Securities and Exchange Commission v. Penn

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: DATE FILED: 08/29 /2020 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, No: 14-CV-0581 (VEC) - v. – NOTICE OF MOTION TO RECUSE AND DISQUALIFY LAWRENCE E. PENN, III, CAMELOT JUDGE VALERIE E. ACQUISITIONS SECONDARY OPPORTUNITIES CAPRONI PURSUANT TO MANAGEMENT, LLC, THE CAMELOT GROUP 28 U.S.C. § 455 INTERNATIONAL, LLC, AND SSECURION LLC, ECF CASE Defendants, - AND – A BIGHOUSE PHOTOGRAPHY AND FILM STUDIO LLC, MEMO ENDORSED Relief Defendant. NOTICE OF MOTION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on September 11, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. of that day or as soon thereafter as may be heard in Courtroom of the appropriate justice at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York at 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 1106, New York 10007 as Defendant LAWRENCE E. PENN III will, and hereby do, move for the Disqualification of the Judge Valerie E. Caproni as a matter of fairness, justice and law, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455, on the grounds that there is evidence of bias in favor of the Plaintiffs and prejudice against the Defendants. This motion will be based upon the attached points and authorities, the affidavit of LAWRENCE E. PENN III and the exhibits attached hereto, and all pleadings and records on file in this action and parallel actions. Dated: August 23, 2020 New York, New York Respectfully Submitted,

4 Pee i“ Cn) léeace fren Lawrence E. Penn III M.A., M.S., MBA, Paralegal Associate Member of ABA 145 East 48" Street New York, NY 10017 1-917-582-8940 Lpenn3 @gmail.com DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending motion at Dkt. 370. Penn's motion is substantially similar to a motion for disqualification filed more than a year ago, on June 6, 19. See Dkt. 318. Setting aside the frivolity of the arguments, the original motion was denied as untimely Mr. Penn failed to move "at the earliest possible moment after obtaining knowledge of facts demonstrating basis for such a claim.” Order (Dkt. 319) at 3 (quoting Apple v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 829 F.2d 326, 333 Cir. 1987)). Mr. Penn now cites no recently discovered information that could possibly support a timely □□□□□□ the current motion is even more untimely than the original and is denied, again. "[m]ere conclusions, opinions, rumors or vague gossip are insufficient." Hodgson v. Liquor Salesmen's Local No. 2 of State of N. Y., Distillery, Rectifying, Wine & Allied Workers' Int'l Union of Am., AFL-CIO, 44 1344, 1348 (2d Cir. 1971). Additionally, “[t]he alleged bias and prejudice to be disqualifying must stem from extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge has learned his participation in the case.” Jn re Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., 618 F.2d 923, 927 (2d Cir. 1980). The record the Court amply demonstrates that Mr. Penn is manufacturing baseless, conclusory, and conspiratorial in reaction to adverse rulings issued by this Court, rather than any extrajudicial statement or conduct. ch motions are a waste of the Court's and the SEC's time and resources. Penn is warned that further filing of frivolous motions, including motions that attempt to relitigate substantially motions, or other vexatious behavior may result in sanctions. ORDERED. Date: 08/29/2020

VALERIE CAPRONI