UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 231 FOURTH AVENUE LYCEUM, LLC, Appellant, 14 Civ. 6557 (BMC) -against- 2 44 Civ. 7113 (BMC) P.B.#7, LLC, 5 Appellee. ERIC RICHMOND, Appellant, : 14 Civ. 5957 (BMC) -against- : 14 Civ. 7112 (BMC) P.B. #7, LLC, Appellee. x MOTION TO RECONSIDER DENIAL OF MOTION TO VACATE FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW DUE PROCESS TITLE VII. JUDGMENT > Rule 59. New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment STANDARD OF REVIEW IN 2ND CIRCUIT - HIGHER COURT “{{]he major grounds justifying reconsideration are an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir.1992) “reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked-matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court” - Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)COURT FINDINGS 1. Inits order dated February 23, 2016 (DOCKET #38) the court found that: a. There is no basis upon which to Vacate my 12/14/14 Order b. The reassignment of cases to me made the motion moot. c. The decision is not void under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) d. appellant's time to otherwise seek review of that decision has passed THE COURT IS INCORRECT ACROSS THE BOARD - #1 #1 - There is no December 14, 2014 order to vacate 2. tis troubling that a motion that says a December 16, 2014 action by this court is void because it does the impossible, mooting something already granted by Chief Easter District Court Judge Carol Bagley Amon on December 45, 2014 is materially and possibly fraudulently represented by this court to be a motion to vacate a December 14, 2014 order that does not exist. 3. __ Itis even more troubling that the date materially misrepresented and possibly fraudulently chosen by this court of December 14, 2014 is the only way the challenged order could be valid. THE COURT IS INCORRECT ACROSS THE BOARD - #2 #2 - CIRCULAR LOGIC IN STATING REASSIGNED CASES MAKE MOTION MOOT 4. Itisa logical impossibility for a decision by Judge Carol Bagley Amon on December 15, 2014 to have any influence on an action this court states occurs on December 14, 2014. This court has to have either successfully travelled forward in time or, more likely, admit it mooted already granted motions, an act in excess of this court's powers.THE COURT IS INCORRECT ACROSS THE BOARD - #3 #3 - VOIDNESS UNDER RULE 60 B 4 5. This court either materially misrepresented or fraudulently found an order dependant on an order that did not yet exist or it mooted an already granted motion. 6. __ Since the first is impossible, the second must have occurred. 7. Mooting a motion without notice after it had been ruled on is taking an action this court has no right or power to take and is void as the court does not have the power to moot already decided motions. THE COURT IS INCORRECT ACROSS THE BOARD - #4 #4 - TIME TO SEEK REVIEW HAS NOT PASSED 8 Since the declaration that this court issued an order on December 14, 2014 is a material misrepresentation of a dispositive fact and it is highly unlikely that this court ever makes a mistake, unless Brian King of the Southerland Case is correct in his allegations that this court seems to regularly make mistakes that take years to correct (htips:/www.scribd. com/doc/223184683/Brian-King-s-Response-to-Allegations-Made-by -U-S-District-Judge-Brian-M-Cogan), this court has committed fraud upon its own court. 9. Thats covered by Rules 60(b)4 and 60(b)6 which have no time limit. COURT MUST DIRECTLY ADDRESS ALLEGED DUE PROCESS VIOLATION 10. Movant alleged due process violation and specified facts substantiating that argument. 11. The court's failure to directly address the argument and facts of alleged due process violation is yet another due process violation.INEVITABLE SANCTIONS 12. _ As this court has recently threatened appellant with sanctions for having the temerity to point out errors by this court that this court has refused to address and Appellant has pointed out even more errors by this court and due process is worth fighting for, Appellant knows “Well, that's a a whippin | gotta take'.” CONCLUSION: Itis clear from just the dates of the docket numbers that this court mooted decided motions. Itis also clear that this court failed to address all arguments in the motion to vacate, brushing them aside with a misrepresentation that its challenged action was prior to Judge Amon’s decision where it would be legal instead of post Judge ‘Amon's decision where it is illegal and in excess of this court's powers. The characterization of the December 16, 2014 order as a December 14, 2014 order is a clear error and a decision based on the same is a manifest injustice. The failure to address any of the arguments in the motion to vacate is a clear error resulting in another manifest injustice. WHEREFORE: Movant respectfully requests that the court grant the instant motion to reconsider the denial of the motion to vacate and make a decision without misrepresentations and for such other and further relief as it deegfs just and proper. Affirmed to this date: March 24, 2016 Brooklyn, NY APPELLANT, PRO SE / INTERESTED PARTY 7 PARTY IN INTEREST 2107 Regent Place Brooklyn, NY 11226 (646) 256-9613 / gowanusx@gmail.com * WANTED Richard Pryor