Was the deprivation of the right to sue for damages against lawyers and law firms who schemed to steal contractual air rights unconstitutional?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 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 Petition: er 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 hominem 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 £n Banc Rehear. ing 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 ; ii contractual appurtenant to Petitioner’s 12th Floor and Roof Unit Apartment? 2. Was it unconstitutional for the court to implement a filing injunction to prevent any further litigation pertaining to the air rights the court acknowledged are “appurtenant” to ‘Petitioner’s Manhattan commercial co-op apartment? ; 3. Are courts permitted to disregard waivers in ; commercial transactions? ; iii ; PARTIES TO THE PETITION Petitioners ; : e James H. Brady ; Respondents _« Richard M. Asche, Litman, Asche & Gioiella, LLP e Edward J. Reich, Dentons US LLP , e Kristen B. Weil, Dentons US LLP ; e Jamie Rebecca Wozman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP . e Jennifer Smith Finnegan, Herrick, Feinstein LLP e Joseph P. Augustine, Augustine & Eberle LLP; e Thomas Dewey, Dewey Pegno & Kramarsky LLP e Keara A. Bergin, Dewey Pegno & Kramarsky LLP e Adam J. Richards, O’Reilly Stoutenburg Richards LLP : iv