"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.

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query christine mire. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query christine mire. Sort by date Show all posts

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

The disgruntled Judge Jeanette Knoll avenges her forced recusal in "legacy cases" against an innocent bystander without political clout, attorney Christine Mire. And on behalf of a friend #JudgePhyllisKeaty.

On January 22, 2016 it was announced that the Louisiana appellate #JudgeJeannetteTheriotKnoll was retiring on December 31, 2016 - because her term was ending and because the Louisiana state law did not allow her to run for re-election because of her age.

But, before Judge Knoll is going to retire at the end of the year, she left a slimy trace in the history of Louisiana judicial system.

Two slimy interweaving traces, actually.

Two disgraceful and disgusting traces.

First, Judge Knoll wrote a blistering "opinion" criticizing her colleagues' decision to force her recusal - there is no basis for her to write opinions regarding a court's decision to force her recusal, but she did that anyway.  

Well, her judicial colleague who was also forced to recuse from the same case, judge Jeff Hughes actually outdid Jeannette Theriot Knoll by filing a federal civil rights lawsuit against his colleagues who ordered him to recuse from that case.

Imagine what kind of stakes were involved and what kind of promises may have been made by the judges if they fought recusal they way they did.

Thankfully, in Louisiana - unlike New York - judges challenged with a motion to recuse do not get to decide motions to recuse on the merits.  Otherwise, imagine what judge Knoll and Judge Hughes would have done to those who made the motion.

Judge Knoll in her accusatory "opinion" against her colleagues blasts that they recused her because her colleagues allegedly succumbed to the influence of "interest groups".

The motion to recuse was reportedly filed by lawyers for three oil companies - ExxonMobil Corp., BP America Co. and Chevron Corp.

These three oil companies legitimately raised the appearance of impropriety for Judge Knoll to preside 

The interesting part was that the Louisiana Supreme Court then voted not to take up the "legacy lawsuits" in question, 4 days after forcing the two judges, Hughes and Knoll, to recuse.

The jist of the motions was reportedly that Judge Hughes accepted large PAC campaign contributions from the plaintiffs' lawyers in 2012, and that Judge Knoll's husband represented parties suing oil companies in several similar "legacy lawsuits" in the past.

Once again, that was enough for the Supreme Court for the State of Louisiana to force recusal of Judge Hughes and Judge Knoll.

And here is how Judge Knoll struck back.

In her "objection opinion" Judge Knoll accused of impropriety both her colleagues who ordered the recusal, and the attorneys for the oil companies.  

Judge Knoll also engaged in a loving tribute protecting reputation of her husband - once again, in an opionion which was completely procedurally uncalled for - but that does not bother Judge Knoll when personal interests are at stake:

What did the Martindale-Hubbel rating of her husband had to do with the decision as to whether she had a conflict of interest to preside over a case because her "successful" attorney husband handled similar cases on the plaintiffs' side (and derived income from those cases) - is anybody's guess.

Judge Knoll goes further with even more flowery language, now extolling her own virtues and reputation:

Nothing like patting yourself on the head.

So, Judge Knoll praises herself for her own:

  1. dedicated ability to "serve the judiciary" - at least she is honest in that she is serving not the public, but the judiciary, her words, not mine;
  2. for serving the judiciary "with integrity" - in the way integrity understood by the judiciary that gifted itself with immunity for malicious and corrupt acts in violation of their oath of office, while at the same time presuming integrity of their actions on the bench.
And, Judge Knoll made an oath of serving two masters - the people of the State of Louisiana (to whom her initial oath of office went) and the judiciary (where service to the judiciary, members of her own class, is in conflict to service to the people when such judiciary, especially her own friends, are involved in APPEARANCE of corrupt activities).

And look what language Judge Knoll uses in characterizing her remaining future service to both "the people" and "the judiciary": she promises to serve both:

  1. evenhandedly;
  2. courageously;
  3. patiently;
  4. with a clear head, and
  5. with strong traces of common sense and kindness

The rule of thumb where people engage in excessive and flowery self-praise is that usually such people are crooks.

It appears to be so with Judge Jeannette Theriot Knoll.

The only kindness I noticed in Judge Knoll's concurring opinion in Christine Mire's case is to Judge Keaty and other judges whose recusal Christine Mire requested.

Otherwise, Judge Knoll's concurring opinion exuded as much 

  • evenhandedness;
  • courage;
  • patience;
  • clear head;
  • common sense, and
  • kindness

as a fishwife cursing at the market square.

It was obvious that Judge Knoll was high-strung on the issue of her own forced recusal and ready to strike against any other attorney who, unlike attorneys for oil companies who made a successful motion to recuse Judge Knoll, do not have the political clout and support.

And it was obvious that Judge Knoll was a loose cannon and should not have been allowed to sit in panels on any decisions involving sanctions against attorneys for making motions to recuse, because her mind was made up on the ISSUE, on personal grounds, without regard to IDENTITY of the attorney subject to discipline.

Judge Knoll found such a victim and scapegoat to strike at in retaliation  -  in young female minority attorney Christine Mire.

Christine Mire dared to make a motion to recuse Judge Knoll's long-time friend judge Phyllis B. Keaty.

Judge Knoll's second slimy trace in the history of Louisiana court in 2016, the last year on the bench, was her "concurring" opinion in the order denying rehearing to attorney Christine Mire, see yesterday's press-release here - compare analysis by Judge Knoll with analysis by Judge Weimer in his scathing dissent, and the prior dissent of the same Judge Weimer against sanctioning Christine Mire.  

Christine Mire was previously sanctioned - with Judge Knoll's unrecused participation - for making a motion to recuse Judge Knoll's friend Phyllis Keaty and for a writ application to the appellate court that preferred to ignore misconduct of Phyllis Keaty based on overwhelming appearance of impropriety.

The appearance of impropriety was obvious when Judge Keaty's non-existent disclosure of conflicts of interest suddenly surfaced by being added into an audio tape of court proceedings - which was confirmed by testimony of technical experts.  

Judge Keaty was also forced to recuse from Christine Mire's case when Christine Mire made the motion to recuse, because in Louisiana, judges challenged on such a motion do not get to decide it on the merits.  

Which did not help Christine Mire.

Instead of Judge Keaty sanctioning her, her friend Judge Knoll did, and then added insult to injury by casting a decisive vote in denying her a rehearing of her discipline - for making a legitimate motion to recuse on behalf of her clients against Judge Knoll's friend.

In her "concurring opinion" supporting denial of the petition for rehearing, Judge Knoll outdid herself in flowery language, and I will address that below, but what caught my attention the most is that Judge Knoll allowed herself to offer unsworn testimony as a character witness in support of Judge Keaty who is, reportedly, Judge Knoll's personal friend, while blasting attorney Christine Mire.

It goes without saying that both judge Knoll and Judge Keaty are elderly white women while attorney Christine Mire is a young and beautiful minority woman - which, I think, added a lot of female jealousy and racism into the equation.

Judge Knoll's arguments, with her legal training and all, were actually 100% matching in tone, probative value and retaliative intent, the recent "arguments" offered in hate comments on my blog regarding the suspicious house fire of my friend and critic of the government in Delaware County, New York, Barbara O'Sullivan - by a wife and a girlfriend of firefighters.

The statement in the blog article, based on eyewitness accounts, was - the firefighters refused to make an efforts to extinguish the fire and let the house burn.

Here are the firefighters wives' arguments:  I am a liar, because, while they were not at the site of the house fire, and my sources, the eyewitnesses, were, their husbands/boyfriends will NEVER.

Here are the hearsay statements of firefighter's wife Sharon Reichert-Morgan - "I was not there, but my husband 'would never'".

Here are even more simplistic statements of a firefighter's girlfriend Colleen Church - "I was not there, my firefighter boyfriend was not there, but I know those people, they would NEVER, and, by the way, you are a stupid mail order bride bitch, and gloves are off against you for reporting the way you did".

Translation - I bite you because I don't like you and because you dared to bite my friends.

What Colleen Church said about describes exactly what Judge Knoll did to Christine Mire.

Judge Knoll killed Christine Mire's chance for rehearing of unconstitutional sanctions imposed upon her because Christine Mire bit at Judge Knoll's friend Judge Keaty with a motion to recuse.

A well-founded motion - as the dissenting judge pointed out, in great detail.

The essence of Judge Knoll's concurring opinion is:  "I was not there, but I PERSONALLY know Judge Keaty's stellar reputation, and this is an attorney with a 'checkered past'" - and that allegedly 'checkered past' (where the instances of "checkered past" are refuted by evidence in the record) somehow explains why irrefutable evidence of Judge Keaty's APPEARANCE of misconduct (which is enough to make a motion to recuse) should have been disregarded by Christine Mire.

Remember the Rule #1 of whistle-blowers in this country?  As expressed by the government criticized by those whistle-blowers?

Keep your head low, don't whistle-blow.  Or else - feel the "burn".

Happens all the time, to female whistle-blowers especially.

And "the burn" did come upon Christine Mire - in bricks.

Here is the gist of Judge Knoll's concurring opinion, in snippets of that opinion:

No mentioning that Keaty was also a friend, and that reviewing her work for many years was thus inappropriate for Judge Knoll to begin with.

I know at least two high-standing public officials, heads of both chambers of New York Legislature, Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos, previously with "sterling reputation" who were just convicted for felonies involving rampant corruption.

"Sterling reputation" is not a defense on a motion to recuse for an appearance of impropriety where actual conflicts of interest did exist, where there was sworn testimony that the judge's disclosure of a conflict of interest was added into the audio of the hearing by a tech company outside of court proceedings, and where another judge actually ordered Judge Keaty to recuse.

So, this is content-based regulation of speech which is absolutely protected by the 1st Amendment - no mentioning of the U.S. Constitution here - compare it with Judge Knoll's outburst in her "objections to forced recusal" where she lovingly offers unsolicited unsworn testimony about her husband and raises constitutional questions on her own behalf.

Here is also Judge Knoll's scathing criticism of justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in making a decision legitimizing same sex marriage - which can easily be deemed as "besmirching the reputation" of the justices who made the majority decision.

last time I checked, the rule of law is supposed to equally protect anyone and everyone, whether the judge likes that attorney or not.

By the way, the only reason judges do not have "checkered history" is because they gave themselves a self-gift of judicial immunity for malicious and CORRUPT acts on the bench, which they enforce religiously in lawsuits against members of their class, not allowing discovery of those malicious and corrupt acts and dismissing lawsuits against judges on filing, for "lack of jurisdiction" - which does not preclude them from having "jurisdiction" for sanctioning those who filed such lawsuits.

Nobody is above or below the law - right, Judge Knoll?  Or some are more equal than others under the law?  Like judges?

If Judge Knoll considered Christine Mire "a troubling attorney", she had no business presiding over the case, because her bias against Christine Mire was obvious.

The nature of conduct being diligent investigation of Judge Knoll's friend Judge Keaty's conflict of interest (which were confirmed), due diligence investigation of doctored audio of a hearing where disclosure of such conflicts were added onto the tape (which was confirmed by testimony) and making a motion to recuse on behalf of a client which was attorney Christine Mire's duty to do.

Judge Knoll's personal knowledge of Judge Keaty for 30 years was enough to disqualify her from presiding over the case where Judge Keaty was the complaining witness, but no - Judge Knoll is not known for recusing herself voluntarily in cases involving conflicts of interest, and she had an agenda to "show them" for forcing her to recuse from the "legacy cases" in November of 2015 in the first place.

See how the same "egregious conduct" was characterized by the dissenter Judge Weimer in yesterday's dissenting opinion:

In other words, there were 3 recording devices recording the hearing, and the proffered explanation that they ALL malfunctioned at the very time Judge Keaty was making disclosure of her conflict of interest making the "audio splicing" necessary defies all odds and common sense.

By the way, each time I ask for security video tapes in New York state courts, something happens to the equipment - it either prematurely overwrites the requested footage, or malfunctions and does not capture the footage in the first place.

So, this particular trick is well known.

For being a trick.

Moreover, as Judge Weimer pointed out that the "reasonable person"'s opinion in the situation - that of a recording technician testifying at Christine Mire's discipinary case was that:

Moreover, Judge Weimer points out that the majority opinion's speculation that malfunction occurred on 3 recording devices simultaneously, thus "reasonably" requiring splicing, was not supported by facts - where the stenographer did not report that any malfunction on recording devices occurred:

And, the order to stenographer was to produce a FULL COPY of what was already on record - not to order "splicing" when conflicts of interest of a judge were raised on a motion to recuse, and the stenographer then went to extraordinary lengths, even filing a lawsuit against Christine Mire and her client trying to prevent her from obtaining the record of proceedings at all.

Let's restore the history of the case.

An attorney, Christine Mire, had a reason to believe that a real estate company owned by a presiding judge in the case had an interest in selling the property being divided by that judge in a divorce proceeding.

That was a disqualifying conflict of interest.

The judge did not make that disclosure.

The attorney sought tapes of the court hearing to prove that the judge did not make the disclosure.

That's where the "ordinary" procedure stopped and the Orwellian nightmare started, for the attorney who asked for tapes of court proceedings to which her client was absolutely entitled.

The stenographer who was asked for the tapes, sued the attorney and her client in response to request for tapes - which was completely out of the ordinary.

The stenographer did not have any right for such a lawsuit, because, as it turned out, nothing from other hearings was on the tape, what was on the tape was only pertaining to proceedings of Christine Mire's clients.

Surely the stenographer knew about that before bringing the lawsuit.

And, Christine Mire experienced intimidation from the stenographer's attorney even before the lawsuit was brought.

The lawsuit of the stenographer produced a court order against the stenographer - requiring the stenographer to produce a full copy of the proceedings to Christine Mire.  

The order was as clear as bell.

Yet, here the irregularities continue.

While making an appointment for "copying" and while not stating that any of the 3 recording devices from which the copy was supposed to be made, the stenographer ordered "splicing" of the audio - but did not offer any explanation as to why she did that.

Again, as part of due diligence, Christine Mire had an expert analyze the "splicing" and found that something was added into the tape, and that "something" was - surprise, surprise! - Judge Keaty's disclosure of conflicts of interest that were not made on the record, upon the memory of Christine Mire and her client.

And, after Christine Mire made more than necessary steps in her due diligence preparation to make a motion to recuse, that was still not enough, and she was still sanctioned with loss of her livelihood for "egregious conduct" in "besmirching" reputation of Judge Keaty, and those appellate judges who covered up her "appearance of misconduct".

There is a concept in law called RES IPSA LOQUITUR - would not have happened without negligence.

Tell me, please, WHO ELSE would have ordered the "splicing" of the audio tape BUT judge Keaty for whom this episode was very damaging, especially during her elections?

The stenographer herself?

Let's be realistic.

Disciplinary authorities putting pressure on Christine Mire, openly stating to her, reportedly, that her motion to recuse were badly timed during Judge Keaty's election campaign, and that they wouldn't have brought the disciplinary petition "but for" the timing of the motion to recuse.

And, Christine Mire has public records showing that at the time when pressure was imposed upon Christine Mire to "cease and desist" criticizing Judge Keaty during her election campaign, 5 governmental bodies expressed interest in activities of Christine Mire.

One of them was the local fire marshal.

The fire marshal visited Christine Mire's office, told her that she has "too many locks on the office door", which may be a "fire hazard", forced her to remove a lock - and the very next couple of days Christine Mire's office was broken into, and somebody went through her office files, for which there is a police report.

The only person who knew that Christine Mire removed the lock that was so strong that "could have been a fire hazard" was the fire marshal.

Somehow, these facts - which should have triggered CRIMINAL investigation about ORGANIZED CRIME where part of that organized criminal enterprise are Louisiana courts, attorney disciplinary authority and even a fire marshal, did not result in criminal investigation of corruption, and did not find their way into the judicial decisions regarding Christine Mire.

 After all, these pesky facts did not mesh with the accusatory tone and the obvious decision to pre-judge and punish Christine Mire for breaking the taboo, raising the APPEARANCE of CRIMINAL ACTIVITY of a judge, as was Christine Mire's DUTY TO  HER CLIENT to do, in ensuring her client's constitutional right to impartial judicial review.

It is easier to just slam an honest attorney doing her duty with a slimy claim that she has a "checkered past" - and for that reason is not entitled to any constitutional rights, obviously.

Former judge Andrew P. Napolitano described the phenomenon of what happened to Christine Mire - in a book published 5 years prior to what happened to Christine Mire.

It appears that judiciary has its gloves off in striking against those who dangerously raise the issue that there is an appearance of CRIMINAL misconduct on behalf of a judge or judges.

Without any traces of common sense - or loyalty to the law.

But with a lot of loyalty to members of their own class.

In all of Judge Knoll's zeal to punish Christine Mire for biting her friend with a motion to recuse, what was completely left out of the decision was - how did the sanction against Christine Mire's for making a well-founded motion to recuse against a judge on behalf of a client co-ordinate with the declared purpose of attorney regulation (and discipline) - protecting consumers?

It was Christine Mire who protected the consumers, right?

And it was the criminal cartel consisting of her competitors who disciplined her for that, right?

And where are the feds for this criminal cartel, including Judge Keaty and Judge Knoll?  And the fire marshal? And those who broke into Christine Mire's office? And those who pursued discipline against her on the complaint of Judge Keaty because Christine Mire made a motion to recuse during Judge Keaty's re-election campaign and refused to "cease and desist" (shut up)?

Criminal behavior is not immune, even if the criminal is a judge?

So where are you, the FBI?

How long will the legal consumers be waiting for the feds who are paid by taxpayers to clear corruption in the government to do their jobs?

Saturday, February 27, 2016

Yet another (female) attorney suspended for criticizing confirmed judicial corruption - now in Louisiana

When you see something like this:

you invariably think that an attorney must have attacked a judge with a sledgehammer.

Yet, remembering that I was suspended for two years for sanctions imposed upon me for "making threats against the court", which can have the readers believe that I threatened physical violence against a judge, while I simply made a motion to recuse a judge based on record of misconduct and conflicts of interests, and notified the judge that he is a witness in the case and that I intend to call him to testify as a witness, I decided to find the actual disciplinary case of attorney Christine Mire.

And what a treasure it was.

First of all, the "attack on judge" was criticism of CONFIRMED and DOCUMENTED corruption of a judge - including a financial stake in the outcome of a divorce proceedings (the judge's real estate firm was selling the property that the judge was splitting as a factfinder in the divorce case) and falsifying court transcripts (there was unrefuted evidence that the audiofile where the judge allegedly made disclosure of her conflict of interest was sliced, matters were redacted out of there, and other matters were added to it by means of recording equipment that the court did not have available).

Yet, it is not the judge - Phyllis Keaty, of Louisiana, and not the three judges of the appellate panel who covered her up - who lost their law licenses and their judgeships - but an attorney who criticized them in a pleading, fully supported by documentary evidence.

Here is the 38-page disciplinary decision against attorney Christine Mire.

Attorney Christine Mire, for her efforts to do her duty for her client, and for her efforts to do her duty to report judicial corruption and misconduct, got suspended from the practice of law for a year and a day, and ordered to pay the expenses of the unconstitutional disciplinary proceeding against her.

Attorney Mire raised the issue of the 1st Amendment in the case, which the court rejected based on a 1964 case that has nothing to do with content-based regulation of speech.

Strict scrutiny, the required standard for attorney speech regulation, was not used by the disciplinary court.

There was a strong dissent in the case though, clearly indicating that (1) the attorney had objective grounds for her criticism, and that (2) the attorney's criticism of the judges is protected by the 1st Amendment and the Free Speech Clause of the Louisiana State Constitution.

Apparently, the dissent has fallen on deaf ears of the court - but I wonder whether Attorney Mire will appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court and whether the sans-Scalia court will actually take this case.  

High time to take a case of retaliation against critics of judicial corruption, and it is suspect that the court, judges who belong to the same class as those criticized by sanctioned attorneys, would not "exercise their discretion" to hear such cases, leaving such constitutional violations unanswered, their victims without a remedy, the bar intimidated and refusing to make motions to recuse for fear of retaliation, and constitutional rights of litigants to an impartial judiciary not enforced.

I applaud your courage, attorney Mire.  And I wish you luck with the U.S. Supreme Court.  I will gladly provide an amicus brief for you.

I must also point out that our timid press, including the legal press, in its efforts not to misstep against "the honorable" and very powerful judiciary, prefers to choose words in a sensational heading like Law360 did, which could easily be understood that Christine Mire was suspended for doing physical violence to a judge.

But, this very blog exists exactly because the so-called mainstream media is too timid to address issues of public concern - prosecutorial and judicial corruption which are rampant in this country.

I just wrote about a dismissal of fabricated criminal charges against my dear friend Barbara O'Sullivan, here and here.  

I mentioned there that her attorney Joe Ermeti refused to make a motion to recuse, as did his previous attorney Tyner.  

Joe Ermeti is actually the attorney who referred his other client to me back in 2014, with an instruction to his client in a pending case to have me make a motion to recuse for him, because Ermeti did not want to be "blackballed" in a certain judge's court while I allegedly, and in Ermeti's opinion, had "nothing to lose", with the disciplinary proceeding already pending against me.

So, Ermeti recognized that the motion to recuse was warranted and necessary, but did not want to do that for his client in a case where he was an attorney of record and was duty-bound to make that motion.

This is the type of courage that decisions like the one against me, and now against Christine Mire, inspire in our "honorable" legal profession.

All that Mire had to do, same as all I had to do to keep our respective law licenses was shut up and not defend our clients' constitutional right to an impartial judge.

We did not.  We did our duty by our clients.  And we got slammed.  And I wonder when courts will start to realize that what they are doing is very visible and very disgraceful.

By the way, one of the dissenters in Christine Mire's case, Judge Weimer, mentioned that chill. 

With all the cowardly scraping and bowing, the dissenter did more than the "majority", he (or she, I only know the last name) at least stated that Christine Mire's conduct was constitutionally protected and that she should not have been sanctioned for it.

A detailed analysis of the disciplinary decision, including the analysis of attempts of one of the three dissenters to, at the same time, scrape and bow before a judge who was caught in criminal conduct (fabricating court transcripts) and his duty to rule fairly for Ms. Mire, will follow.

By the way, the corrupt judge has made it to the appellate court which refused to discipline her, and instead disciplined the attorney who exposed her misconduct.  

One point that she was especially mad at at Christine Mire was that Christine Mire circulated her writ regarding Judge Keaty's misconduct among her friends and members of the bar during her election campaign.  

Judge Keaty knew she could not win a defamation lawsuit against Mire, because truth is an absolute defense, especially in a case where the allegedly defamed person is a public official, so instead she used attorney discipline as a tool of punishment.  And it worked.  So far, at least.

Here are the pictures of the parties in this sorry story: the panel of the court that refused protection and punished Christine Mire - now including the culprit judge Keaty.

Judge Keaty's election video clip claiming that she is a judge of experience, and "served the community with honor, integrity and distinction".

Well, the clip also says, quite truthfully, that Keaty has 12 years of experience "behind the bench", not "on the bench".   Wheeling and dealing for 12 years - and only caught by Christine Mire who suffered for it while Judge Keaty got promoted.

I presume there was no criminal investigation into the actions of #JudgePhyllisKeaty and whoever helped her to cook the transcripts, nor a larger investigation into how many more transcripts #JudgePhyllisKeaty cooked in her "service" to the community "with honor, integrity and distinction" - "behind the bench".  

The transcripts were apparently fabricated in a professional way, so you have to do it a number of times and involve a number of experts to do it the way it was done.  

The dissenter even mentioned that Judge Keaty's court did not have at its disposal the software or equipment to do the edit of the transcripts.  

Thus, the edit had to be made outside of courts, and the question is - who is doing it.  

And who will be doing it again, since Keaty is emboldened by not being disciplined or prosecuted for fabricating the transcripts, and especially by having the messenger punished and the rest of the bar intimidated?

Remember, Judge Keaty released the sewn-together audio-file to Christine Mire, obviously in full confidence that Mire will not discern the fraud, that the audio-file was actually cooked.

It was a perfect crime.  Not so perfect though, because Christine Mire still was able to prove that the audio-file was sliced, redacted and added to.

So, for her thorough investigation Christine Mire was rewarded - with a suspension for a year and a day, and with costs of disciplinary proceedings awarded against her.

No, Christine Mire did not attack Judge Phyllis Keaty with a sledgehammer.  

She simply stated, on the available record, and to protect her clients rights, that Judge Keaty should have recused, and that what she did was corrupt.  

Which was true.

For a full analysis of Christine Mire's disciplinary decision, including the three dissents - stay tuned.

Saturday, October 14, 2017

The #JudgeBrendaWeaver saga, Part X - the fight against access to the tampered court audio file in the Louisiana doppleganger case

In my previous blog, the Part IX of the #JudgeBrendaWeaver series, I published a comparative table with a Louisiana case where an attorney was punished for PROVING that court audio records were tampered with - in order to protect a judge who failed to disclose her own financial interest in the real estate company who she assigned to deal with equitable distribution of a couple's real estate in a divorce proceedings.

Here is that story in documents.  I publish these documents as a cautionary tale of what Brenda Weaver and her crew of accomplices may be up to next, following the example of Louisiana Judge Phyllis Keaty and her crew of accomplices.

Here is the first request, a peaceful request by an attorney to a court reporter to prepare a transcript of a certain hearing in a divorce case.

Here is attorney Christine Mire's 

request to court reporter Kathy Mathews:

The stenographer responds as peacefully and gives the attorney a cost quote for the transcript.

The attorney obviously paid for the transcript, received it, reviewed it - and found it troubling, because it contains something that she did not hear happening in the proceeding where she was present.
  She asks either for a copy of an audio, or, to accommodate the stenographer and save time for everybody involved - simply to come and listen to the audio at the stenographer's office.

Well, that's what Mark Thomason in Georgia had to sue for - simply to listen to the audio of a public court proceeding that was reportedly made public (only not to him) to the Sheriff's department to listen to and laugh, around a water cooler.

Here is what attorney Christine Mire in the doppleganger case in Louisiana asked the stenographer to do:

And here is what the stenographer did - asked for a delay of disclosure, and got on the defensive claiming that she values her professional integrity and considers such a request a challenge to that integrity.

After several delays were given to the stenographer, and she was nowhere near complying and providing access to the audio file, attorney Mire moved for a deposition of the stenographer - and that was all done as a due diligence process in preparation of a motion to recuse the presiding judge Phyllis Keaty.  Since attorneys are severely punished for making "unfounded false accusations" against judges, attorney Mire had more than enough reasons to establish any discrepancy or irregularity (or criminal conduct, as in tampering with court records), through documentary evidence and testimony of witnesses.

So, attorney Mire, asked court reporter Kathy Mathews to come and be deposed under oath regarding the audio file.

The stenographer asked for yet another delay - now for a delay of the date of the deposition:

Attorney Mire agrees to change the date.

Moreover, attorney Mire accommodated the stenographer even further - she offered to release her from the duty to testify on a subpoena if she simply provides a certified copy of the audio.

In answer to that reasonable offer, the stenographer sues Christine Mires client to block him from access to the audio file, and, for that she hires Susan Theall,


  • represented the opponent of Christine Mire's client in a divorce proceedings under a very interesting circumstance: she actually employed the presiding judge's law clerk as her secretary!;
  • represented Christine Mire herself in the past as Christine Mire's divorce attorney;
  • employed Christine Mire; and
  • was her close friend

Here are interesting details about Susan Theall revealed in testimony of Christine Mire in Christine Mire's attorney disciplinary proceedings (where Susan Theall, Christine Mire's former own attorney, employer and friend, testified already as a judge who replaced Phyllis Keaty on the bench - while Phyllis Keaty moved to greener pastures, to an appellate court):

First of all, why would a law clerk of a judge not be FULLY employed by a judge.

Why would it be even allowed for a law clerk of a judge to be employed in any other capacity by anybody else.

Why would a law clerk of a judge be allowed to be hired AS A SECRETARY - and by whom? - by an attorney appearing in front of that same judge in court?

Knowing that law clerks do research and advise the presiding judge on how to decide a case, it is completely inappropriate to have that same law clerk PAID by an attorney for one of the parties - and that is exactly what was happening in this case.

For that alone, Susan Theall was supposed to be DISCIPLINED as an attorney and, likely, disbarred - instead of being elevated as a judge herself.

But - the testimony was happening after Susan Theall actually became a judge

- as Mary Priest became in the Georgia case, as an obvious payoff for her frivolous behavior helping to cover up of tampering with court audio by judge Brenda Weaver.

By the way, Susan Theall is now running for the appellate court - the same court where her friend and co-conspirator Judge Phyllis Keaty is seating, and shamelessly panders to the public her supposedly high ethics and integrity:

So, after Susan Theall was caught in paying off the law clerk of the presiding judge through an additional "employment" as a "secretary" and got off the case, Susan Theall was hired by the court stenographer to represent that court stenographer in a case that the stenographer brought against Christine Mire's client, to block him from access to the audio file - which obviously could not show any disclosure of the conflict of interest by Judge Keaty, for the simple reason that such a disclosure never happened.

It did not work though.

A subpoena duces tecum was issued against the stenographer, signed by Deputy Clerk of the Court.

In an email to Kathy Mathews attorney Mire explains that it is her duty to her client to prudently discover information pertaining to recusal of a judge in the pending divorce proceedings.

Susan Theall immediately moves to recuse the presiding judge in the related access to audio action that the stenographer filed (Mathews v Hunter) claiming that Theall represents yet another judge, Judge Mary Broussard, presiding over the access to audio action: 

#SusanTheall also files on behalf of the court stenographer Kathy Mathews a motion for an order of protection and restriction of access against attorney Mire's client:

In that motion, attorney Susan Theall cites to a multitude of reasons why the equipment of Kathy Mathews should not be provided for the deposition - after Christine Mire clearly advised Kathy Mathews that she will release her from the necessity for any subpoenas if she, very simply, provides a CERTIFIED copy of an audio instead of coming and being deposed.

Such a motion was obviously frivolous.  But, since Susan Theall was a friend of judge Phyllis Keaty, employing the judge's law clerk - and in the not-so-distant future, in 2010, Theall showed herself publicly as being "member of online community" supporting Keaty's election campaign -

Susan Theall was never disciplined for her frivolous motion.

Attorney Mire responded to the motion for an order of protection and restriction of discovery and access to the court audio files and cross-moved for sanctions.

In the motion for sanctions, Christine Mire very clearly explained why restriction of access to the audio file was not warranted.

Meanwhile, an additional attorney, Anthony Fontana, joins representation of the court reporter:

Anthony Fontana represents everything, from wills and trusts to sexual abuse to maritime law to felony defense.

Here are two masterpieces that this male attorney has sent to his female attorney colleague, Christine Mire, copy to Judge Phyllis Keaty.

I specifically draw your attention to the language that attorney Fontana

an elderly white guy, uses against his female colleague, a dark-skinned young woman:

Attorney Fontana makes a direct threat against attorney Mire, who was a witness of what Judge Keaty did or did not disclose in court proceedings, and thus did not need an audio to testify about it herself - "These allegations [that Kathy Mathews made "additions" to and/or "alterations" to the trial Court's statements in the official transcripts of the Hunter proceedings] made in public records without you having listened to the tapes first are being taken very seriously by my client.  These allegations are serious and damaging to my client's position as an officer of the Court, to her reputation and business as a Court reporter.  She intends to hold both you and your client accountable for the damages".

First of all, when making such a threat, attorney Fontana knows that his threats are frivolous and inappropriate - because attorney Mire is fully covered by litigation immunity against any claims of defamation against the court reporter.

Moreover, as a witness to what Judge Keaty said in court, she can very well herself testify that "additions and alterations" were made to the transcript, without listening to the tape, and she can use her own personal knowledge as a witness to seek the audio, because the transcript reflects what was not said in court, and that is an "addition or alteration" all right.

On top of that, Attorney Fontana allows himself a completely uncivilized behavior with a younger colleague, a minority woman, calling her letter "pure garbage", specifically because she dared to suggest what was screaming into everybody's face - that Attorney Fontana's client cooked the transcript, and refuses to give access to the audio because it will be clear from the audio.

In two months after the first threat, attorney Fontana escalated the threat and now threatened a criminal action against Christine Mire AND her client - same as it was actually done in Georgia to Mark Thomason and his attorney Russell Stookey.

In his letter, attorney Fontana continues to engage in uncivilized language and to call attorney Mire's legal writing "rantings"

Well, Christine Mire actually WON access to the audio, against tremendous odds, and at a tremendous personal risk to herself, doing her due diligence in preparation of a motion to recuse.

And, she had a technical expert testify under oath as to the actual tampering of the court audio file to put into it a separately recorded audio file where Judge Phyllis Keaty purports to disclose the conflict of interest that she never actually disclosed.

In respect to providing to the public the actual PROOF that:

  • court audio files CAN BE tampered with technically, and that
  • they ARE ACTUALLY tampered with;
attorney Christine Mire went, to my knowledge, further than anybody else in this country.

Of course, such an assumption makes no sense whatsoever, at least because judges gave themselves a gift of immunity specifically for their CORRUPT acts on the bench, despite their oaths of office to honestly enforce and uphold U.S. and state Constitutions and laws.

Moreover, judges did not stop at giving themselves the gift of immunity for corrupt behavior, but corrupted their personnel by giving THEM the gift of immunity for THEIR corrupt behavior.

Of course, nothing so persuades one in the integrity of a person as that person's gift of immunity for corrupt behavior to himself and to his close circle of friends and accomplices.  

For the publication of the testimony of the technical expert as to how the court audio file was "spliced"/tampered with in the Louisiana case, the doppleganger of the Georgia #JudgeBrendaWeaver case - which tampering could not possibly be done without participation of the court reporter in whose possession the audio was,

Stay tuned.