DOCSLIB.ORG

SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES ALED OCTOBER TERM, 2018 DEC 12 2018 DEAN LOREN, Petitioner, OFFICE of the CLERK SUPREME COURT U C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES ALED OCTOBER TERM, 2018 DEC 12 2018 DEAN LOREN, Petitioner, OFFICE of the CLERK SUPREME COURT U C &Iflui-- No. 18-5925 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ALED OCTOBER TERM, 2018 DEC 12 2018 DEAN LOREN, Petitioner, OFFICE OF THE CLERK SUPREME COURT U C, V. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK, et al. ON PETITION OFR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT PETITION FOR REHEARING TO JOIN 18-5925 ARGUMENT WITH 17-1702: (1) JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR FAILURE TO RECUSE re: PRIOR RECUSAL BLAKELY V. WELL, 05-cv- 4846, RECORDED ON TAPE CALLING LOREN "A MISERABLE FAG" FROM 2 CIR BENCH; (2) JUSTICE BADER GINSBURG FAILURE TO RECUSE re: BLACKLISTING ATTORNEY DORIS SASSOWER AND DEAN LOREN FOR EXPOSING MADOFF; BOTH RECUSALS (1) & (2) SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED TO CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS' RECUSAL, WHO , RECUSED HIMSELF IN THIS PETITION FOR PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT IN LOREN V. LEVY, US SUPREME CT CASE 05-6091, 2ND CIR 05-cv- 4846, MADOFF RENTED COURTS AND JUDICIARY EMPLOYEE KYLE WOOD. DEAN LOREN, ESQ. Petitioner Pro Se, IFP 203 West 107th Street, Apt. 98A New York, New York 10025 dean!orengmai1.com C (718)277-1367 December 12, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..........................................................................................................ii PETITION FOR REHEARING ......................................................................................................1 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION.............................................................................1 1. Should Justice Sotomayor's Failure To Recuse re: Prior Recusal - September 11, 2006 taped bench remarks 2' Cir 05-cv-4846 calling Loren a "Miserable Fag"; Father O'Hare relationship; and failing to note Loren recusal on her US Supreme Court Application - constitute substantial prejudice to Loren's 18-5925 argument with 17-1702, that substantially involves Chief Justice Roberts and his recusal? .............................3 H. Should Justice Bader Ginsburg Failure To Recuse re: blacklisting New York Attorney Doris Sassower and Dean Loren as related to US Senator Moynihan's Judicial Nomination Committee with 2nd Cir Justices Katzmann, Straub and Richard K. Eaton in the matter of Bernard Madoff US Treasury Bonds before SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Bernstein and Magistrate Maas involving New York State Surrogate Judges Renee Roth and Albert J. Emanuelli; the 500 Pearl Street Secret Court; and Judiciary Council rented courts; and Chief Justice Roberts? .............................4 111. Should This Court Resolve Substantial and Important Factual Issues in 18-5925 With Full Briefing and Argument with Related October Term 2018 Granted Cert Case 17-1702 involving Manhattan Community Access Corp. Board Director -Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer as the state actor in the banning of Public Access Producers and Justice Robert's employee Kyle Wood? .................................................................9 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................9 CERTIFICATE OF PETITIONER..................................................................................................9 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Blakely v. Wells, 2nd Cir 05-cv-4846, argued 09-11-2006, prior bench recusal.........................1-3 In the matter of Doris Sassower, US Supreme Court Cert Petition October Term 1994, see A29-30 Three--Year Judge -Tradeing Deal re: Emanuelli 1989-90 Bench Trade ................4 In the Matter of Simon A. Goldberg, deceased 1st Dept App. Div P3169/85, 1996 Manhattan Surrogate Rita Mella Index No. 3169/85 A (current), Docket Rehabilitation as of December 2015 addition 190 additional evidentiary documents including the Original Petition, False Death Certificate, false Guardian ad Litems, and Madoff Memo....... 5-6 In re Tremont Securities Law, State law and Insurance Litigation, Order dated 02-02-2018, 08 cv 11117 (CM) p 2 - "I confess that everyone in my chambers is mystified as to how any signature stamp came to be placed on an order...." re: husband Franck Sica...............................8 Loren v. City of New York, et al., US Supreme Court 18-5925 .................................................1-9 Loren v. Committee on Character & Fitness, US Supreme Court Ct 07-6301 ...........................4-6 Loren v. Judith Kaye et a!, US Supreme Court 07-6302.............................................................4-6 Loren v. Levy, US Supreme Court 05-6091 .......... ......................................................................... 3 Loren v. New York State of New York et al, 2"' Cir 94-7890, 99 F3d 402 2' Cir 1995 Decision 12-27-1995, From SDNY Judge Deborah Batts dismissal on transcript........................4 Manhattan Access Corp v. Halleck et a!, US Sup Ct 17-1702 Cert Petition granted ........... 1-2,7-9 USA v. Jayson Burg, DNYJ 15 cr386 PGS...................................................................................8 USA v. Marcus Mumford, District Ct of Portland Oregon, 17-cr-0008 - JCCC.............................8 USA v. Lydia Radin, SDNY 16 Cr 528 (HBP)........................................................................... 7-8 STATUTES Due Process Clause, 14th Amendment, US Constitution ............. 1 FRAP 4(a)(1)(B)(iii-iv) 60 days to appeal federal employee...... 1,9 11 MISCELLANEOUS Justice Sonia Sotomayor S.H.RG 1111-503 Hearing and Confirmation, July 13-16, 2009 Questionnaire, Section 14 p 141, Failure to Cite 2 Cir 05-4846 09-11-2006 Recusal involving Chief Justice John Roberts' New Teacher Foundation, Father O'Hare N.B. Chief Justice John Roberts confirmation simultaneous September 13-22, 2006........... 2nd Cir Chief Justice Jacobs Complaint - Charges of Misconduct, filed August 28, 2007 Loren files Complaint dated May 29, 2007 07-9023-jm = Justice Sonia Sotomayor re: Miserable Fag Bench Slur 07-9024-jm = Justice Robert Katzmann re: Backroom Participation in Fag Bench Slur 07-9025-jm = Justice Richard Cardamone re: Father O'Hare and Fordham's John Feerick Family relationship, and participation in the Fag Bench Slur Oral Argument Recorded 09-11-2006, 2' Cir. 4846 Justice Sonia Sotomayor Clerk Danielle Tarantolo Correspondence re: Miserable Fag..............3 111 PETITION FOR REHEARING Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 44, Dean Loren petitions for rehearing of this Court's November 19, 2018, No. 18-5925 decision. Loren files within 25 days. Loren moves this Court to grant Loren's petition for rehearing and consider his case with merits, briefing and oral argument with a full record for joinder with cert granted 17-1702. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION First, Justice Sotomayor Failure To Recuse - Prior recusal, recorded calling Loren "A Miserable Fag", and substantial Father O'Hare relationship. Justices Sotomayor and Bader Ginsburg should have recused themselves from the 11-19-2018 decision as Fordham's Father O'Hare blacklisted Loren's law license, Chief Justice John Robert's New Teacher Foundation terminated Loren's employment after hiding a New York City 4:59 PM June 31, 2000 email that exonerated Loren, and Chief Justice Roberts' involvement with Madoff US Treasuries Money Laundering of Iran-Contra revealed by Madoff on April 26, 2017-involving Doris Sassower, Evelyn Goldberg and Dean Loren. Iran-Contra funds financed and built over 200 private properties secretly rented to Judiciary Council for courts. See Madoff rented courthouses: 500 Pearl Street, Newark, New Jersey, Portland OR and Las Vegas NV. The FBI Data Center on Custer Hollow Rd, Clarksburg, WV is a "Madoff' property leased to the FBI. Second, neither this Court nor any US Federal court has ever issued a decision or opinion for non-electronic filers without a FRAP Rule 4 - 60 day filing period with a three day US Postal delivery consideration that involves suit of a federal employee. But that is what precisely happened: without Due Process, the 2nd Circuit calculated under FRAP Rule 4 with a 30-day appeal period for non-electronic filer Loren, against a Chief Justice Robert's employee-SDNY federal law clerk Kyle Wood, represented by the General Solicitor, who refuses to take part in this time period calculation fraud. Third, Manhattan Community Access Corp's (known as MINN) fails to disclose Iv1NN Board Director - Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer was personally involved in banning Public Access Producers as a state actor - revealed by Paula Gloria 01-28-2016 email admitted in court by all parties. MNN's assertion that Loren sent the 01-28-2016 email, and did not appeal dismissal Chief Justice Robert's employee Clerk Wood is without basis of Fact and Record, and criminal perjury, as the 2"' Cir Clerk amended the erroneous docket, rubber stamped by Judge Engelmayer's clerk, (scanned by Loren), to include Chief Justice Robert's Fed Clerk Wood name in Loren's 2Id Cir. appeal. Iv11NN admits facts and legal issues of 18-5925 are substantially the same as 17-1702. This Court did not acknowledge why Chief Justice John Roberts did not take part in the decision. Chief Justice John Roberts was (i) the defacto employer of Fed Clerk Kyle Wood who attended the secret presentment of a Class A Misdemeanor in a Secret Court at 500 Pearl Street on January 28, 2016, (ii) responsible for renting and security of 200 private buildings rented for courthouses, (iii) personally oversaw New Teacher's Foundation contract to hire 10,000 teachers through an illegal CUNY Research Foundation 501(c)(3) that Loren exposed, and (iv) John Roberts' New Teacher Foundation failed to produce the July 31, 2000 4:59 PM email
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Articles Lightened Scrutiny
    VOLUME 124 MARCH 2011 NUMBER 5 © 2011 by The Harvard Law Review Association ARTICLES LIGHTENED SCRUTINY Bert I. Huang TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1111 I. DEFERENCE ADRIFT? ........................................................................................................... 1116 A. The Judges’ Hypothesis .................................................................................................... 1118 B. In Search of Evidence ...................................................................................................... 1119 II. A NATURAL EXPERIMENT: “THE SURGE” ..................................................................... 1121 A. The Unusual Origins of the Surge ................................................................................... 1122 B. Toward a Causal Story ..................................................................................................... 1123 C. A Second Experiment ....................................................................................................... 1126 III. FINDINGS: LIGHTENED SCRUTINY ............................................................................... 1127 A. The Data ............................................................................................................................. 1127 B. Revealed Deference ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • In Chambers: Effective Writing Tips for the Judicial Interns and Law Clerks
    IN CHAMBERS: EFFECTIVE WRITING TIPS FOR THE JUDICIAL INTERNS AND LAW CLERKS © 2017 The Writing Center at GULC. All Rights Reserved.1 Working for and with a judge can be an exciting but intimidating challenge. In many respects, law school is great preparation, and many of the skills you have learned will be invaluable. However, many challenges you will face in chambers can seem quite foreign at first, and there is surprisingly little guidance out there on how to address them. This handout is intended to fill some of those gaps. A lot of the guidance contained in this handout will, like so many things in law, vary depending on facts and circumstances. For example, this handout is intended to be useful both for full-time clerks as well as summer interns and school-term externs. Of course, the roles of each of these positions differs in some respect, so keep that in mind as you read. In addition, as is elaborated further later on, every judge is different. No matter what, respect his or her wishes at all times and never take anything contained herein or elsewhere as advice to the contrary. This handout assumes you have received an assignment from your supervisor in chambers and that you are having a hard time with next steps. The goal is not so much to tell you how to write it (there is simply too much variation out there for that), but, instead, to provide some guidance as to what types of questions you can ask and what next steps might look like.
    [Show full text]
  • Clerk and Justice: the Ties That Bind John Paul Stevens and Wiley B
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by OpenCommons at University of Connecticut University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Connecticut Law Review School of Law 2008 Clerk and Justice: The Ties That Bind John Paul Stevens and Wiley B. Rutledge Laura Krugman Ray Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review Recommended Citation Ray, Laura Krugman, "Clerk and Justice: The Ties That Bind John Paul Stevens and Wiley B. Rutledge" (2008). Connecticut Law Review. 5. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review/5 CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 41 NOVEMBER 2008 NUMBER 1 Article Clerk and Justice: The Ties That Bind John Paul Stevens and Wiley B. Rutledge LAURA KRUGMAN RAY Justice John Paul Stevens, now starting his thirty-third full term on the Supreme Court, served as law clerk to Justice Wiley B. Rutledge during the Court’s 1947 Term. That experience has informed both elements of Stevens’s jurisprudence and aspects of his approach to his institutional role. Like Rutledge, Stevens has written powerful opinions on issues of individual rights, the Establishment Clause, and the reach of executive power in wartime. Stevens has also, like Rutledge, been a frequent author of dissents and concurrences, choosing to express his divergences from the majority rather than to vote in silence. Within his chambers, Stevens has in many ways adopted his own clerkship experience in preference to current models. Unlike the practices of most of his colleagues, Stevens hires fewer clerks, writes his own first drafts, and shares certiorari decisionmaking with his clerks.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons Learned from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
    LESSONS LEARNED FROM JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG Amanda L. Tyler* INTRODUCTION Serving as a law clerk for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the Supreme Court’s October Term 1999 was one of the single greatest privileges and honors of my life. As a trailblazer who opened up opportunities for women, she was a personal hero. How many people get to say that they worked for their hero? Justice Ginsburg was defined by her brilliance, her dedication to public service, her resilience, and her unwavering devotion to taking up the Founders’ calling, set out in the Preamble to our Constitution, to make ours a “more perfect Union.”1 She was a profoundly dedicated public servant in no small measure because she appreciated just how important her role was in ensuring that our Constitution belongs to everyone. Whether as an advocate or a Justice, she tirelessly fought to dismantle discrimination and more generally to open opportunities for every person to live up to their full human potential. Without question, she left this world a better place than she found it, and we are all the beneficiaries. As an advocate, Ruth Bader Ginsburg challenged our society to liber- ate all persons from the gender-based stereotypes that held them back. As a federal judge for forty years—twenty-seven of them on the Supreme Court—she continued and expanded upon that work, even when it meant in dissent calling out her colleagues for improperly walking back earlier gains or halting future progress.2 In total, she wrote over 700 opinions on the D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapman Law Review
    Chapman Law Review Volume 21 Board of Editors 2017–2018 Executive Board Editor-in-Chief LAUREN K. FITZPATRICK Managing Editor RYAN W. COOPER Senior Articles Editors Production Editor SUNEETA H. ISRANI MARISSA N. HAMILTON TAYLOR A. KENDZIERSKI CLARE M. WERNET Senior Notes & Comments Editor TAYLOR B. BROWN Senior Symposium Editor CINDY PARK Senior Submissions & Online Editor ALBERTO WILCHES –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Articles Editors ASHLEY C. ANDERSON KRISTEN N. KOVACICH ARLENE GALARZA STEVEN L. RIMMER NATALIE M. GAONA AMANDA M. SHAUGHNESSY-FORD ANAM A. JAVED DAMION M. YOUNG __________________________________________________________________ Staff Editors RAYMOND AUBELE AMY N. HUDACK JAMIE L. RICE CARLOS BACIO MEGAN A. LEE JAMIE L. TRAXLER HOPE C. BLAIN DANTE P. LOGIE BRANDON R. SALVATIERRA GEORGE E. BRIETIGAM DRAKE A. MIRSCH HANNAH B. STETSON KATHERINE A. BURGESS MARLENA MLYNARSKA SYDNEY L. WEST KYLEY S. CHELWICK NICHOLE N. MOVASSAGHI Faculty Advisor CELESTINE MCCONVILLE, Professor of Law CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY HAZEM H. CHEHABI ADMINISTRATION JEROME W. CWIERTNIA DALE E. FOWLER ’58 DANIELE C. STRUPPA BARRY GOLDFARB President STAN HARRELSON GAVIN S. HERBERT,JR. GLENN M. PFEIFFER WILLIAM K. HOOD Provost and Executive Vice ANDY HOROWITZ President for Academic Affairs MARK CHAPIN JOHNSON ’05 JENNIFER L. KELLER HAROLD W. HEWITT,JR. THOMAS E. MALLOY Executive Vice President and Chief SEBASTIAN PAUL MUSCO Operating Officer RICHARD MUTH (MBA ’05) JAMES J. PETERSON SHERYL A. BOURGEOIS HARRY S. RINKER Executive Vice President for JAMES B. ROSZAK University Advancement THE HONORABLE LORETTA SANCHEZ ’82 HELEN NORRIS MOHINDAR S. SANDHU Vice President and Chief RONALD M. SIMON Information Officer RONALD E. SODERLING KAREN R. WILKINSON ’69 THOMAS C. PIECHOTA DAVID W.
    [Show full text]
  • Nysba Spring 2017 | Vol
    NYSBA SPRING 2017 | VOL. 23 | No. 1 Commercial and Federal Litigation Section Newsletter A publication of the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section of the New York State Bar Association www.nysba.org/ComFed Upcoming Commercial and Federal Litigation Section Events and Co-Sponsored Events Thursday, March 30, 2017 Legal Ethics in the Digital Age: Practical Strategies for Using Technology Ethically in Your Practice Live CLE Program and Webcast | 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. | Executive Conference Center | NYC Renowned speakers on ethics, social media and electronic discovery. Learn the ins and outs of protecting privilege in elec- tronic communications. Speakers will also cover managing records in the cloud and organizing client fi les. A panel discus- sion on the do’s and don’ts of attorney social media use and advice to clients. 4.0 MCLE Credits in Ethics. Co-Sponsored by the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section, the Committee on CLE and the Law Practice Management Committee. Basic Lessons on Ethics and Civility 2017 (held in 5 locations) Live CLE Program and Webcast | 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Wednesday, April 5, 2017 in NYC | Friday, April 7, 2017 in Albany | Friday, April 7, 2017 in Rochester Friday, April 28, 2017 | in Amherst | Friday, April 28, 2017 in Melville A sound ethical compass and a civil and professional demeanor are the hallmarks of successful and respected attorneys in all areas of practice. This four hour program will provide attendees with an update on developments in the area of attorney eth- ics, including the most recent case law.
    [Show full text]
  • Code of Conduct for Staff Attorneys and Law Clerks Canon 1
    NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS CODE OF CONDUCT FOR STAFF ATTORNEYS AND LAW CLERKS CANON 1 A STAFF ATTORNEY OR LAW CLERK SHOULD CONDUCT HIMSELF OR HERSELF IN A MANNER AS TO UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A staff attorney or law clerk should observe, and should impart to anyone under his or her supervision, high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved and his or her office may reflect a devotion to serving the public. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further those objectives. CANON 2 A STAFF ATTORNEY OR LAW CLERK SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL HIS OR HER ACTIVITIES A staff attorney or law clerk should not engage in any activities that would put into question the propriety of his or her conduct in carrying out the duties of his or her employment. He or she should not allow his or her family, social, or other relationships to influence his or her judgment or the performance of the duties of his or her employment. He or she should not lend the prestige of his or her position to advance the private interests of others; he or she should not convey the impression that he or she is in the position to influence the Court or any judge, nor permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence him or her.
    [Show full text]
  • Elena Kagan Can't Say That: the Sorry State of Public Discourse Regarding Constitutional Interpretation
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Law Review Volume 88 Issue 2 2010 Elena Kagan Can't Say That: The Sorry State of Public Discourse Regarding Constitutional Interpretation Neil J. Kinkopf Georgia State University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Judges Commons Recommended Citation Neil J. Kinkopf, Elena Kagan Can't Say That: The Sorry State of Public Discourse Regarding Constitutional Interpretation, 88 WASH. U. L. REV. 543 (2010). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol88/iss2/7 This Commentary is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ELENA KAGAN CAN’T SAY THAT: THE SORRY STATE OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE REGARDING CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION NEIL J. KINKOPF MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES From: Ray L. Politik, Counsel to the President Re: Proposed Statement of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, on her nomination to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Date: June 2010 _______________________________________________________ I have reviewed the draft statement that Elena Kagan has proposed submitting to the Senate Judiciary Committee.1 In this statement, Dean Kagan seeks to educate the Judiciary Committee and the American people to think differently about the enterprise of constitutional interpretation.
    [Show full text]
  • ACTL Mourns Loss of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
    ACTL MOURNS THE LOSS OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. (September 19, 2020) - The American College of Trial Lawyers (ACTL) mourns the loss of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a trailblazing advocate, a meticulous jurist, a true patriot, and an Honorary Fellow of the College. Chief Justice of the U.S. John Roberts said, “She was a justice of historic stature and a tireless and resolute champion of justice.” Recently Justice Ginsburg joined Justices Alito and Breyer, and jurists from the United Kingdom, in a U.K.–U.S. legal exchange sponsored by the ACTL to discuss common issues in support of the rule of law and access to justice, even across international boundaries. “Her commentary during those days together was both insightful and inspiring. In an era when uncertainty is so much a part of our national narrative, hers was a call to our ‘better angels’ and a meaningful challenge at a time that calls for equal protection to all persons and causes,” said ACTL President Douglas R. Young. The College commends Justice Ginsburg’s career as an accomplished and courageous trial and appellate lawyer while in private practice and a person of deep faith committed to the best our countries have to offer. The world is enriched by her example. We are humbled and inspired by her spirit. # # # About the American College of Trial Lawyers The American College of Trial Lawyers is composed of preeminent members of the trial bar from the United States and Canada and is recognized as the leading trial lawyer’s organization in both countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Kagan-Issues Privilege-June-301.Pdf
    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BLOG SCOTUSBLOG SCOTUSblog Briefing Paper Elena Kagan – Privilege and Release of Kagan Documents June 30, 2010 I. Summary and Our Take Shortly after Elena Kagan was nominated on May 10, 2010, the Senate Judiciary Committee set June 28, 2010 as the first day of an estimated four days of confirmation hearings. This meant that there were forty-nine days between the nomination and start of the hearings (as compared to forty-eight for Sonia Sotomayor last summer). The Committee almost immediately began the process of requesting documents related to Kagan’s service in both the Clinton and Obama Administrations. Senators, the Republicans in particular, hoped that these documents might shed new light on her judicial philosophy in a way that her relatively sparse written record had not. Under the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and Executive Order 13489b, all documents requested by the Judiciary Committee must be searched for, pulled, and read by archivists, who vet each page for possible legal restrictions. Then, representatives for both Presidents Clinton and Obama have the right to read and review documents related to their respective administrations and get the final say on which documents (or pages of documents) are released or withheld. Additionally, as the incumbent administration, Obama’s representatives have the right to review the documents of its own administration as well as those from the Clinton administration (Clinton representatives are not permitted to review documents from the Obama administration). When Kagan was nominated, it was unclear what documents, if any, the Obama or Clinton Administrations might choose to withhold, or whether there was a potential bombshell within these documents that might put the nomination in jeopardy.
    [Show full text]
  • Considering Lead Poisoning As a Criminal Defense Deborah W
    Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 20 | Number 3 Article 1 1993 Considering Lead Poisoning as a Criminal Defense Deborah W. Denno Fordham University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Deborah W. Denno, Considering Lead Poisoning as a Criminal Defense, 20 Fordham Urb. L.J. 377 (1993). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol20/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONSIDERING LEAD POISONING AS A CRIMINAL DEFENSE Deborah W. Denno* I. Introduction No doubt, Frank XI stood apart from his peers. At age twenty- three, he already had an extensive criminal record: twenty-seven offi- cially recorded offenses asa juvenile and ten offenses as an adult. His first recorded offense was for truancy at age ten. From ages twelve to twenty-two, he had at least two and as many as six recorded offenses every year. These offenses included robbery, assault, theft, and re- peated disorderly conduct. Frank was a subject in the "Biosocial Study," one of this country's largest "longitudinal" studies of biological, sociological, and environ- mental predictors of crime.2 A longitudinal study analyzes the same group of individuals over a period of time.' The Biosocial Study is unique because it analyzed numerous variables relating to a group of nearly one thousand males and females during the first twenty-four years of their lives: from the time the subjects' mothers were admitted into the same Philadelphia hospital to give birth until the subjects' twenty-fourth birthday.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT of INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ALLENN PETERSON, Plaintiff, V. JENNIFER FRENCH
    Case 1:16-cv-01280-TWP-MJD Document 38 Filed 03/19/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ALLENN PETERSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:16-cv-01280-TWP-MJD ) ) JENNIFER FRENCH, ) MICHAEL THOMBLESON, ) ) Defendants. ) Entry Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment And Directing Entry of Final Judgment For the reasons set forth below, defendants Jennifer French and Michael Thombleson’s motion for summary judgment, dkt. [29], is granted. I. Introduction Plaintiff Allenn Peterson is an inmate in the New Castle Correctional Facility (“New Castle”) in Indiana. In 2015, he had been employed as an offender law clerk in the facility’s law library when he and all of the other offender law clerks lost their jobs following a prison administration inquiry into a perceived security threat. A law library computer server had been reconfigured to allow internet access, something prohibited by prison policy. Authorities conducted an investigation to identify who had reconfigured the server, but they were unable to determine which of the offender law clerks might have done so. Unable to identify the culprit, all fifteen to twenty-five offender law clerks lost their jobs. None were disciplined or otherwise sanctioned. Mr. Peterson believes that his job dismissal was actually a retaliatory move to punish him for bringing previous lawsuits against defendants. He filed this action asserting a violation of his First Amendment free speech rights. Case 1:16-cv-01280-TWP-MJD Document 38 Filed 03/19/18 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: <pageID> II. Summary Judgment Standard Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.
    [Show full text]