Robert E. Brown Charges New York Northern District Court with Obstruction of Justice Titles 18 U.S.C. § 3 and § 4

Share Article

Robert E. Brown is requesting immediate Admission to the New York Bar

On November 27, 2012, Brown filed in the New York State District Court for the Northern District of New York in the case of Brown v. Attorney General et al case charging Judge Treece and Defendants with violations of “obstruction of justice statutes Title 18 U.S.C. § 3 (Accessory after the fact) and Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 (Misprision of felony)” and Judicial Canons 3, en seq.:

  •      Brown charges Judge Treece with allowing the Defendants to avoid Brown’s Petitions pursuant to Local Rule § 41.2 Failure to Diligently Prosecute and FRCP Rule § 12 (Default Judgment) as an attempt to hinder and delay prosecution. See Original Complaint.
  •     Brown charges Judge Treece with violations of granting the Defendants an Extension of 60 additional days to file an answer to the Brown Complaint Sua Sponte to block the Defendants from Default Judgment of Brown’s Complaint due date of December 31, 2012 which was only 14 days away…
  •     On November 17, 2012 presiding Judge Randolph F. Treece Magistrate (hereinafter Judge Treece) of the New York State District Court for the Northern District of New York, engaged in violations of Title 18 U.S.C. § 3 (Accessory after the fact) and Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 (Misprision of felony), 42 USC § 1983, 42 USC § 1985, FRCP Rules § 41.2, FRCP § 12, Judicial Canons 3, en seq.
  •     On January 4, 2013 Judge Treece gave an Order in the Brown v. Attorney General et al case denying both of the Brown’s timely petitions, stating in the Order filed in the New York State District Court Clerk’s office by Judge Treece the following “Docket Text”:

•    
“TEXT ONLY ORDER denying Plaintiff’s [11] “Motion to Dismiss Extension to Answer Complaint and Motion for Default Judgment” filed by Brown on December 27, 2012 pursuant to FRCP Rule § 41.2 and FRCP § 55.2. Judge Treece stated in the “Judicial Order” the reasoning as “In light of this court’s extension of defendants’ time to answer the complaint or otherwise move for relief until February 15, 2013, the relief sought by Plaintiff (Brown) is not appropriate at this time. Signed by Magistrate judge Randolph F. Treece on 1/4/2013)”

  •     Judge Treece is charged with violating the following Federal Rules Governing Federal Procedures:
  •     “The federal offense of failure to disclose a felony, if coupled with some act concealing the felony, such as suppression of evidence, harboring or protecting the person performing the felony, intimidation or harming a witness, or any other act designed to conceal from authorities the fact that a crime has been committed.”
  •     “Title 18 U.S.C. § 4.” “Misprision of felony.” “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
  •     “A federal judge, or any other government official, is required as part of the judge's mandatory administrative duties, to receive any offer of information of a federal crime. If that judge blocks such report, that block is a felony under related obstruction of justice statutes, and constitutes a serious offense.”
  •     “Upon receiving such information, the judge is then required to make it known to a government law enforcement body that is not themselves involved in the federal crime.”
  •     Violators are subject to Title 18 U.S.C. § 3 (Accessory after the fact)

“Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.” “Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.”

  •     Judge Treece is charged with violating the following Judicial Canons:

1.    Canon 3 A Judges Shall Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently.
(A)     Judicial Duties in General. The judicial duties of judge take precedence over the entire judge are other activities. The judge’s judicial duties include all the duties of office prescribed by law. In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply.
(B)     Adjudicative Responsibilities.
(1)    A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge except those in which disqualification is required.
(2)    A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interest, public clamor, or fear of criticism.
(7) A judge shall not initiate, receive, permit, or consider communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their representatives concerning a pending or impending proceeding ...
Judicial Canon’s 3:

  •     (E) Disqualification,

“(1) a judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:”

  •     (B) “The judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge has been a material witness concerning the matter.”
  •     The issues, currently at Bar are the violations of Title 18 USC § 3 (Accessory after the Fact), 18 USC § 4 (Misprision of Felony) and Canon 3 (E), (1), (a), (b) (Disqualification:

Brown is asking that Judicial Notice be taken of the textbook example of violations of Canon 3 (E), (1), (a), (b), the fact that Judge Treece, as Presiding Judge over the Brown v. Eric Schneiderman (Defendant for the State of New York) case and Kathy Y. Sheehan Lawyer for the Defendants controversy, who’s action’s as being outside of the Law:

  •     As of November 9, 2012, Judge Treece became presiding judge over the Brown v. Attorney General et al case and Assistant Attorney General Kathy Y. Sheehan as Lawyer for the Attorney General et al (Defendants).
  •     In this case Robert E. Brown (Plaintiff) Pro se, of Wilmington Delaware, 19801 of charges of Defendants violations of Plaintiff’s 42 USC § 1983 and 42 USC § 1985 Civil Rights was granted right of Status of Appearance of Counsel.
  •     On February 29, 2012, Judge Treece entered a Report of Recommendation and Order on all parties in compliance with the Local Rules, in the case of:
  •     Derrick Hamilton, 175 Diamond Street New Haven, Connecticut 06515 Plaintiff Pro se. v.:
  •      Hon. Eric Schneiderman (Attorney for the State of New York), The Capitol, Albany, New York 12224 Attorney for Defendants Cathy Y. Sheehan, Esq.
  •     Judge Treece presiding over two separate cases involving the same parties constitutes violation Title 18 USC § 3 (Accessory after the Fact), 18 USC § 4 (Misprision of Felony) and Canon 3, (E) (1), (a), (b), (Disqualification).

Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

Robert Brown
Member of Cable Muse Network - VN# C 108 1077
302-652-6578
Email >

Shirley H. Brown
From The Desk Of R. E. Brown (Paralegal Service)
302-652-9959
Email >
Visit website