July 28, 2026 Post

        This post shows how dumb and shameless Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps are. Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps served as United States Circuit Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

        This post is from an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, docketed in 23-2143. Judge Kent A. Jordan, Judge Peter J. Phipps, and Judge Richard Lowell Nygaard are the panel for reviewing the appeal. The panel ruled against this author. However, Judge Richard Lowell Nygaard granted a rehearing. This post is only regarding Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps. The following has something for us to see how dumb and shameless Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps are.

        The background is a student's special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps have a strong intent to favor the school district. Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps should know what shame is; how could a judge have a strong intent to favor one side? To ensure an outcome favoring the school district, Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps refused to comply with the following law (the "stay-put provision").

20 U.S.C. §1415 (j) Maintenance of current educational placement
Except as provided in subsection (k)(4), during the pendency of any proceedings conducted pursuant to this section, unless the State or local educational agency and the parents otherwise agree, the child shall remain in the then-current educational placement of the child, or, if applying for initial admission to a public school, shall, with the consent of the parents, be placed in the public school program until all such proceedings have been completed.

Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps refused to comply with the above law, and should know what shame is; how could a judge refuse to comply with the law, stupid?

According to the stay-put provision, "during the pendency of any proceedings the child shall remain in the then-current educational placement, until all such proceedings have been completed." However, in order to fix the outcome for the school district, Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps refused to comply with the stay-put law and rewrote it to create an exception for age 21. For example, Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps rewrote the stay-put law as:

"the protections of the stay-put provision terminate, like the right to a FAPE, once a student turns 21,"(C.A. #23-2143, ECF #20, page: 6).

Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps made the exception for age 21 as an excuse to fix the outcome for the school district. E.g., under the exception, during the pendency of any proceedings, the school district could exclude the student upon the student's reaching age 21. Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps are extremely dumb to make the exception, and should know what shame is. The U.S. Supreme Court already decided the matter in Honig v Doe, 484 U.S. 3005 (1988). In the following, we will see that, in Honig, the U.S. Supreme Court held that there is no rewriting of the stay-put provision for any exception. How could Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps create an exception as an excuse to fix the outcome for the school district? Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps should know what shame is; because of having a strong intent to favor the school district, they recklessly and shamelessly created the exception. A Judge should be impartial; how could a judge have a strong intent to favor one side? Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps should know what shame is, acting like a scumbag.

For example, in Honig's holding number 2, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that

The "stay-put" provision prohibits state or local school authorities from unilaterally excluding disabled children from the classroom for dangerous or disruptive conduct growing out of their disabilities during the pendency of review proceedings. Id @306

The above U.S. Supreme Court holding has no exception; during the pendency of review proceedings, the school district could not exclude the student, e.g., by keeping the student in the then-current educational placement. That is clear and certain. What is the problem with Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps refusing to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court's holding? Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps, two circuit judges, are not qualified to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court's holding. They should know what shame is, acting like a scumbag. It is undeniable that this author should prevail in the matter; However, the Court ruled against this author. How do you think? Does this kind of Court deserve respect or trust? If you are a nobody, like this author, don't waste time imagining the non-existent justice. Those judges seem no different from a scumbag, even rejecting the U.S. Supreme Court's holding. You are submitting yourself to be tortured by the Court.

Most importantly, in Honig, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the stay-put law cannot be rewritten to create an exception because it reflects congressional intent. For example, in Honig's holding number 2, the U.S. Supreme Court continuously stated:

Section 1415(e)(3) (recodified as 20 U.S.C. §1415(j)) is unequivocal in its mandate that "the child shall remain in the then current educational placement" (emphasis added), and demonstrates a congressional intent to strip schools of the unilateral authority they had traditionally employed to exclude disabled students, particularly emotionally disturbed students, from school. This Court will not rewrite the statute to infer a "dangerousness" exception on the basis of obviousness or congressional inadvertence, …… Id @306.

        The U.S. Supreme Court respected Congress and stated that it is congressional intent to strip the school district's unilateral authority, and the Court will not rewrite the statute to create any exception. What is the problem with Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps, who rewrote the statute to create an exception as an excuse to favor the school district, that during the pendency of any proceedings, the school district can exclude a student when the student reaches age 21? What kind of human trash are Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps, refusing to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in order to rule against this author arbitrarily? Why did they do so? The answer is straightforward: they have a strong intent to favor the school district and, on purpose, did it to rule against this author. A judge should be impartial. What kind of garbage judges are Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps? Because they had a strong intent to favor the school district, they created the exception. Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps should know what shame is, acting like a scumbag.

        Under the circumstances, it is undeniable that this author should prevail in this matter; the Court ruled against this author. Do you trust or respect this kind of garbage Court? If you are a nobody, like this author, don't waste time imagining the non-existent justice. Those judges seem no different from a scumbag. In order to favor the school district, they even rejected the U.S. Supreme Court's holding. If you are a nobody, like this author, you are submitting yourself to be tortured by the Court. Anyway, we enjoy the opportunity to see how dumb and shameless Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps are, who seem no different from trash.

        Besides shamelessly rejecting the U.S. Supreme Court's holding, Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps wrote something further to show that they are extremely dumb and shameless. Let us see what they wrote below.

The Hearing Officer properly determined that the protections of the stay-put provision terminate, like the right to a FAPE, once a student turns 21, see ECF No. 7-2 at 10-14. See Bd. of Educ. of Oak Park & River Forest High Sch. Dist. 200 v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 79 F.3d 654, 659 (7th Cir. 1996) (so holding, reasoning that, otherwise, "parents [could] obtain adult benefits for their child to which they had no entitlement simply by filing a claim for compensatory education on the eve of their child's turning 21"); see also Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 318 (1988) (holding (under the predecessor IDEA statute) that a student over age 21 "is no longer entitled to the protections and benefits of the [statute]"). (C.A. 23-2143, ECF #20 page: 6)

Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps wrote the above garbage as their proof that the stay-put protection ends at age 21. We can further see that Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps are extremely dumb; how they could graduate from law school is a question mark—stupid. They are extremely dumb, citing two cases, Bd. Of Educ. and Honig, as proof that stay-put protection ends at age 21. We have opportunities to mock Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps for their extreme dumbness. They show themselves to be 100% pure idiots; those two cases that they cited never decided that stay-put protection ends at age 21. We can step-by-step verify below. In the following, we can see: what the first cited case held is that a claim for compensatory education cannot invoke stay-put protection; the quotation from the second cited case decided injunctive relief and held that a claim for injunctive relief becomes moot when the student reaches age 21. Those two cited cases never held that stay-put protection ends at age 21. Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps should know what shame is; they are extremely dumb. They are the number one idiot, writing garbage to arbitrarily rule against this author. How they could graduate from law school is a question mark. In particular, what is their law school grade, GPA, stupid? They deserve to be mocked publicly. We can verify it step by step.

First, let us see the first case, copied below, that Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps cited as proof that stay-put protection ends at age 21.

Bd. of Educ. of Oak Park & River Forest High Sch. Dist. 200 v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 79 F.3d 654, 659 (7th Cir. 1996) (so holding, reasoning that, otherwise, "parents [could] obtain adult benefits for their child to which they had no entitlement simply by filing a claim for compensatory education on the eve of their child's turning 21") (C.A. 23-2143, ECF #20 page: 6)

Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps are extremely dumb. Every attorney can read Bd. Of Educ. and can see that the citation Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps quoted is not a holding. Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps are extremely dumb, incapable of reading court opinions, but write garbage to rule against this author arbitrarily. Do Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps know what shame is, stupid? In Bd. Of Educ., the Seventh Circuit did not rule that age 21 ends stay-put protection; rather, it ruled that a claim for compensatory education cannot invoke the stay-put provision for protection. That's it. It is not a matter of age, but rather because of the claim for compensatory education. See below.

It is an opportunity for us to mock Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps for their extreme dumbness and for being incapable of reading the Seventh Circuit's opinion. The Seventh Circuit stated the reason as follows: the stay-put protections are only limited to relief authorized by law; however, compensatory education is not authorized by the statute. Based on this, in Bd. Of Educ., the Seventh Circuit held that a claim for compensatory education, not authorized by the statute, is not protected by the stay-put provision. For example, Id @660 noted:

With the exception of compensatory education, which is, as we said, indeed exceptional and nowhere expressly authorized by the statute, the statute's protections are limited to minors — the statutory domain is childhood disability — and so it is natural to presume that the limitation is carried into the stay put provision, which is silent on the question.

In short, in Bd. Of Educ., the Seventh Circuit held that claims for compensatory education "are not entitled to the injunction automatically, by force of the stay-put provision." Id @660. That's what the Seventh Circuit held in Bd. Of Educ.: a claim for compensatory education cannot invoke stay-put protection. Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps are extremely dumb and incapable of reading court opinions. Bd. of Educ. never held that stay-put protection ends at age 21, but held that a claim for compensatory education could not invoke the stay-put provision for protection. Does the Third Circuit know what shame is? It's a garbage Court, having nothing to prove that stay-put protection ends at age 21, but writing garbage to rule against this author arbitrarily. It is undeniable that this author should prevail in the matter. However, the Court ruled against this author arbitrarily. How do you think? Does such a garbage Court deserve trust or respect? If you are a nobody, like this author, don't waste time imagining the non-existent justice. Those judges seem no different from a scumbag, and you are submitting yourself to be tortured by the Court. Notably, we have opportunities to mock Judges Kent A. Jordan and Peter J. Phipps for their extreme dumbness and inability to understand the Seventh Circuit's opinion. Apparently, how Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps could graduate from law school is a question mark, stupid. Again, let us publicly mock Judges Kent A. Jordan and Peter J. Phipps for their extreme dumbness. Under the circumstances that it is undeniable that this author should prevail in this matter, the Court arbitrarily ruled against this author. Do you trust or respect this kind of garbage Court? If you are a nobody, like this author, don't waste time imagining the non-existent justice. You are submitting yourself to be tortured by the Court.

Next, let us see the second case, copied below, that Judges Kent A. Jordan and Peter J. Phipps cited as proof that stay-put protection ends at age 21.

See also Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 318 (1988) (holding (under the predecessor IDEA statute) that a student over age 21 "is no longer entitled to the protections and benefits of the [statute]"). (C.A. 23-2143, ECF #20 page: 6)

That is extremely horrible. Judges Kent A. Jordan and Peter J. Phipps deserve to be mocked publicly for their ultimate dumbness. They extracted only 11 words, as shown in boldface, from the following paragraph by Honig, purportedly as proof that stay-put protection ends at age 21. However, any attorney can read the following paragraph, and find that it decides only injunctive relief. It states only that the right to maintain an injunctive relief is available only between the ages of 3 and 21, such that a claim for injunctive relief is moot when a student reaches age 21, and it never addresses stay-put.

Respondent John Doe is now 24 years old and, accordingly, is no longer entitled to the protections and benefits of the EHA, which limits eligibility to disabled children between the ages of 3 and 21. See 20 U. S. C. § 1412(2)(B). It is clear, therefore, that whatever rights to state educational services he may yet have as a ward of the State, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 23, 26, the Act would not govern the State's provision of those services, and thus the case is moot as to him. Respondent Jack Smith, however, is currently 20 and has not yet completed high school. Although at present he is not faced with any proposed expulsion or suspension proceedings, and indeed no longer even resides within the SFUSD, he remains a resident of California and is entitled to a "free appropriate public education" within that State. His claims under the EHA, therefore, are not moot if the conduct he originally complained of is " 'capable of repetition, yet evading review.' " Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U. S. 478, 482 (1982). Given Smith's continued eligibility for educational services under the EHA, the nature of his disability, and petitioner's insistence that all local school districts retain residual authority to exclude disabled children for dangerous conduct, we have little difficulty concluding that there is a "reasonable expectation," ibid., that Smith would once again be subjected to a unilateral "change in placement" for conduct growing out of his disabilities were it not for the statewide injunctive relief issued below. Id. @318-320.

        Any attorney can read the above paragraph, which only stated that a claim for injunctive relief becomes moot when the student reaches age 21. Judges Kent A. Jordan and Peter J. Phipps are extremely dumb; a so-called judge and an attorney could not understand the above paragraph. What are their law school grade and GPA, stupid? They should know what shame is, acting like a scumbag. The above paragraph only decided injunctive relief and stated that a claim for injunctive relief is moot when a student reaches age 21, and never decided that age 21 ends stay-put protection. Judges Kent A. Jordan and Peter J. Phipps should know what shame is, extracting only 11 words, in boldface, to lie. Eventually, contrary to the stupid lie by Judges Kent A. Jordan and Peter J. Phipps, Honig clearly held that, under stay-put protection, the student "shall remain in [his or her] then current educational placement pending completion of any review proceedings." Honig @308. Honig never held that during the pendency of review proceedings, a school district can exclude the student at age 21. Judges Kent A. Jordan and Peter J. Phipps are stupid to rule that stay-put protection ends at age 21. Do Judge Kent A. Jordan and Judge Peter J. Phipps know what shame is? In particular, they had nothing to prove that age 21 ends stay-put protection, but they arbitrarily ruled against this author. The point is that they are extremely dumb, incapable of reading court opinion, acting like a scumbag. How they could graduate from law school is a question mark; dumb, dumb, dumb. Let us mock them.

        Again, it is undeniable that this author should prevail in the matter; however, the Third Circuit ruled against this author. How do you think? The Court's business is not a matter of right or wrong. When the Court wants to rule against you, it rules against you regardless of the law. Are you still pursuing justice? What we have seen is: The Court is a piece of toilet paper, and the judge is the hand wiping a big guy's asshole. If you are a nobody like this author, you are wasting your time and submitting yourself to be tortured by the Court. As a result, Judges Kent A. Jordan and Peter J. Phipps allowed the school district to exclude the student during the pendency of review proceedings, thereby causing the student to lose educational opportunities. Do Judges Kent A. Jordan and Peter J. Phipps know what shame is, causing a student to lose educational opportunity? Anyway, we enjoy the opportunities to see what kind of garbage Court the Third Circuit is. Do you respect or trust the Third Circuit? Especially, we enjoy the opportunities to see how dumb and shameless Judges Kent A. Jordan and Peter J. Phipps are, acting like a scumbag, refusing to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court's holding and also incapable of reading court opinions. What they did was nothing but to rule against this author arbitrarily. Do you respect or trust such kind of garbage Court?

        It is worth mentioning again that the Third Circuit is fierce, acting like the headquarters or a branch of the American Communist Party. It is either lawless or the law, and it does not allow anyone to criticize it. In its mind, the First Amendment never exists. It will exercise its so-called "power" to punish anyone who criticizes it; what kind of garbage Court is it? Especially, let us enjoy the opportunity to see how dumb and shameless Judges Kent A. Jordan and Peter J. Phipps are, never respecting the law, not comprehending the law, acting like a piece of human trash. The above is what happened in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.