"Otsego County has launched a specialized court that addresses the unique challenges presented by opioid addiction.
Who has hired a federal judge's own law firm to defend himself - instead of the New York Attorney General, who usually defends judges in such federal cases at taxpayers' expense - in order to have the judge (David Peebles) give Burns a break and stretch judicial immunity beyond the breaking point.
As a result of hiring the judge's own former law partner, Burns WAS actually given immunity in a criminal proceeding where there was ANOTHER judge, and where Burns was very clearly the complaining witness and not a judge.
I have written a whole chapter in my 2018 book
about Judge Burns' ties to the "service provider" industry, about making "treatment courts" - and Family Court - his own private business, for himself and members of "providers' association", a business funded by us, the taxpayers.
You are welcome to read it.
But, also consider the demographics of the Otsego County.
It already did not boast a boost of population, and now it is, as other upstate New York counties, is heavily bleeding population.
Less population - more taxpayer money paid for new "undertakings", like this new "court".
If, as the judge says, one person has died "while in the program" - in their treatment court, maybe, you need to fix the old one, not create a brand new one.
And, Judge Burns, as a member of the Board of Directors of association providing services court-ordered by such a "court" (by judge Burns himself) is uniquely Disqualified from presiding over the old one (treatment court) and from creating an additional one.
My question, too, is, will Judge Burns now be creating a separate court - with taxpayer money - for every different drug to which people are addicted?
An alcohol court?
An opioid court?
A pot court?
When will it end?
Note, too, how the judge is using the failure of his own court - a person died of an overdose while in the "program" - to his own advantage and to push for stripping people Burns wants "to help", or, rather, to make them into captive patients for members of his "providers' association" of more constitutional rights:
"With the new court, treatment isn't conditional on the legal process happening first, he said."
What the f**k, excuse my exquisite French, does THAT mean?
In a new COURT, treatment is not conditional on "the legal process happening first"?
Meaning, Burns can now court-order and put under the criminal contempt of court powers, anybody WITHOUT first determining whether he has JURISDICTION over the person? Whether the person has committed any WRONGDOING (courts do not adjudicate anything but wrongdoing - as Judge Burns must know).
Now Judge Burns can just grab-and-treat?
Or, rather, give lucrative business to his provider friends/members of his nonprofit who are suffering from bleeding population?
But, the grab-and-treat approach has nothing to do with law, does it, Judge Burns?