THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:

"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Tuesday, July 5, 2016

Some statistics on "Schneiderman" cases in federal courts in New York - courts as fast discriminators against the poor, immigrants and minorities

As promised, I am reviewing the 229 lawsuits listed on Pacer.gov with New York Attorney General as a party, attorney or in other designations.

 Interesting information came out of my preliminary research.

 36 lawsuits against Schneiderman are actually pending, here is the list sorted by the filing date (Pacer does not sort cases):

950 Constitutionality of state statutes defendant S 6/9/2011
440 Other civil rights defendant E 1/9/2012
550 Civil rights defendant W 1/11/2012
MC Motion to compel production of records respondent S 3/6/2012
530 General respondent E 7/9/2012
440 Other civil rights defendant N 10/18/2013
950 Constitutionality of state statutes defendant S 5/22/2014
530 General respondent S 6/13/2014
442 Employment defendant S 6/18/2014
550 Civil rights defendant N 9/10/2014
440 Other civil rights defendant E 11/19/2014
530 General respondent S 3/5/2015
530 General respondent S 3/11/2015
530 General respondent E 3/16/2015
530 General respondent S 4/3/2015
530 General respondent E 4/16/2015
530 General respondent E 7/21/2015
440 Other civil rights defendant W 7/21/2015
440 Other civil rights defendant W 7/23/2015
530 General defendant S 7/30/2015
440 Other civil rights defendant S 8/21/2015
530 General respondent E 8/26/2015
550 Civil rights defendant S 9/16/2015
950 Constitutionality of state statutes defendant S 9/28/2015
362 Personal injury - medical malpractice defendant N 10/19/2015
530 General respondent S 10/29/2015
440 Other civil rights defendant S 11/20/2015
530 General respondent E 12/14/2015
550 Civil rights defendant N 1/15/2016
550 Civil rights defendant E 2/1/2016
530 General respondent W 2/12/2016
550 Civil rights defendant W 2/22/2016
530 General respondent S 3/3/2016
440 Other civil rights defendant E 4/20/2016
440 Other civil rights defendant N 5/6/2016
470 Racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations defendant S 6/10/2016

Letters N, S, E, W designate four federal district courts - in Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western Districts of New York.

In all of those lawsuits Schneiderman is listed as a defendant or respondent - so much for his yesterday's claim on the 4th of July that his duty is to protect people from discrimination (protect civil rights). 

Schneiderman is actually actively fighting on the side of the discriminators, as the list of only the open lawsuits against him shows.

Please, note that designation of cases as "General", "Other civil rights", "Civil Rights" and "Constitutionality of State Statutes", as well as with other designations may be interchangeable, those codes are checked off by the plaintiffs when they file the complaints, and they may check only one code box, while many codes may apply.

As to the four courts, analysis of 229 cases listed on Pacer.gov for Schneiderman revealed the following patterns for the four federal district courts in New York - I am just starting to publish the statistics, there may be more:


Shortest time from filing to dismissal, days % of cases resolved within a year of filing
NDNY 2 47%
SDNY 7 58%
WDNY 12 48%
EDNY 21 72%

The statistics above is based entirely on cases of Schneiderman, and only Schneiderman.

Yet, Schneiderman is the one who is litigating most of the civil rights cases - by opposing them - in the State of New York, and thus, the statistics is telling.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York is the fastest in dismiss a civil rights case.

Its shortest time from filing to dismissal in a "Schneiderman case" in NDNY, from the list of "Schneiderman cases" currently on Pacer.gov, is 2 days. 

2 days between filing and dismissal means that the plaintiff was not given even a time to serve the lawsuit, the court just decided to act as an advocate for Mr. Schneiderman.

The second fastest is also NDNY - with 6 days from filing to dismissal.

Southern District of New York is the third fastest - the shortest time to dismiss a "Schneiderman case" in SDNY is 7 days. 

131 out of 229 "Schneiderman" cases were dismissed within a year.

Here is the table of these 131 cases, the raw data I used was published yesterday, here.  The "respondent", "defendant" or other designations are designations in the listed lawsuits of the New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. 

Code Type of case                                  NY AG role                Court     Date filed        Date closed   # of days
                                                                                                                                                           between filing
                                                                                                                                                           and closing

530 General respondent N 7/27/2015 7/29/2015 2
550 Civil rights defendant N 10/27/2015 11/2/2015 6
440 Other civil rights defendant E 1/2/2014 1/9/2014 7
440 Other civil rights plaintiff E 5/9/2016 5/19/2016 10
550 Civil rights defendant E 9/19/2011 9/30/2011 11
530 General respondent S 5/18/2012 5/30/2012 12
530 General defendant E 12/22/2014 1/5/2015 14
530 General defendant S 9/19/2013 10/3/2013 14
530 General respondent S 8/11/2015 8/25/2015 14
220 Foreclosure defendant E 4/24/2012 5/9/2012 15
550 Civil rights defendant E 11/22/2011 12/8/2011 16
530 General respondent E 1/4/2016 1/21/2016 17
550 Civil rights defendant E 9/26/2011 10/13/2011 17
530 General respondent N 5/7/2012 5/24/2012 17
540 Mandamus & other respondent S 10/27/2015 11/13/2015 17
530 General respondent E 12/8/2011 12/28/2011 20
440 Other civil rights defendant E 3/24/2014 4/14/2014 21
950 Constitutionality of state statutes respondent S 3/3/2015 3/24/2015 21
530 General respondent W 3/22/2011 4/12/2011 21
530 General respondent W 8/29/2011 9/20/2011 22
440 Other civil rights defendant W 5/6/2015 5/29/2015 23
550 Civil rights defendant E 11/18/2011 12/12/2011 24
550 Civil rights defendant E 11/4/2011 11/29/2011 25
550 General defendant N 4/19/2012 5/14/2012 25
443 Housing/Accommodations defendant S 2/19/2014 3/17/2014 26
530 General respondent S 10/9/2013 11/4/2013 26
550 Civil rights defendant S 10/21/2011 11/17/2011 27
550 Civil rights defendant S 7/11/2012 8/7/2012 27
540 Mandamus & other respondent S 5/3/2016 5/31/2016 28
440 Other civil rights defendant E 12/31/2013 1/29/2014 29
530 General respondent S 2/4/2011 3/9/2011 33
530 General defendant W 12/22/2011 1/25/2012 34
530 General respondent E 9/21/2011 10/26/2011 35
440 Other civil rights defendant N 5/16/2014 6/20/2014 35
440 Other civil rights defendant S 3/25/2015 4/29/2015 35
290 All other real property defendant S 1/23/2012 2/27/2012 35
850 Securities/Commodities/Exchange defendant E 10/14/2014 11/20/2014 37
550 Civil rights defendant W 5/9/2016 6/16/2016 38
550 Civil rights defendant E 3/20/2013 5/2/2013 43
950 Constitutionality of state statutes defendant N 3/10/2011 4/22/2011 43
550 Civil rights defendant S 3/9/2011 4/21/2011 43
530 General respondent E 3/11/2011 4/27/2011 47
440 Other civil rights defendant E 8/24/2012 10/11/2012 48
530 General respondent S 5/7/2015 6/24/2015 48
550 Civil rights defendant S 3/7/2011 4/27/2011 51
530 General respondent S 3/30/2015 5/20/2015 51
530 General respondent S 4/19/2013 6/11/2013 53
550 Civil rights respondent E 8/23/2011 10/17/2011 55
550 Civil rights defendant E 11/16/2011 1/13/2012 58
530 Civil rights respondent E 9/22/2011 11/23/2011 62
890 Other statutory actions defendant E 1/21/2014 3/26/2014 64
530 General respondent E 4/13/2011 6/16/2011 64
440 Other civil rights defendant S 8/24/2011 10/31/2011 68
550 Civil rights defendant E 11/18/2011 1/26/2012 69
550 Civil rights defendant E 9/8/2011 11/17/2011 70
440 Other civil rights defendant S 7/21/2015 9/30/2015 71
550 Civil rights defendant N 3/23/2015 6/3/2015 72
440 Other civil rights defendant E 11/10/2014 1/23/2015 74
320 Assault, libel & slander defendant N 2/21/2014 5/6/2014 74
530 General respondent W 12/23/2011 3/8/2012 76
530 General respondent S 8/11/2015 10/27/2015 77
440 Other civil rights defendant S 9/18/2013 12/4/2013 77
530 General respondent E 4/23/2012 7/10/2012 78
440 Other civil rights defendant E 3/15/2016 6/6/2016 83
550 Civil rights defendant S 2/1/2011 4/25/2011 83
440 Other civil rights defendant S 7/15/2014 10/7/2014 84
530 General respondent E 4/8/2014 7/3/2014 86
550 Civil rights defendant E 11/17/2015 2/11/2016 86
550 Civil rights defendant E 1/11/2016 4/8/2016 88
440 Other civil rights defendant S 2/11/2010 5/10/2010 88
440 Other civil rights defendant E 10/19/2015 1/20/2016 93
440 Other civil rights defendant E 8/29/2014 12/2/2014 95
440 Other civil rights defendant E 8/29/2014 12/2/2014 95
440 Other civil rights defendant S 6/10/2011 9/21/2011 103
550 Civil rights defendant S 8/23/2011 12/8/2011 107
440 Other civil rights defendant N 4/29/2011 8/18/2011 111
555 Prison condition defendant S 9/25/2014 1/14/2015 111
190 Other contract attorney S 11/12/1996 3/10/1997 118
950 Constitutionality of state statutes defendant E 8/1/2014 12/1/2014 122
540 Mandamus & other respondent W 11/23/2015 3/28/2016 126
440 Other civil rights defendant S 11/19/2014 4/2/2015 134
555 Prison condition defendant S 11/10/2014 3/24/2015 134
550 Civil rights defendant S 3/7/2013 7/23/2013 138
550 Civil rights defendant W 11/5/2015 3/23/2016 139
550 Civil rights defendant N 11/26/2012 4/18/2013 143
550 Civil rights defendant S 9/26/2012 2/19/2013 146
463 Habeas corpus - alien detainee respondent E 2/5/2013 7/10/2013 155
550 Civil rights defendant N 8/15/2012 1/22/2013 160
530 General respondent E 8/17/2009 1/25/2010 161
440 Other civil rights defendant E 12/21/2015 6/7/2016 169
550 Civil rights defendant N 3/11/2013 8/27/2013 169
440 Other civil rights defendant S 12/10/2012 5/29/2013 170
550 Civil rights defendant N 11/16/2015 5/5/2016 171
530 General respondent E 8/20/2015 2/19/2016 183
440 Other civil rights defendant N 2/24/2011 8/31/2011 188
440 Other civil rights defendant S 4/24/2012 11/1/2012 191
530 General respondent N 2/25/2013 10/1/2013 218
530 General respondent N 4/11/2011 11/17/2011 220
423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 defendant S 9/5/2012 4/18/2013 225
440 Other civil rights defendant S 11/17/2015 6/29/2016 225
530 General respondent E 6/28/2012 2/9/2013 226
550 Civil rights defendant S 6/18/2014 2/2/2015 229
440 Other civil rights defendant W 3/10/2015 10/27/2015 231
550 Civil rights defendant E 10/4/2011 5/25/2012 234
440 Other civil rights defendant N 12/24/2013 8/22/2014 241
440 Other civil rights cross-defendant E 5/26/2011 1/24/2012 243
440 Other civil rights defendant E 5/26/2011 1/24/2012 243
440 Other civil rights defendant W 7/1/2014 3/5/2015 247
440 Other civil rights defendant S 3/17/2015 12/4/2015 262
555 Prison condition defendant S 2/6/2013 10/31/2013 267
550 Civil rights defendant N 11/26/2012 8/26/2013 273
530 General respondent E 5/12/2012 2/12/2013 276
550 General defendant N 9/12/2013 6/18/2014 279
530 General respondent N 6/26/2006 4/5/2007 283
442 Employment defendant N 1/5/2012 10/15/2012 284
440 Other civil rights defendant W 3/21/2013 1/2/2014 287
530 General respondent N 3/31/2011 1/23/2012 298
555 Prison condition defendant S 1/17/2013 11/15/2013 302
550 Civil rights defendant W 4/1/2015 2/3/2016 308
440 Other civil rights defendant E 2/12/2013 12/19/2013 310
440 Other civil rights defendant S 1/26/2015 12/4/2015 312
440 Other civil rights defendant N 4/4/2012 2/19/2013 321
550 Civil rights defendant N 6/25/2013 5/22/2014 331
890 Other statutory actions respondent S 4/10/2012 3/7/2013 331
555 Prison condition defendant S 5/6/2013 4/4/2014 333
440 Other civil rights defendant E 4/22/2015 3/31/2016 344
550 Civil rights defendant N 1/24/2011 1/6/2012 347
440 Other civil rights defendant S 5/19/2015 5/5/2016 352
550 Civil rights defendant S 5/14/2012 5/2/2013 353
440 Other civil rights defendant S 4/5/2011 3/27/2012 357
550 Civil rights defendant E 4/3/2014 3/27/2015 358

Cases dismissed within 100 days from filing are usually dismissed by the court "on its own motion", without participation of defendants at all.

The court makes a determination that it does not want to hear the case, usually on some court-invented (and illegal) bases of immunities, abstentions or pleading defects - even though the court must allow amendments of pleading defects, and 100 days is not enough to deal with the amendment issue.

In other words, the "Schneiderman" cases show how courts blatantly get rid of civil rights cases, while being the last resort for victims of civil rights violations.

I also noted quite an aberration in statistics, I will repeat the table I posted above once again:

time from filing to dismissal, days% of cases resolved within a year of filing
NDNY247%
SDNY758%
WDNY1248%
EDNY2172%



Note that while the numbers of "resolution" (dismissals) of civil rights cases in Northern, Southern and Western Districts of New York are about the same, around 1/2 of cases are dismissed across these three courts within a year of filing - from 47% in NDNY to 58% in SDNY,

in the Eastern District of New York, 72%, or about 3/4 of cases are dismissed within a year of filing.

I checked out the counties that EDNY covers - it covers  Kings, Nassau, Queens, Richmond, and Suffolk, with 8 million people residing there.

I wonder if the MUCH higher dismissal rate in EDNY is based on:

  1. poverty;
  2. immigration status and
  3. race
of litigants in this court, because it sure appears that way.

These are counties where a lot of immigrants, poor people and non-white people live.

So, the statistics shows right there - do not expect protection from federal courts, even if you filed a civil rights lawsuit.

A more reasonable expectation is that the court will toss your lawsuit with disdain, often even without waiting when you serve your opponent.

I will continue to work with this set of data, reviewing it for other factors and will post my findings on this blog.

Stay tuned.














Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)