Phoenix Ark Press has now accused a leading New York attorney, Edward Davis, of open perjury, written to the Supreme Court, and accused the editors of Abrams of lies, illegality and corruption. All with no comeback whatsoever. Do you think that happens though without it being true? The black mark linked to those professional names on the internet may not help a dreadful story, but they help get to the truth. If Abrams wish to attack, this blog is hosted in the US, by WordPress, and they are welcome. The abuse of power, which will probably lead to other examples, is the failure of those in authority to act against injustice and under the law, and Judge Cynthia Kern is now a supreme example.
Tag Archives: Edward Davis
Protected: EDWARD DAVIS, JUSTICE CYNTHIA KERN AND OPEN PERJURY CONDONED BY THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT
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
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.
The photo is a Wikepedia image of the New York Supreme Court building on Centre Street, Manhattan.