Democracy cannot survive without an independent justice system with integrity.
If you think judicial misconduct does not affect you, think again.
When I was litigating against five U.S. law firms in multiple jurisdictions (2015-2020), as a defamation pro se (self represented) plaintiff, there was little reporting about the serious problem about judicial misconduct. With judges judging judges, rogue judges on the bench had little to fear.
That started to change in June of 2020 with Reuters‘ groundbreaking investigation, “The Teflon Robe: Holding judges accountable.”
Reuters‘ Michael Berens and John Shiffman found that “Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws or oaths remained on the bench.”
Then on September 28, 2021, The Wall Street Journal’s James V. Grimaldi, Coulter Jones, and Joe Palazzolo, with the Free Law Project’s investigation into judicial misconduct made history when they found “131 Federal Judges broke the law by hearing cases where they had a financial interest.”
The fallout continues. It has spread to the appeals courts.
In response, lawmakers came together, and President Joe Biden signed judicial reform ethics legislation.
I know how serious and dangerous judicial misconduct can be. I lived it, and continue to live it, and tragically more people, including judges, are experiencing the fallout too.
I sued some Sandy Hook hoax, Pizzagate people, and Does for defamation (with additional counts) before Pizzagate and QAnon were a thing.
Say Whaaat?! What happened?
It’s a long story.
Table of Contents
My judge, Judge Susan Baxter Paradise, with 20 years of experience on the bench, violated Canon 3A(5)
In brief, and in part, as threats against U.S. judges increased by over 400%, and fake news and conspiracies were causing real-world consequences, I had to repeatedly seek relief and redress, in violation of Canon 3A(5), in a court with an oath-breaker judge, Judge Susan Paradise Baxter, at the Western District of Pennsylvania.
As the docket verifies, then Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter would not rule (file a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”)), recuse herself, or follow her own rules or orders (including summary judgement) when my case was referred to her in October 2017.
Step 1: Click to read the Docket to confirm when Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter was assigned this case to rule on the merits.
Step 2: Then scroll down to verify she never filed a Report and Recommendation and did not recuse herself. She’s an oath-breaker judge.
My judge, Judge Susan Paradise Baxter ran up unnecessary legal fees & dragged out my case
This is why you see duplicative and repetitious filings on my docket including these:
- My First Opposition to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“MoD”) (December 30, 2016) | Assigned to Federal District Judge Paul G. Gardephe & Magistrate Judge James C. Francis (Southern District of New York “SDNY”) | Transferred to the (WDPA) & reassigned (October 2017) to Federal District Judge Cathy Bissoon & Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter to rule on the merits | See Magistrate Judge Baxter when she refused to rule the first time on my First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).
2. My Second Opposition to the Defendants’ MoD (February 5, 2018) | Assigned to Federal District Judge Cathy Bissoon & Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter to rule on the merits | (FAC) | See Magistrate Judge Baxter break her own rules (and order) again when she did not rule on FAC again, recuse or hold lawyers to any account for repeatedly filing altered, virtually illegible exhibits against a woman and a pro se.
Defendant(s) Super Lawyer exhibit versus my pro se exhibit – Second Motion to Dismiss
Screenshot (above) from Defendant(s) Super Lawyer exhibit Dkt. No. 82-4 (left) versus my pro se exhibit Dkt. 90-2 (right). If you don’t have Pacer, the court filings are at Courtlistener. There are pages and pages of altered exhibits in all three of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss against me. Imagine being in a court with oath/rule breaking lawyers like Bruce S Rosen (formerly of McCusker, Anselmi, Rosen & Carvelli) who can alter exhibits to obstruct justice and abuse a woman.
3. My Third Opposition to the Defendants’ MoD (December 31, 2018) | Reassigned again to Federal District Judge Susan Paradise Baxter & Magistrate Judge Richard A Lanzillo | (See my Second Amended Complaint I did not seek to amend) … more altered exhibits, the spoilation of evidence (scroll to page 59-77) and zero accountability.
PSA: Federal District Judge Susan Paradise Baxter lied to Congress during her nomination
Source: Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter, Senator Grassley, Questions for the Record, Nominee, United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Oath-breaker judges & lawyers in my case enabled the spread of Pizzagate and QAnon
This, even though Judge Susan Paradise Baxter, and the defendants’ attorneys, had knowledge, and evidence, that my defendants and Doe-defendants’ “news” was fueling domestic extremism (Pizzagate that morphed into QAnon during these proceedings), and their tortious conduct against me, a pro se plaintiff, and a woman, had not stopped.
As you can verify my defendants, purported “Christian” truth-tellers, were Alex Jones’ “experts.”
*Scroll to p. 25, 26 of 107 to see one of my Defendant’s altered “evidence” that he aired on Infowars with Alex Jones that set off Pizzagate. In reality my Defendant [H] lifted a page from a harmless parenting tips website, and turned into something it was not. Fake evidence that was not from Anthony Weiner's laptop.
Judge Susan Paradise Baxter’s refusal to rule or recuse was cruel, burdensome, abusive, shocking, dangerous, and a Canon violation, according to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. #CleanHands
See: Canon 3A(5)
In disposing of matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of the parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without unnecessary cost or delay. A judge should monitor and supervise cases to reduce or eliminate dilatory practices, avoidable delays, and unnecessary costs.
Prompt disposition of the court’s business requires a judge to devote adequate time to judicial duties, to be punctual in attending court and expeditious in determining matters under submission, and to take reasonable measures to ensure that court personnel, litigants, and their lawyers cooperate with the judge to that end.
Oath-breaker Court v Oath-follower Court
In an oath-follower court, the judge does not refuse to rule, give lawyers a free pass to alter exhibits, run up legal fees for fellow lawyers, or abuse an injured party seeking relief and redress, by repeatedly insisting on burdensome repetitious and duplicative filings (see 28 U.S. Code § 453), and never faithfully apply the laws.
28 U.S. Code § 453 – Oaths of justices and judges
Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office:
“I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute
Oath-follower judges rule after the parties have filed their legal briefs the first time. They recuse themselves if they can’t rule. Thus, Judge Susan Paradise Baxter is also a serial violator of American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct: Canon 2. Rule 2.7: Responsibility to Decide.
Judge Susan Paradise Baxter dragged my case into #AlexJonesTexts and the #Jan6Hearings
As a result, since Judge Susan Paradise Baxter did not recuse herself or file a R&R in 2017-2018 (i.e., she dragged out the case), she ended up dragging my case into Alex Jones Texts (2019–mid-2020), and the January 6th hearings. Thus, my case may be impacted by Alex Jones’ texts (2019–mid-2020).
Alex Jones of Infowars became, at minimum, a witness, and one of the possible Doe defendants, when he injected himself into the case in 2018.
He did it to raise money for one of the Defendants (and himself) by making false statements (capable of defamatory meaning) about my case.
See: My Second Amended Complaint (filed October 1, 2018) I did not seek to amend when Alex Jones jumped in, p. 77-81.
MORE PHONY BONA FIDES. PLAINTIFF’S DEFENDANT'S [redacted] “NEWS” WITH ALEX JONES OF INFOWARS.COM AFFECTS THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
265. Prior to the 2016 Presidential Election, beginning in or around early 2016 until in or around the end of 2016, both dates being approximate and inclusive, Alex Jones’ (“Jones”)Infowars.com, in concert with [Defendant], started claiming that Plaintiff’s Defendant [H] was a “former federal prosecutor,” in at minimum, written published form attached hereto as...
-- My Second Amended Complaint p. 76 of 141
Alex Jones makes similar false, defamatory statements against me and my case, and the Sandy Hook cases
279. A reasonable member of the public, and specifically Defendants intended audience would be justified in inferring that these statements implicated and concerned the Plaintiff and this Action, despite the Plaintiff being pro se, and not being connected to any Clinton lawyers, law firms or Clinton Foundation connected folks.
280. In the same broadcast, [Alex] Jones went in for the hard sell, sought donations and said the following below...
--My Second Amended Complaint, filed on October 1, 2018, p. 80 of 141.
Did you see it? Alex Jones made the same/similar false statements about my case he would later make against the Sandy Hook cases about Hillary Clinton.
Unjustly enriching oneself based on defamation, lies, and BS, deceptive trade practices and phony bonafides are totally fine in Judge Susan Paradise Baxter’s oath-breaker court. She will help by insisting on duplicative filings instead of ruling or recusing to unjustly line the pockets of fellow lawyers, paid for in part by Defendants loyal, trusting Christian Conservative audiences.
“The polestar of the unjust enrichment inquiry is whether the defendant has been unjustly enriched; the intent of the parties is irrelevant.” Limbach v. City of Philadelphia, 905 A.2d 567, 577 (Pa. Commw. 2006).
My Second Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss p. 23-24; and my Third Opposition p 23-24.
Please pause for a moment. Imagine if a United States Judge, who took an oath to "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon them under the Constitution and laws of the United States," and had life-changing power over you did that to you.
Oath-breaker judges and lawyers in my case enabled Wayne Willott aka QAnon’s Juan O Savin
The same applies to Wayne Willott, aka “W” the “Intelligence Insider,” aka “Juan O’Savin” of QAnon fame, a pretend cowboy, who is not JFK, Jr either.
Willott, also was a likely Doe-Defendant in both of my related defamation cases (civil conspiracy, anyone?). The first case was originally filed on November 9, 2015 — almost two years before QAnon existed and Willott was making the alternative media rounds a “W” the “Intelligence Insider.” It is my understanding that Willott changed his name to Juan O Savin (get it? 007) sometime after my case was transferred to the WDPA.
59. The Plaintiff was mortified and stunned as Willott became an often daily presence on H&H Report, as “W,” their “Intelligence Insider,” and started citing scripture as a purported Christian watchman, for several reasons, including, but not limited to the fact that Willott’s full name was already public, and in other media venues, including The American Spectator as a “freelance researcher” in Arkansas during the Clinton era, who frequently appeared on his friend’s radio show, former President Ronald Reagan’s son, Michael Reagan’s show, and in the Post Herald [7]. The Post Herald story has since been scrubbed.
60. [Defendant] went on to make several outrageous and or false statements about Willott, with and without Willott appearing with him, on BTR’s H&H Report as “W,” the Intelligence Insider,” including, but not limited to that Willott was like or is the “real American James Bond,” is like his “brother,” a man of integrity ...
— My First Amended Complaint, p. 14-15 court doc, filed January 15, 2016.
See: My First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (filed January 15, 2016) Judge Susan Paradise Baxter refused to file a R&R on FAC twice. This despite the fact I had substantiated my pleadings, included declarations (pursuant to her summary judgement order) and defendants attorneys filed altered exhibits in a high damage defamation case. She did not recuse.
Heads up! For sure, any typos in FAC are mine, but crooked pages are not. That’s a scanning issue at the Southern District of New York (SDNY). When I was at SDNY pro se parties couldn’t e-file.
See Wayne Willott as “W,” the Intelligence Insider, a fake spook
Below are exhibits of Wayne Willott as the fake spook, “W,” I filed on February 5, 2018 in my Second Opposition to Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss following Judge Susan Baxter’s January 4, 2018 summary judgement order she ended up violating when she refused to rule or recuse again (see below). There are scores more. Case 1:17-cv-00259-CB-SPB Document 90-1 Filed 02/05/18 Page 62 of 107
Wayne Willott aka “W” the “Intelligence Insider” (fake spook) aka Juan OSavin (QAnon pretend cowboy) during a 2017 broadcast.
See also: Will Sommer, “Jim Caviezel’s QAnon Guru Wants to Control Elections, MESSIAH COMPLEX: QAnon booster Juan O. Savin has relationships with Roseanne Barr and Jim Caviezel. His fans think he’s JFK Jr. Now he’s recruiting candidates to take control of elections.” The Daily Beast, October 27, 2021.
Clarifying Note: The Daily Beast made an error. I originally filed my lawsuit in 2015, it was referred to serial oathbreaker Judge Susan Paradise Baxter in 2017. As aforestated she repeatedly refused to rule or recuse.
Therefore, some of the evidence in my case may assist the January 6th Committee and other cases and investigations. See: Jim Vertuno, “Sandy Hook Lawyer: Jan. 6 panel asks for Alex Jones’ texts.” Associated Press, August 4, 2022.
As such, it’s reasonable to ask if QAnon, at minimum, could have been deterred, if not prevented, had Judge Susan Paradise Baxter been an ethical oath-follower judge.
Judge Susan P. Baxter never faithfully applies laws
I don’t want to be complicit with abusive oath-breaker officers of the court, judges, and lawyers, who did not promote justice and uphold the law.
In addition, I should not be expected to be complicit in a court of law, right?
Federal District Court Judge Susan Paradise Baxter, with over twenty-years experience on the bench, ultimately never faithfully applied the laws either (see the alternative in the legal brief, p.2), as her order confirms.
For example, she never identified all the defamatory statements, in a high damage defamation case, with defendants — then Alex Jones “experts,” who were among the Pizzagate and Sandy Hook Hoax peddlers, despite having violated her oath, and given herself multiple opportunities to do so.
In Judge Susan Paradise Baxter’s court a jury is supposed to … guess?
This, along with other oath-breaking behavior occurred during these proceedings.
Officer Of The Court: Any person who has an obligation to promote justice and uphold the law, including judges, clerks, court personnel, police officers, and attorneys (who must be truthful in court and obey court rules). — Nolo
I repeatedly filed scores of exhibits and declarations to substantiate my claims. Hello — I was in an oath-breaker judge court with Judge Susan Paradise Baxter, of the Western District of Pennsylvania, Erie division, who did not follow her own orders — summary judgment, anyone?
Judge Baxter violates orders and District Court Judge Rule
From Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter’s January 4, 2018 Order:
The parties are hereby notified that this pending motion may be treated, either in whole or in part, as a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. See Renchenski v. Williams, 622 F.3d 315 (3d Cir. 2010).…
The nonmovant’s response to the motion for summary judgment may include opposing or counter-affidavits (executed by Plaintiff or other persons) which have either been sworn to under oath (notarized) or which include immediately before the signature of the individual making the affidavit or declaration the following statement, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 …
Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter’s January 4, 2018 Order she violated. Case 1:17-cv-00259-CB-SPB Document 86 Filed 01/04/18 Page 1 -2.
As everyone can confirm on the docket, there is no summary judgment ruling (in part or in whole), despite the fact I had substantiated my pleadings, included declarations, and defendants’ attorneys filed altered exhibits. Judge Susan Paradise Baxter also violated Judge Cathy Bissoon’s rules when she refused to move my case, a plaintiff pro se case, forward again.
I also tried to prevent others from being harmed by defamation and fake news (i.e., punitive damages as a deterrent). Tragically, this was not possible in an oath-breaker judge court with a judge who would not rule, recuse, follow her own rules, and/or refer potential funny biz to the appropriate authorities.
Judge Baxter dismisses likely doe-defendants before discovery
In addition, Judge Susan Paradise Baxter dismissed my likely doe-defendants, including but not limited to Alex Jones, and Wayne Willott before I was able to get into discovery. (See her September 30, 2019 Order)
She had the gall to blame me, a pro se plaintiff, for my case being four years old, and my SAC being lengthly, when it was four years old, and SAC was longer because she’s an oath-breaker judge who would not rule or recuse when the case was ripe for review when it was referred to her in 2017–and my FAC was shorter. Thanks to Judge Susan Paradise Baxter’s cruel judicial misconduct, I had been living with a weaponized Internet for years seeking relief and redress in a court with an oathbreaker judge.
See January 4, 2018 Order … a judge who does not rule or recuse or faithfully apply the laws is the “procedural defect,” not the pro se plaintiff whose case was ripe for review when it was referred to her in 2017 and again after the first time she insisted on duplicative and repetitious filings in 2018. Can you imagine? She knew the entire time she had zero intention of following her oath and thwarting due justice.
11. Should Defendants who already know the real identities of Does 1-20 who share in the liability against the Plaintiff fail to enjoin them as co-defendants, as she is presently unable to confirm all the identities of the Does 1-20, discovery will allow Plaintiff to proceed with naming additional Defendants in Defendants self admitted conspiracy in the alternative media they call their “Circle of Trust,” whose identities are suspected, but otherwise unknown to her. 2 | To avoid repetition, references herein to Defendants’ self admitted conspiracy (“Circle of Trust”), also known as “inner circle” or “remnant,” includes individuals who are presently in it, and/or were previously a part of it.
12. Plaintiff will seek leave of the Court to amend this SAC to name such other Defendants when they and the applicable counts are all clearly identified through discovery or otherwise; who share in the liability against her...
--My Second Amended Complaint p. 7 of 141.
How was I supposed to know that Judge Susan Paradise Baxter never intended to follow her oath, faithfully apply laws, ignore evidence, thwart due justice, and give Defendants and Doe-Defendants a free pass to keep doing what they were doing?
Here in my case, that included disseminating fake news and defamation that fueled domestic extremism and harmed others. See for e.g., SAC p. 83 of 141.
Since then some of my substantiated pleadings and evidence have been cited in news reports involving QAnon and recent U.S. elections.
I have been repeatedly trashed by oath-breaker judges, according to the oath, in multiple jurisdictions
Sometimes oath-breaker judges do it with a smile, right before they oath/rule-break, and stick it to you.
Meet oath-breaker Magistrate Judge Richard A Lanzillo
While everyone should have a reasonable expectation that if they appear in court it is before ethical oath-follower judges, we know that’s not always the case.
Here you can see me being trashed by another oath-breaker judge. This time it was then newly appointed Magistrate Judge Richard A Lanzillo, at the Western District of Pennsylvania, in Eugene Volokh’s “Allegations of Sex with the Devil Aren’t Libelous, says a federal court,” Reason Magazine, 10/12/2019. Volokh reported from Magistrate Judge Richard A Lanzillo’s R&R.
The rise of White Christian Nationalism & the dangerous dehumanizing Satanic thing
Respectfully, I don’t think Volokh read all the filings because if he did he would know regarding the demonic, Satanic, sex with the devil, and twisting of scripture defamation per se statements (to also dehumanize me), it was libel and slander per se and my defendants were among the Pizzagate people.
162. Defendants with other regular H&H Report guests, including Willott, as “W,” have encouraged, focused on, and directed their listeners and readers to research Satanism, Luciferianism, the Illuminati, “symbolism,” the occult, “secret handshakes,” “numbers,” and other esoteric subjects at different times, several times...
269. Despite the Plaintiff having filed this Action on November 9, 2015, being in litigation, and Defendants being represented by Counsel, just like occurred with Defendants fraudulent intelligence agency “source” Willott and their fake [redacted] allegation, [Defendant H] continued to make “news” up, cite “sources” who may or may not exist, and/or if they do, they likely do not have the claimed bona fides, and disseminated what became publicly known as “Pizzagate.”
-- My Second Amended Complaint, filed October 1, 2018.
For starters, Magistrate Judge Richard A Lanzillo echo-chambers defendants’ attorneys inapplicable (apples to oranges) case law to unjustly throw out counts against me, a pro se plaintiff.
This gives the appearance of being in the tank with defendants, then Alex Jones experts, Pizzagate and Sandy Hook peddlers, and their lawyers, yes?
Magistrate Judge Richard A Lanzillo, a lawyer with over thirty years of experience, also misrepresents and omits pleadings.
In Pennsylvania, for example, defamation includes the intended audience—the Christian Conservative audience.
It was the same and/or similar audience where some of the followers went on to attack the U.S. Capital on January 6, 2021.
In Pennsylvania “[a] communication is … defamatory if it ascribes to another conduct, character or a condition that would adversely affect his fitness for the proper conduct of his proper business, trade or profession.” Constantino v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 766 A.2d 1265, 1270 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001) (quoting Maier v. Maretti, 671 A.2d 701,704 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995)). In determining whether a communication is defamatory, the Court “must consider the effect the statement would fairly produce, or the impression it would naturally engender, in the minds of the average persons among whom it is intended to circulate.” Maier, 671 A.2d at 704 (citation omitted). Judges and juries must give the words contained in the communication “the same significance that other people are likely to attribute to them.” Id. (citing Livingston v. Murray, 612 A.2d 443 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992)). The “nature of the audience” to whom the communication is directed is a “critical factor” in determining whether the communication is capable of defamatory meaning. Maier, 671 A.2d at 704 (citations omitted). While “personal annoyance and embarrassment … are not the sorts of injury that will support a defamation claim,” Parano v. O’Connor, 641 A.2d 607,609 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994) (citation omitted), “no demonstration of any actual harm to reputation is necessary.” Devon Robotics v. Deviedma, No. 09-cv-3552, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112077, at *24 (citing Marcone v. Penthouse Int’l Magazine for Men, 754 F.2d 1072, 1081 (3d Cir. 1985)). (Plaintiff emphasis)
Plaintiff’s pleadings repeatedly refer to Defendants’ trusting Christian, Conservative audience—the “intended” audience, as do Defendants. See, for e.g., SAC § 73, 89, 99, 115, 120, 135, 140, 155, 159, 189, 309, 311. It cannot be overstated how millions of people literally believe Defendants’ are reporting the real “news,” thereby, believed each and every defamatory statement concerning the Plaintiff including when they twisted Bible scripture, claimed she “sleeps with the devil,” and their Satanic talk (SAC §159) (Plaintiff decl. § ex.3, 73, 77, 79).
See my Third Opposition >> page 21 of 37. See my Second Opposition >> page 20 of 37
Oath-breaker judges leave injured parties in danger
Threats and intimidation against journalists have been on the rise in the United States and Canada. This threatens a free press and democracy.
If you are a journalist, and a woman, who has been threatened, intimidated, and violence has been incited against you, and you are in an oath-breaker judge court seeking relief and redress, like I was, you are on your own.
In Judge Susan Paradise Baxter and the Honorable Richard A Lanzillo’s cruel, oath-breaker judge court, in the Western District of Pennsylvania, it’s okay if a defendant(s) incites their armed followers with military training to shoot and possibly kill you amongst other intimidation attempts.
See: FAC (2016) at “Threatening, Intimidating, Violence Inciting Elements.”
See: SAC (2018) at “Defendants’ Ongoing Attempts to Intimidate the Plaintiff into Dropping This Lawsuit.”
See: Magistrate Judge Richard A Lanzillo’s Report and Recommendation and Judge Susan Paradise Baxter’s ruling.
An oath-breaker judge, like Magistrate Judge Richard A Lanzillo, might also mix up names to obsensibly protect a defendant, given neither he nor Judge Susan Paradise Baxter (despite her purported de novo review) corrected the error.
In ethical, oath-follower judge courts, honest mistakes are corrected and incitement is actionable.
Intimidation is a thing.
See for e.g.: [Federal] Court in Civil Case Holds Trump’s Jan. 6 Speech Could Be Constitutionally Unprotected Incitement, Reason, February 8, 2022; and “Third Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Landmark Cyberstalking Resulting in Death Conviction in Matusiewicz Case.” DOJ September 7, 2018.
Indeed, intimidation and the incitement of violence can be life-altering. It’s dangerous too. It always has been. And then you need to be concerned about potential copycats.
See for example, “‘No Blame?’ ABC News finds 54 cases invoking ‘Trump’ in connection with violence, threats, alleged assaults,” ABC News, May 30, 2020.
My judges also violated Canon 3B(6)
Canon 3B(6) reads in part:
A judge’s assurance of confidentiality must yield when there is reliable information of misconduct or disability that threatens the safety or security of any person or that is serious or egregious such that it threatens the integrity and proper functioning of the judiciary. A person reporting information of misconduct or disability must be informed at the outset of a judge’s responsibility to disclose such information to the relevant chief district judge or chief circuit judge.
Code of Conduct for United States Judges
Thus, a judge who violates this canon is a judge who ignores and or coverups reliable information of misconduct, intimidation, improper contact outside of proceedings, and the like, right?
In addition, the Honorable Richard A Lanzillo, like Judge Susan Paradise Baxter, ignore/omits evidence, broadcasts, and declarations in their rulings.
My #Oathbreaker Judges omitted evidence, including but not limited to Pizzagate in their rulings
As you can verify in Magistrate Judge Richard A Lanzillo’s R&R, aside from criticizing me for submitting a lengthy SAC and tons of exhibits, there is no mention of Pizzagate, the spoliation of evidence, lawyers altering documents, related lawsuits, or the content provided by my declarants and in the copious broadcasts and articles, I submitted that supported my claims.
When Plaintiff filed this Action on November 9, 2015, Counsel was not counsel for individuals disseminating Pizzagate (one who manufactured “evidence” again), (SAC § Exhibit 1-2, 31-34) and affected a Presidential Election, but now they are. Plaintiff blew the whistle. Thereby, the importance of the issues at stake in this litigation are far greater than in other civil lawsuits which typically affect the parties’ private interests. Defendants, Does 1-20, and witnesses in this action, are also a part of the Russia probes and inquiries and lawsuits into the alternative media (for e.g. Sandy Hook families v, Alex Jones)...
— My Third Opposition to Defendants' Third Motion to Dismiss in Judge Susan Paradise Baxter and Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo's oath-breaker judge court, filed on December 31, 2018, p.35 of 37
It’s not like Judge Susan Paradise Baxter and Magistrate Judge Richard Lanzillo overlooked the declarations in their rulings—declarations the Defendants’ attorneys aggressively tried to strike in a Motion to Strike, while ostensibly charging defendants hundreds of dollars an hour to file it.
No, these judges did deny the Defendants’ seasoned attorneys burdensome and frivolous Motion to Strike against me, but then they chose to omit the declarations from their rulings. (See Courtlistener Docket No. 136)
Judges aren’t supposed to ignore evidence and pleadings, correct?
In addition, in an ethical, oath-following court, as we saw in the Sandy Hook hoax cases, (where rule-breaker lawyers are also sanctioned), it matters in a multi-million dollar damage defamation case if a defendant hires lawyers to argue one thing in one court and different lawyers to argue the opposite in another court.
In an unethical, oath-breaker court, like the one I was in, when this occurs with the same and or similar defamation per se statements, including the Satanic statements, and counts — IIED– the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, it doesn’t matter.
Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal
Advocate
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer ….
American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Indeed, as the docket verifies, the defendants’ seasoned lawyers, with over fifty years of experience combined, did not, would not, correct their repeated false statements of fact or law in my case. They also would not enjoin doe-defendants who shared in the liability against me.
The only good thing about unethical oath-breaker lawyers, (according to the Model Rules and the oath), is they show you who the unethical, oath-breaker judges are.
Meet Ohio’s known oath-breaker judge, my judge, Judge Robert Ruehlman (25 + years on the bench)
Look in Ohio too where I was also trashed, demeaned, and belittled by another unethical, oath-breaker judge, Robert Ruehlman in a related case defamation per se case. See >> It’s time to retire Judge Ruehlman (2016).
Judge Robert Ruehlman, a well known oath-breaker judge in the legal profession, with over twenty-five years experience on the bench, did it again in my related defamation case, like he did in these oath-breaker cases the legal profession already knew about.
For starters he refused to rule on my motion to compel … blocking assets among additional responsive discovery. And when you ask him to recuse because of known-conflicts. Look out. More here.
Hey, let’s do some fact-checking. It’s always a good time to fact-check.
My oath-breaker Judges repeatedly refused to apply the law
Everyone can learn defamation laws and damages by listening to the jury instructions in Sandy Hook Hoax v Alex Jones (in a court with an ethical, oath-following judge).
By doing so you can see how many high-damage true/false per se defamatory statements (read in context with case law) oath-breakers Judge Susan Paradise Baxter, with over twenty-years experience serving on the bench, and Judge Richard A Lanzillo, a lawyer with over thirty years of experience, did not, and would not, move forward in a pro se case.
Spoiler > for a starter shortcut, see the defendants joint true/false libel/libel per se statements [statements published in written form] where damages are presumed. I was also named twenty-seven times and my image was published.
In the alternative, Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants’ alternative, that this Court reevaluate each and every false statement Defendants made against her, to determine the number which are capable of defamatory meaning and put her in a false light. As the Honorable Baxter’s Order affirmed (Dkt. No. 134), there are more statements in SAC which are defamatory.
-- My Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration, filed on October 18, 2019, p. 6 of 31
Notably, a recent Pennsylvania Superior Court concluded that “presumed damages do indeed remain available upon a showing of actual malice.” Joseph v. Scranton Times, L.P., 89 A.3d 251, 272 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014). Actual malice is when a statement is made “with knowledge that [the statement] was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Id. at 261 (quoting Lewis v. Phila. Newspapers, Inc., 833 A.2d 185, 191 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003)). Therefore, this Court is bound to conclude that Pennsylvania permits presumed damages in defamation per se claims when actual malice is pleaded and proven. Consistent with Restatement (Second) of Torts § 569, Pennsylvania case law holds that proof of special harm, i.e., monetary damages, is not a prerequisite to recovery in a defamation libel matter. See Pilchesky v. Gatelli, 12 A.3d 430 (Pa.Super. 2011); and Agriss, 483 A.2d at 472–74.
My Second Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss p. 12; my Third Opposition p 11-12.
Here again, Judge Susan Paradise Baxter would not rule, faithfully apply the laws in a multi-million dollar damage pro se case, or hold lawyers accountable, who repeatedly file altered exhibits or defendants who spoil with evidence ( for e.g., scroll to p 59-77 of 81), while knowing this case involved some Pizzagate people whose “news” caught the attention of law enforcement, and had massive worldwide audiences.
In addition, in an oath-follower court where judges faithfully apply the law, a joint statement, where parties echo-chamber each other, is civil conspiracy. The defendants admitted to it in written and spoken form. However, in Judge Susan Paradise Baxter’s and Magistrate Judge Richard Lanzillo’s oath-breaker court, where judges repeatedly give the appearance of being in the tank with defendants, and their attorneys, against a pro se, civil conspiracy is not civil conspiracy.
“Civil conspiracy occurs when two or more persons combine or agree intending to commit an unlawful act or do an otherwise lawful act by unlawful means.” Weaver v. Franklin County, 918 A.2d 194, 202 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2007). (citing Grose v. P&G Paper Prods., 866 A.2d 437 (Pa. Super. 2005); see also “… an overt act done in pursuance of the common purpose…” Phillips v. Selig, 959 A.2d 420, 437 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008).
Does this, my related case in Ohio, also help explain why Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter repeatedly violated her oath and refused to rule or recuse to thwart due justice in a high damage case against a woman and pro se?
Look at the difference in rulings when you are in a court with a judge, here in this example, Judge Eric M. Davis, who does not give the appearance of being in the tank with defendants in US Dominion, Inc. v Fox News Network, LLC via casetext.com.
Judge Susan Paradise Baxter never holds oath-breaker lawyers accountable with 50 + years experience combined
Judge Susan Paradise Baxter also ignored my request for Rule 11 sanctions (p 7-31) and refused to rule again.
Lawyers are supposed to be advocates, not serial rule breaking abusers, yes? #CleanHands
All this (and more) gives the appearance of a lack of impartiality and of being in the tank with defendants’ attorneys, yes?
The same attorneys whose legal fees Judge Baxter unjustly and repeatedly racked up, every time she refused to rule or recuse in violation of her judicial oath, the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, and common decency.
Compare > Judge Susan Paradise Baxter’s conduct in my case with Judge Baxter’s own words during her Senate confirmation for District Judge and Canon 3A(5).
I have been steadfast in my judicial philosophy over the nearly twenty-one years I have been a magistrate judge: A judge should have complete respect for the law and every litigant and attorney before her, and apply the law precisely to the case at hand…
Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter, Senator Grassley, Questions for the Record, Nominee, United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania
That’s not true in this proceeding.
Meanwhile, Judge Susan Paradise Baxter received a lifetime appointment on the bench in a position to abuse her authority, harm more people, and continue to undermine the United States justice system. See: “Baxter named federal judge for Erie,” GoErie.com, August 29, 2018.
The rise of fake news, conspiracies, QAnon, white Christian Nationalism & real-world consequences
To wit, I (and now arguably the rest of the world) can feel the damage, and fallout from QAnon enabled by oath-breakers in the U.S. justice system. Judges such as District Judge Susan Paradise Baxter and Magistrate Judge, the Honorable Richard A. Lanzillo, who refused to uphold and protect the United States Constitution, 5 U.S.C. 3331, and faithfully apply the law in a multi-million dollar damage defamation and related counts case.
Judges and opposing counsel who don’t like to be called out (as diplomatically as possible) by a pro se plaintiff, a journalist, and a woman who had enormous, intimidating, life-changing authority over my life and did not hesitate to use it to thwart due justice.
Compare unethical Oath-breaker Judges with ethical Oath-follower Judges
To observe some of the contrasts between being in a U.S. court with oath-breaker judges and oath-follower judges, the following are three real-world case demonstrations of ethical, oath-follower judges’ proceedings.
These are judges who also faithfully apply defamation law, hold lawyers accountable, and don’t echo-chamber inapplicable case law or ignore pleadings and evidence in multi-million dollar damage cases.
See also: “Judge awards additional $5M to ex-assistant [whistleblower] Mike McQueary’s verdict [in defamation case],” Associated Press, November 30, 2016.
When I repeatedly blew the whistle …
Can you see some of the differences?
Regardless of political beliefs, or a lack thereof, too many people, including judges, have been hurt by defamation, fake news, and oath-breaker misconduct in politics and the legal profession.
This needs to stop. Accountability needs to prevail or we can kiss democracy goodbye.
Judges who thwart due process, disregard the laws, allow lawyers to repeatedly submit altered documents without consequence (in contrast to oath-follower judges who don’t), and abuse injured parties, undermine the justice system.
These judges also give bad actors a free pass to keep doing whatever they were doing. So they did.
And what did everyone else get? More fake news, conspiracies, QAnon spreading worldwide, and defamation with real-world consequences, … including what many people call an insurrection.
Now you know some of the reasons why I have the utmost respect and appreciation for oath-following judges, lawyers, clerks, and court personnel.
Oath-breakers… not so much. There’s a big difference. #BigDamage
Eventually, the truth about oath-breakers’ misconduct, the consequences, and the repercussions are felt by the public.
Oath-breaker Lawyers
Update: To be fair, it wasn’t just #oathbreaker judges who trashed me there were #oathbreaker lawyers too.
First, let’s start with the attorney oath of office in Pennsylvania. Here we turn to Justia US law.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity, as well to the court as to the client, that I will use no falsehood, nor delay the cause of any person for lucre or malice.”
Any person refusing to take the oath or affirmation shall forfeit his office.
Justia US law
THREE motions to dismiss …
See, here is but one of many examples where I was demeaned, belittled, harassed and trashed by an award winning lawyer, Bruce S Rosen, an officer of the court, with thirty-five (35) years of experience, who repeatedly filed altered exhibits, with no consequences, and did zero due diligence. Rosen was a partner at McCusker, Anselmi, Rosen, Carvelli, P.C. that firm has since split up.
Super Lawyer exhibit versus pro se exhibit – Second Motion to Dismiss
Screenshot (above) from Defendant(s) Super Lawyer exhibit Dkt. No 82-4 (left) versus my pro se exhibit Dkt. No. 90-2 (right). If you don’t have Pacer, the court filings are at Courtlistener. There are pages and pages of altered exhibits in all three of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss against me.
He also submitted declarations where his clients misspelled their own and each other’s names, (and I had to fight him to correct them in SDNY).
A lawyer who repeatedly mutilated my pleadings and falsely claimed that I had admitted to facts I never admitted to.
This motion is one of the shorter ones. There are many more on the docket because Judge Susan Paradise Baxter and opposing counsel are abusive oath-breakers according to the judicial oath (and see the attorney oath above).
How many purported Christian truth-tellers do you know who retained counsel who will break the rules to obstruct justice?
… unless anyone believes lawyers break the rules and abuse injured parties for the fun of it.
Hey! Would it surprise anyone that Alex Jones reportedly also retained counsel who altered an exhibit?
An unusual situation around an allegation of evidence-tampering preceded Blott’s departure from the case—a redacted document the defense turned over to the plaintiffs on order of the court had been reduced from multiple pages to a single sheet of paper, which removed the email addresses of the document’s recipients and changed the context of the evidence.
Dan Solomon, “The Lawyers in the Alex Jones Trial Nearly Came to Blows,” Texas Monthly, August 2, 2022
That lawyer left the case. Conversely, my Defendants’ lawyers wouldn’t withdraw. They didn’t have to in an oath-breaker judge court like I was in. Instead, the lawyers dug in and continued to alter documents in addition to more rule-breaking. As demonstrated earlier by her own orders, Judge Baxter helped them by repeatedly violating Canon 3A(5) and insisting on duplicative and repetitious filings instead of ruling or recusing and holding them accountable. #CleanHands Rule 8.3
See what happens if a person is in an oath-following court when that happens–the first time. >> Altered exhibits and pleadings—How to Legal.
There’s a big difference between lawful, good faith mistakes in a court of law and unlawful, bad faith, yes?
Please understand how serious, terrifying and dangerous this can be. There are officers of the court who will take something that is real and alter it, distort it, in a court of law to thwart justice.
See also why the lawyers repeated misconduct (among additional misconduct) and also includes Alicyn B. Craig, Esq. (formerly of McCusker, Anselmi, Rosen & Carvelli, P.C. as well) violated the American Bar Association’s Model Rule 3.4: Fairness to Opposing Party & Counsel.
* McCusker, Anselmi, Rosen & Carvelli, P.C. has since split up and rebranded to Anselmi & Cavelli. Bruce S Rosen, “fellow founding partner” is now at Pashman Stein, and Alicyn B. Craig went to Duane Morris LLP.
Rule 3.4: Fairness to Opposing Party & Counsel
Advocate
A lawyer shall not:
(a) unlawfully obstruct another party’ s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;
(b) falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law;
(c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists;
(d) in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or fail to make reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party;
(e) in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused; or
(f) request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party unless:
(1) the person is a relative or an employee or other agent of a client; and
(2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the person’s interests will not be adversely affected by refraining from giving such information.
American Bar Association’s Model Rule 3.4
*#PSA: Lawyers are also supposed to do due diligence and/or not pretend to ignore evidence they already have had for years (and I had to repeatedly re-submit in Judge Baxter’s unethical, oath-breaker court), harass parties, and file frivolous filings. In an oath-follower judge court bad faith is a thing.
See one of my (shorter) responses to the attorney above.
Bruce S Rosen is a lawyer, a Super Lawyer, A Best Lawyers Lawyer of the Year lawyer who knows defamation law. But as you can verify here he will ostensibly say whatever depending on who is paying him. When I pointed that out… Whoa
Lawyers are supposed to be advocates for their clients not abusers who violate the Model Rules of Professional Conduct to thwart due justice, right?
No one should be forced to deal with oath-breaker attorney(s) in a court of law for one day let alone repeatedly for years.
What do you say about people like this?
But still when it came to my cases it always, always got worse.
Crime-fraud exception (privilege) & an inadvertent disclosure
When an oath-breaker judge refuses to order lawyers to follow the Model Rules, and covers up evidence in a high-damage case, due justice is impossible, and more people are harmed.
While most nonlawyers may have first learned about the term “inadvertent disclosure” from the Sandy Hook Hoax case versus Alex Jones, it happened in my case too.
Here you can read the attorney’s motion, attorney Michael Agresti, of Marsh Schaaf, LLP, seeking a protective order for his inadvertent disclosure against pro se me.
The problem is what Attorney Agresti inadvertently disclosed was not privileged. It was already in multiple filings with exhibits that proved my related defamation cases in addition to what I had already substantiated. See all my citations?
Excerpt from my opposition to Defendants áttorney’s protective order filed on March 20, 2020, p 1,3 of 4.
Moreover, for the most part, the content in Counsel [for Defendant H] inadvertent disclosure was already in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 103, § SAC § 172-173, 269- 275, 460); in her Opposition to Counsel’s motions to dismiss (Dkt. No. 111, 112); and accompanied exhibits(Dkt. No. 111-7, Exhibit 48, 111-9 § Exhibit 65). See also, Plaintiff’s [second] opposition to Defendants’ [second] motion to dismiss exhibits (Dkt. No. 91-1 § Exhibit 72). Thus, the majority of what Counsel [for Defendant H] inadvertently disclosed was not new to her or to this Court or privileged…
Lastly, as this case is one of many cases this honorable Court presides over, Plaintiff respectfully reminds the Court that the Defendants, and others like them, “news” has caught the attention of law enforcement, as the May 30, 2019, FBI Intelligence Bulletin from the FBI Phoenix Office verifies, see, (U//LES) Anti-Government, Identity Based, and Fringe Political Conspiracy Theories Very Likely Motivate Some Domestic Extremists to Commit Criminal, Sometimes Violent Activity, Dkt. No 166, p 13-27, Exhibit C. As such, Plaintiff also respectfully points Counsel to the crime-fraud exemption with respect to privilege…
My opposition to Defendants áttorney’s protective order filed on March 20, 2020, p 1, 3 of 4.
Oath-breaker judge Magistrate Judge Richard A Lanzillo refused to review the attorney’s inadvertent disclosure despite it not being privileged. Then he claimed the documents he refused to review were privileged and covered them up.
Hon. Richard Lanzillo also refused to order that the attorneys follow the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, and check out how he amended his order three days later.
I may not be a lawyer, but I can read — ex parte much?
In an oath-follower judge court a lawyer does not get to hide evidence that is not privileged, that the judge NEVER reviews, behind a protective order, get a free pass to violate multiple Model Rules of Professional Conduct that thwarts due justice, while knowingly enabling the spread of domestic extremism, right? #Dangerous
Conversely, see a judge following his oath when he sanctioned lawyers and opened an investigation. “Judge Imposes Sanction on Fox for Withholding Evidence in Defamation Case,”
Judge Eric Davis also said an investigation was likely into Fox’s handling of documents and whether it had withheld details about Rupert Murdoch’s corporate role.
New York Times, April 12, 2023
… And a judge who reviews documents: “Federal judge orders John Eastman to detail legal work for Trump:
Eastman, who helped develop a strategy to subvert the 2020 election, has tried to withhold emails by citing attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges.”
Politico, February 14, 2022.
Indeed, yes, common sense prevails. Ethical judges review the docs. Unethical judges like Magistrate Judge Richard Lanzillo do not.
Howell found that prosecutors showed “sufficient” evidence that Trump “intentionally concealed” the existence of additional classified documents from Corcoran, sources said, putting Corcoran in an unwitting position to deceive the government.
It’s unclear what evidence [U.S. Judge Beryl] Howell may have reviewed under seal from both DOJ and Trump’s attorneys to help her arrive at her decision.
Sources: Special counsel claims Trump deliberately misled his attorneys about classified documents, judge wrote, ABC News, March 21, 2023
There’s a big difference between being in an oath-breaker court versus oath-follower court, yes?
Here, in my case, thanks to #oathbreaker Chief Magistrate Judge Richard Lanzillo, the lawyers can’t say that they did not know.
My judges also violated Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
Excerpted from the Code of Conduct for United States Judges:
Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.
COMMENTARY
Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends on public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn on their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law and should comply with this Code. Adherence to this responsibility helps to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and injures our system of government under law…
Code of Conduct for United States Judges
Being in court with oath-breaker judges is like being in court without a judge
While these are just some of the examples of misconduct that occured, for me, and I think everyone else can see, being in an oath-breaker judge court with Judges like Susan Paradise Baxter, Richard Lanzillo and Judge Robert Ruehlman, as a pro se, is like being in court without a judge.
You are in court with two-faced, ruthless, defense attorneys who will hurt you, abuse you, undermine the integrity of the justice system, and ruin your life to thwart due justice to “win.”
In my case, it was for five-long treacherous years, with oath-breaking defense attorney(s) who knowingly enabled the spread of fake news and defamation that fueled domestic extremism, and was radicalizing audiences that also hurt everybody else.
So unless anyone believes that judges would abuse a woman, repeatedly violate their oath, while enabling the spread of fake news that continues to fuel domestic extremism that has spread to other countries, including Canada, and thwart due justice for the fun of it, we’ve got a big problem here.
I dunno, do you think even if you knocked off a couple zeros this might be the reason for the serial oath-breaking in my related defamation cases?
“Alex Jones on the Hook for Nearly $1 Billion in Damages to Sandy Hook Plaintiffs,” LawandCrime, October 12, 2022.
It’s important to note that none of my judges would allow me to read the defamatory per se statements where damages are presumed, play broadcasts or clips, or even play the threatening, menacing voicemails I had received throughout these proceedings in open court.
Conversely, the Sandy Hook lawyers played many clips, including a clip of one of my defendants appearing with Alex Jones in their case against Alex Jones et al which everyone can verify here.
#CleanHands, Rule 8.3
Fact Check
Below is a screenshot from Judge Susan Paradise Baxter’s September 30, 2019 Order she filed almost two years after my case was transferred on September 22, 2017 from the Southern District of New York and referred to her and District Judge Cathy Bissoon to rule on the merits.
My case was referred to her right around when QAnon popped up and started spreading and audiences were being radicalized.
#Unbecoming
Please also see Judge Baxter’s impressive credentials and associations … Judicial Conference of the United States, Committee on Administration of the Magistrate Judges System … Third Circuit Space and Security Governance Committee …
Judge Susan Paradise Baxter’s thirty years of experience confirm she’s a judge who knows the judicial oath, the rules, and how to faithfully apply the laws.
Thus, it is reasonable to assume Judge Baxter knew when my case was referred to her for “pre-trial proceedings” and that to file a “report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act” meant filing a report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, or to recuse herself if she could not do it.
It should have been reasonable to assume that my case would have been referred to an ethical judge where due justice is possible, and defamation per se, unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy (see more related counts), and fake news is deterred, right?
Instead, I was subjected to serial, cruel, abusive oath-breaking at the hands of officers of the court in the United States judicial system in my high-damage defamation case, a pro se case, that thwarted due justice, and reportedly fueled domestic extremism.
Judge Susan Paradise Baxter violates Canon 2. Rule 2.7: Responsibility to Decide
Indeed, Judge Baxter of the Western District of Pennsylvania, Erie Division, is a serial violator of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct: Canon 2. Rule 2.7: Responsibility to Decide, according to the American Bar Association — both as Magistrate Judge and Federal District Court Judge.
In addition, Judge Susan Paradise Baxter’s serial oath-breaking flies in the face of the Western District of Pennsylvania’s mission statement.
It reads:
The mission of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania is to preserve and enhance the rule of law while providing an impartial and accessible forum for the just, timely and economical resolution of legal proceedings within the court’s jurisdiction, so as to protect individual rights and liberties, promote public trust and confidence in the judicial system, and to maintain judicial independence.
Western District of Pennsylvania’s mission statement, Court Information page.
Nobody can obtain justice in a court with a judge who repeatedly will not rule, and when they finally rule, they ignore pleadings, evidence, and misapply the laws, and then refuse to rule again, and correct errors of law amongst other malfeasance unbecoming of a United States judge.
No one should be abused by a deceitful, two-faced judge or used as a human cash register, an ATM, to unjustly line the pockets of other attorneys who regularly break the rules on behalf of their clients to prevent the administration of due justice.
It is tragic. It has been so unnecessarily cruel and devastating.
These judges, and lawyers, in my related defamation cases, simply had to follow their oaths which could have deterred the fake news and defamation crisis.
See also: H.Res.1154 – “Condemning QAnon and rejecting the conspiracy theories it promotes.” House of U.S. Representatives, 116th Congress, October 2, 2020.
Unethical, oath-breaker judges were found in more pro se cases
It is worth noting that the Wall Street Journal‘s and Reuter’s investigations found that oath-breaking judges were identified in pro se cases and cases involving “the poor.” So in that respect, the fact that two-faced unethical judges in my cases abused their authority, violated their oaths, and undermined the integrity of the United States justice system, is not unique.
Peaceful solutions
Okay, let’s wrap this up with peaceful solutions to help solve the problem of judicial misconduct.
The Western District of Pennsylvania claims it is “recognized throughout the nation for its standards of excellence, fairness and professionalism.” Hmmm… that’s not remotely accurate in my case.
Aside from some notable exceptions the legal profession is not self-policing as they are duty-bound to do (See: Canon 3B(6) and Model Rule 8.3).
In addition, the Code of Conduct — the ethics code for U.S. judges is not being enforced either. Judges are required to avoid even the “appearance of impropriety.” While a Code of Ethics on court websites may look meaningful and impressive it is useless if it is not enforced.
As everyone can verify the Code is not being enforced >> “Robed in secrecy: How judges accused of misconduct can dodge public scrutiny: Thousands of complaints are filed against judges every year, but very few result in discipline. Ethics experts say the time for states to transform the judiciary is now.” NBC News, December 26, 2021.
Given the serial oath-breaking that occurred in my case and the fallout doesn’t just adversely affect me, but countless others, we get to watch if that changes.
Who wants to be in the tank with abusive, unethical oath-breaker judges and lawyers like this?
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. — Desmond Tutu
To restore stolen justice, and integrity to the U.S. justice system, judges and lawyers are duty-bound to report misconduct within the legal profession in ALL cases.
See Rule 8.3 in action here. Get HOW TO LEGAL BINGO here.
Every day they don’t is but another day officers of the court are maliciously undermining the integrity of the justice system and a Constitution they took an oath to support and defend. In my case, they are also knowingly enabling the spread of defamation and fake news that continues to fuel domestic extremism while abusing a woman.
89. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ false allegations represented as real “news” are destabilizing, sow discourse, and causes fear, distress and unjustified paranoia among Defendants trusting readers and listeners who may also be incited and induced into action. -- My Second Amended Complaint, filed October 1, 2018.
Oath-breaker judges, like Judge Susan Paradise Baxter, Magistrate Judge Richard Lanzillo, and Judge Robert Ruehlman, who abused their judicial powers, and maliciously obstructed due justice must recuse and their rulings be overturned.
Cases in courts with oath/rule breakers are being vacated to preserve the integrity of the justice system.
In Driscoll v. Metlife Insurance, for instance, U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo vacated a summary judgment ruling, finding that, “regardless of whether [District Judge Janis] Sammartino was aware of her conflict, she had been in violation of judicial qualification law for the entire duration of the case. To allow Sammartino’s ruling for Metlife to stand, Bencivengo wrote, “risks undermining the public’s confidence in the judicial process.”
Here in my case, I think it is reasonable to assume that the judges and lawyers, with a combined 100 + years of experience as lawyers, knew what they were doing.
So if you encounter any statements or dubious conduct about me online and you aren’t sure if it is true or false, or statements that incite violence against me, you will know where they are coming from.
Kindly preserve them, and send them to me, should you encounter any … especially if you encounter any behind paywalls. Thanks!
As my related defamation cases demonstrate, they did it before. They will do it again. They don’t like being called out, and since then we have had oathbreaker legal professionals who jumped into the mix who were willing to thwart due justice while knowingly enabling the spread of domestic extremism.
Thankfully not all lawyers and judges are unethical oathbreakers.
Oath-breaker watch
I hope you can see why it is necessary to read all the filings in court proceedings to know if a judge is an oath-follower or an oath-breaker judge.
If you just read Magistrate Judge Richard Lanzillo’s Report and Recommendation and Judge Susan Paradise Baxter’s Order on the merits of my case you would not know about the serial, cruel oath-breaking and misconduct that occured in my related cases that has [temporarily] obstructed justice.
Officers of the court are not supposed to be complicit, right?
So pull up a seat and get comfy because we get to find out …
- If any oath-breakers in my defamation cases, and other cases, will seek redemption and start following their oath. This includes, but is not limited to by coming clean and recusing.
- If not, will Chief District Judges, like Hon. Mark R. Hornak and others at the courts and law firms (past and/or current) report the oath-breakers within, as they are duty bound to do? This includes, but is not limited to by notifying the January 6th Committee or will they be complicit in judicial and attorney misconduct that also enabled the spread of defamation and fake news that fueled domestic extremism with their oath-breaking colleagues. Under Rule 8.3 all lawyers must report misconduct whether they work with the attorney or not.
- Will courts vacate and/or reverse their oath-breaker judges’ decisions as they must do to preserve the integrity of the judicial system?
- Or will these officers of the court keep violating the rules and canons (according to the rules and canons) despite witnessing the horrific fallout from judicial misconduct that occurred in my cases that arguably has also put their colleagues, other judges, and lawyers, in danger too? Model Rule 8.3 and Canon 3B(6) are a thing.
- Lastly, will the unethical oath-breaker judges and lawyers in my cases keep digging in like they’ve been doing for years? Will they go another round of oath-breaking with me, altering more documents, and the like, while witnessing the fallout from their misconduct that everyone else can see that has harmed countless more people?
Time will tell.
Stay tuned and subscribe.
The more you learn about the justice system the more you will appreciate, respect, and admire the oath-follower, ethical judges, and lawyers who stand firm against abuse and corruption, and who hold their unethical colleagues accountable while preserving the integrity of the justice system.
Judicial misconduct is not a left/right issue. It is an everyone issue. Even if you have nothing to do with the judicial system court rulings may affect you.
There are problems on both sides of the political aisle and both sides have benefited from dark money. Democracy cannot survive if “justice” is for sale, and lawyers can violate their oaths and the rules with impunity.
Update January 1, 2023: Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capital
If you are reading this, today is another day where oath-breaker judges and lawyers in my related defamation cases are digging in, and some of their colleagues in the legal profession are protecting them in defiance of their oaths.
You are seeing behind the shiny bios and the masks of the oathbreakers.
These legal professionals are knowingly undermining the integrity of the judicial system and chipping away at democracy. #Cleanhands
Just as the law lacks legitimacy unless those who make, enforce, and interpret it share a genuine commitment to treat it seriously, so too does an oath lack sanctity unless those who violate it are held to account.
The Jan. 6th Committee on Why Oaths Matter, Lawfare, June 17, 2022.
Oath-breaker officers of the court update
Still no signs of a conscience among the oath-breakers in my related cases…
Magistrate Judge Richard Lanzillo at the Western District of Pennsylvania was appointed to Chief Magistrate Judge by Chief United States District Judge Mark R. Hornak on September 21, 2022 to serve a four-year term.
Here’s the order.
It says he was appointed based on seniority. Respectfully, doesn’t Chief US District Judge Mark R. Hornak, and the Board of Judges, do any due-diligence? Magistrate Judge Richard Lanzillo was not only unethical and an oath-breaker judge in my case.
Just like known oath-breaker judge, Judge Robert Ruehlman, if a judge will break their oath, and abuse their authority in one case, they are willing to do it again in another case.
Meanwhile, two of defendant(s) oath/rule breaker lawyers, well, their law firm has split. Founder Bruce S. Rosen, Esq. went to Pashman Stein, and Alicyn B. Craig, Esq. went with the other attorneys to Duane Morris.
See: “McCusker Anselmi’s Partner Split Brings 12 Lawyers to Duane Morris, 1 to Pashman Stein,” New Jersey Law Journal, law.com, February 7, 2022.
The firm is rebranding as Anselmi & Carvelli as founding partner John McCusker is leading a group to the Newark office of Duane Morris, and fellow founding partner Bruce Rosen heads to Pashman Stein.
Keep reading … New Jersey Law Journal, law.com,
Sounds like to me that means there are more lawyers who should be following Rule 8.3
Oh, and over in my Ohio case, two-faced, oath-breaker Judge Robert Ruehlman has retired. His colleagues threw him a party. It’s good he’s retired in that he can’t abuse his authority anymore and obstruct more cases, but he still has not been held accountable for obstructing justice in my high-damage defamation per se case and any others he may have thrown. Rule 8.3 #CleanHands
Update: David Bauder, Randall Chase and Geoff Mulvihill, “Fox, Dominion reach $787M settlement over election claims,” Associated Press, April 18, 2023.
What’s a big difference between my cases and the Sandy Hook and the Dominion case? One difference is the judges sanctioned the lawyers when they broke the rules showing the judges were not in the tank with defendants’ attorneys. In my case the opposite occurred. You cannot get justice or negotiate a just settlement in an oath-breaker judge court where lawyers can repeatedly violate their oaths, break the rules, alter evidence, and abuse you.
Update: Given that more people are speaking out about judicial misconduct and shining a light it would not surprise me if we see more of this type of judicial misconduct. Oathbreakers do dig in. See for e.g., Former judge avoids jail time in records-tampering case
Former Circuit Court Judge Julie Introcaso, who had resigned in February before a judicial hearing was to start against her, also must complete 100 hours of community service, according to the sentence agreement in a plea deal with prosecutors.
Introcaso, 57, agreed that the state could prove she committed two counts of tampering with public records and one count of unsworn falsification, all misdemeanors that would have called for a one-year jail sentence.
Last year, the Judicial Conduct Committee alleged that Introcaso oversaw a child custody case for about six months, despite having a friendship with a lawyer who was serving as a guardian ad litem in the matter. She approved rulings on the guardian’s fees and method of payment.
Former judge avoids jail time in records-tampering case, Associated Press, November 15, 2021
#CleanHands, Rule 8.3
Blowing the whistle on judicial misconduct #CleanHands | Model Rule 8.3
Please take note that when I shed the light on them, my defendants and possibly doe-defendants did not like it, hence my related defamation lawsuit.
So if you come across any hateful remarks or claimed shady behaviour about me online, please save it and send it to me via email – especially if they are hidden behind a paywall. I doubt the oathbreakers in the legal profession, like my judges and opposing counsel, welcome the light either. They definitely didn’t like it when I shined the light in court. Thanks!
If/when history repeats you will see what happens in courts with oathbreakers judges and lawyers hellbent on thwarting due justice who abuse women for whatever unjust gain they may have received or will receive.
You will be seeing legal professionals in action who undermine the integrity of the justice system and United States Constitution. It’s quite a racket.
#CleanHands Rule 8.3 #vacate
Congrats!
That was a lot of information to take in.
YOU MADE IT ALL THE WAY TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE!
That means it is time to be good to yourself. Take a break. GET UP, move around, stretch and dance. I mean, really, when isn’t it a good time for a music break? It is especially important to be good to yourself when you are going through tough, challenging times.
Ahhh, for me it’s the 80’s …. Timex Social Club — Rumours! > Official website. No violence obviously.
What about you?
Explore more peaceful solutions to help save democracy including How to Legal. Click the image below.
Education ▪ Exposure ▪ Accountability ▪ Save Democracy
Follow me on socials for periodic, oath-follower v oath-breaker bite-size content I share to expose injustices and help save democracy >>
*This page is updated from time to time.