I also reported that the likely reason why Judge Burns denied the YO status to the child was because the child's father had the misfortunate of asking Judge Burns for mercy, as a father of a teenager to a father of a teenager.
Judge Burns, who paraded his three teenage children in front of everybody at his swearing-in ceremony just 5 months prior to the Pacherille-father's letter to the court (sent as part of pre-sentencing procedure and approved by the child's attorney), felt threatened by the letter - but did not recuse, and instead retaliated for the father's letter against the child.
See the prior parts of Anthony Pacherille's story reported on this blog here:
John Muehl, of course, misrepresented the dismissal to the public in a public statement to the local newspapers "The Daily Star" (of Oneonta, NY) that the lawsuit was dismissed because there was no truth in it.
Yet, the lawsuit was dismissed without reaching the merits of the case. When a lawsuit is dismissed on the grounds of prosecutorial immunity for corrupt acts, the issue whether the corrupt acts occurred remains wide open.
John Muehl apparently conceals from the public the fact that the lawsuit against him was dismissed on prosecutorial immunity grounds, and conceals the fact that prosecutorial immunity was (unconstitutionally) give by the U.S. Supreme Court to criminal prosecutors in reliance on "availability" of attorney discipline - which, we know it for a fact, is not available in New York against criminal prosecutors.
So, both Burns and Muehl, undisciplined, unaccountable and empowered by lack of accountability, remain on the loose.