Community Housing Improvement Program et al v. City of New York et al

Letter dated October 8, 2019 from Towaki Komatsu to Judge Brodie, requesting that the motion to intervene be granted.

Eastern District of New York, nyed-1:2019-cv-04087

Current View

Full Text

6 PageID #: 271 Towaki Komatsu 802 Fairmount PL Apt. 4B Bronx, NY 10460 Tel: 718-450-6951 E-mail: Towaki October 8, 2019 United States District Judge Margo Brodi United States District Court 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201 Re: Community Housing Improvement Program v. City of New York, No. 19-CV-4087(MKB)(RML)(E.D.N.Y.) Dear Judge Brodi, The letter dated 10/4/19 that Michael Berg ofthe New York State Attorney General's filed in this action is a nullity. This is mainly because he didn't request my consent to receive any filings in this action fi-om him via e-mail and I haven't consented to that. Since he is an attorney, this Court mustn't grant him any leniency with respect to complying with all applicable procedures in relation to this action that includes proper service ofpapers. Furthermore, attorneys specialize in lying, misleading, expressing half-truths, conveniently omitting material facts, and gamesmanship. I am not among Mr. Berg's ilk in that respect. Mr. Berg neglected to inform this court about the following pertinent facts that relate to the remarks that he expressed in the letter dated 10/4/19 that I received fi*om him via e-mail at 5:12 pm on 10/4/19: 1. I haven't been contacted by the plaintiffs in this action nor their attorneys and have no reason to believe that views expressed by Mr. Berg in his communications to me reflect their views. Page 1 of 15 6 PageID #: 272 2. The following requests for relief are among those specified by the plaintiffs in this action on page 119 and 120 in the complaint that was filed in this action: a. "Declare the Rent Stabilization Laws to be an unlawful violation ofDue Process" b. "Enjoin the application and enforcement ofthe Rent Stabilization Laws as a violation ofDue Process" I share those requests for reliefin this action, but for reasons that aren't shared by the plaintiffs. This fact directly, decisively, and entirely rebuts the following firaudulent claim that Mr. Berg expressed in his letter dated 10/4/19: "Intervention is unwarranted because Movant has failed to establish any nexus between his stated concerns and the subject matter ofthis action." Due to Mr. Berg's deceit, it seems really clear that he violated FRCP Rule 11 by having expressed the preceding fi-audulent claim. For that reason,I urge this Court to swiftly impose harsh sanctions against him that will befit the public's interest by serving as an effective deterrent against him and other attorneys fi'om making fraudulent representations to this Court and other judges. 3. I articulated sufficient grounds in the letter dated 9/30/19 that I filed in this action for this Court to enable me to appear as an amicus curiae in this action in the event that it declines my motion to otherwise intervene in it. 4. Prior to commencing this action, the New York Daily News published a news article that is entitled "De Blasio Holds first Townhall Meeting of Mayoralty in Manhattan, Talks Rent and Affordable Housing" that was written by someone named Jennifer Fermino while she was then ajournalist. That article concerned a public town hall meeting that New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio conducted and appears on the Internet at the following address: Page 2 of 15 6 PageID #: 273 manhattan-article-1.2398051 The following is a relevant quote from that news article: "Joseph Strasburg, president ofthe landlord group Rent Stabilization Association, accused the mayor of using the town hall as a "re-election rally."" One ofthe plaintiffs in this action is the Rent Stabilization Association. Mr. Strasburg expressed the preceding remark long before I began to be illegally prevented from attending such public town hall meetings and public resource fair meetings that the Mayor conducted after 3/15/17 and otherwise illegally subjected to discrimination with respect to those public forums by having my attendance confined to overflow rooms in retaliation for valid critical remarks that I expressed in accordance with my First Amendment rights to the Mayor on 3/15/17 during the public town hall meeting that he conducted with New York City Councilman Corey Johnson while that meeting was recorded on video. My critical remarks to the Mayor then were largely about housing laws, housing judges, and other housing matters while much ofthose remarks were directed against New York City Human Resources Administration Commissioner Steven Banks("Mr. Banks")and HRA's business partners. In the letter dated 9/11/19 that I filed in this action,I alluded to the fact that I reside in a building that is managed by Urban Pathways,Inc.("Urban")as a result of a contract that it has with HRA to do so. TTie following is a link to a copy ofHRA's contract that I have made available on the Internet with Urban for managing the building in which I reside that I received from HRA in response to a Freedom ofInformation Law("FOIL")demand that I submitted to HRA: Page 3 of 15 6 PageID #: 274 The terms ofthat contract confirm that HRA is authorized to terminate Urban's role in managing the building in which I reside and replace it with a different vendor for that purpose in the event that Urban defaults on its contractual obligations with regard to that building. Although Urban has repeatedly and materially done so to my detriment and other military veterans who reside in that building partly by failing to have conditions in that building properly maintained and I have clearly and repeatedly apprised Mr. Banks and other government officials that include the Mayor,New York City Councilmen Stephen Levin and Robert Comegy,Jr., and United States District Judge William Pauley ofthis fact while talking to them face-to-face, HRA has negligently allowed Urban to continue to act as the landlord ofthe building in which I reside and other government officials that include those I just mentioned have similarly ignored what I have expressed to them about the building in which I reside. While writing this letter, I'm doing so without hot water in the apartment where I reside for the second straight day while other distinctive housing deficiencies requiring repairs are clearly evident in the ceiling located in the hallway directly outside of my apartment's entrance. Some ofthe deficiencies that persist in the building in which I reside date back to 2016. Attached to this letter is an e-mail message that I sent to Mr. Banks today. That e-mail confirms that I reported to him the fact that I don't have hot water where I reside in violation of applicable law and that I asserted a legal claim against HRA about an earlier problem in 2016 with a lack of hot water where I reside because of HRA's legal duty to provide proper oversight of Urban in regards to how it manages the building in which I reside. 5. On 9/30/19, United States District Judge Loma Schofield issued a decision that was mostly in my favor in to Komatsu v. City ofNew York. S.D.N.Y. No. 18 Civ. 3698(LGS)(GWG). Page 4 of 15 6 PageID #: 275 That decision addressed illegal practices by members ofthe Mayor's NYPD security detail, members ofthe Mayor's Community Affairs Unit, New York State court officers who conspired with one another to illegally prevent me from attending the public town ball meeting that the Mayor conducted with other government officials on 4/27/17 in Long Island City in Queens and the public resource fair meeting that the Mayor conducted on 5/23/17 inside ofthe Bronx Supreme Court while those meetings were public forums. The following is a pertinent excerpt ofremarks that Judge Schofield expressed in her 9/30/19 decision and appears in the footnote section shown on page 2 in that decision: The Complaint for the purpose ofthis motion includes the Second Amended Complaint (l:18-cv-3698, ECF Dkt.("Dkt. No.")45); Plaintiffs pre-motion letter(Dkt. No. 66); Affidavit ifTowaki Komatsu,swom to May 2,2019(Dkt 176); Affidavit ofTowaki Komatsu,swom to May 2,2019(DkL No. 177); and four letters from Plaintiffto the Court(Dkt. Nos. 124,195,210,221)." It appears that Judge Schofield used the preceding excerpt from her 9/30/19 decision to identify the entirety of my submissions in that action that she a)considered for the purpose of issuing her 9/30/19 decision in it as well as b)excluded from that consideration. On 4/5/19,1 submitted an affidavit dated 4/3/19 in Komatsu v. City ofAigw York that I completed on 4/3/19. That affidavit corresponds to docket number 150 «Bll0i in that action. The following rtin t tfr and page 21- thtaffida-t Page 5 of 15 6 PageID #: 276 1. Prior to trying to attend the public resource fair meeting that the Mayor held on 5/23/17,1 recorded a video with a cell phone at 8:28 am on 5/23/17 in the building in which I reside. I have uploaded a copy ofthat video recording on the Internet at the following address that corresponds to Google Drive and anyone may view: That video recording shows the following: a. The ceiling above the hallway located directly outside of my apartment appeared. The paint applied to that ceiling is shown discolored. Also,the condition ofthe paint on that ceiling was cracked and peeling. Also, there was a hole in that ceiling tben that enabled rain to leak through that hole and diip on that hallway's floor that caused a slipping hazard for people in that building. Nearly two years later, the problems with that ceiling still have not been fixed. Judge Schofleld irresponsibly and impennissibly didn't include any information about the preceding excerpt in her 9/30/19 decision. On 8/29/19,1'titod a- =^. 11 in tliii pi ffifr(1in£i munaijit Tlir following is another excerpt from Judge Schofield's 9/30/19 decision that corresponds to remarks that she expressed on page 6 in it: On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion,"all factual allegations in the complaint are accepted as tnie and all inferences are diawn in the plaintiffs favor." Apotex Inc. v.Acorda Therapeutics, Inc., 823 F.3d 51,59(2d Cir. 2016)(internal quotation marks omitted). Courts must "liberally constnie pleadings and briefs submitted by pro se litigants, reading such submissions to raise the strongest arguments they suggest." McLeod v. Jewish Guildfor the Blind. 864 F.3d 154, 156(2d Cir. 2017)(internal quotation marks omitted). "We afford a pro se htigant 'special solicimde' by interpreting a complaint filed pro se to raise the stiongest claims that it suggests." Hardcrway v. Hartford Pub. Works Dep't, 879 F.3d 486,489(2d Ch. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Page 6 of 15 6 PageID #: 277 The following is a third excerpt from Judge Schofield's 9/30/19 decision that corresponds to remarks that she expressed on page 10 in it: "At this stage ofthe litigation, the court accepts *the complaint's factual allegations as true and draw[s] all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs' favor" The preceding three excerpts from Judge Schofield's decision are sufficient to establish that she blatantly lied in her 9/30/19 decision by having claimed in it that she had accepted my complaint's factual allegations as true and drew all reasonable inferences in my favor in that action. In order for her to have done, she needed to incorporate the sum and substance ofthe information that is shown within the excerpt that appears at the top of page 6 in this letter in her 9/30/19 decision. The video recording that is referenced in that excerpt was recorded 1 hour and 1 minute before I was recorded on 5/23/17 by a video security camera that is controlled by the New York State Office of Court Administration("OCA")and installed above the entrance to Room 105 in the Bronx Supreme Court as I walked in a public hallway on the first floor ofthe Bronx Supreme Court near that video security camera while I was heading to the public resource fair meeting that the Mayor and other