system. The case in question was treated oddly from the start though, perhaps because of slightly unconventional attempts to speak to the court from London, denied despite CPLR 40 day hearing rules, then seeing it moved from Justice Shulman’s chambers to Cynthia Kern’s, under a sudden Order for Recusal. Not only was no explanation given, as open hearing was denied, but it flew in the face of Justice Shulman’s very appealing promise on his website that he wanted litigants to leave the system feeling that justice had been attempted on both sides. That is indeed one of the purposes of the system itself, but in this case it has been completely and glaring thwarted.

The nub of the matter though is that Cynthia Kern has openly ignored a proven case of perjury, by Edward Davis, lead attorney at Davis, Wright Tremaine LLP in New York, who denied knowledge of specific events in a case this year, in a sworn affirmation before the New York Supreme Court, carrying potentially very severe penalties, but directly contradicted by an evidenced email between himself and the litigant involved, David Clement-Davies. Edward Davis’ was an open lie, and so obviously made to obscure the entire approach his firm so dishonestly took, at which point David Clement-Davies advised him that he could no longer represent his clients and he seemed to withdraw in favour of the firm Fox Rothschild and attorney John Wait. John Wait then put pressure for Mr Clement-Davies to withdraw a Motion for Summary Judgement, under incorrect Case Law, purely because he wanted to suppress evidence before the court that itself drove a hole through their own claims about how events unfolded and how ‘agreements’ had been made. All this was openly presented in argument and evidence before the court, but Mr Clement-Davies doubts Cynthia Kern even bothered to read his memoranda, because she simply could not have done and let that happen. Perhaps proven perjury is not even suggestive to Justice Kern, as a Pro Se also argued that engaging two highly promiminent law firms was indicactive of the truth of his accusations?

It is the thin end of the wedge though when Justice Cynthia Kern also ignored, in the slightest four page judgement handed down this year, both the implications of provided Case Law about such an action, which itself does not allow dismissal on form alone, as this case was dismissed, and when leniency on form was also demanded under New York Human rights laws and The 2005 Restoration Act, and also ignored the Courts’ established duty to actively seek cause on behalf of a plaintiff in any Motion to Dismiss. Perhaps it is what happens when legal secretaries get a taste of power, or when a litigant is trying to fight from London, with no resources. David Clement-Davies never presumed he was necessarily right in all the arguments he put forward, in a possibly over-long and complex Complaint, but to have them all simply ignored, and with an open fraud on the court in supposed evidence provided by the other side, and when the opposition bent over backwards to try and answer a Complaint that they simultaneously claimed they did not even understand, is a legal farce. So his case was dismissed on CPLR rules, opposing attorneys were also out of time on under those very rules, yet Cynthia Kern’s judgement is an open license for legalised perjury and so makes a mockery of all those rules.

There have also been many articles about how Pro Se (self-representing) litigants do not have a hope in the US system too, with only 8% achieving success, and perhaps some of it is indeed half mad or crying in the wilderness, but when perjury has been so clearly highlighted, and proved, which itself exposed the utterly cynical technique that two prominent New York law firms used in denying events that they and New York Publisher, Harry N Abrams, know absolutely about, where on earth do you go? David had everything taken away by his own American publisher, including the most basic defences of the First amendment, apparently so important in America, and at a supposedly respectable New York publisher too, that produces all those jolly stories like The Sisters Grimm series and Diary of a Wimpy Kid. But Abrams are one publisher who have some very ‘adult’ techniques in abusing their own authors and, in a sense, the pretty stories they peddle to the public. Truth became far stranger than fiction in this case, but the only principle involved there was editors acting dishonestly behind the scenes in their own career interests alone and expressing their own fears of the public eye, or of standing up to tell the truth. It is perhaps best expressed in editor Susan Van Metre’s remark long ago that the only thing she had learnt in life, if anything, was keeping her mouth shut, as she tried to intimidate her own author of years standing, but when it happens to be the duty of their contracted authors to open their mouths, certainly in valuable fiction and sometimes in fact.

Yet, perhaps because David is pro se, a British citizen, and with rather a strong instinct for trying to tell the whole truth, difficult as that is in this case, that covered events lasting years, and both fact and fiction, one of the highest courts in America can ride roughshod over the most basic principles that uphold any free society, like not allowing licensed lawyers to build their cases on open perjury. When that happens there is no real standard or law, just influence, money and supposed credibility too, that so often counts against the pro se and the perhaps foreigner too. David fought his publisher on principle for years and at enormous cost, before turning to the courts, that involved a scandal around former Abrams publisher Howard Reeves, new Vice President Susan Van Metre, who took his job out of it all, senior editor Tamar Brazis and the President of the company, Michael Jacobs, who removed Howard Reeves as Vice President, ostensibly for the way he had behaved already, yet simultaneously destroyed contract principles, the most basic editorial duties and Mr Clement-Davies’s US career and livelihood, involving five novels. Then David fought off a scurrilous attack by the UK Law Firm Manches, on principles of privacy that had been so abused across the Atlantic by his partner of two years and his own editor too.

If you doubt the veracity of anything being said, just ask yourself why Phoenix Ark is still functioning? Why is it too that such things can be said of individuals at Abrams and yet their not acting legally to clear their names, as they kept threatening to. Phoenix welcome a real investigation, as much as any honest or fair ‘Judgement’ by a court of law, but both Abrams and one wing of government cannot legally act against Phoenix Ark, because legally they are in the wrong, at least at one glaring level. On the other hand, sometimes you wonder how interested America is in law, truth or individuals, let alone literature! What you have just read though are simply statements of bald fact, and when a person cannot afford to pursue an appeal in the US, at least you can go on trying to tell some kind of truth truth and leave it on the record. Even if it might well encourage you to side with Wikileaks, or move to an even worse place, like Moscow.

PA PRESS

The photo is a Wikepedia image of the New York Supreme Court building on Centre Street, Manhattan.