Professional Documents
Culture Documents
15-1519
_____________________________________________
In the
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
In light of this Courts intervening decision in McDonnell v
United States, No. 15-474 (June 26, 2016), did respondent
district court commit an egregious abuse of discretion by
repeatedly suppressing petitioners challenges to a vague
and overbroad rule and prohibition against the rendering of
expert legal opinions in non-lawyer employment, speaking
engagements and court reform activity nationwide?
In light of escalating retributions by New Yorks judicial
branch of government since the filing of this petition on
June 14, 2016, can Younger Abstention and other obstacles
to Supreme Court jurisdiction continue to be exploited by
respondent federal district court to facilitate and ratify
protracted, invidious and bad faith processes over a ten
year period to oppress a judicial whistleblower?
Taken as a whole, does the relentless judicial persecution of
a model father and accomplished attorney for purposes of
punishing accurate criticisms and misconduct complaints in
the Northern District of New York qualify the victim for
extraordinary relief in this Court or, alternatively, asylum
status against the United States in a free world nation
under the United Nations Convention of 1951?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Authorities....................................................,......
Opinions Below...................................................................
Jurisdiction.........................................................................
17
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Bast v Rossoff, 91 NY2d 723
(1998)... 17
Blackoff v Blackoff,
392 NYS2d 26 (1st Dept 1977).. 5
Brown v Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954)... 19
Currie v Kowalewski, 842 F. Supp. 57 (1994) 22
Dept of Family v DHHS of U.S.,
588 F.3d 740 (1st Cir. 2009).. 17
Finlay v Finlay, 240 NY 429 (1925) 19
In re Bryan Hedges, 20 NY3d 677 (2013)
18
22
15
17
16
OPINIONS BELOW
The final order of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit was issued on March 17, 2016 and is
reprinted in the Appendix at page 1a. It was not issued as a
published opinion or summary order. Dispositions of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
New York upon which it was directed were issued on
October 9, 2015 (anti-filing order); August 10, 2015 (order
denying extension of appeal) and May 22, 2015 (order
dismissing civil rights complaint). They are also reprinted
in the Appendix at pages 51, 64 and 71, respectively.
JURISDICTION
The final order of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit was entered on March 17, 2016.
Jurisdiction is invoked here pursuant to 28 USC section
1651 (All Writs Act) and 28 USC 1254(1)
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS/ STATUTES
The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.
The Fourteenth Amendment provides in relevant part that
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny
to any person the equal protection of the laws.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Once again familiarity with the petition is presumed. The
fact background of the earlier Statement of the Case
focused on state proceedings which formed the basis for a
complaint dismissed by Judge Sharpe on May 22, 2015.
Since the time of petition filing here, the New York Judicial
Conduct Commission issued yet another letter cleansing
respondent Daniel King of all judge misconduct itemized
under Point Two of the petition, pp 22 to 26.
That determination was received on September 17, 2016
and based on insufficient evidence, thereby shifting the
burden to citizen complainants to perform the investigatory
functions of a government accountability agency. Coupled
with the respondent district courts refusal to accord
petitioner any discovery rights pursuant the complaints
filed since 2009, there is currently no real accountability for
judicial misconduct in the Northern District of New York.
Petitioner is especially impaired insofar as he
recommended dissolution of that commission due to its
political window dressing nature in testimony before the
state Moreland Commission on Public Corruption. Such
testimony was cited and reproduced from public sites by
disciplinary respondents in opposition to petitioners third
application for reinstatement. Such activity was also cited
for imposing defamatory forensic orders exclusively against
petitioner by respondent Judge King as conditions for
accessing petitioners children, A-II at par. 129, 148-151.
Judge Sharpes anti-filing action began on August 25, 2015,
A-I at 51. Syracuse media was put on notice prior to
petitioners knowledge of it to yield a calculated publication
that further damaged petitioners reputation, credible
reform message and employability. It was also caused by a
fundamental lack of reporter investigation and knowledge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
CONCLUSION
By reason of the foregoing, petitioner respectfully asks this
court to grant his petition for writ of certiorari and such
other relief as is necessary under the circumstances.
September 17, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
23