Alexander Moskovits v. Bank of America, N.A., et al.

This case presents a Constitutional question of fundamental public importance: whether instituting sealed proceedings in a civil case (in next day reaction to a request for disclosure of judicial recusal grounds) violates Constitutional rights guaranteed under the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment and customary international law, allowing claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(2),(3), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, and a claim of “fraud on the court.” This case presents the question of whether the unique sealing can be held to be non-actionable and shield both state and private actors involved from liability, given the historic error of Constitutional magnitude “so far departed from the accepted and usual course ofjudicial proceedings ... as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power”. See Rule 10 of the U.S. Supreme Court (emphasis added). This case also presents the questions of whether an exercise of this Court’s “supervisory power” would be warranted where such “fraud on the court” is involved or to correct a failure to follow the correct substantive law and U.S. Supreme Court law. In addition, newly discovered information of recusal grounds, n.l, infra, submitted for judicial notice, which required the state court to recuse ab initio poses the question of whether exercising this Court’s “supervisory power” is also warranted to correct the Second Circuit’s failure to determine whether the state court had jurisdiction or immunity under the correct state substantive law. See Rule 10, supra. Finally, this case presents a suitable vehicle to address the question of whether “ex-felons” are members of a class protected by § 1985.