pageok
pageok
pageok
More on Judge Samuel B. Kent and Impeachment:

Lawyer/blogger "Beldar" has a lengthy rant about my calls for Congress to investigate the possibility of impeaching Judge Samuel B. Kent, the Galveston, Texas district judge who has been accused of sexual harrassment and has a long record of other ethical problems.

Essentially, Beldar's claim is that because the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council could have chosen to recommend Kent's impeachment but ended up reprimanding him without a recommendation on impeachment, that is strong evidence that his offenses are not grave enough to justify impeachment.

My response is very simple: the Fifth Circuit's nonaction on impeachment proves little if anything. It doesn't even prove that they considered the possibility of recommending impeachment and rejected it. Had they done so, they could have stated that in their opinion on the matter - something they notably didn't do. The federal statute that Beldar claims imposed a "statutory obligation to consider whether to recommend the impeachment of judges like Judge Kent" does no such thing. It merely says that the Council "may, in its discretion" (emphasis added) refer the matter to the Judicial Conference of the United States for consideration of the impeachment option (the Conference can in turn refer the matter to Congress). The Fifth Circuit Judicial Council is not required to consider the impeachment option and we have no proof that it did so in this case.

Even if it did consider it and rejected it, it does not follow that Congress should defer. In such difficult internal matters as the disciplining of other judges, a judicial conference is likely to act on a consensus model of decisionmaking. The reprimand issued to Kent (which is a very unusual step in itself) may have been the lowest common denominator that all nineteen Fifth Circuit Council judges could agree on.

Beldar also claims that the Conference could have used "harsher" terms in describing Kent's alleged offenses or asked him to retire. I think that the Conference's reprimand is already quite harsh by the standards of judicial language. Again, we have to remember that the reprimand is a committee document that probably represents the lowest common denominator that 19 people of very different ideologies and temperaments could agree to.

Beldar further asserts that the Council could have suspended Judge Kent for "up to 15 years" of its own initiative. That extreme claim strikes me as in obvious tension with the Constitution's mandate that judges serve for life unless impeached and removed by Congress. If other judges could suspend a federal judge for as long as 15 years, they could effectively negate his or her lifetime appointment simply by issuing two such suspensions (or even just one, if the judge in question were old enough). It'll take a lot more than a partially vacated district court opinion (the only authority cited by Beldar to support this extreme proposition) to convince me that he is right on this point. Indeed, looking up that opinion, I found that it says nothing of the kind, but instead merely notes that some other judges believe that a 15 year suspension is beyond the power of a judicial conference for precisely the kinds of reasons that I noted above. The opinion states that:

Some jurists have expressed concern that suspension might become equivalent to removal if it extended for an inordinate amount of time, see e.g., Hastings I, 770 F.2d at 1108-09 (Edwards, J., concurring) (using fifteen years as the benchmark), but a one-year suspension does not implicate these concerns." McBryde v. Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct and Disability Orders, 83 F. Supp. 2d 135, 165 & n.18 (D.D.C. 1999), aff'd in part & vacated in part for mootness, 264 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 821 (2002)) [Note: The McBryde opinion is slightly misleading when it cites Judge Edwards as stating that fifteen years is "the benchmark." Edwards' wrote that 15 years is beyond a judicial conference's power, but did NOT conclude that any suspension of less than 15 years is permissible].

Even the one year suspension that the district court decision approved may be constitutionally suspect, though I won't argue the issue here.

Finally, Beldar mispresents me as claiming that impeachment is the only and "obvious remedy" for Kent's misconduct. As I explained time and time again in my posts, all I advocate is that "Congress should investigate the issue and give the possibility of impeachment serious consideration" (a direct quote from my first and most detailed post on the subject).

In sum, Beldar's post distorts 1) the applicable law on impeachment, 2) a judicial opinion, and 3) my posts. That's a pretty neat trifecta.

neurodoc:
Rick Casey: But if a federal judge is guilty of sexual harassment — and a panel of 19 federal judges seems to have decided this man is — then shouldn't he face the same punishment? (italics added)
Beldar (William Dyer?): I knew beyond any doubt that Chronicle columnist Rick Casey was committing a libel when he falsely claimed in his October 3rd column that the Council's decision conclusively established Judge Kent's guilt under a state criminal statute forbidding sexual harassment by a public official "acting under color of his office." (italics added)
Professor Somin, you expect this blogger, a trial lawyer no less, to comment intelligently on the law, when it seems he can't understand the columnist's plain meaning? He "knew beyond any doubt...Rick Casey was committing a libel when he falsely claimed...that the Council's decision conclusively established Judge Kent's guilt under a state criminal statute"?! What grade would you assign a 1L who gave something like that as an answer to a Torts question? It strikes me as not simply stupid, but boldly, assertively, smugly, in-your-face stupid.
10.23.2007 2:31am
Bill Dyer (mail) (www):
Prof. Somin: I'm surprised at your delayed reaction, but I'm content with what I've previously written. Your posts previously omitted to disclose even the possibility that the Council could recommend impeachment to the Conference, which could then recommend impeachment to Congress. I'm glad you've remedied that. Congress can do what it thinks best. I, for one, don't share your apparent distrust of, and dissatisfaction with, the remedies ordered by a majority (without written dissent) of the 19 federal judges who've actually seen the evidence (including the judge for whom you clerked).
10.23.2007 3:12am
neurodoc:
Bill Dyer, care to explain, "I knew beyond any doubt..."? I don't see how that can be reconciled with what Casey wrote ("if a federal judge is guilty of sexual harassment — and a panel of 19 federal judges seems to have decided this man is — then..."). Can it be?
10.23.2007 3:27am
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
I am really bothered with this Kent case. I really seems analogous to what happened to me. I am a qualified individual with disabilities, autism-vision impairment-hearing impairment, other physical disabilities.

I was subjected to an "Are you blind?" utterance as grounds to be held in "willful contempt" by a Federal District Court Judge for not being able to meet pg numbers and format requirements of local rules, that I could not read.

This slur was significant in a second case assigned to same Judge because the second case was a habeas petition to review a final res judicata factual finding made by a Florida State judge that I am "unable to hear and see." There was NO medical evidence of blindness in the case; simply that Judge made up a new and unsupported medical diagnosis.

In Florida, blindness has long carried with it a presumption of incompetence. I was not provided electronic format Dragon NaturallySpeaking access in the foregoing instances.

Now, one, the other, or both of these blindness findings/utterance are denying me employment, caused a Florida Attorney General to remark about "the spector of giving out driver's licenses to incompetents," and nearly caused my driver's license to NEVER be reinstated -- on an exceptionally 40 year clean and safe driving record in several states.

During September this year, after my driver's license was suspended indefinitely on the foregoing "blindness" incompetency findings for over 4 years, the Florida Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles road tested and vision tested me and reinstated my driver's license. My vision was found to be corrected with glasses, but I was conclusively found not to be "blind" or "incompetent."

The Florida DHSMV accepted my electronic format Dragon NaturallySpeaking written test passing scores, after two members of the Florida Governor's Commission on Disabilities wrote that it would be discrimination for the Florida DHSMV not to provide me the electronic format Dragon NaturallySpeaking assistive technology access.

Since that driver's license reinstatement, I have been Cyberstalked on a couple blogs by anonymous blog IDs in violation of 47 U.S.C. Sec. 223. On one blog, the blog editor had to remove numerous posts directed to my disabilities and an unspecified "incriminating video under a canopy." On this blog, I have been called a "troll" (after driver's license reinstatement)and a "turing machine set to: VERBOSE MODE MAXIMUM" (before driver's license reinstatement) and a "turing machine run amok" (after driver's license reinstatement)."

"turing machine" is directed to my autism.

Here, it would seem to me, we have in the disability context, almost exactly what the Samuel Kent case is about in the sexual harassment context. And I am not just being subjected to harassment on these few blogs, but in virtually all employment now because of these references to my being "blind," and I have also been stalked physically on at least 5 occassions in the past three weeks.

Additionally, there was one clear threat on one of the other blogs directed to me via a comment to my husband (an attorney),HERE:

"in any case your are in fear of your wife,s health ?
answer: Turn off the screen, or is your debating more important. you are picking a fight not avoiding one "

Yet despite these obvious slurs, harassment, intimidations, and threats from which i have not been protected, I am aware that just the opposite: I have been the target of numerous entrapment efforts.

I am just wondering if sexual harassment and disability harassment should be treated differently? And if so, why? And if not, why not?

I mean, how is groping a woman and subjecting someone to what I have been subjected to conceptually any different?

And is it common that a victim of such harassment, etc. receives such intimidation and threats?

Is there anyone else who has experienced such?
10.23.2007 3:37am
Bill Dyer (mail) (www):
neurodoc, being "not simply stupid, but boldly, assertively, smugly, in-your-face stupid," I'm content with what I've previously written. Anyone who cares can follow the links and see what context you've left out, and I've got better things to do than to trade insults with you.
10.23.2007 3:37am
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
I am also extremely bothered by why things like this that protected classes of people are subjected to should not be vigorously investigated to get to the bottom of the who/what/when/where/why/how of it and who is responsible/involved/participated -- together with a remedy.
10.23.2007 3:55am
Anderson (mail):
In sum, Beldar's post distorts 1) the applicable law on impeachment, 2) a judicial opinion, and 3) my posts.

Par for Beldar.
10.23.2007 9:16am
markm (mail):
Is there an elephant in the room that everyone has been studiously ignoring? When professions such as doctors or lawyers "police themselves", the committees reviewing alleged ethical or other violations are often accused both of turning a blind eye to much wrong-doing and of being way too easy on the wrongdoer when the offense was too blatant to ignore. Here we've got a committee of judges sitting in judgment on a fellow judge, and so I see no reason to assume that their failure to recommend a more serious penalty means anything.
10.23.2007 9:48am
Andy L.:
Ilya, give it up already. You took your shot and got called out. Just take your lumps and end it (i.e., stop posting on this).
10.23.2007 10:27am
von (mail) (www):
Read Somin, read Beldar. Somin's response doesn't fairly characterize Beldar's post. Although Beldar may overstate his case, he is correct in is central point that Somin ignored/omitted an important piece of context. Can do without Beldar's accusation of "libel," however. Note to Beldar: the context doesn't help your libel claim, which (I write in half-jest) itself may be libel given its target (unlike Judge Kent, a private figure) and author (lawyer claiming knowledge of law).

I demand as well that both Somin and Beldar stop characterizing the postings of others as "rants." As I know from personal experience, there is a 100% chance that if you accuse someone else of "ranting," you're about to go off on a rant of your own.

Otherwise, very much enjoyed the exchange. I learned a lot from both Beldar and Somin.
10.23.2007 10:45am
PLR:
I can't defend the arrogant Kent, and Somin needs no help from me. But maybe the subject has reached its limit with this seventh Kent-related post, at least until Congress lifts a finger?
10.23.2007 11:54am
Bruce:
I don't see why Congress owes any deference at all to what the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council may or may not have decided concerning the impeachment of a fellow judge. That's a congressional responsibility, not a judicial one.
10.23.2007 1:19pm
JohnThompson (mail):
Mary K--if you cant read the local rules you have absolutely positively no business being a lawyer any more than a blind person has being an airline pilot. It is NOT all about you....
10.23.2007 2:38pm
Armchair Litigator:
I've always suspected that Beldar was a hack. Thanks for proving it.
10.23.2007 3:08pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
JT, "Mary K--if you cant read the local rules you have absolutely positively no business being a lawyer any more than a blind person has being an airline pilot. It is NOT all about you...." (emphasis added).

No, you're right it's 'not all about me.' That's because under your formula for who is qualified to be a lawyer/judge NO blind person would ever qualify and no Bar Examiners, State Bar, or Court would ever have to provide disability access through accessible courthouses and auxiliary aids and services.

I guess you better tell that to all the existing blind lawyers and judges out there currently licensed, admitted to the courts, and/or sitting on the bench.

Maybe you should tell your stereotypical bigoted views to the National Federation Of the Blind, too.

And I suppose you never heard of readers and electronic format screen reader assistive technologies. No doubt, you're a 1950s manual typewriter-pencil and paper guy. You gave yourself away ...
10.23.2007 4:46pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
Regarding Beldar's criticisms of Ilya, Beldar's assumpion nothing's wrong with the current Judicial Disability and Misconduct statutes/rules is exceptionally misconceived.

I can only speak about the 9th and 11th Circuits, I should note. But take for one instance, the hard paper copy, 5 pg, doubled-spaced formatting rule for the complaints — this effectively serves as a blanket exclusion of all disabled persons with print disabilities requiring electronic format Internet assistive technology access. Many such complainants in the protected class of persons who might wish to complain about just such imappropriate attitudes as exhibited by JT, above, are completely excluded from complaining. And Heaven help the "turing machine set to: VERBOSE MODE MAXIMUM" from being able to effectively communicate this very harrasment/slur in just 5 pgs.

How do I know this? I have been excluded from this process due to my autism-vision impairments by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals inaccessible courthouse that does not provide persons using screen readers or voice recognition (e.g., Dragon NaturallySpeaking) electronic access to the spaces, facilities, and services of the courthouse — despite the 11th Circuit itself advertising that it is Sec. 508 Rehabilitation Act "Bobby accessible". It is no such thing.

I have been personally told by 11th Circuit Clerks and the Circuit Executive there is no court access to disabled persons using electronic format assistive technologies via the Internet. And, I was further told, if I want the courthouse accessibility and auxiliary aids and services guaranteed me by the U.S. Judicial Conference Communication Disability Auxiliary Aids and Services Policy, to take it up with James Duff, Director U.S. Administrative Office of the Courts and the spaces and Facilities Director.

In sum, there is a blanket exclusion of disabled persons in the Judicial Disability and Misconduct complaint statute/rules themselves — this subjects disabled persons who have been the victim of equally as egregious misconduct in the disability context as the woman who was groped at issue re: Samuel B. Kent to different access treatment in the conmplaint process, appears to violate the Fifth Amendment, as well as the Rules Enabling Act.

There are numerous other significant problems with the present formulation of the Judicial Disability and Misconduct statutes/rules as well.

It isn't as slam dunk a valid process as Beldar makes it sound. Ilya should keep up the thread posts.

Additionally, why should Federal Judges who are so prejudiced against certain protected classes of people just be let go without some corrective action/remedy? Why should we tolerate bias/prejudice/bigoty in the Judicial System?

Is this the basis on which we, as Americans, are comfortable allowing decisions of potentially significant importance to be made?
10.23.2007 5:27pm
Bill Dyer (mail) (www):
Against my better judgment, Prof. Somin's characterization of this Fifth Circuit Judicial Council as likely being satisfied with a "lowest common denominator" result, plus his arguments about my post, have prompted me to add another update at the foot of my own. Surely all the horses are thoroughly beaten to a frothy pulp by now.
10.23.2007 7:13pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
"Surely all the horses are thoroughly beaten to a frothy pulp by now."

Certainly not the 43 million Americans With Disabilities locked out of the Judicial complaint process.
10.23.2007 7:27pm
neurodoc:
OK, I wasn't going to, but now JohnThompson (Georgetown's current b-ball coach, or his father the former one?) has roiled the waters, and my curiosity can no longer be contained...

Mary KDP, what does it mean to say, as you have, "I am a qualified individual with disabilities, autism-vision impairment-hearing impairment, other physical disabilities."?

"Qualified" to do what, practice law or medicine, fly a plane, drive a car, cook dinner, give financial advise, coach soccer,...? By "qualified" do you mean "credentialed," and if so, what might those credentials be?

"autism." That is a medical diagnosis with specific meaning. If this diagnosis has been made in your case, either by yourself or well-qualified specialists, then what exactly are the findings that support the diagnosis? Is it Asperger's, a disorder within the autistic spectrum of developmental disorders that manifests itself by markedly impaired social relationships? And how does the "autism" diagnosis/label pertain? Have you been in court litigating an ADA claim in which the "autism" figures, or is it that "autism" has been a problem in a non-ADA case?

"vision impairment." What is the nature of the visual impairment (e.g., decreased visual acuity?, visual field loss?, a correctable refracive error?, ...?) What is the cause of said "visual impairment"?
"Blind" in common parlance means zero ability to perceive anything visually, or at least a markedly reduced ability to perceive visually, with attendant functional impairment(s). "No light perception," meaning the individual would be unable to tell whether the room they were in was pitch black or brightly illuminated, is unequivocal "blindness." If you could pass a DMV road test and get your driver's license reinstated, and your vision can be "corrected with glasses," than are you any more visually impaired than those who use reading glasses or glasses when they drive or go to the movies? What is the nature of your visual "impairment" that requires you to have "electronic format Dragon NaturallySpeaking assistive technology access," but does not keep you from getting a driver's license? Can you explain it all succintly, because I can't put this together from what you have related, which seems internally contradictory, at least as to the medical considerations and what special accommodations you might require on account of them.

"other physical disabilities." Care to enumerate them?

Given this medical information, perhaps we will be able to understand better your experiences with the judiciary and our legal system. For me, and I expect a good many others, it is far from clear what you are relating to us.
10.24.2007 11:57am
neurodoc:
WARNING: DON'T CLICK ON THE Bill Dyer, aka BELDAR, LINK ABOVE, UNLESS YOU HAVE TIME TO WASTE.

He appears to be a Texas trial lawyer craving attention, who jumps up and down waving his arms to get it, while making unabashedly stupid legal claims.

[Beldar (William Dyer?): "I knew beyond any doubt that Chronicle columnist Rick Casey was committing a libel when he falsely claimed in his October 3rd column that the Council's decision conclusively established Judge Kent's guilt under a state criminal statute..." (italics added)

Rick Casey: "But if a federal judge is guilty of sexual harassment — and a panel of 19 federal judges seems to have decided this man is — then shouldn't he face the same punishment?" (italics added)]
10.24.2007 12:30pm
Bill Dyer (mail) (www):
But I am judicious in how often I repeat myself and in my use of boldface, all-caps, and italics.
10.24.2007 1:56pm
neurodoc:
But I am judicious in how often I repeat myself and in my use of boldface, all-caps, and italics.
Yes, we must grant you that. Now, if we are to give you any more attention than you have already received, would you demonstrate that you have sufficient knowledge of torts, in particular libel, to earn a "C" in Torts I. (Some schools focus on libel law in Torts II.) To say, as you did, you "knew beyond any doubt" that Casey "commit(ted) a libel" in that column casts serious doubt (you may have none, but that doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't) on your reliability as a commenter on the law.

If you can make even a minimally cogent case why what Casey wrote might be actionable libel, rather than "libel" in the loose sense a lay person might use the term, I would love to hear it. (You can skip NYT v Sullivan issues, privilege, and the like, just tell us how a court could find what he wrote to be both false and defamatory, given the way he stated it.)
10.24.2007 3:04pm
Bill Dyer (mail) (www):
It's a side issue I don't care to debate with a name-calling crank, neurodoc. I may have bones to pick with Prof. Somin, but at least he doesn't urge people not to read my post when his entire point in posting here was to critique my post. You finally became worth my further typing when, and to the very limited extent, that you said something funny. That time is past, and this, good sir, shall mark the end of further discussion between you and me here. I'm sure you'll declare yourself the "winner," and as always, people will make up their own minds. I'm content with that.
10.24.2007 3:19pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
libel ... c.gray ... "Carrie" ???
10.24.2007 7:09pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
Allow me to provide a further explanation:

"c.gray" directed a comment to myself on this blog (pig thread) portraying certain autistic characteristics and publishing that I should see the movie "Carrie."

c.gray's published comment used keywords 'it is all linked ... somehow' contained in a doctor report about me by the California State Bar in which an aged doctor failed to notice autistic misuse of pronouns, thereby fashioning a composite diagnosis of the opinions of four different people. This doctor report was on file in Federal Court before Hon. James D. Whittemore in my Reasonable Accommodations Motion.

"whit" ratified c.gray's published statements about "Carrie" and recommended I see the Sissy Spacek version of the movie -- the most graphic in scenes of the immolations of numerous persons and "Carrie" killing her own mother.

The libel: c.gray's statements by innuendo and colloquim reference my late mother's July 12, 1994 self-immolation suicide on my father's front lawn during a grandparent visitation case, and the innuendo is the maliciously false defamatory statement by referencing "Carrie" and likening "Carrie" to my autism that I killed my mother.

Reckless disregard for the truth: the police report on file in my Reasonable Accommodations Motion in Federal Court contains the sensitive knowledge about myself and my family, and the report clearly concludes I was not present at the scene at the moment of ignition, but arrived as it was unfolding appx. 10 minutes later as emergency response involving some 100 people was underway. Thus, it is a falsehood that I immolate people or killed my mother.

Libel per quod: statements are intended to falsely impute a crime to me and harm my profession (bar admission). moreover, this was done on account of prejudice against my autism,

Specific intent to cause irreparable harm: Targeting a doctor report about me together with acts in furtherance of the effort to confront me with graphic immolation images and killing of "Carrie's" mother were intended to incite/precipitate/induce a psychotic breakdown in me.

Bill Dyer -- it is my opinion this issue of the effectiveness of the judicial disciplinary process is far from over.

It is clear with the sexual harassment by Hon. Samuel B. Kent, together with the very recent Judicial Misconduct Complaint against Hon. District Court Judge Nottingham, that the inability of the Federal Judiciary to adequately discipline it own colleagues is out of control.

Nottingham, as it is alleged in the Complaint which can be viewed HERE, illegally parked in a handicapped parking space, threatened to run over a woman in a wheelchair (an attorney), flashed his Federal District Court Judge ID at her, and told her to 'get out of the way' or he would report her to the U.S. Marshals (threat).

On several occasions on this blog while being harassed, defamed, and attacked by the "whit" anonymous blog ID, I have requested disclosure of the poster's real true identity in accordance with 47 U.S.C. Sec. 223 prohibitions on Cyberstalking. I am now renewing this request, as well as the same request to the anonymous blog ID "c.gray."

In light of the Judge Nottingham complaint being of less severity than what has been done to me (and I have not posted all of it), I have the right to know who "whit" and "c.gray" are because if "whit" is a Federal Judge, I have this right to know to Complain; if "whit" is not a Federal judge but is masquerading (imposter) as one, both myself and the person being impersonated have the right to know the identity of the imposter.

In sum, these several threads by Ilya, as well as the additional handicapped parking complaint popping out of the woodwork, demonstrate discussion of and redress to the issue of Judicial discipline needs to continue. Bill Dyer is wrong.
10.24.2007 8:41pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
For some reason, the Nottingham link did not work, which is reposted HERE.
10.24.2007 8:48pm
neurodoc:
neurodoc, being "not simply stupid, but boldly, assertively, smugly, in-your-face stupid," I'm content with what I've previously written.
Admission against self-interest.
a name-calling crank
Isn't the adage something like, "never interrupt your opponent when he is busy making a fool of him/herself"? Please go on, you're doing great.
I may have bones to pick with Prof. Somin...
Ah, you came over here to mix it up with Prof. Somin. But you don't get it, do you, he disposed of you before you ever arrived, and you have said nothing that warrants a reconsideration.
Prof. Somin: I'm surprised at your delayed reaction...
Bill "BELDAR" Dwyer, you Conehead, you really don't get it, do you. More surprising than the "delayed" reaction 2(!) full weeks after you so boldly threw down the gauntlet, is that Prof. Somin bothered to respond at all.
...at least he doesn't urge people
And I don't either, I just advise that they are likely to find it a waste of their time
...author (lawyer claiming knowledge of law)
A "lawyer claiming knowledge of law"!? That wasn't me speaking, that was von, who tried to help you ("Although Beldar may overstate his case...") somehow, but found it hard to do ("Can do without Beldar's accusation of 'libel,' however."). You can't give your would-be defender anything much to work with, can you.
I'm sure you'll declare yourself the "winner"...
You keep doing it ("I knew beyond any doubt..."), saying your sure of things that you are wrong about. I won't declare myself the "winner."
"P)eople will make up their own minds. I'm content with that."
...this, good sir, shall mark the end of further discussion between you and me here.
OK, good sir, having said we are through with you, don't go and pull a Nixon on us.

As it happens, we are in a Circuit Court (not the Fifth) with a libel case now, waiting for their answer after the highest state appellate court tells them how they should handle the privilege issue according to the state law on libel. Rest assured, we won't be seeking your legal advice.
10.24.2007 10:06pm
neurodoc:
Mary KDP, I don't think you addressed my medically oriented questions about "autism-visual impairment-hearing impairment, other disabilities," at least not directly. Nonetheless, I think I have a better sense of those now, and the attendant legal issues. The legal issues may be quite different, but that doesn't mean that there are not other important things in common with Raich here. (If Professor Barnett is listening, I trust he will get my meaning.)
10.24.2007 10:12pm
neurodoc:
Mary KDP, I don't think you addressed my medically oriented questions about "autism-visual impairment-hearing impairment, other disabilities," at least not directly. Nonetheless, I think I have a better sense of those now, and the attendant legal issues. The legal issues may be quite different, but that doesn't mean that there are not other important things in common with Raich here. (If Professor Barnett is listening, I trust he will get my meaning.)
10.24.2007 10:12pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
neurodoc -- "Mary KDP, I don't think you addressed my medically oriented questions about "autism-visual impairment-hearing impairment, other disabilities," at least not directly."

Did you present me with your HIPPA authorization for disclosure and use of ALL my confidential PHI? Unless and until I receive such authorization, I don't consider I have any obligation to provide you the detailed response you seek -- and I also am researching whether you have committed any criminal HIPPA violations by seeking to obtain such information under an anonymous blog ID.

Furthermore, what statute provides you jurisdictional authority to conduct appellate review on collateral attack over final conclusive and preclusive determinations of other courts and agencies regarding my disabilities? I suggest you sign up for a retaking of 1L Civ Pro I &II -- Parklane Hosiery and Federated Dept. Stores v. Moitie; such might enlighten you that a party does not need to be subjected to 50 repetative relitigations by johnny-come-latelies over the same facts and issues just to forum shop for a result to suit their fancy.

The insult/annoyance, harassment, defamatory statement: neurodoc posted the same post twice to check for double vision, after which neurodoc stated, "Nonetheless, I think I have a better sense of those now, and the attendant legal issues. The legal issues may be quite different, but that doesn't mean that there are not other important things in common with Raich here," likening my autism, etc disabilities to Raich by innuendo and colloquim making the reckless defamatory statement I am a heavy marijuana user.

Actually, I am a therapuetic horseback rider.

neurodoc, please immediately comply with the identity disclosure requirements of 47 U.S.C. Sec. 223 so I can confirm whether or not you are a party to any of my litigation.
10.24.2007 10:43pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
An Update is in order for those who are following the Judicial Misconduct issues -- "The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has launched a second investigation of Judge Edward Nottingham, the Chief Judge of federal courts in Colorado." Article on the news story HERE (emphasis added).

According to the story at the above link: "The most recent investigation began less than a month after the first investigation," involving the disabled wheelchair user who "was offended about the U.S. Marshal threat. ... Here he is parking illegally. He's a federal judge who is held to a higher ethical standard and he's threatening me."

It is unfortunate some of the posters here can't stay on-topic to the core issue of substantial public importance -- the adequacy of the federal Judicial Misconduct process to address complaints of discrimination against protected classes of people, as well as why any Judge who is so prejudiced as to discriminate against a protected person should not be disqualified to hear and decide such discrimination cases.
10.24.2007 10:53pm
neurodoc:
revised diagnosis: paranoid schizophrenia

In 1926, Bleuler asserted that there were 4 cardinal features almost invariably present in schizophrenic patients. These have been termed the "four As": Blunted Affect; Loosening of Associations; Ambivalence; and Autism. Bleuler's "autism" is different from what is commonly understood by the term "autism" today, when using it more or less synonymously with "Pervasive Developmental Disorder."

I expect that federal courts have considerable experience of this through a subset of pro se litigants, though the courts, in particular their clerks who read all the filings, may not fully appreciated what they are dealing with.
10.25.2007 9:52am