Celli v. New York City et al

Filing 68

MEMO ENDORSED ORDER denying without prejudice 65 Motion. ENDORSEMENT: The motion is denied without prejudice as premature. There is no basis for the Court's consideration of evidence at this juncture. The Court will take judicial notice of proceedings and judicial materials when warranted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 3/6/2025) (mml)

1. Certified transcripts are legally admissible and presumed accurate unless proven
otherwise (United States v. Rojas, 53 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 1995)).
2. Federal courts must give substantial weight to certified transcripts when reviewing
claims of due process violations (NLRB v. Universal Camera Corp., 179 F.2d 749 (2d Cir.
1950), aff’d, 340 U.S. 474 (1951)).
3. A court cannot disregard or refuse to acknowledge a certified transcript that proves
constitutional violations (United States v. Garth, 188 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 1999)).
Please Take Notice, Magistrate Lehrburger’s order denying to enforce, recognize the due
process violation and couching my claims as frivolous benefits Randi Weingarten and the
other Defendants
4. Certified transcripts are admissible as public records under the Federal Rules of
Evidence 803(8) and are not hearsay (United States v. Carrillo, 981 F.3d 928 (11th Cir.
2020)).
Plaintiff’s due process rights, specifically the right to notice, were directly obstructed by Judge
Engelmayer’s order, and the August 9, 2023, transcript proves this fact beyond dispute.

II. LEGAL STANDARD: CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPTS AS EVIDENCE
A. Certified Transcripts Are Admissible and Presumed Accurate
Certified transcripts are considered competent and legally admissible evidence because they
reflect an official record of what transpired in a legal proceeding.
•
•

United States v. Rojas, 53 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 1995) – Held that a certified transcript is
presumed accurate unless there is clear and convincing evidence of error or tampering.
United States v. Garth, 188 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 1999) – Held that a certified transcript is
competent evidence of what was stated in prior proceedings and must be considered
by the court.

Here, the August 9, 2023, transcript is a certified and official record of the hearing, making
it presumptively reliable and admissible evidence of Plaintiff’s due process deprivation.
B. FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 201: Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts
(a) Scope. This rule governs judicial notice of an adjudicative fact only, not a legislative fact.

(b) Kinds of Facts That May Be Judicially Noticed. The court may judicially notice a fact
that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it:
(1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or
(2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably
be questioned.

(c) Taking Notice. The court: (2) must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the
court is supplied with the necessary information.
C. FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 803(8) states: Public Records . A record or statement
of a public office if: (A) it sets out: (i) the office’s activities; (ii) a matter observed while
under a legal duty to report, but not including, in a criminal case, a matter observed by lawenforcement personnel; or (iii) in a civil case or against the government in a criminal case,
factual findings from a legally authorized investigation; and

B. Certified Transcripts Can Be Judicially Noticed Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201
•

United States v. Long, 857 F.2d 436 (8th Cir. 1988) – Held that courts must take judicial
notice of certified transcripts under Federal Rule of Evidence 201 as official records.

Since the August 9, 2023, transcript is a certified court record, Plaintiff requests that this
Court take judicial notice of its contents as evidence of due process violations resulting from
Judge Engelmayer’s order.

C. Certified Transcripts Prove Due Process Violations and Cannot Be Ignored
Due process requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard (Mullane v. Central
Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950)). When a certified transcript proves a due
process violation, courts must consider it as binding evidence.
•

NLRB v. Universal Camera Corp., 179 F.2d 749 (2d Cir. 1950), aff’d, 340 U.S. 474
(1951) – Held that a certified transcript of an administrative hearing is binding evidence
in reviewing due process claims.

•

Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948) – Held that courts cannot enforce or legitimize
unconstitutional actions, including judicial orders that deprive a party of due process.

Since the August 9, 2023, transcript proves Plaintiff was denied notice, this Court must
recognize it as valid evidence of a due process violation.

III. ARGUMENT
A. Judge Engelmayer’s Order Directly Denied Plaintiff Notice, and the Certified Transcript Proves
It
Judge Engelmayer’s order limited Plaintiff’s access to procedural due process, particularly
notice, preventing Plaintiff from:
1. Receiving adequate notice of proceedings impacting Plaintiff’s rights.
2. Challenging the legal basis of actions taken against Plaintiff.
3. Participating fully in proceedings where Plaintiff’s legal rights were at stake.
Since due process requires adequate notice (Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970)), the
August 9, 2023, transcript must be treated as conclusive proof of this violation.

B. The August 9, 2023, Transcript Must Be Recognized as Admissible Evidence of a Constitutional
Violation
•
•
•

Certified transcripts are official records and must be considered (United States v.
Garth).
Certified transcripts are admissible as public records under FRE 803(8) (United States v.
Carrillo).
A court cannot ignore a certified transcript proving due process violations (NLRB v.
Universal Camera Corp.).

Since the August 9, 2023, transcript directly proves that Plaintiff’s due process rights were
violated, this Court must:
1. Recognize the transcript as admissible evidence.
2. Take judicial notice of its contents.
3. Acknowledge that Judge Engelmayer’s order led to Plaintiff being denied notice.

IV. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
1. Recognize the certified transcript from the August 9, 2023, hearing as valid, admissible
evidence with Magistrate Lehrburger being totally erroneous.
2. Take judicial notice of the transcript under Federal Rule of Evidence 201 as an official
record of due process violations.
3. Declare that the transcript proves Plaintiff was denied due process, particularly notice,
as a result of Judge Engelmayer’s order.
4. Acknowledge that Plaintiff’s due process claims are substantiated by conclusive
evidence.
5. Grant any additional relief this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,

DATED: 3/4/2025
Respectfully submitted,
Lucio Celli
89 Widmer Road
Wappingers Falls, New York 12590
929-429-0155
[e-mail]

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on [Date], a copy of the foregoing Motion to [Specify Relief Sought] was
filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the Court’s electronic
filing system to all parties indicated on the electronic filing receipt. Parties may access this
filing through the Court’s system.
[Attorney's Name]