Confidential Psychological and Mental Assessment of Colleen McMahon[1] — the pathology and psychology of criminal judicial corruption.
[1] Colleen McMahon has been accused of horrible and unprecedented vicious, violent, and dangerous crimes committed while a sitting Article III United States federal judge (SDNY) in the Ulysses T. Ware cases, №02cv2219 (SDNY).
Commissioned by The Business Intelligence Group (UK)
for U.S. clients.
November 10, 2023
Memorandum for Fraud on the Court
and
Confidential Psychological and Mental Assessment of Colleen McMahon[1] — the pathology and psychology of criminal judicial corruption.
The wicked face of evil.
Table of Contents
MEMORANDUM FOR FRAUD ON THE COURT. 4
I Judicial Standards and the Conduct of Judge McMahon. 4
II The Essence of Due Process and Judicial Integrity. 5
III Comparison with Hazel-Atlas and Other Precedents. 6
IV The Unacceptability of Judicial Misconduct. 6
V Conclusion and Request for Relief. 6
Session 1: Background and Alleged Misconduct 19
Session 2: Narcissistic Tendencies. 19
Session 3: Antisocial Behavior and Sociopathy. 20
Session 4: Psychological Impact of Power 20
Session 5: The Burden of Proof and Reality Testing. 21
Session 6: Societal and Institutional Influence. 21
Session 7: Narcissistic Sociopathy Assessment 21
The Banality of Evil and McMahon’s Conduct 23
Historical Context: Holocaust and Slave Trade. 24
The Psychological Mechanisms at Play. 24
Ethical Responsibility and Institutional Culture. 24
IRN Public Corruption Investigations. 27
To: Clerk of the United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Re: Application for Relief from a Judgment or Order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3)
Case: Alpha Capital AG et al. v. Group Management Corp. et al., Case №02cv2219
MEMORANDUM FOR FRAUD ON THE COURT.
Introduction
Pursuant to Rule 60(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this memorandum discusses public redress for the egregious, unethical, and criminal conduct of District Judge Colleen McMahon (SDNY) which amounts to fraud on the court. This memorandum is predicated on a detailed examination of Judge McMahon’s actions and psychological state of mind, and mental processes in the context of the prevailing legal standards set forth by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
I Judicial Standards and the Conduct of Judge McMahon.
The judiciary, as the bastion of justice and fairness, is held to the highest standards of conduct. In the case of Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944), the Supreme Court articulated the gravity of judicial fraud, noting that it “is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public,” 322 U.S. at 246. Similarly, the Second Circuit has consistently upheld the principles of due process and fair hearing as cornerstones of the judicial process, as evident in the precedents of Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 1998), and Board of Managers of 2900 Ocean Avenue Condominium v. Bronkovic, 83 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 1996).
Contrary to these established standards, Judge McMahon’s actions in the instant case raise serious concerns. The imposition of a filing injunction without due process and the disregard for the principle of mootness following a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a) demonstrate a callous, egregious, and radical departure from the principles enshrined in our legal system.
II The Essence of Due Process and Judicial Integrity.
The essence of due process, as underscored in landmark cases, hinges on the right to a fair and impartial hearing. In the matter at hand, the absence of such a hearing prior to the entry of Docket №151 (02cv2219)(SDNY) — the void leave to file order, contravenes the very core of due process. This action is not only a radical and extreme deviation from the standards set by the Second Circuit but also a direct affront and attack on the fundamental tenets of due process of law.
In Hazel-Atlas, the Supreme Court underscored that fraud on the court is not merely a procedural error but an act that “tampered with the integrity of the court itself.” Id. at 246. By her actions, Judge McMahon has similarly tampered with the judicial process, compromising the integrity of the court, and undermining public confidence in the judicial system. Impeachable conduct and violations of the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges.
III Comparison with Hazel-Atlas and Other Precedents.
The Hazel-Atlas case serves as a pertinent comparator to the present situation. There, the Supreme Court dealt with a scenario where the judicial process was corrupted from within. In the case at hand, Judge McMahon’s actions mirror this scenario, wherein the sanctity of the judicial process is compromised by the very individual entrusted with upholding it. The Hazel-Atlas decision emphasized that such conduct cannot and will not be tolerated in U.S. federal courts, stating, “Tampering with the administration of justice in the manner indisputably shown here involves far more than an injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public.” Id.
IV The Unacceptability of Judicial Misconduct.
The conduct of Judge McMahon represents a clear and present danger to the integrity of the judiciary. The U.S. federal courts, as guardians of justice, cannot and should not tolerate such actions. The principles established by the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit are not mere guidelines but fundamental covenants that uphold the rule of law. A deviation from these principles, as demonstrated by Judge McMahon, undermines the very fabric of our legal system.
V Conclusion and Request for Relief.
In light of the foregoing analysis and the compelling parallels drawn with the Hazel-Atlas case, it is evident that Judge McMahon’s actions constitute fraud on the court under Rule 60(d)(3). Her conduct not only deviates significantly from the judicial standards set by the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit but also undermines the fundamental principles of due process and the integrity of the judicial system. Such actions erode public trust and confidence in the judiciary and must be addressed with the utmost seriousness.
The Hazel-Atlas case, a keystone in the jurisprudence of judicial fraud, establishes a clear precedent for the current situation. It articulates that when a judicial officer, such as Judge McMahon, engages in actions that corrupt the judicial process, it is imperative for the system to respond decisively to restore integrity and public confidence. The Supreme Court’s admonition in Hazel-Atlas, that fraud on the court reaches “the very essence of judicial proceedings.” Id., resonates profoundly in the present case.
In keeping with the gravity of the situation and the precedents cited, this memorandum respectfully requests that the Court take immediate and appropriate action. The relief sought includes, but is not limited to, the reversal of the affected orders and judgments in the case at hand, and an assessment of civil and monetary damages against Judge McMahon for her actions, which have caused significant harm to the applicant, Ulysses T. Ware, and to the integrity of the judicial process.
It is not just the fate of a single case or litigant at stake here but the sanctity of the judicial system itself. The actions of Judge McMahon, as detailed herein, are antithetical to the principles of justice, fairness, and due process that form the bedrock of our legal system. They are a blight on the judicial landscape and must be addressed with the full force of the law to prevent a repetition of such conduct in the future.
In conclusion, this memorandum urges the Court to recognize the severity of Judge McMahon’s actions and to provide public redress in a manner that upholds the principles of justice and integrity that are the hallmarks of the U.S. federal courts. The sanctity of the judicial process and the public’s trust in the legal system demand nothing less.
Appendix -1
Title: The Incongruent Duplicity and Crimes of Colleen McMahon, the Federal Judiciary from the Psychological Lens of Dostoevsky’s Raskolnikov and the Theme of Crime and Punishment.
Author: R. Kottleberg, Investigative Journalist, Law Enforcement Consultant, and Profiler.
Introduction
In the annals of legal history, the case of New York Federal Judge Colleen McMahon stands as a chilling embodiment of incongruent duplicity.[2] McMahon, alongside her alleged spouse Frank V. Sica, faces grave allegations under the Judicial Misconduct and Disability Act, with charges including criminal judicial misconduct and involvement in racketeering and Hobbs Act violent crimes. This report seeks to analyze McMahon’s psychological profile, drawing parallels with Fyodor Dostoevsky’s iconic character, Rodion Raskolnikov, from the novel “Crime and Punishment.”
The Psychology of Colleen McMahon: A Raskolnikovian Analysis
The Burden of Conscience and Rationalization
Like Raskolnikov, McMahon appears to embody a complex interplay of moral dissonance and rationalization. Her alleged involvement in criminal usury and unlawful debts suggests a deep-seated incongruence between her legal obligations and personal actions. Raskolnikov’s internal conflict, his struggle between his intellectual justifications for murder and his moral revulsion, mirrors McMahon’s apparent dichotomy between her judicial role and her alleged criminal activities.
The God Complex
McMahon’s alleged actions hint at a God-like complex, a trait vividly seen in Raskolnikov. Her engagement in activities that starkly contrast with her judicial roles, such as her long-running criminal involvement in usury and racketeering, suggests a belief in being above the law — a sentiment resonating with Raskolnikov’s belief in his moral superiority and right to transgress norms for a ‘greater good’.
Descent into Moral Ambiguity
The indictment portrays McMahon, an Article III federal judge, as having descended into moral ambiguity, compromising the judiciary’s sanctity. This trajectory mirrors Raskolnikov’s journey, where intellectual arrogance leads to moral downfall. Judge McMahon’s alleged indulgence in corruption reflects a departure from her sworn duty to uphold justice, akin to Raskolnikov’s devolution from a once-promising law student to a criminal.
The Theme of Crime and Punishment
The Price of Transgression
Both McMahon and Raskolnikov face the inevitable consequences of their actions. For McMahon, it’s the indictment and potential loss of her judicial standing; for Raskolnikov, it’s the eventual surrender to the law and his conscience
The Incongruent Duplicity and Crimes of Colleen McMahon: A Psychological Assessment from the Lens of Dostoevsky’s Raskolnikov.
Introduction
In analyzing the indictment against New York Federal Judge Colleen McMahon, one is reminded of the complex character of Rodion Raskolnikov from Fyodor Dostoevsky’s “Crime and Punishment”. McMahon, like Raskolnikov, presents a case study in the incongruence of outward respectability and inner moral decay. This report seeks to unravel the psychological underpinnings of McMahon’s alleged actions, drawing parallels with Raskolnikov’s philosophical and ethical struggles.
The Allure of Power and Ethical Decay
Raskolnikov’s actions in “Crime and Punishment” were driven by a sense of superiority and a belief in his own exceptionalism. Similarly, McMahon’s alleged descent into corruption signifies a fall from grace, a journey from upholding the law to allegedly manipulating it for personal gain. This echoes the sentiments expressed by Winston Churchill and Ayn Rand, emphasizing the responsibility that comes with power and the moral decay that ensues when it is abused.
The Duality of McMahon’s Character
Raskolnikov was a character of contradictions, torn between his intellectual arrogance and moral conscience. McMahon’s case presents a similar duality: a respected judge accused of serious misconduct. Her alleged actions reflect a deep incongruence, challenging the perception of the judiciary as an unassailable bastion of justice.
The Ethical Obligations of the Judiciary
The indictment against McMahon raises questions about the ethical obligations of those in positions of judicial authority. Like Raskolnikov, who grappled with the consequences of his actions, McMahon’s case forces a reckoning with the ethical standards we expect from our judicial system. It represents a crisis not just of an individual, but of an institution.
The Burden of Proof and Pursuit of Truth
Raskolnikov’s internal conflict was a quest for truth, which ultimately led to his confession. The case against McMahon places a similar burden of proof on the judiciary, demanding a rigorous pursuit of truth. This pursuit is not just a search for legal justice, but a moral imperative to restore faith in a system allegedly tainted by corruption.
The Future of the Judiciary
The resolution of McMahon’s case is pivotal for the future of the judiciary. It stands at a crossroads, much like Raskolnikov, who faced a choice between redemption and ruin. The judiciary’s path forward will determine whether it can maintain its role as a guardian of justice or succumb to the pitfalls of power and corruption.
The Triumph of Justice Over Despotism
Raskolnikov’s journey was one towards self-realization and redemption. The judiciary, in dealing with McMahon’s case, must similarly embark on a path of self-examination and correction. This is essential for upholding the principles of justice and democracy, and for ensuring that the judiciary remains a true sentinel of liberty.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the psychological parallels between McMahon’s alleged conduct and Raskolnikov’s character provide a deep insight into the nature of power, corruption, and redemption. As the judiciary navigates this tumultuous episode, it is tasked with the monumental responsibility of upholding the integrity of the system. The true measure of its success lies not in its grandeur but in its unwavering commitment to truth, justice, and the principles upon which it was founded.
The Incongruent Duplicity and Crimes of Colleen McMahon: A Psychological Assessment through the Philosophies of Ayn Rand, George Orwell, and Aristotle.
Introduction
The case of New York Federal Judge Colleen McMahon offers a profound opportunity to examine the complexities of human morality and ethics through various philosophical lenses. While the initial analysis drew parallels with Dostoevsky’s Raskolnikov, this report extends the inquiry, incorporating the philosophies of Ayn Rand, George Orwell, and Aristotle to further dissect McMahon’s psychological profile and the ethical implications of her alleged actions.
Ayn Rand’s Objectivism and McMahon’s Alleged Actions
Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism emphasizes rational self-interest and individualism. In the context of McMahon’s alleged misconduct, there’s a stark contrast between Rand’s ideal of pursuing one’s own happiness through productive achievement and McMahon’s supposed pursuit of self-interest through unethical means. This divergence highlights a perversion of Randian principles, where the pursuit of self-gain supersedes moral integrity and societal welfare.
Orwell’s Cynicism and the Judicial Dystopia
George Orwell’s cynical view of power and control, as evident in his works like “1984”, resonates with the unfolding narrative of McMahon’s case. Orwell warned of the corrupting influence of power and the erosion of individual freedoms under authoritarian regimes. McMahon’s case, if proven true, mirrors this cynicism, showcasing how power within the judiciary could potentially lead to an erosion of trust and integrity, steering it towards a state of judicial dystopia.
Aristotle’s Ethics and Moral Virtue
Aristotle’s concept of ethics focuses on virtue and moral character, emphasizing the importance of ethical behavior for the well-being of both the individual and society. McMahon’s alleged actions, when viewed through this lens, represent a departure from Aristotelian virtue ethics. Instead of embodying the judicial virtues of fairness, integrity, and prudence, her actions, as alleged, suggest a moral failing, a deviation from the path of ethical righteousness that Aristotle deemed essential for a fulfilling life.
The Duality of McMahon’s Character
The duality of McMahon’s character, as seen in her respected position juxtaposed with the allegations against her, echoes the contradictions in human nature explored by all three philosophers. Rand’s ideal of a morally upright individual, Orwell’s depiction of power’s corrupting influence, and Aristotle’s vision of a virtuous life all converge in this complex scenario, illustrating the multifaceted nature of McMahon’s alleged ethical transgressions.
The Ethical Obligations of the Judiciary
The indictment against McMahon not only raises legal questions but also moral inquiries regarding the ethical obligations of those in judicial power. This situation demands a reassessment of the judiciary’s role and responsibilities, aligning it with the ethical standards and moral virtues championed by Aristotle, the individual integrity advocated by Rand, and the vigilance against corruption underscored by Orwell.
The Future of the Judiciary
The resolution of McMahon’s case is crucial for the future of the judiciary, echoing the philosophical debate between idealism and realism. It stands as a test of the judiciary’s commitment to Aristotle’s virtues, Rand’s rational self-interest, and Orwell’s warning against power’s corruptibility. The path chosen will signify the judiciary’s adherence to ethical principles and its role as a guardian of justice and morality.
Conclusion
The psychological and ethical analysis of Colleen McMahon, when viewed through the combined lenses of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, George Orwell’s cynicism, and Aristotle’s virtue ethics, presents a multifaceted exploration of her alleged actions. It underscores the complexities of human morality and the challenges faced in upholding ethical integrity within positions of power. As the judiciary navigates this challenging episode, it must reaffirm its commitment to truth, justice, and the moral principles foundational to its existence.
A Confidential Psychological Assessment and Profile of Colleen McMahon. Commissioned by The Business Intelligence Group on behalf of U.S. clients; prepared by the Center for Human Behavioral Studies (UK).[i]
Introduction
The case of Colleen McMahon, a New York Federal Judge facing serious allegations of misconduct, presents a complex psychological profile. Drawing from the indictment details and utilizing clinical psychology methodologies, this assessment explores McMahon’s mental state and evaluates the possibility of narcissistic sociopathic tendencies.
Session 1: Background and Alleged Misconduct
McMahon’s indictment suggests a deep incongruence between her esteemed judicial position and the alleged criminal actions. The charges imply a betrayal of the legal and ethical standards expected of her role, indicating potential personality disorders, particularly those associated with grandiosity, entitlement, and a lack of empathy — traits commonly found in narcissistic sociopathy.
Session 2: Narcissistic Tendencies
The nature of McMahon’s alleged actions, which betray a selfish pursuit of personal gain over societal welfare, aligns with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) traits. NPD is characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others. The perversion of Ayn Rand’s ideals for personal benefit suggests a grandiose self-image and entitlement.
Session 3: Antisocial Behavior and Sociopathy
McMahon’s alleged misconduct, involving a flagrant abuse of power and trust, also aligns with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), commonly linked to sociopathy. Individuals with ASPD often display disregard for right and wrong, deceit and manipulation for personal gain, and a failure to consider the rights and feelings of others, which aligns with the charges against McMahon.
Session 4: Psychological Impact of Power
The influence of power and its corrupting effect are pivotal in understanding McMahon’s mental state. The allegations suggest a potential moral disengagement, where power may have eroded her ethical boundaries, leading to behavior that is at odds with societal norms and laws. This dynamic is often observed in individuals holding significant authority, leading to ethical blindness and rationalization of misconduct.
Session 5: The Burden of Proof and Reality Testing
McMahon’s case necessitates a rigorous examination of her grasp on reality versus delusions of grandeur or entitlement. The need for objective reality testing is crucial to determine if her actions were a result of a distorted view of her capabilities and moral justification or a deliberate disregard for legal and ethical standard
Session 6: Societal and Institutional Influence
The role of societal and institutional pressures in shaping McMahon’s behavior must be considered. The judiciary’s culture and the systems of power within which she operated may have contributed to her alleged actions. Understanding the interplay between individual psychology and systemic influences is critical in assessing her mental state.
Session 7: Narcissistic Sociopathy Assessment
The overlapping traits of narcissism and sociopathy in McMahon’s alleged behavior are explored in this session. The assessment focuses on her apparent lack of remorse, empathy, and her alleged manipulation of the legal system for personal gain. Narcissistic sociopaths often exhibit a pattern of exploiting others without guilt, which appears to be evident in McMahon’s case.
Conclusion
McMahon’s psychological assessment suggests a complex interplay of narcissistic and sociopathic traits exacerbated by her powerful position. The alleged actions indicate a potential detachment from ethical norms and a prioritization of personal interests over legal and moral responsibilities. While the full extent of her mental state can only be conclusively determined through direct psychological evaluation, this assessment provides a preliminary understanding based on the available indictment details. The case underscores the necessity for continuous ethical vigilance and mental health support for individuals in positions of significant power.
Psychological Assessment of Colleen McMahon: The Perspective of Hannah Arendt’s Banality of Evil and Historical Atrocities.
Introduction
In exploring the indictment against Colleen McMahon through the lens of Hannah Arendt’s concept of the Banality of Evil, her case can be juxtaposed with historical events like the Holocaust and the Transatlantic Slave Trade. Arendt’s theory, primarily emerging from her observations of Adolf Eichmann, posits that evil can manifest not just through malevolent intent but also through ordinary individuals performing their duties without moral consideration. This perspective offers a unique framework to understand McMahon’s psychological profile and her alleged actions.
The Banality of Evil and McMahon’s Conduct
Arendt’s Banality of Evil suggests that individuals can perpetrate heinous acts not out of deep-seated wickedness but through a failure to think critically about the morality of their actions. In the context of McMahon’s case, if the allegations are true, it could be argued that her actions represent not just a personal moral failing but a manifestation of systemic issues within the judiciary. Her alleged misconduct might be seen as a consequence of the bureaucratic machinery, where the detachment from the ethical implications of one’s actions leads to a moral disconnect.
Historical Context: Holocaust and Slave Trade
The Holocaust and the Transatlantic Slave Trade were extreme manifestations of systemic evil, where individuals, often considering themselves as merely fulfilling their duties, contributed to immense human suffering. While McMahon’s case is not directly comparable in scale or intent, the underlying psychological processes, as suggested by Arendt, could be similar. The potential routinization of unethical behavior within powerful institutions can desensitize individuals to the moral gravity of their actions, similar to how ordinary people contributed to historic atrocities.
The Psychological Mechanisms at Play
Arendt’s theory points to a lack of critical thinking and moral judgment in individuals as a key factor in the perpetration of evil. In McMahon’s case, if the allegations are true, this could manifest as an uncritical adherence to a corrupt system or a failure to recognize the ethical dimensions of her actions. This psychological mechanism can be a product of institutional culture, personal ambition, or a flawed ethical compass.
Ethical Responsibility and Institutional Culture
The judiciary, like any powerful institution, can create an environment where ethical lapses become normalized. McMahon’s alleged actions, viewed through Arendt’s framework, might reflect a broader issue within the judicial system — a culture that possibly allows, or even encourages, unethical behavior. This perspective emphasizes the need for strong ethical leadership and a culture of accountability in preventing such moral failings.
Conclusion
In conclusion, examining Colleen McMahon’s case through Hannah Arendt’s Banality of Evil provides a nuanced understanding of how ordinary individuals might commit unethical acts. While the scale and nature of her alleged actions are vastly different from the atrocities of the Holocaust and the Slave Trade, the psychological and ethical principles at play share similarities. This assessment underscores the importance of individual moral responsibility, critical thinking, and ethical vigilance in preventing the descent into institutionalized immorality.
Top of Form
Appendix -2
IRN Public Corruption Investigations
Business Intelligence Group (BIG)
November 9, 2023
In the Shadow of Tyranny:
A Judiciary’s Descent into Dishonor.
NYC federal Judge Colleen McMahon
The imminent Indictment of New York Federal Judge Colleen McMahon
IRNewswires (IRN)/Business Intelligence Group (BIG) Public Corruption Investigation.
Meredith Kammler, LLB, LLM, Ph.D., summa cum laude, Investigative Reporter
Alain Reitman, JD, Ph.D., summa cum laude, Investigative Reporter
Michael Krauss, B.A., LLM, SJD, summa cum laude, Public Corruption Investigator/Analyst.
Opinion and Editorial
The Sinews of Peace Undermined
“Winston Churchill once famously declared, ‘Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.’ And here we are, seemingly caught in a twisted cycle of history, where the robes of justice are dyed in the very iniquity they are meant to abhor. As NYC federal Judge Colleen McMahon’s alleged transgressions unfurl like the darkening clouds of a gathering storm, one cannot help but recall Churchill’s words as a grim and dreadful prophecy for the judiciary.
The Price of Greatness is Responsibility
The federal bench, a citadel of jurisprudence, now stands accused of harboring what may well be a veritable agent of corruption, Colleen McMahon and other federal judges. When we ponder the ‘greatness’ of this institution, we must ask: where is the ‘responsibility’ that Churchill spoke of? Ayn Rand’s objectivist philosophy asserts that the moral purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s own happiness or rational self-interest. Yet, where is the rationality or moral purpose in the alleged criminal actions of McMahon? If true, which they appear to be, they are a flagrant perversion of Rand’s ideals, supplanting individual justice with self-indulgence at the expense of societal trust.
A Judiciary Besieged by Its Own
In a realm where the gavel’s rap should echo the unyielding resolve for justice, we instead hear the muffled thuds of ethical decay. Rand once wrote, ‘We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission.’ Are we now witnessing the judiciary inch perilously close to this ‘ultimate inversion’ where a judge may allegedly operate with brazen impunity?
An Orwellian Prognosis
George Orwell’s grim vision of totalitarianism — a system where ‘Big Brother’ oversees and controls every facet of human life — finds eerie resonance in this judicial debacle. It is not the all-seeing eye of a despotic state that we fear now, but rather the blind eye of a judicial dictatorship that may very well turn its gaze away from its own purported failings. If a judge, an arbiter of justice, can fall prey to the allure of corruption, are we not a step closer to Orwell’s forecast? A system where some are more equal than others, where the scales of justice are not balanced but tipped in favor of the judicial elite?
The Mother of All Evils in a Democracy
Churchill asserted that ‘The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.’ But what then, shall we say of a judiciary tainted by allegations such as those faced by McMahon? It represents a new inherent vice — the unequal application of the law, and as Rand would argue, a threat to the very fabric of individual rights. When justice is meted out with a measure of bias or under the heavy cloak of vice, the ‘blessings’ of freedom and fairness become the ‘miseries’ of oppression and skepticism.
The Thin Robe of Civility
‘A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject,’ Churchill once quipped. Yet, the subject at hand demands not only our unyielding focus but a call for those within the judiciary to change their minds about the impenetrable nature of their institution. The allegations against McMahon rip through the thin robe of civility and expose a potential barbarism that is as disconcerting as it is undemocratic.
Towards a Reckoning: The Burden of Proof Lies Heavy
We stand upon a precipice, where the burden of proof lies heavy upon the shoulders of the judiciary. It is not enough to whisper assurances of integrity; these must be shouted from the rooftops with the clarity and conviction of Churchill’s orations. It is here that Rand’s vision of objective reality must pierce the fog of ambiguity: facts are facts, and if the allegations are substantiated, then the judiciary must confront its reality with the courage of those who know that ‘the truth is not for all men, but only for those who seek it.’
Conclusion: No Empty Quarter in the Halls of Justice
The time for a judicial reckoning is at hand. ‘If we open a quarrel between past and present, we shall find that we have lost the future,’ warned Churchill. Therefore, it is imperative that the quarrel between what the judiciary was meant to represent and what it may have become is settled — not through whispers and shadows, but through the relentless pursuit of truth and rectitude. The Ayn Randian philosophy demands it, Orwell’s warnings guide it, and Churchill’s legacy beseeches it.
Let us not witness the fall of this legal bastion into the abyss of dishonor and despotism. Instead, let it rise, phoenix-like, from the ashes of this crisis, renewed and resolute in its quest for unadulterated justice. It is not merely the reputation of an individual at stake here, but the sanctity of the entire judiciary and the public’s trust in it.
Epilogue: The Triumph of Justice Over Judicial Despotism
As we close this somber chapter, we must remember Rand’s insistence on the moral right of every individual to live for their own sake. Let this ethos guide the cleansing of the judiciary. It must not be a shelter for misconduct nor a hall where justice is a mere afterthought. It must emerge as the cornerstone of democracy, impervious to the rot of corruption and decay. The federal judiciary, once revered, now must face its own moment of truth. This is not about one judge; it is about the system that allowed such allegations to fester, perhaps indicative of a larger malaise. It must be vigorous in self-examination and relentless in self-correction. The judiciary, after all, holds in its grasp the very sinews of peace and democracy.
As Churchill would have it, “This is no time for ease and comfort. It is time to dare and endure.” For the judiciary to restore its tainted image, it must embrace this wisdom. There can be no compromise, no negotiation with the principles of justice. The path of rectitude must be followed with unwavering resolve, for only then can we ensure that the judiciary remains a true sentinel of liberty, not an architect of a judicial dictatorship forewarned by Orwell.
The future of the federal judiciary hangs in the balance, its legacy to be either damned by complacency or redeemed by the rigorous enforcement of ethical integrity. It is time for the judiciary to decide its destiny — to either correct its course or continue on a path that may lead to the ultimate betrayal of the American people’s trust.
In the end, the measure of our institutions — and indeed, ourselves — is not the might of our buildings or the grandeur of our titles, but the steadfastness with which we uphold the tenets of truth, justice, and the American way. For, in Churchill’s enduring words, “We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.” And what greater gift is there than the fair and faithful administration of justice?
Copyright © 2023. All rights reserved
IRNewswires Media Group, S.A. (Asia)
[1] Colleen McMahon has been accused of horrible and unprecedented vicious, violent, and dangerous crimes committed while a sitting Article III United States federal judge (SDNY) in the Ulysses T. Ware cases, №02cv2219 (SDNY).
[2] The term “incongruent duplicity” combines two distinct concepts: “incongruent” and “duplicity.”
1. Incongruent: This term typically refers to things that are not consistent or in harmony with each other. In psychology, incongruence can describe a state where there is a mismatch between one’s self-perception and reality, or between one’s actions and beliefs.
2. Duplicity: This refers to deceitfulness or double-dealing. It’s the act of being two-faced or deliberately misleading in behavior or speech, often by saying different things to different people or acting in contradiction to one’s stated beliefs or feelings.
When combined, “incongruent duplicity” describes a situation or behavior that is not only fundamentally deceitful but also inconsistent or contradictory in nature. It implies a complex form of deception where the deceit itself is at odds with other aspects of the person’s behavior, beliefs, or statements, leading to a lack of harmony or consistency in their actions or character.
[i] The conclusion that “Characteristics of Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), including deceitfulness and a disregard for the rights of others, are evident in the allegations against McMahon” is based on the following facts extracted from the indictment document:
1. Allegations of Corruption and Misconduct: The indictment suggests that McMahon may have engaged in corrupt practices, undermining the integrity of her judicial position. This aligns with ASPD characteristics, as it implies deceitful behavior for personal gain at the expense of legal and ethical standards.
2. Brazen Impunity: The document mentions a scenario where McMahon may have operated with a sense of impunity, potentially indicating a lack of regard for the law and ethical guidelines expected of her judicial role. This behavior resonates with the disregard for rights of others, a trait often associated with ASPD.
3. Judicial Dictatorship and Corruption Allure: The indictment compares the situation to an Orwellian scenario of a ‘judicial dictatorship’ and highlights the allure of corruption. This comparison suggests a scenario where McMahon possibly abused her power, which can be seen as an indication of ASPD, especially in the context of a disregard for societal norms and ethical behavior.
4. Unequal Application of Law: The allegations also point towards a biased and unfair application of the law, which is a disregard for the concept of justice and the rights of others. This aligns with ASPD characteristics where there is often a violation of the societal and legal norms without remorse or regard for the consequences on others.
5. Potential Barbarism and Unethical Behavior: The indictment mentions a “potential barbarism” and a “thin robe of civility,” suggesting that McMahon’s alleged actions might have been a façade covering unethical behavior. This points towards deceitfulness and manipulation, traits commonly associated with ASPD.
These facts from the indictment suggest a pattern of behavior that aligns with certain characteristics of ASPD, specifically deceitfulness and a disregard for the rights of others.
