Tagged: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe

“A well known legal maxim is that public policy demands finality of judgment — that there be an end to litigation at some point. Another important policy which must be weighed against the interest in finality is the policy favoring fair and correct results in litigation. It is these interests which courts must balance when a party dissatisfied with a judgment seeks to have it vacated or amended. Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enumerates the various grounds upon which relief from judgments may be granted at the district court level, and also limits the time period in which the motions must be made. No statute, however, has been enacted to aid courts of appeals in balancing these interests when they are requested to recall their mandates, which are their binding instructions to the trial court as the law of the case.”

On the 30th, I received a letter from the Second Circuit. It was a copy of the mandate that was sent to the Southern District of New York, dated May 21, 2015. The problem is that I asked the Second Circuit in my March 25, 2015 Motion for Reconsideration, to stay the mandate pending the filing of my petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. It was written on the title page and was mentioned twice throughout the 15 page Motion.

This Motion showed [once again] that all of P. Kevin Castel’s legal conclusions were erroneous as both a matter of law and public policy and that the appellate court panel judges [Jacobs, Swain and Lohier] intentionally erred by upholding Castel’s September 5, 2014 Order and concluding that my appeal “lack[ed] an arguable basis in law or in fact” without providing an ethical judicial opinion. [I obtained a favorable decision on the merits by the only lawfully appointed arbitrator, David L. Gregory of the American Arbitration Association, on December 17, 2013.] They never addressed the issue of “fraud upon the Court” and the highly unethical and criminal conduct engaged in by Michael P. Zweig, Christian Carbone, Loeb & Loeb LLP and other “officers of the court.” [Based on Loeb & Loeb LLP’s involvement in a conspiracy to conceal smoking gun evidence during their representation of William Morris in an earlier civil rights case Rowe Entertainment v. William Morris Agency et al., they should not be allowed to represent William Morris in my case and attorney Michael P. Zweig should be disbarred, thus all decisions in their favor should be vitiated due to fraud. A considerable conflict of interest also exist due to the fact that Loeb & Loeb LLP attorney Christian Carbone never disclosed to myself or the federal court that he is married to an executive for the American Arbitration Association who worked closely with the unlawfully appointed arbitrator to vacate Gregory’s Award and dismissed my case with prejudice after he and his law firm received more than $80,000 in under six months.]

The appellate court en banc denied my Motion for Reconsideration without reason on April 30, 2015. Now, the appellate court has prematurely issued the mandate to the Southern District of New York and is once again trying to deprive me of due process and equal protection under the law. I guess I now have to take time away from working on my petition to the Supreme Court and address this issue with the Second Circuit…Le sigh…

Source: Steve D. McLamb. Federal Appellate Procedure – Recall of Mandate – Review of Judgments after Rehearing and Appeal Periods Expire. 24 Vill. L. Rev. 157 (1978).