{"id":692,"date":"2017-03-28T20:28:50","date_gmt":"2017-03-28T20:28:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/amerares.com\/blogs\/frinvblog?p=347&preview_id=347"},"modified":"2023-10-11T04:39:46","modified_gmt":"2023-10-11T09:39:46","slug":"frinvblog-u-s-supreme-court-petition-re-judicial-oversight-testing-pdf-embedder","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amerares.com\/blogs\/frinvblog-u-s-supreme-court-petition-re-judicial-oversight-testing-pdf-embedder\/","title":{"rendered":"U.S. Supreme Court Petition re Judicial Oversight"},"content":{"rendered":"

 <\/p>\n

[pdf-embedder url=”https:\/\/amerares.com\/blogs\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/SCt-Cert-Petition-Cropped-040617-FINAL-copy.pdf” title=”SCt Cert Petition – Cropped 040617 – FINAL copy”]<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A pdf version of the petition can be downloaded here<\/a>.<\/h5>\n
A text version follows.<\/h5>\n

 <\/p>\n

N<\/b><\/span>o.________<\/b> <\/b> <\/b><\/p>\n

=====<\/span>=<\/span>===<\/span>=<\/span>==<\/span>=<\/span>=====<\/span>=<\/span>===<\/span>=<\/span>==<\/span>=<\/span>=====<\/span>=<\/span>===<\/span>=<\/span>==<\/span>=<\/span>=====<\/span>=<\/span>===<\/span>=<\/span>==<\/span>=<\/span>=====<\/span>=<\/span>===<\/span>=<\/span>==<\/span><\/p>\n

In The<\/em><\/strong><\/h1>\n

Supreme Court of the United States<\/em><\/strong><\/h1>\n

——————————–<\/span>–<\/span>\u2666<\/span>——————————–<\/span>–<\/p>\n

UNITE<\/span>D STA<\/span>TES OF AMER<\/span>IC<\/span>A EX REL. ROB<\/span>ERT P<\/span>. B<\/span>A<\/span>UCHW<\/span>ITZ, M.D<\/span>., P<\/span>H<\/span>.<\/span>D<\/span>.,<\/p>\n

P<\/i><\/span>et<\/i><\/span>i<\/i><\/span>tione<\/i><\/span>r<\/i><\/span>,<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

v.<\/span><\/p>\n

W<\/span>I<\/span>LL<\/span>I<\/span>AM K. H<\/span>OL<\/span>LOM<\/span>AN<\/span>, P<\/span>H<\/span>.<\/span>D<\/span>.,<\/span> COR<\/span>NEL<\/span>L UNIVE<\/span>RSITY MEDIC<\/span>AL C<\/span>OLLE<\/span>GE, ERIC B<\/span>. KMIE<\/span>C<\/span>, P<\/span>H<\/span>.<\/span>D<\/span>.,<\/p>\n

THOM<\/span>A<\/span>S<\/span> JEFF<\/span>E<\/span>RSON<\/span> UNI<\/span>V<\/span>E<\/span>R<\/span>SIT<\/span>Y<\/span>,<\/span><\/p>\n

Respondent<\/i>s<\/i><\/span>.<\/i><\/p>\n

——————————–<\/span>–<\/span>\u2666<\/span>——————————–<\/span>–<\/p>\n

On<\/b> <\/b>P<\/b><\/span>etiti<\/b>o<\/b><\/span>n<\/b> <\/b>F<\/b><\/span>or<\/b> <\/b>A<\/b> <\/b>W<\/b>r<\/b><\/span>it<\/b> <\/b>Of<\/b> <\/b>Cert<\/b>i<\/b><\/span>orari<\/b> <\/b><\/p>\n

T<\/b><\/span>o<\/b> <\/b>The<\/b> <\/b>United<\/b> <\/b>States<\/b> <\/b>Court<\/b> <\/b>Of<\/b> <\/b>Appeals <\/b>F<\/b><\/span>or<\/b> <\/b>The<\/b> <\/b>Third<\/b> <\/b>Cir<\/b>c<\/b><\/span>uit<\/b><\/p>\n

——————————–<\/span>–<\/span>\u2666<\/span>——————————–<\/span>–<\/p>\n

PETI<\/b>T<\/b><\/span>ION<\/b> <\/b>FOR<\/b> <\/b>A<\/b> <\/b>WRIT<\/b> <\/b>OF<\/b> <\/b>CERTIO<\/b>RA<\/b><\/span>RI<\/b><\/p>\n

——————————–<\/span>–<\/span>\u2666<\/span>——————————–<\/span>–<\/p>\n

RO<\/span>N<\/span>A<\/span>LD<\/span> T<\/span>. TOM<\/span>A<\/span>S<\/span>KO<\/span>, ESQ<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Counsel<\/i><\/span> <\/i>of<\/i><\/span> <\/i>Record<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

JSDC<\/span> L<\/span>A<\/span>W<\/span> O<\/span>FFI<\/span>C<\/span>E<\/span>S<\/span><\/p>\n

134<\/span> Sipe<\/span> A<\/span>v<\/span>enue<\/span><\/p>\n

Hummelstown,<\/span> P<\/span>A<\/span> 17<\/span>0<\/span>36<\/span><\/p>\n

(717)<\/span> 533-3280<\/span><\/p>\n

RTT@jsdc<\/span>.c<\/span>om<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Attor<\/i>n<\/i><\/span>ey<\/i> <\/i>f<\/i><\/span>o<\/i><\/span>r<\/i> <\/i>the<\/i> <\/i>P<\/i><\/span>e<\/i><\/span>t<\/i>i<\/i><\/span>tioner<\/i><\/p>\n

=====<\/span>=<\/span>===<\/span>=<\/span>==<\/span>=<\/span>=====<\/span>=<\/span>===<\/span>=<\/span>==<\/span>=<\/span>=====<\/span>=<\/span>===<\/span>=<\/span>==<\/span>=<\/span>=====<\/span>=<\/span>===<\/span>=<\/span>==<\/span>=<\/span>=====<\/span>=<\/span>===<\/span>=<\/span>==<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

i<\/p>\n

QUESTIONS PRESENTED<\/b><\/p>\n

The question presented in this case is whether the trial court judge erred by acting independe<\/span>ntly<\/span>, outsid<\/span>e the courtroom and o<\/span>utside the presence o<\/span>f counsel<\/span>, as an independent investigator in this case<\/span>, which inves- tigation he relied on to deny P<\/span>etitioner\u2019s motion? Sim- ilarly<\/span>, whether the appellate cou<\/span>rt erred in sanctioning the trial court judge\u2019s conduct by affirmi<\/span>ng the trial court\u2019s decision and, i<\/span>n fact<\/span>, cre<\/span>diting the judge\u2019s fin<\/span>d- ings as the reason fo<\/span>r its decisio<\/span>n?<\/p>\n

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING<\/b><\/p>\n

The P<\/span>etitioner in the matter is the United States of America ex rel. Robert Bauc<\/span>hwitz, M.D<\/span>., Ph.D<\/span>. (\u201cDr<\/span>. Bauchwitz\u201d). Dr<\/span>. Bauchwitz acts as relato<\/span>r to bring thi<\/span>s la<\/span>wsuit on behalf of the United States Gov<\/span>ernment un- der the F<\/span>a<\/span>lse Claims Act, 31 U<\/span>.<\/span>S<\/span>.C<\/span>. \u00a7\u00a7 3729-3733. He acted as Relator\/Plaintiff before the trial court, and a<\/span>s appellant before the court of appeals<\/span>. Neither the United Sta<\/span>tes nor Dr<\/span>. Bauchwitz is a corporate entity<\/span>, requiring a stateme<\/span>nt pursuant to Rule 29.6 of the Rules of th<\/span>e Supreme Court of the United States<\/span>. Re- spondents<\/span>, who were Defendants and Appellees in th<\/span>e lower courts a<\/span>re: W<\/span>illiam K. Holloman, Ph.D<\/span>., Cornell University Medical C<\/span>ollege<\/span>, Eric B<\/span>. Kmiec<\/span>, Ph.D<\/span>., and Thomas J<\/span>efferson University<\/span>.<\/p>\n

TABLE OF CONTENTS
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

QUESTION<\/span>S PRESENTE<\/span>D ……………………………<\/span>. i<\/p>\n

P<\/span>ARTIE<\/span>S T<\/span>O TH<\/span>E PROCEEDIN<\/span>G<\/span>………………….<\/span>. ii <\/span><\/p>\n

T<\/span>ABL<\/span>E O<\/span>F CONTENT<\/span>S ……………………………….<\/span>. iii <\/span><\/p>\n

T<\/span>ABL<\/span>E O<\/span>F A<\/span>UTHORITIE<\/span>S …………………………..<\/span>. vi <\/span><\/p>\n

OPINION<\/span>S BELO<\/span>W<\/span>………………………………………<\/span>..1<\/p>\n

S<\/span>TATEMEN<\/span>T O<\/span>F J<\/span>U<\/span>RISDICTIO<\/span>N ………………….<\/span>.1<\/p>\n

CONSTITUTIONA<\/span>L AN<\/span>D S<\/span>TAT<\/span>U<\/span>T<\/span>OR<\/span>Y<\/p>\n

PRO<\/span>VISION<\/span>S IN<\/span>V<\/span>O<\/span>L<\/span>VED…………………..<\/span>2<\/p>\n

S<\/span>TATEMEN<\/span>T O<\/span>F TH<\/span>E C<\/span>ASE…………………………..<\/span>4<\/p>\n

CON<\/span>C<\/span>IS<\/span>E S<\/span>TA<\/span>TEMEN<\/span>T O<\/span>F ARGUMEN<\/span>T IN <\/span><\/p>\n

SUPPOR<\/span>T O<\/span>F ALLO<\/span>W<\/span>ANC<\/span>E O<\/span>F WRI<\/span>T ……<\/span> 6<\/p>\n

A<\/span>. Thi<\/span>s Cour<\/span>t Shoul<\/span>d Exercis<\/span>e It<\/span>s Super<\/span>v<\/span>isor<\/span>y Authorit<\/span>y A<\/span>s Th<\/span>e Tria<\/span>l Cour<\/span>t J<\/span>u<\/span>dg<\/span>e V<\/span>iolate<\/span>d Rule<\/span>s O<\/span>f J<\/span>udicia<\/span>l Procedur<\/span>e And S<\/span>o F<\/span>a<\/span>r Departe<\/span>d F<\/span>ro<\/span>m Accepte<\/span>d J<\/span>u<\/span>dicial Practice<\/span>s<\/span>, Tha<\/span>t Suc<\/span>h A<\/span>n Exercis<\/span>e I<\/span>s W<\/span>a<\/span>r<\/span>–<\/p>\n

rante<\/span>d ……………………………………………….<\/span>. 7<\/p>\n

B<\/span>. Thi<\/span>s Cour<\/span>t Shoul<\/span>d Exercis<\/span>e It<\/span>s Super<\/span>v<\/span>i- sor<\/span>y Authorit<\/span>y A<\/span>s Th<\/span>e Appellat<\/span>e Cour<\/span>t Sanctione<\/span>d Th<\/span>e Tria<\/span>l Court\u2019<\/span>s Departure <\/span>F<\/span>ro<\/span>m Establishe<\/span>d Rule<\/span>s O<\/span>f J<\/span>u<\/span>dicia<\/span>l Proce- dur<\/span>e An<\/span>d Accepte<\/span>d J<\/span>u<\/span>dicia<\/span>l Practice<\/span>s<\/span>, By Affirmin<\/span>g Th<\/span>e Tria<\/span>l Court\u2019<\/span>s Decisio<\/span>n And Eve<\/span>n Specificall<\/span>y Creditin<\/span>g Th<\/span>e Trial Court\u2019<\/span>s Independen<\/span>t F<\/span>a<\/span>ctua<\/span>l Investiga-<\/span><\/p>\n

tio<\/span>n ……………………………………………………<\/span>. 13<\/span><\/p>\n

C<\/span>. Thi<\/span>s Cour<\/span>t Shoul<\/span>d Exercis<\/span>e It<\/span>s Super<\/span>v<\/span>i- sor<\/span>y Authorit<\/span>y A<\/span>s Th<\/span>e Tri<\/span>a<\/span>l Cour<\/span>t No<\/span>t Onl<\/span>y Deviate<\/span>d F<\/span>ro<\/span>m Accepte<\/span>d J<\/span>u<\/span>dicial Practice<\/span>s<\/span>, Whic<\/span>h Deviatio<\/span>n W<\/span>a<\/span>s Sanc- tione<\/span>d B<\/span>y Th<\/span>e Appellat<\/span>e Court<\/span>, Bu<\/span>t The Ultimat<\/span>e Determination<\/span>, Base<\/span>d O<\/span>n The Court\u2019<\/span>s Independen<\/span>t An<\/span>d Undisclose<\/span>d In- vestigation<\/span>, Doe<\/span>s No<\/span>t Compor<\/span>t W<\/span>it<\/span>h F<\/span>ed- era<\/span>l L<\/span>a<\/span>w O<\/span>r Th<\/span>e Disclose<\/span>d F<\/span>act<\/span>s O<\/span>f This<\/span><\/p>\n

Cas<\/span>e ………………………………………………….<\/span>. 15<\/span><\/p>\n

D<\/span>. This Court Should Exercise Its Supervisory Authority As The Errors Committed By The Lower Courts<\/span>, Which Call F<\/span>or An Exerci<\/span>se Of This Court\u2019s Supervisory P<\/span>ower<\/span>, Pre- cluded P<\/span>e<\/span>titioner F<\/span>rom Exercising His<\/p>\n

Right T<\/span>o Access Public Documen<\/span>ts …………<\/span>. 19<\/span><\/p>\n

CON<\/span>C<\/span>LUSIO<\/span>N<\/span>…………………………………………….<\/span>. 22<\/span><\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n

APPENDIX A: November 29, 2016 J<\/span>udgment and Opinion of the Third Cir<\/span>–<\/p>\n

cuit Court of A<\/span>ppeals ……………. App<\/span>. 1<\/p>\n

APPENDIX B: F<\/span>ebruary 24, 2016 Order of the United Sta<\/span>tes District Court for the Eastern District of P<\/span>ennsyl-<\/p>\n

vania …………………………………… App<\/span>. 7<\/p>\n

APPENDIX C: F<\/span>ebruary 25, 2016 Amended Order of the United States Dis- trict Court for the Eastern Dis-<\/p>\n

trict o<\/span>f P<\/span>en<\/span>nsylvania<\/span>…………….. App<\/span>. 9<\/p>\n

APPENDIX D: December 28, 2016 Opinion Sur P<\/span>etition for Rehearing of the Third Circuit Court of Ap-<\/p>\n

peals …………………………………. App<\/span>. 11<\/p>\n

APPENDIX E: Motion for Acce<\/span>ss to Court Re- porter\u2019s Original Stenographic Hearing Records ………………… App<\/span>. 13<\/p>\n

APPENDIX F: October 27, 2015 Hearing Tran- script<\/span>…………………………………. App<\/span>. 20<\/p>\n

APPENDIX G: Brief for Appellant (filed with the Third Circuit Court of Ap-<\/p>\n

peals) ………………………………… App<\/span>. 37<\/p>\n

APPENDIX H: P<\/span>etition of Appella<\/span>nt Robert Bauchwitz, M.D<\/span>.<\/span>, Ph.D<\/span>., for Re- hearing and\/or Rehearing En Banc<\/span>………………………………….. App<\/span>. 47<\/p>\n

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES<\/strong><\/p>\n

U<\/span>NITED S<\/span>TA<\/span>TES C<\/span>OURT<\/span>S OF A<\/span>PPEALS \u2013<\/span><\/p>\n

In re Edga<\/i>r<\/i><\/span>, 93 F<\/span>.3d 256 (7th Cir<\/span>. 1996) ………………..<\/span>13<\/p>\n

In<\/i> <\/i>re<\/i> <\/i>Ma<\/i>r<\/i><\/span>shal<\/i>l<\/i><\/span>, 403 B<\/span>.R. 668 (C<\/span>.D<\/span>. Cal. 2009),<\/p>\n

aff<\/i> <\/i>\u2019d<\/i>, 721 F<\/span>.3d 1032 (9th Cir<\/span>. 20<\/span>13) …………………...<\/span>13<\/p>\n

In re United State<\/i>s<\/i><\/span>, 4<\/span>41 F<\/span>.3d 44 (1st Cir<\/span>. 20<\/span>06)<\/span>……...<\/span>13<\/p>\n

Smith<\/i> <\/i>v<\/i><\/span>.<\/i> <\/i>United<\/i> <\/i>States<\/i> <\/i>District<\/i> <\/i>Court<\/i> <\/i>Offi<\/i>c<\/i><\/span>e<\/i>rs<\/i><\/span>,<\/p>\n

203 F<\/span>.3d 440 (7th Cir<\/span>. 2000)<\/span>……………………………...<\/span>19<\/p>\n

U<\/span>NITED S<\/span>TA<\/span>TES D<\/span>ISTRICT C<\/span>OURTS \u2013<\/span><\/p>\n

United<\/i> <\/i>States<\/i> <\/i>ex<\/i> <\/i>rel.<\/i> <\/i>B<\/i><\/span>au<\/i>c<\/i><\/span>hwitz<\/i> <\/i>v<\/i><\/span>.<\/i> <\/i>Holloma<\/i>n<\/i><\/span>, 671<\/p>\n

F<\/span>.Supp<\/span>.2d 674 (E<\/span>.D<\/span>. P<\/span>a. 2009) …………………………….<\/span>4<\/p>\n

F<\/span>EDERAL S<\/span>TA<\/span>TUT<\/span>ES \u2013<\/span><\/p>\n

28 U<\/span>.S<\/span>.C<\/span>. \u00a7 455(b<\/span>)(1) ………………………………………..<\/span>2, 11<\/p>\n

28 U<\/span>.<\/span>S<\/span>.<\/span>C<\/span>. \u00a7 753(b) ……………………………. 2, 16, 17, 19, 21<\/p>\n

28 U<\/span>.S<\/span>.C<\/span>. \u00a7 1254(1) …………………………………………….<\/span>1, 6<\/p>\n

31 U<\/span>.S<\/span>.C<\/span>. \u00a7<\/span>\u00a7 3729-3733 ………………………………………….<\/span>4<\/p>\n

COURT<\/span> RU<\/span>L<\/span>E<\/span>S<\/span>, REGUL<\/span>A<\/span>TIONS<\/span>, AND<\/span> GUIDELINES<\/span> \u2013 Rules of the Supreme Court of the United<\/p>\n

States<\/span>, Rule 10(a) ……………………………………………...<\/span>7<\/p>\n

Rules of the Supreme Court of the United<\/p>\n

States<\/span>, Rule 29.6 ……………………………………………… ii<\/p>\n

Code of Conduct for United States J<\/span>udges<\/span>,<\/p>\n

Canon 2(A)<\/span>………………………………………………………..<\/span>2<\/p>\n

Code of Conduct for United States J<\/span>udges<\/span>,<\/p>\n

Canon 3(A)(4) ……………………………………………...<\/span>2, 11<\/p>\n

AB<\/span>A Model Code of J<\/span>udicial Conduct, Rule<\/p>\n

2.9(C) ………………………………………………………….<\/span>2, 12<\/p>\n

6 Guide to J<\/span>udiciary P<\/span>olicy<\/span>, Section<\/p>\n

290.23.30(c)(1) ……………………………………….. 3, 17, 18<\/p>\n

OPINIONS BELOW <\/b>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 On F<\/span>ebruary 24, 2016, the United States District Court for the Eastern Distri<\/span>ct of P<\/span>ennsylvania entered an Order<\/span>, denying Dr<\/span>. Bauchwitz\u2019s Motion fo<\/span>r Access to Court Reporter\u2019s Ori<\/span>ginal Stenographic Hearing Rec- ords<\/span>. (Appendix B). On F<\/span>ebruary 25, 2016, the court en- tered an Amended Order<\/span>, whic<\/span>h substa<\/span>ntive content w<\/span>as the same<\/span>. (Appe<\/span>ndix C). Dr<\/span>. Bauchwitz appealed to the Third Circuit C<\/span>ourt of Appeals<\/span>. On N<\/span>ovember 29, 2016, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Orders o<\/span>f the United States District Court for the East- ern District of P<\/span>ennsylvania. (Appendix A). The court specifically found that \u201ct<\/span>he Distri<\/span>ct Court\u2019s determina- tion that the informa<\/span>tion Appellant seeks does not ex- ist is credible<\/span>.\u201d (Appendix A, p<\/span>. 3). On December 12, 2016, Dr<\/span>. B<\/span>auchwitz filed a P<\/span>etition for Rehearing with the court, which w<\/span>as denied by Order date<\/span>d Decembe<\/span>r 28, 2016. (Appendix D).<\/p>\n

——————————–<\/span>–<\/span>\u2666<\/span>——————————–<\/span>–<\/p>\n

STATEMEN<\/b><\/span>T<\/b> <\/b>O<\/b><\/span>F<\/b> <\/b>JURISDICTION<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Third Circuit Court of Appeals originally en- tered judg<\/span>ment on November 29, 2016. (Appendix A). Dr<\/span>. Bauch<\/span>witz timely filed a P<\/span>etition for Rehearing<\/span>. The court entered judgment denying the P<\/span>etition fo<\/span>r Rehearing on December 28, 2016. (Appendix D). This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U<\/span>.S<\/span>.C<\/span>. \u00a7 1254(1).<\/p>\n

——————————–<\/span>–<\/span>\u2666<\/span>——————————–<\/span>–<\/p>\n

CONSTITUTIONA<\/b><\/span>L<\/b> <\/b>AN<\/b><\/span>D<\/b> <\/b>STATUTORY PROVISION<\/b><\/span>S<\/b> <\/b>INVOLVED<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

28 U<\/span>.S<\/span>.C<\/span>. \u00a7 455(b)(1):<\/p>\n

[A J<\/span>udge] shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstan<\/span>ces: (1) W<\/span>here he has a personal b<\/span>ias or prej<\/span>udice concerning a party<\/span>, or persona<\/span>l knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts conce<\/span>rning the proceeding<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Code of Conduct for United Sta<\/span>tes J<\/span>udges:<\/p>\n

Canon 2(A): Respect for La<\/span>w<\/span>. A judge should respect and comply with the la<\/span>w and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impar<\/span>– tiality of the judiciary<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Canon 3(A)(4): . . . E<\/span>xcept as set out below<\/span>, a judge should not initi<\/span>ate<\/span>, permi<\/span>t, o<\/span>r consi<\/span>der ex parte communications or consider other communications con<\/span>cerning a pending or im- pending matter th<\/span>at are made outside the presence o<\/span>f the parti<\/span>es or their la<\/span>wyers<\/span>. . . .<\/p>\n

AB<\/span>A Model Code of J<\/span>udicial Conduct:<\/p>\n

Rule 2.9(C): A judge shall not investigate facts in a matter independently<\/span>, and shall consider only the e<\/span>vidence presented a<\/span>nd any fa<\/span>cts that ma<\/span>y properly be judicially noticed.<\/p>\n

28 U<\/span>.S<\/span>.C<\/span>. \u00a7 753(b):<\/p>\n

Each se<\/span>ssi<\/span>on of the court and e<\/span>very other pro- ceeding designated by rule or order of the court or by one o<\/span>f the judges sha<\/span>ll be re<\/span>corded verbatim by shorthand, mechanical means<\/span>, electronic sound recording<\/span>, or any other method, subject to regulations promulg<\/span>ated by the J<\/span>udicial Conference and subject to the discretion and appro<\/span>val of the j<\/span>udge<\/span>. . . .<\/p>\n

The reporter or other individual designated to produce th<\/span>e record sh<\/span>all attach his offi<\/span>cial cer<\/span>– tificate to the origi<\/span>nal shorth<\/span>and notes or other origi<\/span>nal records so ta<\/span>ken and promptly file them with the c<\/span>lerk who shall preserve them in th<\/span>e public re<\/span>cords o<\/span>f th<\/span>e court for not less than ten years<\/span>.<\/p>\n

. . . Upon the request of any party to any pro- ceeding which has b<\/span>een so recorded who has agreed to pa<\/span>y the fee thereof<\/span>, or of a judge of the court, the reporte<\/span>r or other i<\/span>ndividual des- ignated to produce th<\/span>e record shall promptly transcribe the original records o<\/span>f the re- quested pa<\/span>rts of the proceedings and attac<\/span>h to the transcript his official certifi<\/span>cate<\/span>, and de- liver the same to the party or judge maki<\/span>ng the request.<\/p>\n

. . .<\/p>\n

The original notes or other original records and the copy of the transcript i<\/span>n the office of the clerk shall be open during office hours to inspection by any person withou<\/span>t charge<\/span>.<\/p>\n

6 Guide to J<\/span>udiciary P<\/span>olicy:<\/p>\n

Section 290.23.30(c)(1): If a transcript is not ordered, the court reporter will deliver the original shorthand notes or other orig<\/span>inal<\/p>\n

records to the cle<\/span>rk o<\/span>f court within 90 da<\/span>ys af- ter the conc<\/span>lusion of the proceeding<\/span>.<\/p>\n

——————————–<\/span>–<\/span>\u2666<\/span>——————————–<\/span>–<\/p>\n

STATEMEN<\/b><\/span>T<\/b> <\/b>O<\/b><\/span>F<\/b> <\/b>TH<\/b><\/span>E<\/b> <\/b>CASE<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

On J<\/span>une 30, 2004, Robert P<\/span>. Bauchwitz, M.D<\/span>., Ph.D<\/span>. (\u201cDr<\/span>. Bauchwitz\u201d) filed a qui tam action as a re- lator<\/span>, on b<\/span>ehalf of th<\/span>e United States<\/span>, under the F<\/span>alse Claims Act, 31 U<\/span>.<\/span>S<\/span>.C<\/span>. \u00a7 3729-3733, against W<\/span>illiam K. Holloman, Ph.D<\/span>., Cornell University Medical College<\/span>, Eric B<\/span>. Kmiec<\/span>, Ph.D<\/span>., and Thomas J<\/span>efferson University<\/span>. On October 17, 2005, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of P<\/span>ennsylvania hel<\/span>d a hearing on a Notice to Show Cause<\/span>. The hearing w<\/span>as initially sealed, but it w<\/span>as subseque<\/span>ntly unsealed by order of the court.<\/p>\n

On December 1, 2009, the district court reached a decision o<\/span>n Defendants\u2019 Motio<\/span>n for Summary J<\/span>udg- ment, granting it in part and denying it in part. United States<\/i> <\/i>ex<\/i> <\/i>r<\/i><\/span>el.<\/i> <\/i>Bau<\/i>c<\/i><\/span>hwitz<\/i> <\/i>v<\/i><\/span>.<\/i> <\/i>H<\/i>o<\/i><\/span>lloma<\/i>n<\/i><\/span>, 671 F<\/span>.Supp<\/span>.2d 674, 705-06 (E.D<\/span>. P<\/span>a<\/span>. 2009). On April 1, 2010, the court dismissed the remaining action by stipulated order<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Subsequently<\/span>, Dr<\/span>. Bauchwitz sought a transcript of the October 17, 2005 hearing<\/span>. The court, howev<\/span>er<\/span>, refused to provide a transcript to him, indi<\/span>cating that the same did not exist. Specifically<\/span>, by letter dated Sep- tember 20, 2012, J<\/span>oan Carr<\/span>, Supervisor of Court Re- porters<\/span>, wrote to Dr<\/span>. Bauchwitz from the trial court\u2019s c<\/span>lerk\u2019<\/span>s o<\/span>ffi<\/span>ce:<\/p>\n

\n

I w<\/span>as advi<\/span>sed by the court reporter assigned to transcribe the hearing that the equipment he had used to burn a CD of the hearing ap- parently malfunctioned and that he does not ha<\/span>ve a working copy of the di<\/span>sk on which the hearing is recorded. The court reporter\u2019s files in storage in the Clerk\u2019s Offi<\/span>ce d<\/span>o not contain his notes of this particular proceedings<\/span>, and the court reporter \u2013 who is no<\/span>w reti<\/span>red \u2013 can- not otherwise expla<\/span>in the absence of tran- scription n<\/span>otes of the hearing<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

(Appendix E, p<\/span>. 18).<\/p>\n

Since the transcript w<\/span>as not provided to Dr<\/span>. Bauchwitz, and the letter from t<\/span>he c<\/span>lerk\u2019<\/span>s o<\/span>ffice did no<\/span>t provide access to th<\/span>e non-working copy of the di<\/span>sk, notes or other backu<\/span>p forms of original data, or any in- formation on attempts to resto<\/span>re the data, Dr<\/span>. Bauch- witz filed a motion with the district court on Octob<\/span>er 16, 2015, requesting access to non-working storage me- dia, and related bac<\/span>kup files<\/span>, audio files<\/span>, documents<\/span>, and stenographic output, so that he could ha<\/span>ve a foren- sic expert attempt to recover th<\/span>e hearing data.<\/p>\n

The district court de<\/span>nied Dr<\/span>. Bauchwitz\u2019s motion on the basis that, allegedly<\/span>, no working copy of the di<\/span>sk exists and no notes were maintained. This decision w<\/span>as based on the district court judg<\/span>e\u2019s inde<\/span>pe<\/span>ndent inves- tigation into whethe<\/span>r a di<\/span>sk or notes cou<\/span>ld be re<\/span>co<\/span>v- ered. This indepen<\/span>dent investigation took place outside th<\/span>e courtroo<\/span>m, the pa<\/span>rties were not made a<\/span>w<\/span>are of who w<\/span>as i<\/span>nterviewed, and the partie<\/span>s were not given the opportunity to q<\/span>uestion wi<\/span>tnesses or evaluate the evidence<\/span>. Most importantly<\/span>, Dr<\/span>. Bauch- witz w<\/span>as never given the o<\/span>pportunity to determi<\/span>ne whether a forensic expert could attempt to recover th<\/span>e hearing data and has never been given the chance to determine if other fo<\/span>rms of reco<\/span>rds<\/span>, su<\/span>ch as an audio recording<\/span>, exist.<\/p>\n

Dr<\/span>. Bauch<\/span>witz appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals<\/span>. On November 29, 2016, the T<\/span>hird Circuit Court of A<\/span>ppeals affi<\/span>rmed th<\/span>e Orders of the United States Di<\/span>strict Court for the Ea<\/span>stern Di<\/span>strict of P<\/span>enn<\/span>– sylvania. (Appendix A). The court specifically found that \u201cthe District Court\u2019s determination that the info<\/span>r<\/span>– mation Appellant see<\/span>ks doe<\/span>s not exist is cre<\/span>dible<\/span>.\u201d (Ap- pendix A, p<\/span>. 4<\/span>). After Dr<\/span>. Bauch<\/span>witz filed a P<\/span>etition for Rehearing<\/span>, on December 28, 2016, the Third Circuit Court of A<\/span>ppeals affi<\/span>rmed its previous De<\/span>cision with<\/span>– out substa<\/span>ntive opinion. (Appen<\/span>dix D).<\/p>\n

Dr<\/span>. Bauchwitz now files th<\/span>is W<\/span>rit of Certiorari to this Honorable Court, which has jurisdiction under 28 U<\/span>.S<\/span>.C<\/span>. \u00a7 1254(1).<\/p>\n

——————————–<\/span>–<\/span>\u2666<\/span>——————————–<\/span>–<\/p>\n

CONCIS<\/b><\/span>E<\/b> <\/b>STATEMEN<\/b><\/span>T<\/b> <\/b>O<\/b><\/span>F<\/b> <\/b>ARGUMENT I<\/b><\/span>N<\/b> <\/b>SUPPOR<\/b><\/span>T<\/b> <\/b>O<\/b><\/span>F<\/b> <\/b>ALLOWANC<\/b><\/span>E<\/b> <\/b>O<\/b><\/span>F<\/b> <\/b>WRIT<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

This Honorable Court should grant P<\/span>etitioner\u2019s Writ of Certiorari as the United States District Court for the Eastern Distri<\/span>ct of P<\/span>ennsylvania has so far de- parted fro<\/span>m the acce<\/span>pted and usual course of judici<\/span>al proceedings<\/span>, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeal<\/span>s has sancti<\/span>oned su<\/span>ch a departure<\/span>, a<\/span>s to call fo<\/span>r an exe<\/span>r<\/span>– cise of this Court\u2019s su<\/span>pervisory power<\/span>. See<\/i> <\/i>Rule 10(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the Un<\/span>ited States<\/span>.<\/p>\n

A<\/b><\/span>. <\/b> <\/b>Thi<\/b><\/span>s<\/b> Cour<\/b><\/span>t<\/b> Shoul<\/b><\/span>d<\/b> E<\/b><\/span>x<\/b><\/span>ercis<\/b><\/span>e<\/b> I<\/b><\/span>t<\/b><\/span>s<\/b> Supervisory Authorit<\/b><\/span>y <\/b>A<\/b><\/span>s <\/b>Th<\/b><\/span>e<\/b> <\/b>Tria<\/b><\/span>l <\/b>C<\/b><\/span>o<\/b><\/span>ur<\/b><\/span>t <\/b>Judg<\/b><\/span>e <\/b>Vio- late<\/b><\/span>d <\/b>Rule<\/b><\/span>s <\/b>O<\/b><\/span>f <\/b>Judicia<\/b><\/span>l<\/b> <\/b>Procedur<\/b><\/span>e<\/b> <\/b>An<\/b><\/span>d <\/b>So <\/b><\/span>Fa<\/b><\/span>r<\/b> <\/b>Depar<\/b><\/span>t<\/b><\/span>e<\/b><\/span>d<\/b> <\/b>F<\/b><\/span>ro<\/b><\/span>m<\/b> <\/b>Accepte<\/b><\/span>d<\/b> <\/b>Judicia<\/b><\/span>l<\/b> <\/b>Prac- tices<\/b><\/span>,<\/b> <\/b>Tha<\/b><\/span>t<\/b> <\/b>Suc<\/b><\/span>h<\/b> <\/b>A<\/b><\/span>n<\/b> <\/b>Exercis<\/b><\/span>e<\/b> <\/b>I<\/b><\/span>s<\/b> <\/b>Warranted.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

In denying Dr<\/span>. Bauc<\/span>hwitz\u2019s Mo<\/span>tion for Access to Court Reporter\u2019s Ori<\/span>ginal Stenographic Hearing Rec- ords<\/span>, the trial court so far departed from accepted judi- cial practi<\/span>ces<\/span>, that this Court should exercise its supervisory power<\/span>. B<\/span>y w<\/span>a<\/span>y of b<\/span>ackground, on Octobe<\/span>r 16, 2015, Dr<\/span>. Bauch<\/span>witz filed a Motion for Access to<\/p>\n

Court Reporter\u2019s Ori<\/span>ginal Stenographic Hearing Rec- ords wi<\/span>th the United States District Court for the Eastern District of P<\/span>ennsylvania, requesting that, since he had been repeatedly told that a transcript of the October 17, 2005 hearing w<\/span>as not a<\/span>vailable due to technical issues<\/span>, he should be allowed \u201ca<\/span>ccess to the electronic storage medium, da<\/span>maged or otherwise<\/span>, so that a fore<\/span>nsic expert ma<\/span>y atte<\/span>mpt to restore it suffi- ciently<\/span>.\u201d (Appendix E, \u00b6 9). He further req<\/span>uested \u201cac- cess to any stenographic paper outpu<\/span>t, or othe<\/span>r document or file<\/span>, including backup and audio files<\/span>, rel- evant to this request.\u201d (Appendix E, \u00b6 9).<\/p>\n

On October 27, 2015, a hearing w<\/span>as held before The Honorable Timothy J<\/span>. Sa<\/span>vage<\/span>. At the hearin<\/span>g<\/span>, counsel explained to the court that Dr<\/span>. Bauchwitz sought to ha<\/span>ve a forensic expert attempt to create a transcript from any remaining ra<\/span>w data<\/span>: i<\/span>f the \u201cre<\/span>cord- ing medium still exists \u2013 certainly advanc<\/span>es in techn<\/span>o- logical knowledge \u2013 to create an opportunity to do so<\/span>me forensic ex<\/span>amination to see if th<\/span>at informa<\/span>tion is still a<\/span>vailable and can be recreated.\u201d (Appendix F<\/span>, p<\/span>. 3).<\/p>\n

Ultimately<\/span>, the cou<\/span>rt asked if Dr<\/span>. Bauchwitz sought an investigation into what records exist from the hearing<\/span>, to which counsel responded, y<\/span>es:<\/p>\n

\n

The Court: How can I order the production of something that does n<\/span>ot exist or is inexplicabl<\/span>y missing? W<\/span>ould you like me to order tha<\/span>t there be a further search to determi<\/span>ne whether th<\/span>ere exists any medium from whic<\/span>h we can get a tra<\/span>n- scription o<\/span>f the heari<\/span>ng?<\/p>\n

Mr<\/span>. F<\/span>inger: Y<\/span>es<\/span>, Y<\/span>our Honor<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

(Appendix F).<\/p>\n

Pursua<\/span>nt to our a<\/span>dversarial justice sys- tem, the di<\/span>scussed in<\/span>quiry would necessarily occur i<\/span>n the courtroom with all parties present. There w<\/span>as no suggestion that the judge himself would undertake the investigation, look in<\/span>to the facts independently<\/span>, ques- tion witne<\/span>sses independently<\/span>, a<\/span>nd then re<\/span>ach an order with no opportunity for the parties to re<\/span>spond to th<\/span>e evidence<\/span>. Further<\/span>, the judge specifically went on to agree<\/span>, \u201cI will try to in<\/span>quire as to whether or not there is so<\/span>methi<\/span>ng<\/span>, if<\/i><\/b> <\/i><\/b>I<\/i><\/b> <\/i><\/b>g<\/i><\/b><\/span>r<\/i><\/b><\/span>ant<\/i><\/b> <\/i><\/b>y<\/i><\/b><\/span>our<\/i><\/b> <\/i><\/b>motion<\/i><\/b>.\u201d (Appendix F<\/span>, p<\/span>. 16) (emph<\/span>asis added). Accordin<\/span>gly<\/span>, the discussion w<\/span>a<\/span>s clearly not that the judge would conduct an investiga- tion in order to determine whether to grant the motio<\/span>n, but that the granting of the motion would give rise to an investigation.<\/p>\n

After the October 27, 2015 hearing<\/span>, Dr<\/span>. Bauchwitz heard nothing from the court until F<\/span>ebruary 24, 2016, when the court ente<\/span>red an Order<\/span>, and F<\/span>ebruary 25, 2016, when it entered an identical Amended Order<\/span>, denying Dr<\/span>. Bauchwitz\u2019s Motion:<\/p>\n

\n

AND NOW<\/span>, this 24th da<\/span>y of F<\/span>ebruary<\/span>, 2016, upon consi<\/span>deration of the Motio<\/span>n for Access to Court Reporter\u2019s Ori<\/span>ginal Stenographic Hear<\/span>– ing Records (Document N<\/span>. 137) and after a hearing<\/span>, it is ORDERED that the motion is Denied.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

(Appendix B). The Order then contained a three para- graph footnote on the reason for the denial. Essentially<\/span>, based on the court\u2019s i<\/span>ndependent investigation, it con<\/span>– cluded the records did not exist:<\/p>\n

\n

The plaintiff moves fo<\/span>r productio<\/span>n of the co<\/span>urt reporter\u2019s records of a hearing held on October 17, 2015. The hearing w<\/span>as to show cause why the plaintiff \u2019s former attorney should not be permitted to withdra<\/span>w his appe<\/span>arance<\/span>.<\/p>\n

It is not necessary to address Dr<\/span>. Bauchwitz\u2019s entitlement to a transcript of the procee<\/span>dings<\/span>. Assuming that he is<\/span>, we still must deny his motion because what he seeks does not exist.<\/p>\n

The notes were neve<\/span>r transcribed. The co<\/span>urt reporter\u2019s equipment malfuncti<\/span>oned so th<\/span>at a working co<\/span>py of a disc w<\/span>as not created. A<\/span>ddi- tionally<\/span>, th<\/span>e long-reti<\/span>red court reporter does not ha<\/span>ve his notes or a file<\/span>. Nor can the Clerk locate any notes of th<\/span>e hearing<\/span>. In short, there is no storage medium that can be used to cre- ate a transcript of the hearing<\/span>. T<\/span>herefore<\/span>, it is not possible to provide Dr<\/span>. Bauc<\/span>hwitz what he seeks<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

(Appendix B<\/span>, n<\/span>. 1).<\/p>\n

J<\/span>udge Sa<\/span>vage reached these numerous factual conclusion<\/span>s without any opportunity by counsel to evaluate the facts<\/span>. Counsel never had an opportunity to cro<\/span>ss-e<\/span>xamine the \u201cClerk,\u201d who app<\/span>arently w<\/span>as questioned by J<\/span>udge Sa<\/span>vage<\/span>. (FN1) <\/span>Counsel never had the opportunity to question the court reporter<\/span>, whose hear<\/span>– sa<\/span>y testimony w<\/span>as apparently re<\/span>la<\/span>yed to J<\/span>udge Sa<\/span>vage by the \u201cClerk,\u201d and th<\/span>en relied on by J<\/span>udge Sa<\/span>vage<\/span>. Ac<\/span>– cordingly<\/span>, counsel w<\/span>as never give<\/span>n the chance to verify whether the court reporter in fact \u201cdoes not ha<\/span>ve his notes or a file<\/span>,\u201d as w<\/span>a<\/span>s found by the judge<\/span>, or to verify whether the \u201cClerk\u201d cannot \u201clocate any notes of the hearing<\/span>.\u201d F<\/span>inally<\/span>, counsel never learned the basis for J<\/span>udge Sa<\/span>vage\u2019s ultimate concl<\/span>usion that \u201cthere is no storage medium that can be u<\/span>se<\/span>d to create a transcript of the hearing<\/span>.\u201d It is n<\/span>ot clear whether that conclusion w<\/span>as reach<\/span>ed exclu<\/span>si<\/span>vely through conversations wi<\/span>th the \u201cClerk,\u201d or if that w<\/span>as also based on a factual in- quiry into whether an electronic storage medium e<\/span>x- ists<\/span>.<\/p>\n

FN 1 <\/span> C<\/span>o<\/span>uns<\/span>el w<\/span>a<\/span>s nev<\/span>e<\/span>r ev<\/span>en tol<\/span>d wh<\/span>ic<\/span>h cl<\/span>erk J<\/span>ud<\/span>ge Sa<\/span>vag<\/span>e in- terview<\/span>e<\/span>d. P<\/span>resumab<\/span>ly<\/span>, h<\/span>e in<\/span>ter<\/span>viewe<\/span>d J<\/span>o<\/span>an Carr<\/span>, the Su<\/span>per<\/span>vis<\/span>or of Court Rep<\/span>o<\/span>rt<\/span>ers who w<\/span>rot<\/span>e the Sept<\/span>emb<\/span>e<\/span>r 20, 2012 let<\/span>ter to D<\/span>r<\/span>. Bauc<\/span>hwitz, den<\/span>yin<\/span>g his requ<\/span>est for a transcript, but this w<\/span>as never d<\/span>isc<\/span>los<\/span>e<\/span>d in th<\/span>e tria<\/span>l court\u2019s leng<\/span>thy footnote<\/span>.<\/p>\n

J<\/span>udge Sa<\/span>vage\u2019s independent fa<\/span>ctual investigation into the ke<\/span>y facts rel<\/span>ated to this case violates rules of judicial procedure<\/span>. 28 U<\/span>.S<\/span>.C<\/span>. \u00a7 455(b)(1). Rules of judi- cial proce<\/span>dure requ<\/span>ire that a judge recuse himse<\/span>lf when he has \u201cperson<\/span>al knowledge of dispu<\/span>ted eviden- tiary facts\u201d o<\/span>f a case<\/span>. Id.<\/i> <\/i>Here<\/span>, the judge not only re- fused to recuse himself when he became a<\/span>w<\/span>are of disputed facts<\/span>, but he actually sought those facts ou<\/span>t himself<\/span>. The judge chose to acquire personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts<\/span>, and once ac- quired, di<\/span>d not recuse himsel<\/span>f<\/span>, but reache<\/span>d a decisio<\/span>n based on those facts<\/span>. This is a clear violation of rules of judicial procedure<\/span>. (FN2)
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

FN 2 <\/span> J<\/span>udge Sa<\/span>vage must ha<\/span>ve conduct<\/span>e<\/span>d an independent inves- tig<\/span>ati<\/span>on int<\/span>o this case as the factual fin<\/span>din<\/span>gs in his foo<\/span>tno<\/span>te g<\/span>o beyond courtroom discussions and go be<\/span>yo<\/span>nd the fa<\/span>cts as alle<\/span>ged in th<\/span>e l<\/span>e<\/span>tt<\/span>er f<\/span>rom th<\/span>e cl<\/span>erk<\/span>\u2019s of<\/span>fic<\/span>e tha<\/span>t w<\/span>as att<\/span>ach<\/span>ed to Dr<\/span>. Bauch<\/span>– witz\u2019s motion to the cour<\/span>t. (App<\/span>end<\/span>ix E). Spec<\/span>if<\/span>ical<\/span>ly<\/span>, the cour<\/span>t\u2019<\/span>s fo<\/span>otn<\/span>o<\/span>t<\/span>e indi<\/span>cates that \u201ct<\/span>he lo<\/span>ng<\/span>-ret<\/span>ir<\/span>ed court r<\/span>e<\/span>p<\/span>o<\/span>rt<\/span>er do<\/span>es not ha<\/span>ve his n<\/span>o<\/span>t<\/span>e<\/span>s or a fi<\/span>le.<\/span>\u201d (<\/span>A<\/span>pp<\/span>en<\/span>di<\/span>x B<\/span>). The l<\/span>e<\/span>tt<\/span>er fr<\/span>om th<\/span>e c<\/span>lerk\u2019<\/span>s of<\/span>fice<\/span>, ho<\/span>wev<\/span>e<\/span>r<\/span>, onl<\/span>y ind<\/span>ic<\/span>ates tha<\/span>t the court repor<\/span>ter\u2019s notes w<\/span>e<\/span>r<\/span>e not filed wit<\/span>h the c<\/span>o<\/span>urt; it does not indi<\/span>cate th<\/span>at th<\/span>e court r<\/span>e<\/span>p<\/span>o<\/span>rter did n<\/span>o<\/span>t i<\/span>nd<\/span>e<\/span>p<\/span>e<\/span>nd<\/span>ent<\/span>ly mai<\/span>ntain t<\/span>hem<\/span>. Further<\/span>, ther<\/span>e is abs<\/span>ol<\/span>utel<\/span>y no ind<\/span>icat<\/span>ion in the lett<\/span>er from the c<\/span>le<\/span>rk\u2019s offic<\/span>e th<\/span>at \u201cther<\/span>e is no stora<\/span>ge medium that can be used to creat<\/span>e a tra<\/span>nscript of th<\/span>e hear<\/span>in<\/span>g<\/span>,<\/span>\u201d as w<\/span>as found by the court.<\/p>\n

Moreover<\/span>, J<\/span>udge Sa<\/span>vage\u2019s independent fa<\/span>ctual in- vestigation violates Canon 3(A)(4) of the Code of Con- duct for U<\/span>nited States J<\/span>udges<\/span>. This Canon prohibits a judge from considering communications concerning a pending case outside the presence of th<\/span>e parties or their counsel:<\/p>\n

\n

. . . Except as set out below<\/span>, a judge should not initiate<\/span>, pe<\/span>rmit, or co<\/span>nsider ex parte co<\/span>mmu- nications concerning a pending or impending matter tha<\/span>t are made outside th<\/span>e presence of the parties or their la<\/span>wyers<\/span>. . . .<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Id. <\/i>J<\/span>udge Sa<\/span>vage specifically and intentionally vio- lated this provision. He had co<\/span>mmunications with<\/span>, a<\/span>t a minimum, a clerk to ask whether recordings existe<\/span>d that could provide Dr<\/span>. Bauchwitz with the hearing transcript he sought. This communication related to a pending matter and w<\/span>as made outside th<\/span>e presence of the parties and their counsel.<\/p>\n

Furthermore<\/span>, J<\/span>udge Sa<\/span>vage\u2019s conduct violated the AB<\/span>A Model Code of J<\/span>udicial Conduct, which specif<\/span>i- cally advises that judges should not investigate fac<\/span>ts independently:<\/p>\n

\n

A judge sh<\/span>all not inv<\/span>estigate fa<\/span>cts in a matter independently<\/span>, and shall consider only the ev- idence presented a<\/span>nd any facts that ma<\/span>y properly b<\/span>e judicially noticed.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Rule 2.9(C). (FN<\/span>3)\u00a0 <\/span>Here<\/span>, J<\/span>udge Sa<\/span>vage specifica<\/span>lly and in- tentionally violated this rule<\/span>. He conducted an inde- pendent fa<\/span>ctual investigation into the relevant facts of the case<\/span>.<\/p>\n

FN 3 <\/span> The facts in<\/span>vest<\/span>igated by J<\/span>udge Sa<\/span>va<\/span>ge wer<\/span>e not fa<\/span>cts that could \u201cpr<\/span>o<\/span>p<\/span>e<\/span>r<\/span>ly be judic<\/span>ial<\/span>ly not<\/span>ic<\/span>e<\/span>d\u201d u<\/span>nder Ru<\/span>le 2.9(C). Ru<\/span>le 20<\/span>1 of th<\/span>e F<\/span>e<\/span>der<\/span>al Rul<\/span>e<\/span>s of E<\/span>vid<\/span>enc<\/span>e pr<\/span>ov<\/span>id<\/span>es that a c<\/span>o<\/span>urt ma<\/span>y tak<\/span>e j<\/span>udici<\/span>al n<\/span>o<\/span>t<\/span>ic<\/span>e o<\/span>f a fac<\/span>t t<\/span>hat: \u201c(1) is g<\/span>e<\/span>n<\/span>e<\/span>ral<\/span>ly kno<\/span>wn wi<\/span>thin t<\/span>he tria<\/span>l court\u2019s territor<\/span>ia<\/span>l jurisdicti<\/span>on; or (2) can be accurately an<\/span>d read<\/span>ily determ<\/span>ined from sourc<\/span>es whos<\/span>e accuracy cannot reason<\/span>a- bly b<\/span>e qu<\/span>esti<\/span>on<\/span>ed.<\/span>\u201d The fa<\/span>cts at issue h<\/span>e<\/span>re d<\/span>o no<\/span>t fal<\/span>l under eit<\/span>he<\/span>r of t<\/span>hes<\/span>e cate<\/span>gor<\/span>ies<\/span>, as the<\/span>ir d<\/span>e<\/span>term<\/span>ina<\/span>tio<\/span>n re<\/span>quir<\/span>ed an in<\/span>vest<\/span>iga<\/span>– tion, and th<\/span>eir accurac<\/span>y are<\/span>, in fac<\/span>t, reasonably qu<\/span>estion<\/span>ed.<\/p>\n

Circuit Co<\/span>urts of Appeals ha<\/span>ve consi<\/span>stently found that under similar facts<\/span>, where a judge becomes an ad- vocate and speaks directly to witne<\/span>sses<\/span>, he shoul<\/span>d recuse himself<\/span>. See<\/i> <\/i>In<\/i> <\/i>re<\/i> <\/i>Ma<\/i>r<\/i><\/span>shal<\/i>l<\/i><\/span>, 403 B<\/span>.R. 668, 680 (C<\/span>.D<\/span>. Cal. 2009), aff<\/i> <\/i>\u2019<\/i><\/span>d<\/i>, 721 F<\/span>.3d 1032 (9th Cir<\/span>. 2013) (citing In<\/i> <\/i>re<\/i> <\/i>United<\/i> <\/i>S<\/i><\/span>tates<\/i>, 441 F<\/span>.3d 44, 66-68 (1st Cir<\/span>. 2006) (finding that a judge must recuse himself if he conducts a<\/span>n independent investigation or confers with witnesse<\/span>s outside co<\/span>unsel\u2019s presence) and In<\/i> <\/i>re<\/i> <\/i>Edgar<\/i>, 93 F<\/span>.3d 256, 258-60 (7th Cir<\/span>. 1996) (finding that an ex parte meeting with an expert mandates re<\/span>cusal)).<\/p>\n

B<\/b><\/span>. <\/b> <\/b>Thi<\/b><\/span>s<\/b> Cour<\/b><\/span>t<\/b> Shoul<\/b><\/span>d<\/b> E<\/b><\/span>x<\/b><\/span>ercis<\/b><\/span>e<\/b> I<\/b><\/span>t<\/b><\/span>s<\/b> Supervisory Authorit<\/b><\/span>y <\/b>A<\/b><\/span>s <\/b>Th<\/b><\/span>e <\/b>Appellat<\/b><\/span>e<\/b> <\/b>Cour<\/b><\/span>t <\/b>Sanc- tione<\/b><\/span>d <\/b>Th<\/b><\/span>e<\/b> <\/b>Tri<\/b><\/span>a<\/b><\/span>l<\/b> <\/b>Court<\/b><\/span>\u2019<\/b><\/span>s<\/b> <\/b>Depar<\/b><\/span>t<\/b><\/span>ur<\/b><\/span>e<\/b> <\/b>From Est<\/b><\/span>a<\/b><\/span>b<\/b><\/span>l<\/b><\/span>ishe<\/b><\/span>d <\/b>Ru<\/b><\/span>l<\/b><\/span>e<\/b><\/span>s <\/b>O<\/b><\/span>f <\/b>Judi<\/b><\/span>c<\/b><\/span>ia<\/b><\/span>l <\/b>Pro<\/b><\/span>c<\/b><\/span>edure An<\/b><\/span>d<\/b> <\/b>Accepte<\/b><\/span>d<\/b> <\/b>Judicia<\/b><\/span>l<\/b> <\/b>Practices<\/b><\/span>,<\/b> <\/b>B<\/b><\/span>y<\/b> <\/b>Affirm- in<\/b><\/span>g <\/b>Th<\/b><\/span>e <\/b>Tria<\/b><\/span>l <\/b>Court\u2019<\/b><\/span>s <\/b>Decisio<\/b><\/span>n <\/b>An<\/b><\/span>d <\/b>E<\/b><\/span>v<\/b><\/span>en <\/b><\/span>S<\/b><\/span>pecifica<\/b><\/span>l<\/b><\/span>l<\/b><\/span>y<\/b> <\/b>Cre<\/b><\/span>d<\/b><\/span>itin<\/b><\/span>g <\/b>Th<\/b><\/span>e<\/b> <\/b>Tria<\/b><\/span>l<\/b> <\/b>Court\u2019<\/b><\/span>s<\/b> <\/b>In- <\/b><\/span>d<\/b><\/span>e<\/b><\/span>p<\/b><\/span>en<\/b><\/span>d<\/b><\/span>en<\/b><\/span>t<\/b> <\/b>F<\/b><\/span>a<\/b><\/span>c<\/b><\/span>t<\/b><\/span>u<\/b><\/span>a<\/b><\/span>l<\/b> <\/b>In<\/b><\/span>v<\/b><\/span>es<\/b><\/span>t<\/b><\/span>i<\/b><\/span>g<\/b><\/span>a<\/b><\/span>t<\/b><\/span>ion.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

On appeal, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals sanctioned these violations of rules of judicial proce- dure<\/span>, the Code of Conduct for United States J<\/span>udges<\/span>, and the A<\/span>B<\/span>A Model Code of J<\/span>u<\/span>dicial Conduct.<\/p>\n

T<\/span>o this end, the Third Circuit Court of Appe<\/span>als not only affirmed the di<\/span>strict court, but spec<\/span>ifically sanc- tioned J<\/span>udge Sa<\/span>vage\u2019<\/span>s independent investigation in its decision:<\/p>\n

\n

In denying the relief<\/span>, the District Court noted that \u201cthere is no storage medium that can be used to cre<\/span>ate a transcript of the hearing<\/span>,\u201d and it could no<\/span>t provide A<\/span>ppellant so<\/span>mething that does not exist. Specifically<\/span>, the District Court determine<\/span>d that the notes and hearing testi- mony were never transcribed. The scant rec- ord on appeal likewise provides us no basis to grant relief<\/span>. Eleven years ha<\/span>s [sic] pa<\/span>ssed since the h<\/span>earing date; six years ha<\/span>ve passed since the c<\/span>ase w<\/span>as di<\/span>smisse<\/span>d with prejudice; the court reporter has long since retired; and the stenog<\/span>raphic equipment no longer fu<\/span>nc- tions<\/span>. Thus<\/span>, the District Court\u2019s determina- tion that the information Appellant seeks does not e<\/span>xist is credible<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

(Appendix A, p<\/span>. 3-4).<\/p>\n

The above quote refle<\/span>cts the full depth o<\/span>f e<\/span>rror in the appell<\/span>ate court\u2019s decision<\/span>. It found J<\/span>udge Sa<\/span>vage \u201ccredible<\/span>,\u201d essentially sanctioning his role as the ke<\/span>y<\/span>, and in fact, only<\/span>, witn<\/span>ess and in<\/span>vestigator in the case<\/span>. (FN<\/span>4)
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

FN 4 <\/span> Not on<\/span>ly is J<\/span>ud<\/span>ge Sa<\/span>vag<\/span>e th<\/span>e ke<\/span>y an<\/span>d on<\/span>ly w<\/span>itne<\/span>ss in this matter<\/span>, but Dr<\/span>. Bauc<\/span>hwitz seeks the transcript from a hearing that occurr<\/span>ed befor<\/span>e J<\/span>ud<\/span>ge Sa<\/span>vage in 2005.<\/p>\n

It further refused to reverse because the record is \u201cscant.\u201d The record would not ha<\/span>ve been \u201cscant,\u201d if P<\/span>e- titioner had been allowed to q<\/span>uestion witnesses and use an expert to try to recover damaged data. Acco<\/span>rd- ingly<\/span>, the v<\/span>ery basis for it<\/span>s decision w<\/span>as a sanctioning of the trial court\u2019s errors<\/span>.<\/p>\n

C<\/b><\/span>. <\/b> <\/b>Thi<\/b><\/span>s<\/b> Cour<\/b><\/span>t<\/b> Shoul<\/b><\/span>d<\/b> E<\/b><\/span>x<\/b><\/span>ercis<\/b><\/span>e<\/b> I<\/b><\/span>t<\/b><\/span>s<\/b> Supervisory Authorit<\/b><\/span>y <\/b>A<\/b><\/span>s<\/b> <\/b>Th<\/b><\/span>e<\/b> <\/b>Tri<\/b><\/span>a<\/b><\/span>l <\/b>Cour<\/b><\/span>t <\/b>No<\/b><\/span>t <\/b>Onl<\/b><\/span>y <\/b>De- viate<\/b><\/span>d<\/b> <\/b>Fro<\/b><\/span>m<\/b> <\/b>Accepte<\/b><\/span>d <\/b>Judicia<\/b><\/span>l <\/b>Practices, <\/b><\/span>Wh<\/b><\/span>i<\/b><\/span>c<\/b><\/span>h <\/b>De<\/b><\/span>v<\/b><\/span>i<\/b><\/span>at<\/b><\/span>i<\/b><\/span>o<\/b><\/span>n<\/b> Wa<\/b><\/span>s<\/b> Sa<\/b><\/span>n<\/b><\/span>ct<\/b><\/span>i<\/b><\/span>on<\/b><\/span>e<\/b><\/span>d <\/b>B<\/b><\/span>y <\/b>The <\/b><\/span>Appellat<\/b><\/span>e<\/b> <\/b>Court<\/b><\/span>,<\/b> <\/b>Bu<\/b><\/span>t<\/b> <\/b>Th<\/b><\/span>e<\/b> <\/b>Ultimat<\/b><\/span>e<\/b> <\/b>Determi- nation<\/b><\/span>, <\/b>B<\/b><\/span>a<\/b><\/span>se<\/b><\/span>d <\/b>O<\/b><\/span>n <\/b>Th<\/b><\/span>e<\/b> <\/b>Court\u2019<\/b><\/span>s <\/b>Independen<\/b><\/span>t <\/b>An<\/b><\/span>d<\/b> <\/b>Undisclose<\/b><\/span>d<\/b> <\/b>Inves<\/b><\/span>t<\/b><\/span>igation<\/b><\/span>,<\/b> <\/b>Doe<\/b><\/span>s <\/b>Not Compor<\/b><\/span>t <\/b>Wit<\/b><\/span>h <\/b>Feder<\/b><\/span>a<\/b><\/span>l <\/b>La<\/b><\/span>w <\/b>O<\/b><\/span>r <\/b>Th<\/b><\/span>e <\/b>Dis- close<\/b><\/span>d<\/b> <\/b>Fact<\/b><\/span>s<\/b> <\/b>O<\/b><\/span>f<\/b> <\/b>Thi<\/b><\/span>s<\/b> <\/b>C<\/b><\/span>a<\/b><\/span>se.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Based on federal la<\/span>w and the fa<\/span>cts of this case<\/span>, it is unclear how there is absolu<\/span>tely nothing<\/span>, even a cor<\/span>– rupt disk or illegible notes<\/span>, recorded with the clerk\u2019s office that could be made av<\/span>ailable to Dr<\/span>. B<\/span>auchwitz for examinati<\/span>on. F<\/span>ederal la<\/span>w requires that all court hear<\/span>– ings \u201cbe recorded v<\/span>erbatim\u201d a<\/span>nd that the notes be maintained for at lea<\/span>st ten years:<\/p>\n

\n

Each se<\/span>ssi<\/span>on of the court and e<\/span>very other pro- ceeding designated by rule or order of the court or by one o<\/span>f the judges sha<\/span>ll be re<\/span>corded verbatim by shorthand, mechanical means<\/span>, electronic sound recording<\/span>, or any other method, subject to regulations promulg<\/span>ated by the J<\/span>udicial Conference and subject to the discretion and appro<\/span>val of the j<\/span>udge<\/span>. . . .<\/p>\n

The reporter or other individual designated to produce th<\/span>e record sh<\/span>all attach his offi<\/span>cial cer<\/span>– tificate to the origi<\/span>nal shorth<\/span>and notes or other origi<\/span>nal records so ta<\/span>ken and promptly file them with the c<\/span>lerk who shall preserve them in th<\/span>e public re<\/span>cords o<\/span>f th<\/span>e court for not less than ten years<\/span>.<\/p>\n

. . . Upon the request of any party to any pro- ceeding which has b<\/span>een so recorded who has agreed to pa<\/span>y the fee thereof<\/span>, or of a judge of the court, the reporte<\/span>r or other i<\/span>ndividual des- ignated to produce th<\/span>e record shall promptly transcribe the original records o<\/span>f the re- quested pa<\/span>rts of the proceedings and attac<\/span>h to the transcript his official certifi<\/span>cate<\/span>, and de- liver the same to the party or judge maki<\/span>ng the request.<\/p>\n

. . .<\/p>\n

The original notes or other original records and the copy of the transcript i<\/span>n the office of the clerk shall be open during office hours to inspection by any person withou<\/span>t charge<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

28 U<\/span>.S<\/span>.C<\/span>. \u00a7 753(b). T<\/span>here are generally no ca<\/span>veats to these rules<\/span>. The records are to be maintained for at least ten y<\/span>ears and b<\/span>e open to the public<\/span>. Id. <\/i>Accord- ingly<\/span>, it is completely unclear how a request for a tran<\/span>– script, or other note<\/span>s if a tran<\/span>script is n<\/span>ot a<\/span>vailable<\/span>, could be denied whe<\/span>n made within ten years of the hearing date<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Dr<\/span>. Bauch<\/span>w<\/span>itz seeks the hearing transcript from a hearing that occurre<\/span>d on October 17, 2005. He<\/span>, at the latest, inq<\/span>uired into the transcript in September 20<\/span>12, as on September 20, 2012, he received written commu- nication from the co<\/span>urt that th<\/span>e transcript would no<\/span>t be provided. (Appendix E). When his efforts to obtain the transcript failed, he filed his motion on October 16<\/span>, 2015, still within the ten-year period. Accordingly<\/span>, he requested the documents well b<\/span>efore the ten-year min- imum peri<\/span>od to mai<\/span>ntain records elapse<\/span>d, and even filed a formal motion within the applica<\/span>ble time<\/span>. T<\/span>he court should ha<\/span>ve had the records<\/span>, and the cou<\/span>rt should ha<\/span>ve made the records a<\/span>vailable to him.<\/p>\n

Even assuming a mechanical failure occurred, some no<\/span>tes or reco<\/span>rdi<\/span>ng<\/span>, even i<\/span>f damaged, should ha<\/span>ve been filed with the court. Court reporters must \u201cattach his official certifi<\/span>cate to the original shorthand notes or other o<\/span>riginal records so ta<\/span>ken and promptly file them with the court.\u201d 28 U<\/span>.S<\/span>.C<\/span>. \u00a7 753(b). Again, regard- less o<\/span>f whether a tran<\/span>script is ordered immediately<\/span>, th<\/span>e court repo<\/span>rter alw<\/span>a<\/span>ys file<\/span>s something with the court: \u201cIf a transcript i<\/span>s no<\/span>t ordered, the court reporter wil<\/span>l deliver the original shorthand notes or other original records to the cle<\/span>rk o<\/span>f court within 90 da<\/span>ys after the conclusion of the proceeding<\/span>.<\/span>\u201d 6 Guide to J<\/span>udiciary P<\/span>ol- icy Section 290.23.30(c)(1). Regardless of what w<\/span>a<\/span>s filed, a corrupt CD<\/span>, shorthand notes<\/span>, etc<\/span>.<\/span>, Dr<\/span>. Bauch- witz has th<\/span>e right to i<\/span>nspect th<\/span>e same even if no officia<\/span>l transcript exists<\/span>.<\/p>\n

F<\/span>inally<\/span>, the September 20, 2012 letter from J<\/span>oan Carr<\/span>, Supe<\/span>rvisor of C<\/span>ourt Reporters<\/span>, impli<\/span>es that a me- dium did exist whic<\/span>h could ha<\/span>ve had relevant steno- graphic notes: \u201cI w<\/span>a<\/span>s advised by the court reporter assigned to transcribe the hearing that the equipment he had used to burn a CD of the hearing apparently malfunctioned and that he does not ha<\/span>ve a working copy of the disk on which the hearing is recorded.\u201d (Ap-pendix E, p<\/span>. 18). The fact that the court re<\/span>porter \u201cdoe<\/span>s not ha<\/span>ve a working copy of the disk\u201d ce<\/span>rta<\/span>inly implie<\/span>s that a non-working copy of the disk did in fact exist. There w<\/span>as no statement made by anyone that the orig- inal stenographic (and likely audio) record w<\/span>as not made or did not work. It w<\/span>as on<\/span>ly implied in the Su- pervisor o<\/span>f Court Reporter\u2019s hearsa<\/span>y written state- ment that two subsequent events occurred: 1<\/span>) that a backup CD made by the court re<\/span>porter for his own su<\/span>b- sequent u<\/span>se w<\/span>as malfunctioning (FN<\/span>5)<\/span> at the time o<\/span>f he<\/span>r contact with the court reporter in 2012, and 2) that the same re<\/span>po<\/span>rter<\/span>, purpo<\/span>rtedly<\/span>, ma<\/span>y ha<\/span>ve fail<\/span>ed to tran<\/span>s<\/span>– mit any form of the or<\/span>iginal record to the C<\/span>lerk\u2019s Office during the period in 2005–<\/span>2006 in which such trans- mittal wou<\/span>ld ha<\/span>ve been expected (\u201cthe cou<\/span>rt reporte<\/span>r . . . cannot otherwise explain the absence of transcrip- tion notes of the hearing\u201d). 6 Gu<\/span>ide to J<\/span>udiciary P<\/span>olicy Section 290.23.30(c)(1); (Appe<\/span>ndix E); (Exhibit A).<\/p>\n

FN 5 <\/span> Not<\/span>e that a m<\/span>alfunct<\/span>io<\/span>n that prev<\/span>en<\/span>ted th<\/span>e use of a fil<\/span>e transferred t<\/span>o a CD w<\/span>o<\/span>ul<\/span>d not n<\/span>ecess<\/span>arily pr<\/span>event for<\/span>e<\/span>nsic reco<\/span>v- ery of a func<\/span>tio<\/span>nin<\/span>g f<\/span>il<\/span>e<\/span>; i<\/span>n suc<\/span>h cases it is C<\/span>D dir<\/span>e<\/span>ct<\/span>ory i<\/span>nf<\/span>o<\/span>r<\/span>– mation, rath<\/span>er than th<\/span>e file itself<\/span>, tha<\/span>t has been cor<\/span>rupted.<\/p>\n

As Dr<\/span>. Bauchwitz arg<\/span>ued to the Third Circuit, the Supervisor of the Court Reporte<\/span>r\u2019s letter:<\/p>\n

\n

[D]id not contain any explanation of the l<\/span>oca- tion of the purportedl<\/span>y nonworking copy of the disk on wh<\/span>ich the hea<\/span>ring is reco<\/span>rded, nor the existence or location of other backup forms of the original data containing a record of the hearing<\/span>. The nature of the malfunction w<\/span>as not explained, nor w<\/span>as there any explanation of whether any steps had been taken to re<\/span>– cover the data forensi<\/span>cally<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

(Appendix H, p<\/span>. 52-53). Furthermore<\/span>,<\/p>\n

\n

The Distri<\/span>ct Court di<\/span>d not identify the sou<\/span>rce<\/span>s of its evidentiary conclusions<\/span>, nor whether there w<\/span>as any effort made to re<\/span>trieve any of the original records data forensically<\/span>. Appel- lant w<\/span>as n<\/span>ot given th<\/span>e opportun<\/span>ity to parti<\/span>ci- pate in any investigation taken by the District Court to learn whether or not the nonworking storage medium exists and the data can be re- covered.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

(Appendix H, p<\/span>. 53).<\/p>\n

D<\/b><\/span>. <\/b> <\/b>Thi<\/b><\/span>s<\/b> <\/b>Cour<\/b><\/span>t<\/b> <\/b>Shoul<\/b><\/span>d <\/b>E<\/b><\/span>x<\/b><\/span>ercis<\/b><\/span>e<\/b> <\/b>I<\/b><\/span>t<\/b><\/span>s<\/b> <\/b>Supervisory Authorit<\/b><\/span>y<\/b> <\/b>A<\/b><\/span>s<\/b> <\/b>Th<\/b><\/span>e<\/b> <\/b>Error<\/b><\/span>s<\/b> <\/b>C<\/b><\/span>o<\/b><\/span>mmitte<\/b><\/span>d<\/b> <\/b>B<\/b><\/span>y <\/b>The Lowe<\/b><\/span>r <\/b>C<\/b><\/span>o<\/b><\/span>urts<\/b><\/span>,<\/b> <\/b>Whic<\/b><\/span>h <\/b>C<\/b><\/span>a<\/b><\/span>l<\/b><\/span>l <\/b>Fo<\/b><\/span>r <\/b>A<\/b><\/span>n <\/b>Exercise O<\/b><\/span>f<\/b> <\/b>Thi<\/b><\/span>s<\/b> <\/b>Court<\/b><\/span>\u2019<\/b><\/span>s<\/b> <\/b>Supervisor<\/b><\/span>y <\/b>Power<\/b><\/span>, <\/b>Pre- clude<\/b><\/span>d <\/b>Petitione<\/b><\/span>r<\/b> <\/b>Fro<\/b><\/span>m<\/b> <\/b>Exercisin<\/b><\/span>g<\/b> <\/b>His Righ<\/b><\/span>t<\/b> <\/b>T<\/b><\/span>o<\/b> <\/b>Acces<\/b><\/span>s<\/b> <\/b>Publi<\/b><\/span>c<\/b> <\/b>Documents.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

The judge\u2019s depa<\/span>rture fro<\/span>m acce<\/span>pted and u<\/span>sual ju- dicial proceedings<\/span>, a<\/span>nd the appellate court\u2019s sanctio<\/span>n- ing of the same<\/span>, is a critical issu<\/span>e as the pu<\/span>blic has the right to access court records<\/span>. 28 U<\/span>.S<\/span>.C<\/span>. \u00a7 75<\/span>3(b). A tran- script fo<\/span>r a court proceeding is a public record, and if no such transcript exists<\/span>, the<\/span>n the cou<\/span>rt repo<\/span>rte<\/span>r\u2019s back-up records<\/span>, such as aud<\/span>iotapes<\/span>, become public records<\/span>. Se<\/i><\/span>e<\/i> <\/i>Smith<\/i> <\/i>v<\/i><\/span>. United<\/i> <\/i>States<\/i> <\/i>District<\/i> <\/i>Court<\/i> <\/i>Of- fice<\/i>r<\/i><\/span>s<\/i>, 203 F<\/span>.3d 440, 441-42 (7th Cir<\/span>. 2000).<\/p>\n

The court asked numerous times at the October 27, 2015 hearing the purpose of the transcript. (Tr<\/span>.<\/span>, 10\/27\/15, p<\/span>. 7, 8, 9, 12). Although there is a critical pub- lic purpo<\/span>se to the disclosure o<\/span>f this particular tra<\/span>n- script, the open acce<\/span>ss to information concerning the F<\/span>alse Claims Act, this purpose is irrelevant as the pu<\/span>b- lic has the right to ac<\/span>cess public records<\/span>, regardless of content and purpose<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Specifically<\/span>, although Dr<\/span>. Bauchwitz\u2019s reason for seeking a transcript of the October 17, 2005 hearing is entirely irrelevant as these are public records<\/span>, this case involves allegations under the F<\/span>alse Claims Act, where Dr<\/span>. Bauchwitz brought an action on behalf of the United States government due to believed fraud. This is undoubtedly an important pu<\/span>blic interest. The pu<\/span>b- lic has the right to u<\/span>nderstand how these proceedings operate<\/span>, a<\/span>nd accordi<\/span>ngly<\/span>, see the transcri<\/span>pt from th<\/span>ese proceedings<\/span>. As w<\/span>as discussed at the October 27, 2015 hearing before the tri<\/span>al court:<\/p>\n

\n

THE COURT<\/span>: Y<\/span>ou can\u2019t give me a specific public interest, just a general public interest?<\/p>\n

MR. FINGER: No<\/span>, that is not correct, Y<\/span>o<\/span>ur Honor<\/span>. W<\/span>e did make a statement in our papers talking about the F<\/span>alse Claims Act. When there is a claim of public access our entitle- ment is to special con<\/span>sideration<\/span>s by the Court because th<\/span>e public is the true party in inter<\/span>– est. I can sa<\/span>y there\u2019s a general right of acti<\/span>on. This is not a slip and fall case<\/span>. These are ac- tions alleging misuse of government money<\/span>. It\u2019s not a question of whether someone can bring a sui<\/span>t. It\u2019s a question of how these ca<\/span>ses are being treated. . . . [T]he pub<\/span>lic is not lim- ited to the Court\u2019s o<\/span>pinions<\/span>. The underl<\/span>ying arguments<\/span>, the underlying facts<\/span>, the pro<\/span>cess that leads to the resu<\/span>lt is as important as the result.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

(Appendix F<\/span>, p<\/span>. 12).<\/p>\n

F<\/span>inally<\/span>, both the trial court a<\/span>nd appellate court seemed to put great weight on the time that elapsed between th<\/span>e hearing and the req<\/span>uest fo<\/span>r th<\/span>e transcri<\/span>pt, but since the request w<\/span>as made within ten years of the hearing date<\/span>, this is irrelevant. 28 U<\/span>.S<\/span>.C<\/span>. \u00a7 753(b); (Ap- pendix F); (Appendix A). Courts must maintain records for a mini<\/span>mum of te<\/span>n years<\/span>. 28 U<\/span>.S<\/span>.C<\/span>. \u00a7 753(b). There- fore<\/span>, the trial court\u2019s suggestion that a \u201cbalancing test\u201d must be co<\/span>nducted \u201ca<\/span>t some poi<\/span>nt in time<\/span>\u201d is erroneou<\/span>s<\/span>. (Appendix F<\/span>, p<\/span>. 8). If that is eve<\/span>r true<\/span>, it would neces- sarily occu<\/span>r afte<\/span>r the full ten years ha<\/span>ve e<\/span>lapsed. The Third Circuit Court of Appeal<\/span>s similarly erroneously relied on the passing of time<\/span>, ig<\/span>noring that Dr<\/span>. Bauc<\/span>h- witz made his request within ten years of the hearing<\/span>. (Appendix A, p<\/span>. 3) (\u201cE<\/span>leven years has [sic<\/span>] passed sin<\/span>ce the hearing date; six years ha<\/span>ve passed si<\/span>nce the ca<\/span>se w<\/span>as dismis<\/span>sed wi<\/span>th pr<\/span>ejudice . . . \u201d). These d<\/span>ates ignore that Dr<\/span>. Bauchwitz requested the tra<\/span>nscript well within the ten-year period and even filed his forma<\/span>l motion before the expiration of ten years<\/span>.<\/p>\n

——————————–<\/span>–<\/span>\u2666<\/span>——————————–<\/span>–<\/p>\n

CONCLUSION<\/strong><\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari should be granted.<\/p>\n

Respectfully submitted,<\/span><\/p>\n

R<\/span>ONALD<\/span> T<\/span>. TOMA<\/span>S<\/span>K<\/span>O<\/span>, ES<\/span>Q<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Counsel of<\/i> <\/i>Record<\/i><\/p>\n

JSDC <\/span>L<\/span>A<\/span>W O<\/span>FFICES<\/p>\n

134 Sipe A<\/span>venue<\/p>\n

Hummelstown, P<\/span>A 17036<\/p>\n

(717) 533-3280<\/p>\n

RTT@jsdc<\/span>.com<\/a><\/p>\n

Attorney <\/i>f<\/i><\/span>or the <\/i>P<\/i><\/span>etitioner<\/i><\/p>\n

Date: March 27, 2017<\/p>\n

\n

\n

The Appendices can be obtained from the following links:<\/h5>\n

Appendices A-E<\/a><\/p>\n

Appendix F (Hearing Transcript)<\/a><\/p>\n

Appendix G<\/a><\/p>\n

Appendix H<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

  [pdf-embedder url=”https:\/\/amerares.com\/blogs\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/SCt-Cert-Petition-Cropped-040617-FINAL-copy.pdf” title=”SCt Cert Petition – Cropped 040617 – FINAL copy”]   A pdf version of the petition can be downloaded here. A text version follows.   No.________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States ——————————––\u2666——————————–– UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. ROBERT P. BAUCHWITZ, M.D., PH.D., Petitioner, v. WILLIAM K. HOLLOMAN, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":640,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,21,15],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/amerares.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/692"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/amerares.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/amerares.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amerares.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amerares.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=692"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/amerares.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/692\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":707,"href":"https:\/\/amerares.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/692\/revisions\/707"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amerares.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/640"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/amerares.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=692"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amerares.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=692"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amerares.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=692"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}