Azzarmi v. Catania
| Decision Date | 28 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | 7:20-cv-04712-KMK |
| Parties | AASIR AZZARMI, Plaintiff, Pro Se v. CHRIS CATANIA, et. al. Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
AASIR A2ZARMI. PRO SE PLAINTIFF.
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION UNDER FRCUP RULES 59 AND 60 "ORDER OF DISMISSAL" IN DKT#59; MOTION FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY; MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT UNDER 15(A); MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1406(A) IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE OR 28 U.S.C. §1404(A)
Plaintiff moves the Court to Reconsider the entire ORDER in in DKT#59 and/or Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider the entire Order of Dismissal for both clear error, improper legal standard applied, Defendant Catania's failure to meet his burden, lack of evidence showing that Catania was NOT a NY resident in June 2020 and/or in the alternative, to consider for the first time, Plaintiff's motion for jurisdictional discovery (Court never addressed this issue/motion) Plaintiff's motion for a transfer per 28 U.S.C §1404(a), (court never addressed this issue/motion) and/or Plaintiff to transfer in lieu of dismissal per 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) ()i Plaintiff preserves all of these issues arguments, and objections for appeal.
As an initial matter, Plaintiff sincerely and humbly apologizes for using the world "hateful" in a previous Motion for Reconsideration, as Plaintiff was unaware that the word "hateful" is/was "offensive" or "abusive" in the context of making arguments that Plaintiff believes the judge in this case too be biased. Had Plaintiff known that using the 1 word "hateful" one time would've led to dismissal, Plaintiff would never had used the word "hateful," as it is was never Plaintiff's intention to be unprofessional, uncivil "offensive" and "abusive" in making those arguments for Disqualification. Plaintiff is just requesting the Court to reconsider by trying to look at Plaintiff's use of the word "hateful" from a different perspective, as This Court, without any explanation and/or any basis in law or fact, has beer sanctioning and threatening to further sanction Plaintiff without due process in violation of his Constitutional rights, and Plaintiff did not even know what he ever did to deserve to be sanctioned in December 2020 and/or a basis to be further threatened with sanctions in May 2021 and/or how to prevent being further sanctioned without due process in violation of his Constitutional rights. At this point, Plaintiff understands now that he has never been, can never be and will never be treated fairly by any Court or any judge and there is nothing he can do about this, because this is how this system is designed I and We, the people, definitely understand this, this is no shock. Plaintiff has just been asking to be treated fairly, but this has never happened thus far. However, in the interests of justice. Plaintiff sincerely and humbly begs for another chance and promises never to use the word "hateful," now that Plaintiff knows it is the basis for dismissal. If Plaintiff is ever wrong or needs to be corrected or there is an opportunity for learning and growth, Plaintiff has absolutely no problem admitting he was wrong, correcting his mistakes, taking responsibility for his conduct and asking for forgiveness, Therefore, Now that the Court has given Plaintiff notice for the first time that he was wrong for using the word "hateful," Plaintiff, now that he knows, admits he was 100% wrong, even though Plaintiff did not previously know using the word "hateful" was offensive or abusive and could ever result in dismissal when making arguments for in his Motion for Disqualification or Reconsideration. Plaintiff, as Pro Se, knows that he does not know much or whats acceptable or whats not. For example, Opposing Counsel, committed fraud, forgery and perjury when he manufactured false court documents and filed them with this court for his 12 (b}(6) motion to dismiss for Res Judicata, and the Court saw absolutely NOTHING egregious or wrong about Opposing Counsel, an officer of the Court's, unethical conduct. When Plaintiff brought this to the Court's attention, the Court refused to ever address this issue or even make a comment that it was unethical. This would make any reasonable person believe that ANYTHING GOES, as Plaintiff learns by observing what the Court allows lawyers to do. This Court lets Opposing Counsel get away with many violations, including fraud. The Court had no problem with Opposing Counsel fraud, fraudulent misrepresentations, lies, frivolous argumentation, manufacturing of court documents to mislead and deceive the Court. To any non-lawyer or Pro Se, like Plaintiff or any reasonable person, Opposing Counsel's conduct was egregious, extreme, criminal in nature, fraudulent in nature, and unconscionable, but the Court allowed it, refused to admonish it, and therefore Plaintiff though he had free license where he could say anything he wanted to based on the Court's laissez-faire treatment of Opposing Counsel's fraud on the Court, which 100% objectively wrong by the ABA, attorney standards. Rule 11, 1927, etc. Objectively there is a clear double standard here, which gives an inference of bias, discrimination, when Plaintiff has been extremely and severely sanctioned at least 2 times (granting Opposing Counsels motion for a pre-filing order to sanction Plaintiff 12/22/2020 and this Order of Dismissal on 10/28/2021) without any prior warnings, notice, opportunity to be heard, due process, or opportunity to correct the conduct. Before this order of dismissal on 10/28/2021 Plaintiff was never warned by the Court that he could not use the word "hateful." If the Court had given Plaintiff at least one warning about the word "hatefull being considered "offensive" and "abusive" and Plaintiff used it again, then the Court would have been fair, but this DID NOT HAPPEN, as the record speaks for itself. Plaintiff objectively and subjectively did not know that use of the word "hateful" would ever be offensive. Presidents use it regularly, the news stations uses it regularly, teachers use it regularly, and it is colloquially not considered a curse word in every day speech. There is no list of words you can or can not say in Court, and Plaintiff was not naming calling or making offensive statements for the purposes of being offensive or abusive, Plaintiff believed the judge was biased and discriminating against him, so Plaintiff believed that judge to be "hateful" and used the word in his argument for Disqualification. Any reasonable fact finder would believe that SEVERE SANCTION of pre-filing order without a basis in law or fact (12/22/2020), SEVERE SANCTIONS of pre-filing order WITHOUT NOTICE or any warnings or without any explanation to Plaintiff what he did BEFORE 12/22/2020 to deserve to be sanctioned on 12/22/2020 where he was denied Constitutional First Amendment rights, SEVERE SANCTIONS WITHOUT ANY HEARING or OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND or OPPOSE being denied Constitutional First Amendment rights, SEVERE SANCTIONS WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION ON or BEFORE or AFTER 12/22/2020 as to WHY Plaintiff was sanctioned on 12/22/2020 so Plaintiff could correct a mistake, if he made one. It seems the Court sanctioned Plaintiff based solely on Opposing Counsels frivolous statements and arguments only, as the Court's bias resulted in discrimination to sanction Plaintiff for no valid reason. Meanwhile Opposing Counsel, Ira Rosenstein, committed FRAUD on the Court, violated FRCOP Rule 11. 28 U.S.C. § 1927 by intentionally manufacturing and filing false court papers claiming with this Court fraudulently alleging that there was a judgment in Plaintiff's California case, which was 100% false at all times. Yet, the Court has never sanctioned Opposing Counsel and/or even admonished Opposing Counsel fraud on the Court. This Court has always been 100% objectively unfair and the record speaks for itself. In sum, Plaintiff, now that he knows better, takes full responsibility for using the word "hateful", apologizes and would never use the word "hateful"' again in this Court, even though Plaintiff still does believe this Court has always been objectively and subjectively unfair and biased.
This Court's intentional refusal and failure to follow controlling 2nd circuit case law when Sanctioning Plaintiff without due process
On December 22, 2020 in sanctioning Plaintiff, without due process or opportunity to be heard before sanctioning Plaintiff, this Court refused and failed to follow controlling Second Circuit law, as '"due process requires that courts provide notice and opportunity to be heard before imposing any kind of sanctions."' Ted Lapidus, S.A. v. Vann, 112 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 1997) Before the Curt dismissed Plaintiff's case on 10/28/2021, as the record shows Plaintiff never received due process, notice or opportunity to be heard before the extreme sanction of dismissal for using the word "hateful." 2) Because of the Court's bias, on 12/22/2020 the Court denied Plaintiff Constitutional rights which imposed a substantial burden on the free- access guarantee. Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 470 (9th Cir, 1990). First, "[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). "Restricting access to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial