I will not allow you to make a motion to recuse without my permission - judicial innovation going backwards

Due process of law requires that a motion addressing the lack of jurisdiction in the court may be made at any time.


In New York, the same applies to motions under Judiciary Law 14.


But not in Judge Kevin Dowd's court.


Judge Kevin Dowd sanctioned me for making a motion (on my own behalf) to vacate my own sanctions because he prohibited to my client (and husband) Mr. Neroni to make motions without judge Dowd's permission.


Yet, if the court lacks jurisdiction, all decisions of the court, including Judge Dowd's decision restricting my access to court - should be void.


But Judge Dowd blocks my own and my husband's access to court to be able to prove it...  It's a chicken-and-egg or a cart-and-a-horse situation...


In law, it is called a "hypothetical jurisdiction", where the court rules on the merits before deciding whether it has jurisdiction, usually for purposes of convenience/expediency.


That's what Judge Dowd did when he ruled that because I made unsuccessful motions in the farcical Mokay case in the past before vindictive Judge Becker and before no less vindictive Judge Dowd who was at that time sued by my husband in a pro se action for, among other things, mental incapacity to preside over my husband's cases, as well as misconduct (and who can be successful when the game is rigged), I may not, without permission of Judge Dowd, make further motions - even if I see clear evidence of disqualification or impropriety in the actions of that same Judge Dowd.


To block a litigant's right to make a motion to recuse and disqualify is something new in jurisprudence - Judge Dowd should congratulate himself on such an "innovation". 


By the way, not that Judge Dowd would care about the U.S. Constitution he took an oath to uphold, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that exercising hypothetical jurisdiction is a violation of litigants' due process of law.


And it is exercising hypothetical jurisdiction where the judge claims that no motions, even no motions challenging jurisdiction of the court, may be filed without his express permission.


Does Judge Dowd understand what a jurisdictional motion is?


Also, it is a really great trick for a judge to allow parties to make a motion to recuse THAT SAME JUDGE only on THAT SAME JUDGE's permission.


Of course, you will have to wait until the hell freezes over for such permission.


But - that is what judicial arrogance allows itself because the judge knows that he can never be sued and, most likely, will never be disciplined, no matter what he does.


And that situation simply has to change.


It is interesting to mention that Judge Dowd, same as Judges Becker and Tormey before Judge Dowd, punished me for "flouting" his order prohibiting something not to me, but to Mr. Neroni. 


I was moving to vacate actually my own sanctions - and Judge Dowd did not prohibit me personally to do that...


Once again my husband's and my own identity were blurred before Judge Dowd's eyes.  When the name "Neroni" is like a red rag, I guess, it does not matter which one of the Neronis to punish.  The story repeats itself...