Judge Kane deliberately casts a Plaintiff in a false light and takes a parting shot

Posted on by
Reply

Judge Kane’s order/opinion of April 5, 2011, whereupon, Judge Kane deliberately cast Plaintiff in a false light; where, Judge Kane, in due course of recusing herself from Plaintiff’s complaint, nonetheless took a parting shot (and Plaintiff contends, no less retaliated) stating in pertinent part that, “..the Court is concerned that any potential decision in this matter adverse to Plaintiff’s interests may be viewed as retaliation for Plaintiff’s longstanding and outrageous pattern of hostility and disrespect towards this court and its judicial officers.”

Plaintiff fervently believes, that despite Plaintiff’s protestations, this parting shot by Judge Kane, as remains yet of record, is tantamount to having given license to other authorities to both openly threaten, as well as further intimidate, coerce, and harm Plaintiff into going away.

Judge Kane tosses another whistleblower case aside to help cover up millions of dollars in stolen money from the DEP

Posted on by
Reply

The clock is ticking for the state and a Mount Carmel man to reach settlement in the latter’s whistle-blower lawsuit.

Steve Bartos and defendants Department of Environmental Protection and DEP administrator Kenneth R. Reisinger have until Dec. 9 to finalize plans for private mediation or have the case scheduled for trial in U.S. Middle District Court.

An order issued Oct. 25 by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson gave the parties 45 days to explore private mediation efforts, explaining no pre-trial motions are pending and discovery is closed.

This order followed another issued Sept. 29 by the middle district court’s chief judge, Yvette Kane, tossing the defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Bartos, who claims to have been fired from DEP in retaliation for discovering the alleged misappropriation of millions of dollars in recycling funding.

The civil rights case was filed in February 2008 after Bartos had first been suspended in September 2007 for allegedly using the “N-word” and fired three months later for alleged harassing and retaliatory behavior toward coworkers – allegations Bartos strongly denies.

The original lawsuit has since been trimmed through motions to dismiss by the defendants and upheld by the court. What remains, however, is Bartos’ First Amendment retaliation claim against Reisinger, acting deputy secretary for waste, air and radiation management and former director of the Bureau of Waste Management, and Bartos’ state whistle-blower statute claims against both Reisinger and DEP.

In the late-September ruling, Kane found that Bartos’ petition is a matter of public concern since his State Civil Service Commission (SCSC) appeal “accuses Reisinger of disciplining him for bringing to light allegations of government wrongdoing.”

The defendants had claimed in their failed motion that Bartos’ petition sought to overturn his discipline and was of a personal matter. The court agreed the petition was related to Bartos’ personal employment but found that it remained a public concern.

Kane quoted case law she found upheld this opinion: “Although Plaintiff’s motivations for filing such a charge may have been grounded in his own private interest, expression highlighting unfair discrimination on the part of government officials is not devoid of public concern.”

Furthermore, Kane wrote in her Sept. 29 order that “such ‘allegations of corrupt practices by government officials are of the utmost public concern,’” quoting case law.

As Bartos’ civil rights lawsuit has progressed, 138 legal documents have been filed.

Among the most provocative aspects that have come to light along the way was when two witnesses in the case – DEP employees who had been subordinates of Bartos – were found to have lied under oath.

Donald Hagerich and Patricia Olenick had each originally denied any involvement in the mailing of an anonymous letter to multiple sources, including media and Bartos’ former employer ex-state Rep. Robert Belfanti.

The letter said Bartos had been fired from DEP for misconduct and contained a copy of a disciplinary letter procured from the State Civil Service Commission.

This was viewed by Bartos as a retaliatory action.

A federal judge seemed to have shared that opinion.

“In a case which involved claims by Bartos that he had been subjected to acts of retaliation by DEP officials, the sudden, anonymous appearance of this DEP disciplinary letter at the office of his current state employer had a potentially retaliatory aspect to it. …” Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson wrote in a May 2010 filing granting sanctions against Hagerich and Olenick.

“(T)hese state employees engaged in a shabby, anonymous exercise designed to secretly harm the employment prospects of a former co-worker who was suing the state for employment discrimination.”

As Bartos and his attorney continued work on his case, they discovered that the pair had lied under oath and that, along with DEP employee Mark Vottero, had procured the disciplinary letter and acted in the creation and mailing of the anonymous letter that accompanied it when it was mailed to Belfanti and the like.

The three had admitted to as much in subsequent separate depositions following the discovery.

Hagerich and Olenick were each sanctioned by the court and fined $9,308.03. Both were given two-week suspensions by DEP and both have since left the department.

Vottero was not disciplined by the court and was not named in the sanctions filing.

Read more: http://newsitem.com/news/bartos-dep-told-to-negotiate-or-face-trial-1.1235243#ixzz1fmGCW3ky

Federal Judge Yvette Kane lists approximately $80,000 in gifts of jewelry, an automobile, interest, trips and other gifts

Posted on by
Reply

by Bill Keisling
YardBird.com

Posted August 4, 2010 — A chief federal judge in Pennsylvania received more than $80,000 in gifts from three Pennsylvania attorneys from 2003 to 2008, according to financial disclosure statements Judge Yvette Kane filed with the court.

Yvette Kane is the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

In six successive Financial Disclosure Reports filed by Judge Kane from 2004 to 2009, covering the years 2003 to 2008, Kane lists approximately $80,000 in gifts of jewelry, an automobile, interest, trips and other gifts from “John R. McGinley, Jr, Esquire.”

A John R. McGinley, Jr., is a member of the board of directors, and Chair of the Executive Committee, of the law firm Eckert Seamans, of Pittsburgh, according to that firm’s website.

Kane was appointed to the federal bench in 1998. She became Chief Judge of the Middle District of Pennsylvania in 2006. The chief judge is charged with sweeping administrative and appointive duties.

Kane’s financial disclosure statement for 2003 lists $10,000 in “Jewelry, Personal Gifts,” from “John R. McGinley, Jr., Esquire.”

Kane’s report for 2004 lists $17,800 in “Jewelry, Personal Gifts,” and “Steeler’s Playoff Tickets” from McGinley.

Also in this report for 2004, Judge Kane lists a $750 gift of a “Guided Fishing Trip” from James E. Nevels.

In 2006, in addition to $3,000 in “Jewelry, Personal Gifts” from McGinley, Judge Kane listed her receipt of an additional gift of $1,200 in “Jewelry” from David W. Sweet.

Having initially listed $36,000 in gifts of “Jewelry, Personal Gifts” from McGinley in 2007, Judge Kane filed later an amended report with the federal court’s Disclosure Office.

“Please accept this letter as an amendment to my Annual Report dated May 14, 2008,” Judge Kane wrote. “Both amendments relate to the donor John R. McGinley. During 2007 Mr. McGinley and I exchanged many gifts. He has assisted me with a more detailed accounting of those gifts and has reminded me of two instances of travel that should be reported.

“Part IV addressing Reimbursements should be amended to add the following travel, with John R. McGinley listed as the Source:

“May 25-28 –Boston, Mass.-Attend wedding-Airline travel, Accommodations, Meals

“July 5-8–Wolfville, Nova Scotia-Vacation trip-Ferry travel, Accommodations, Meals

“Part V of my report should be amended to itemize gifts from John R. McGinley as follows:

“520 Household Items
514 Stationary cycle
800 Recreation (Golf, Fishing, Concert)
1216 Clothing
8895 Jewelry
9100 Payoff of auto loan
17,500 (interest in automobile)

“The last item involving the automobile is unresolved. Mr. McGinley and I purchased a vehicle together, but as I am now enjoying exclusive use and possession of this vehicle, I am treating it as a very generous gift and have listed it in Part V,” Judge Kane declares.

Telephoned at their offices, neither Judge Kane nor McGinley responded with a comment about the listed gifts, or their relationship.

We were instead referred by a secretary in Judge Kane’s chambers to the federal court’s Office of Financial Disclosure.

Richard Carelli, spokeman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, explained that the law requires federal judges to disclose “anything of value over $335 from a non-family member.”

Gifts to judges from spouses or fiancés are exempt from reports, Carelli said, but not gifts from others.

“It’s pretty much summed up by that Beyoncé song, ‘Put a Ring on It,’” Carelli explained.

Carelli says that the financial disclosure of federal judges was mandated by Congress in the Ethics in Government Acts of the 1970s.

Judge Kane’s report for 2009 has yet to be published by the court.

Judge won’t step down from hearing First Amendment lawsuit in Dickinson Twp.

Posted on by
Reply

A federal judge won’t recuse herself from hearing a First Amendment lawsuit three Dickinson Twp. residents filed against township officials.

In July, the men — Charles Breslin, Paul Cunningham and Phil Thompson — alleged that officials in the township close to Carlisle retaliated against them while they attempted to uncover what they believe is public corruption.
A hearing on the lawsuit scheduled for Jan. 28 was cancelled after the residents requested U.S. Middle District Judge Yvette Kane step away from the case to avoid the possible appearance of impropriety, according to court documents. Their request centers around a mutual acquaintance of Breslin and Kane who is identified in the motion as “the doctor.”

In 2007, the doctor encouraged Breslin and Kane to “socialize,” and Kane recently criticized the residents’ lawsuit at a township meeting, the motion states.

In her response to the motion, Kane called this request “fanciful and baseless.”

The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Don Bailey, doesn’t think the motion will effect what he says is a strong case. “My clients’ rights were violated,” Bailey said. “They stood up at a public meeting to talk about problems and they were cut off, shut down, and refused the opportunity to speak. They were denied their constitutional rights.”

Kane’s failure to recuse herself in the Breslin v. Dickinson Township case

Posted on by
Reply

Judge Kane was asked to recuse herself as there was an incident of a friend of Judge Kane, ( a doctor) who attempted to secure a date on behalf of Judge Kane from one of the lead Plaintiff’s, Charles Breslin. I believe Mr. Breslin was even given the judge’s private chamber number.

Of course, Judge Kane did not recuse herself even though it should be enough that a hint of impropriety should have been sufficient. Additionally, the allegation that Mr. Bailey is and/or has been “draggin this out” is preposterous on the face of it.

Time and time again, in a myriad of cases that have come before “certain judges” as noted in judicialcorruption’s post, with the aid of certain magistrates who operate at their behest, (Carlson comes quickly to mind) it is “they” individually and collectively who have done everything that can to thwart numerous clients of Mr. Bailey’s legitimate redress of grievances afore the Court.

This is not rocket science; all one has to do is a wee bit of research and read for themselves. Setting that aside, these same judges, with the help of their friends, are now attempting to destroy, and i mean literally, destroy the one man who stands up for the little people in advocating civil rights. This is the classic, shoot the messenger and (hopefully) the message will die with him. Moreover, anyone who dare challenge all that is so totally wrong with the middle district (that being, amongst other things – it believes it is beyond reproach; it is incapable of policing itself) anyone, who dare challenge this must likewise be taken out.