Yesterday I wrote about the Senior U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of New York Lawrence Kahn, that he really cannot read - not the record, not the docket entries in the record, because he treated a motion filed by my husband as filed by me, and decided it that way.
And, that Judge Kahn falsely claimed that I am disbarred in the same decision, which is not true.
Yet, it appears that Judge Kahn lost his ability to read, comprehend and produce reasoned decisions only 6 days ago - because as recently as on August 12, 2016, he produced a very reasoned and fair decision denying prosecutorial immunity (a VERY rare case) because, even though the pleadings did not make clear in which capacity the prosecutor acted, there was a reason to believe that the prosecutor may have acted in an investigative capacity, and thus would not be entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity.
Here is the decision in Brown v Oneida County, New York, and here is the complaint based on which Judge Kahn made his decision.
And, here is a decision of the same Judge Kahn dating back to September 2011, a very fair decision, striking as unconstitutional New York's "physical office" requirement for attorneys who live out of state, but not in-state. The decision was overturned by the 2nd Circuit in 2016, but it is clear that it is Judge Kahn's and not the 2nd Circuit's decision, that was fair and based on the law.
So, Judge Kahn did have ability to read the record and reason - but abruptly lost that ability when his decision concerned his own misconduct (motion to recuse) in my own and my husband's motion, and when it concerned my husband's motion to vacate his prior decisions that became unvalid based on new court precedents.
It is "coincidental" that Judge Kahn falsely accused me of having been disbarred and falsely claimed that I, and not my husband, made a motion to vacate under Rule 60 at the very same time when he knows I am digging at his, and other judges' of his court, participation in the behind-the-scenes secret-membership organization the New York State-Federal Judicial Council, where information from that case may revive my lawsuit from 2014 against Judge Kahn personally, for his out-of-court activities and case-fixing.
See docket report of Neroni v Peebles.
See Amended Complaint in Neroni v Peebles.
See order of dismissal of Neroni v Peebles "as frivolous" and denying my request to recuse David Peebles the Defendant from presiding over the case as a judge - by a judge who is a witness (and, possibly, a participant) in the events charged in the lawsuit who was since elevated to the position of the Chief Judge of that court.
Maybe, after reading that lawsuit, it will become clear why my disciplinary case was transferred from 3rd to 4th Department based on an ex parte court order, and why I was suspended from the practice of law - as an attorney from Syracuse, Woodruff Carroll, recently said in a sworn statement to the court, I was suspended for "suing everybody who is anybody". Not that that, political, motivation of my suspension was reflected in my disciplinary proceedings.
So - Judge Kahn can actually read. He is just corrupt and prone to disregard the law when he is bent on personal retaliation, not demented - I don't know whether that is any relief for those appearing in front of him.
THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:
"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.
“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).
“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.
It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.
" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.
"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.
“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment