James H. Brady v. John Goldman, et al.

• The Attorney-Defendants and law firms in this case were being sued for colluding to use false statements, false legal arguments, false instruments, calls for retaliation and using their "relationships" with the Court's to help their clients get away with seizing the $70-90 million dollars' worth of air rights they all knew were contractually appurtenant to Petitioner's 12th Floor and Roof Unit apartment. A scheme was made wherein Petitioner was told to waive his rights for free or otherwise AttorneyDefendants would litigate and use their relationships with the New York State Courts to steal the rights they knew were contractually guaranteed to Petitioner in the Co-op's Offering Plan contract. The District Court dismissed the Complaint with prejudice. Although the Court stated it had no subjectmatter jurisdiction, it blasted Petitioner with ad hornthem attacks and issued a filing injunction against him forbidding any further litigation "pertaining to the air rights appurtenant to his 12th Floor and Roof Unit apartment." The Court of Appeals affirmed in' a Summary Order and reargument and En Bane Rehearing was denied. THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE: 1. Was it unconstitutional for Petitioner to be deprived of his right to sue for damages the lawyers and law firms that schemed together and used false statements, false legal arguments, calls for retaliation, and their influence over the courts to help their New York City developer clients get away with stealing the $70-90 million in air rights they all knew were