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
NDNY	2	47%
SDNY	7	58%
WDNY	12	48%
EDNY	21	72%

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.

NYS AG quickly accepted a plea bargain from bribed judge John Michalek - why isn't NYS AG interested in a public trial of all issues of judicial corruption?

I've just posted a blog showing the contrast between the public statements of New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Eric Schneiderman's conduct in engaging in civil rights violations or defending civil rights violators.

Here is another example that Eric Schneiderman is not exactly forthcoming, to say the least, in his efforts to root out corruption in New York State government.

First of all, Eric Schneiderman did not seek an indictment of Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos, and now that the U.S. Supreme Court has amended the Hobbs Act by interpretation in U.S. v. McDonnell, there is a chance that their convictions will be reversed and they will go free and will not be made accountable.

Why?

Until Silver and Skelos were indicted, Eric Schneiderman was their attorney, officially, as a matter of law, under New York Public Law 17.

There is a real conflict of interest where a prosecutor is investigating and prosecuting his own client, for conduct that occurred during such representation.

The same kind of conflict of interest when the FBI is investigating Hillary Clinton while the legal advisor of the FBI is Loretta Lynch, former attorney for Hillary Clinton:


"Lynch was with the Washington-headquartered international law firm Hogan & Hartson LLP from March 2002 through April 2010.

According to documents Hillary Clinton’s first presidential campaign made public in 2008, Hogan & Hartson’s New York-based partner Howard Topaz was the tax lawyer who filed income tax returns for Bill and Hillary Clinton beginning in 2004".

Under the law of agency, every attorney in a law firm is deemed to represent every client represented by the law firm, and especially if Lynch was a partner in the firm, sharing in every client's payment financially.

Eric Schneiderman, same as Loretta Lynch in relation to investigating and/or prosecuting the Clintons, has an irreconcilable conflict of interest in investigating and prosecuting Judge John Michalek - as he did in investigating and prosecuting in state court of Dean Skelos and Sheldon Silver. 

For example, if Dean Skelos and Sheldon Silver would be sued for corruption in civil court, Eric Schneiderman will be representing them.

So, how could Schneiderman prosecute them, or his other clients - state employees?

A real conflict of interest, and a conflict put into statutory law by legislators who knew what they were doing in putting upon the same attorney a statutory duty to both defend them in civil rights lawsuits charging corruption, and investigate/prosecute them for corruption criminally.  Legislators knew that such a conflict will effectively kill criminal investigations and prosecution into state government's corruption in New York - as it actually did.

And now we have the consequences where corruption in New York state government is rampant, there are practically no criminal investigations and prosecutions of state government officials for corruption - as the cases of Skelos and Sivler demonstrate, and those cases which are brought, are concluded, as with John Michalek, so that to hush up and not exposed people and documents involved, raising issues of possible corruption of Eric Schneiderman himself to hush up the prosecution.

Eric T. Schneiderman is still, as a matter of statutory law, an attorney for the now former New York Supreme Court Justice John Michalek - if he is sued in civil rights cases (statute of limitations in New York - 3 years) for any civil rights violations. Schneiderman was, for the entirety of Michalek's stay on the bench, Michalek's official legal advisor.

Anything that Michalek did was committed during the time when Michalek was Schneiderman client - so Schneiderman could not possibly be the prosecutor on the case.

If former Justice Michalek is sued for civil rights violations, Eric T. Schneiderman has a statutory duty, under New York Public Law 17, to represent Justice Michalek in that civil rights lawsuit.

But, Attorney General Schneiderman just obtained an indictment - and a conviction - of John Michalek for accepting a bribe and "filing a false public instrument", and Schneiderman accepted a plea from Michalek eliminating other counts, involving specific lawsuits, documents and people.

If people on the other side of the case-fixing would sue Judge Michalek in federal court within the next 3 years, Schneiderman will have to DEFEND that lawsuit, after he criminally prosecuted Michalek.

It is interesting that Schneiderman even considered filing a false public instrument by a judge a crime - he did not consider such conduct by a judge a crime previously.

When I raised the issues of similar fraud in a civil rights action on behalf of my husband Frederick J. Neroni in federal court, specifically, that the now-former judge Carl F. Becker has conspired with the Chief of Republican Committee of the Delaware County (NY) Board of Election and filed a false certificate of 2002 elections, and asked Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman to oust Carl F. Becker as a usurper of public office following AG's duty to do that under the writ of quo warranto,

Eric Schneiderman

• refused to bring a petition for such a writ,
• did not investigate or criminally prosecute Carl Becker, but instead,
• REPRESENTED the corrupt judge, and
• obtained a dismissal of the lawsuit against the judge - from another corrupt judge, James Tormey, Eric Schneiderman own recent and ongoing client who Eric Schneiderman represented and did not criminally prosecute for engaging court personnel in political espionage against another judge.

In fact, Schneiderman regularly obtains dismissals of civil rights lawsuits against judges claiming absolute immunity for MALICIOUS and CORRUPT acts of those judges.

In other words, if a judge is bribed, and is sued by the victim of the fixed case, Schneiderman will represent THE JUDGE and will seek the dismissal of the civil rights lawsuit on the grounds that the judge is ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE FROM LAWUIST FOR FIXING THE CASE - see quote from the court case about the "Kids for Cash" judge Marc Ciavarella in the header of this blog.

For the above reasons, I firmly believe that the recent investigation and prosecution - for accepting a bribe - of Judge John Michalek of Buffalo Supreme Court - has nothing to do with Schneiderman's desire to root out judicial corruption.

There must be some other reasons for the prosecution.

Maybe, the judge's place, now paying $193,000, was needed for somebody else in power.

Maybe, the feds are too close on Schneiderman's own back, so Schneiderman wants to produce some show of MINIMAL prosecutorial zeal to fight corruption of high-raking state officials.

Who knows what the real reasons for the prosecution was, but, the fact remains that Eric Schneiderman is Judge John Michalek's own attorney.  And, Eric Schneiderman's office, even though not Eric Schneiderman himself, represented the presiding judge Donald Cerio in civil rights actions in federal court and, should Donald Cerio be sued, will represent Donald Cerio again.

Eric Schneiderman, by the perverted New York law, Public Law 17, as it is interpreted by federal courts, has been, throughout investigation and prosecution of Judge Michalek, until Judge Michaled plea of guilty and resignation, a standby counsel of all State of New York employees, including BOTH the presiding judge and the defendants in People v. Michalek - judge John Michalek and Judge Donald Cerio.

So, on Schneiderman's indictment, a Supreme Court judge in New York out of Buffalo, a 65-year-old John Michalek, a graduate of Albany Law School, was just convicted on a plea bargain, for only two out of multiple charges, for taking a bribe and for filing a false instrument.  The sentencing of John Michalek is reportedly set for September 1, 2015.

The taking a bribe charge was reportedly from a powerful and politically connected attorney G. Steven Pigeon, a friend, ally and political advisor of:

• billionaire Tom Galisano;
• Bill and Hillary Clinton; and
• Governor Andrew Cuomo.

Here is the picture of the "hero":

Judge Michalek was charged that "he solicited and accepted help from Pigeon, including two box seats to a Sabres hockey game as well as $1,000 to a political fundraiser"., but that was peanuts as compared to Judge Michalek fixing court cases for Pigeon in return for promises to get jobs in state, local and federal government for  the judge's relatives.  According to the indictment, the judge e-mailed and texted Pigeon begging for those jobs and was attaching court decisions fixed how Pigeon wanted them to e-mails requesting such jobs.

Since Pigeon was a close ally and advisor of billionaire Tom Galisano, Bill and Hillary Clintons and Governor Cuomo, I can only imagine who those friends were for whom court cases were fixed.

Even though both counts Judge Michalek has pled to were felonies, those were peanuts as compared to what Judge Michalek was charged with.  I am providing a link to what is reported to be the indictment of John Michalek, but I will file my own FOIL request for the original indictment and will post it in the future.

The plea was authorized by judge Donald F. Cerio, a favorite of the former Chief Administrative Judge Mulvey who helped Mulvey fix felony drug court cases.  Cerio reportedly claimed that "not enough" criminal defendants are coming to drug court (and are given leniency instead of going to jail).  Pushing cases in front of drug court jumped several statutory conditions that another judge Blasio DiStefano, insisted must be followed.  Judge DiStefano was taken off drug cases entirely, because he was opposed to ruling on cases the way Mulvey and Cerio wanted, and was quickly forced in an early retirement. 

I wonder whether bribes were involved in Madison drug court cases, too, since Mulvey, a former counsel for Senator Seward, together with Cerio (presiding judge in the Michalek's case) went so far as to eliminate an elected judge from all criminal cases altogether because the judge insisted on following the law in who is and who is not entitled to drug court, while Mulvey and Cerio wanted more criminal defendants to go to drug court.

I wonder whether Cerio received a handsome bribe himself in accepting a plea to just two, and the least revealing, counts of the indictment.

Knowing Mulvey's bias against indigent defendants, it is clear that Mulvey's interest was not to help anybody, but there is a very clear possibility that Mulvey and Cerio were bribed in drug court cases in Madison county, too. 

At least from the circumstances, it is quite likely that Judge Cerio was bribed to accept the lenient plea bargain of Judge Muchalek in order to protect those influential people who could otherwise be exposed by a public trial.

And of course, I do not expect AG Schneiderman to investigate those people, and to investigate other judges outed daily (including on my blog) in acts screaming of corruption - after all, he is busy representing them.

By the way, Schneiderman already demonstrated his propensity to cover up for corrupt judges when he defended, instead of ousting and criminally prosecuting Delaware County judge Carl Becker, yet another judge who was passionately involved with a drug court.

Schneiderman never indicted Carl F. Becker, who was never indicted for any of his shenanigans, including filing a false certificate of elections in 2011.

After Becker quickly resigned in July of 2015, he put his friend, the Delaware County DA Richard Northrup, in the position overseeing the drug court (Northrup was running unopposed and had Becker swear Northrup in, even though Becker was by that time a lay individual who had no authority to swear in a judge).  I wonder whether the drug court continues as a money producing operation for both Judge Northrup (in addition to his salary) and Judge Becker. 

Back to the case of John Michalek, assigning the case-fixing judge Donald F. Cerio to preside over the criminal case of another case-fixing judge is like putting one fox to decide the face of another brother-fox. 

And, it is clearly suspicious that with an indictment as long and detailed and charging corruption involving many individuals, lawsuits and documents, AG Schneiderman did not want a public trial on all charges, but agreed to a puny plea on only two, those not naming relatives and parties to the lawsuits fixed by Judge Michalek for attorney Steve Pigeon connected to billionaire Tom Galisano, Bill and Hillary Clintons and Governor Andrew Cuomo.

It appears that AG Schneiderman sought to close judge Michalek's case as soon as possible, and before the elections - the sentencing is scheduled for September 1, 2016 - and without much exposure of people involved, and that is NOT conduct of an honest prosecutor.

As I stated above, I will try to get a copy of the indictment through my own FOIL request, but, knowing how the government usually stalls such requests, I do not expect an answer to it for several months.

Yet, when I receive an answer, I will report on it.

Stay tuned.

New York State Attorney General's 4th of July statement misleads the public as to what Schneiderman actually does in court - making sure victims of civil rights violations would not get a remedy in court

Today, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman issued a statement, as follows:



Note the words:

"Today, we should be mindful of our duty to defend the rights of our friends and neighbors who still face discrimination and bigotry".

The statement reads as a pledge to protect ordinary people from discrimination, which is a civil rights violation.

You know who are "friends and neighbors" who Schneiderman usually defends in court in civil rights cases?

The defendants.

And it is the New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman who, feeling the "duty to defend the rights of our friends and neighbors who still face discrimination and bigotry", defends those who are sued for committing that discrimination and bigotry.

Schneiderman is the one who seeks dismissals of civil rights lawsuits.

Schneiderman is the one who seeks sanctions against civil rights plaintiffs "for frivolous conduct", for raising frivolous constitutional arguments, imagine, arguments asking the court for fairness, asking the court for help against violations of people's civil rights are frivolous in Schneiderman's view.

You know why they are frivolous?

Because plaintiffs are still asking the court for help when the court already said the government is immune from lawsuits - that is what Schneiderman is saying to federal courts, against the "friends and neighbors" who he now pledges his duty to protect.

Here is the list of cases litigated by Schneiderman in federal court.

In many of them Schneiderman is listed as "dft" (defendant) or as "res" (Respondent), that means that people are suing Schneiderman for violation of their civil rights - those same rights he declares it is his duty to protect.

In the column designated as "NOS" there are numbers.  Those numbers are types of lawsuits, by classification designated on a court form, here and here.

Here are the scans of portions of the classification matching lawsuits against Schneiderman. 

Here is information to match the dates to Schneiderman's service as Attorney General:  Schneiderman was in public office since 1998, as a New York Senator, and was took office since January 1, 2011 as New York Attorney General, so lawsuits filed against him as a party before January 1, 2011 are lawsuits against him as a New York Senator.

Apparently, out of 279 lawsuits Pacer.gov lists with Eric T. Schneiderman as an attorney or party, most of them were filed after Eric Schneiderman became NYS Attorney General, most of them are civil rights lawsuits, and most of them are concluded, and I do not doubt that those lawsuits concluded with dismissals, knowing how courts and NYS AG's office deals with civil rights lawsuits.

I will shortly provide a summary table of lawsuits against Eric Schneiderman which will show statistics as to those lawsuits.

So, while claiming that attorney Schneiderman is fighting for civil rights of "neighbors and friends", in reality he is OPPOSING civil rights lawsuits on behalf of VIOLATORS of civil rights and is HELPING VIOLATORS of civil rights escape accountability, and is helping to PUNISH THE VICTIMS of civil rights violators for seeking help from a federal court for such violations.

But, who would expect honesty from a top public official in New York State.

When both the rich and the poor customers in the U.S. can now use robot lawyers, and the majority of the population cannot afford a licensed attorney, what is the purpose of law licensing?

I receive a lot of feedback from readers complaining that they either cannot afford an attorney, or that the attorney of their choice was targeted with discipline because the attorney was courageous enough to raise certain sensitive issues, like that of governmental misconduct.

I am one of the examples of what the government can do to eliminate an attorney who does her job properly.  My law license was suspended at the time when I brought a civil rights case against social services to trial, and my clients were then coerced and intimidated to settle for a pittance, while their new attorney stated in court pleadings what my disciplinary proceedings did not state - that my law license was suspended BECAUSE of my professional activity as a civil rights attorney, the new evidence that I am going to explore further.

Recently, several other attorneys were targeted by the government for raising sensitive issues pertaining to civil rights.

An attorney in Nevada was handcuffed for raising due process liberty issues on behalf of her indigent client.

An attorney in Louisiana was suspended from the practice of law because she successfully produced evidence of cooking court audio files and transcripts, likely at the direction of a judge.

An attorney in Georgia was handcuffed, jailed and indicted for seeking documentary evidence of judicial misconduct.





Ok, so the consumers are told that only a licensed attorney can provide to them advise and court representation, because provision of legal services requires training and "judgment of a lawyer".

Of course, even law professors are acknowledging that regulation of the legal profession is a fake invented by the legal profession itself so that the government would not butt into their business.

And, of course, several state courts so far have ruled that law licensing had nothing to do with effective assistance of counsel, dropping the declared purpose  of attorney licensing, that of "consumer protection", right down the drain. 

And, the recent joint letter of the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice about the essence of the practice of law clearly reveals that what is the practice of law is not properly defined, and cannot thus be regulated, as a licensing scheme, or as a criminal law, becuase people must have at least a notice of what it is that the government is regulating before the government may regulate it and punish people for violating the law.

The concept that a law license, with the required ABA-certified costly education, is required to help people get access to courts, has been recently even further eroded, if not dispensed completely - by both sophisticated and non-sophisticated artificial intelligence, and law firms who want to stay in the business, are actually helping the demise of law licensing, by starting to use decision-making robots.

Robots already ARE acting as lawyers, and judges, in the United States, and the round candle of law licensing, so to say, is being burnt from all ends, the government, the law professors, the rich law firm, the legal information industry, and the consumers who cannot afford legal services, but are willingly using cheaper information technologies and available lawyer robots.

The rich bought an expensive program, ROSS, that can analyze cases and statutes with computer speed, make relevancy determinations as to the existing laws and newly decided cases for and instead of the lawyer, answer hypothetical questions, predict outcomes of cases, and thus apply laws to facts of the case - which is exactly what lawyers do and what constitutes that so-called "judgement of a lawyer" which, according to the government, requires a law license, for customer protection.

The less wealthy use the free lawyer robots, such as Ebay virtual dispute resolution service, and/or the DoNotPay virtual robot lawyer to appeal parking tickets.

Well, the rich customers of law firms that "employ" robot ROSS, apparently, do not need protection from the robot lawyer, making unauthorized practice of law statutes redundant.

Nor do people who are using the free artificial intelligence "chatbot" "DoNotPay", created by a self-taught 19-year-old coder who wanted to beat a parking ticket of his own.  And, in the process, created a free "robot lawyer" who beats the majority of parking tickets for customers in London and New York.

With the success of the parking ticket lawyer, on the cheaper end of the spectrum, and the ROSS lawyer on the expensive end, same as with all other technology, it is the matter of time when these two extremes - free and super-expensive, will meet halfway.

If a self-taught teenage coder could create a program that asks questions (I checked it out) about the parking ticket and then draft appellate applications that succeed most of the times, and that robot lawyer is free, it is a matter of time when similar free "robot lawyers" will be created for other types of cases:

1. eviction proceedings;
2. custody proceedings;
3. civil rights proceedings;
4. divorces - all those proceedings where too often money talks, and people lose their rights simply because they cannot afford an attorney, and they cannot afford an attorney because licensed attorneys are priced by the licensing process out of sight, and unlicensed individuals of customers' choice are blocked from providing services, no matter how skilled, because of criminal laws forbidding "unauthorized practice of law", meaning practice of law without a license.

It is not impossible to use robots in child support, custody and divorce proceedings, those proceedings where legal advice is needed, but where too many people go without a lawyer because they cannot afford one, it simply requires more factors to be considered by the machine, but removing subjectivity of judges from such proceedings and connections with judge-favored law firms will actually work for the public good. 

In Holland, legal advice by robots in child support, custody and divorce proceedings is allowed and practiced.

Thus, it is not impossible to introduce the same in the U.S.

And, we should not rely upon the charity of self-taught teenagers to provide to the public the much needed legal service by the robot lawyer.

The public needs to pay to either obtain a public license for ROSS or to create its own robot lawyer, to be used by all, for free or at low cost.

That said, robot lawyers are not the equivalent of humans, of course.

They cannot be creative, and their "thinking" is static and retroactive, relying on what was decided in courts before.

One cannot expect a robot lawyer to assess decisions as unfair, or call for overruling unfair cases or abolishing unfair rules or laws.

Yet, several law firms are already doing research based on this static and retroactive thinking of a robot lawyer - ROSS - that, according to the press, decides for a lawyer, after sifting through a myriad of cases decided across the country, relevancy of certain cases.

For the same reason - static, retroactive, rigid "thinking" within what was already decided - I wouldn't want robot judges, as attractive as the idea of judges not undermined by corruption, even potentially, may be.

As to the issue of judicial corruption, raised with a new vigor in New York, stay tuned for my next blog.

The state of the law in the State of Georgia: it is criminally punishable to seek proof of judicial racism in the courtroom



I've just published an article regarding the recent trend of intimidation of investigative reporters who seek open records of government corruptions, with the use of arrests and criminal charges among other means of intimidation.

I mentioned in that blog the arrest of publisher/reporter Mark Thomason and his attorney Russel Stookey and promised to run a more detailed report about the case.

Here it is.

In June of 2016, in the State of Georgia, Chief Judge Brenda Weaver of Appalachian Circuit asked her own former law clerk, and now the local prosecutor Alison Sosebee to prosecute investigative journalist and publisher Mark Thomason and his attorney Russel Stookey for making an open records request seeking evidence of corruption in her own office.

Alison Sosebee obliged the judge, in front of whom Sosebee appears or may appear as a prosecutor and has a stake at pleasing her in order to win cases, and charged Mark Thomason and attorney Russel Stookey, had them arrested and put in jail.

The crime?

Here are the anti-heroes and heroes of this story: 

#JudgeBrendaWeaver, Chief Judge of Appalachian Circuit Superior Courts, State of Georgia

and Judge Weaver's former law clerk, #DistrictAttorneyAlisonSosebee who Judge Weaver asked to criminally prosecute a reporter and the reporter's attorney for investigating whether certain checks in court operating account was cashed illegally, through open records requests and subpoenas on the bank:

the racist judge Roger Bagley whose racist comment that was supposed to be reflected in the court audio file Mark Thomason and Russel Stookey seek through a lawsuit where the supboenas that are the basis of the criminal chargers were issued, I understand, by attorney Stookey:



and the victims of misconduct of the above three individuals, along with those who colluded with them, publisher Mark Thomason and his courageous attorney Russell Stookey:

 

Let's note that Mark Thomason and Russel Stookey, both white, filed a lawsuit and went to jail over their stance to fight racism in the courtroom by this white judge, now former judge Roger Bradley, where Judge Bradley resigned, of course, because "the planets aligned" in favor of his resignation, not because he outed himself in a criminal proceeding as a racist.   

Let's also note that both sets here, the three anti-heroes in this story, two judges and one prosecutor who is one of the judges' former law clerk, are white, too, and that the whole fight is over a record that would prove a racist slur uttered by a quickly-resigned white male judge at a criminal proceeding against an African American criminal defendant.   

By the way, in her election campaign, prosecutor Alison Sosebee pledged the following:

Prosecutor Sosebee, apparently, forgot to mention that she will use her authority to provide protection, at taxpayer's expense, to her former boss, Judge Weaver, protection against investigative journalists.

Mark Thomason sent the public records requests - and subpoenas - to the banks where judicial expense accounts are maintained, and asked for copies of checks "cashed illegally".

Judge Weavier claimed that for subpoenas Mark Thomason had to have judicial approval. 

I am not sure about the laws of the State of Georgia, but in New York, for example, an attorney can issue a non-judicial subpoena seeking bank records.

And, on subpoenas, the name of the judge appears even though an attorney signs it - that is, once again, a routine occurrence, and such power is actually given to attorneys, with some exceptions.

Usually, when a non-judicial subpoena is signed by an attorney, the court (or the supboenaed organization or individual) simply rejects that subpoena - although in some cases, like a divorce case that was reported to me recently, a New York #judgePhillipRumsey wholly endorsed an attorney, Dolores Fogarty, signing judicial subpoenas that had to be signed by a judge, after a motion brought in a certain way (which Fogarty, of course, never brought).

Of course, attorney #DoloresFogarty who has connections to local judges, was never charged with identity fraud at all.

By the way, Judge Rumsey retaliated against me for criticizing his actions in the divorce case, including favoritism to Dolores Fogarty.

Even if Mark Thomason and his attorney Russel Stookey had to have judicial approval for subpoenas and did not seek that approval, that was a mistake at best, and not a crime, and criminally charging for what must be available through an open records request, is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment of Mr. Thomason and of due process of his attorney Russel Stookey.

And yet, the reporter and his attorney were charged criminally, at the request of the investigated person, a judge, with identity fraud and attempted identity fraud, as well as arrested, kept overnight in jail and released only on $10,000 bail, with conditions of bail such as random drug tests.

And, by the way, reportedly, Judge Brenda Weaver presides over the state Judicial Qualifications Commission, so she is supposed to be the cleanliest of the squeaky clean of the Georgia state judiciary.

Georgia is a death penalty state, so all judges in a state where judges are allowed to take people's lives should be of the highest integrity and moral order.

Judge Weaver did not even conceal the fact that she retaliated by requesting to criminally charge the reporter and the reporter's attorney for investigations into her own behavior, reportedly stating regarding her request to prosecute Mr. Thomason and attorney Stookey: 
 
“I don’t react well when my honesty is questioned".  Really?  So, the judge openly admitted to this level of retaliation, and she is still on the bench?

Judge Weaver does not have a dislike to reporters in general.

In fact, she was very nice talking to a reporter Josh Becker who was advertising the judge's superior moral qualities in two video interviews.

In the interview, Brenda Weaver stated that she recently became a president of the Council of the Superior Court Judges of the State of Georgia and that her goals as the President of that organization are:

1. obtain a pay raise for Superior Court Judges in the State of Georgia, including appellate judges - but, of course! that must be an "over-arching goal" in a State with a death penalty, racist justice system, high illiteracy and poverty;
2. develop a "better working relationship with state representatives and senators" - in other words, lobbying in the State Legislature on behalf of judges;
3. proliferation of "accountability courts" in the State of Georgia and encouraging judges to become accountability court judges, making sure every Circuit in the State of Georgia has some type of  "accountability courts";

In her videointerview Judge Weaver stated that she is

"very humbled to be able to serve the citizens of [her] Circuit and State", that

she is "very lucky to get up every day", that she loves what she does.

Judge Weaver stated that being a judge in a felony court, Veterans and Drugs court "makes every day a wonderful experience" for her, because she gets an opportunity to make a change or cause people to make a change in their lives, and that portion of her job (that makes her every day a "wonderful experience") is what makes her to continue her job as a judge - "for another 20 years if possible", she said (after 15 she already worked as a judge by the time of the interview).

Yet, Judge Weaver's "wonderful experience" apparently also includes protecting from disclosure bank expense records of the court, and of the former #JudgeRogerBradley who quickly resigned from office after being exposed for using a racial slur against a criminal defendant in court proceedings and after the judge, or somebody else in authority in the court system, which could be Judge Brenda Weaver herself,  had the stenographer remove that racial slur from the transcript of court proceedings, which is public fraud.

Judge Roger Bradley reportedly repeated the pitch of a prosecutor who, when calling the next case on the docket, called an "N-word Last Name".  Neither Judge Bradley nor the prosecutor were sanctioned, apparently indicating that what they did was appropriate for Judge Brenda Weaver and a standard procedure of dealing with African American defendants in court - the "wonderful experience" that keeps Judge Weaver on the bench for the last 15 years.

The reporter Mark Thomason sought the audio recording from which the stenographer made the transcript. 

Access to that digital filie was denied, and when Mark Thomason sued for access to the audio file, the stenographer sued Mark Thomason for 1.6 million dollars in a defamation counterclaim.

The stenographer then withdrew her counterclaim, ending it as a matter of law, but still sought attorney fees against Mark Thomason, and somehow that frivolous claim was allowed to proceed, even though normally, if you withdraw a claim, it dies, and everything with it dies.

Mark Thomason's lawsuit for the audio file was dismissed for alleged failure to prove that the audio file was altered, without giving him that audio file for discovery.  It is interesting a person can be expected to prove something in the initial pleading in order to be allowed to see what he seeks to see.

That's the problem I recently discussed regarding the Fenton case and other civil rights cases where federal courts change the pleading standard from claim/notice pleading to factual pleading, requiring plaintiffs to prove what they seek to prove through the lawsuit.

Obviously, the state of Georgia made the same shift - specifically to protect its judiciary from claims of misconduct.

After all, it would have been a decidedly awkward situation if prosecutor Alison Sosebe, former law clerk of Judge Weaver, would have to investigate and charge Judge Weaver and other judges and court personnel, with committing public fraud.

And, had the audio file been released in discovery and expert analysis of the audio file, it would have been a simple "yes" or "no" answer - as to whether the audio file was authentic or edited, whether Judge Rodger Bagley did or did not use that racial slur, and whether the tape was edited, and whether the transcript was doctored.

For example, in a similar case, recently in the state of Louisiana an attorney, Christine Mire, actually obtained an audio recording of a court proceeding before judge #JeanetteKnoll, and has proven, through testimony of witnesses, that the recording, specifically the place where the judge allegedly made disclosures about her conflicts of interest, was added -  was "spliced" and contested content added.

When attorney Mire said there was no disclosure of later-discovered conflicts of interest by Judge Knoll at the hearing where attorney Mire was present and was thus a witness, the transcript said there was, and the audio file was edited and contents added on specifically as to that disclosure.

Who was disciplined after and because attorney Mire obtained proof that the court audio file was cooked?

The judge?

The stenographer?

Of course, not.

Attorney Mire was disciplined, on Judge Knoll's complaint.

The judge #JeanetteKnoll was elevated to the appellate court, complained to that appellate court, and that appellate court suspended attorney Mire's law license - for being too good at investigation of judicial misconduct.

As to Mark Thomason's case, if the audio file would be shown to be authentic, unredacted and exactly matching the stenographer's transcript - with no racial slur stated by former Judge Roger Bradley, there was no point to block access to it, was it?

Nor would a judge resign if he knew that the audio file did not contain the racial slur and that he is being accused improperly.

Yet, Mark Thomason's access to that record was blocked twice, once when he sought the audio file through an open records request, and another time when he did that through a lawsuit.

And, "coincidentally", the attorney who had the courage to take the case seeking records of judicial misconduct on behalf of Mr. Thomason, Russel Stookey, ended up charged with a crime, arrested and put in jail.

So, the court system in the State of Georgia, and its Chief Judge Brenda Weaver, shamefully continue to cover up for a racist judge, now by asking her former law clerk, a prosecutor, to intimidate by criminal charges, arrest and jailing those who seek evidence of her own and her subordinates' mismanagement of state money - paying out of public court expense account the $16,000 to the stenographer's attorneys in order to to kill the lawsuit seeking the audio file with the racial slur of Judge Bagley.

Mark Thomason was seeking copies of checks for those attorney fees to the stenographer's attorney, reportedly authorized by Judge Weaver.

A lot of integrity on behalf of Judge Brenda Weaver and prosecutor Alison Sosebe.

Just as promised in their respective public statements to voters.

As I already described earlier in this blog, the judicial system, although unquestionably racist, viciously fights against anybody who tries to fight that racism.

In Kentucky, a #JudgeOluStevens was recently suspended for insisting on constitutionally required process of picking criminal juries and preventing a racist prosecutor from eliminating African Americans from the juries in trials of African American defendants, a requirement of the U.S. Supreme Court's  so-called Batson rule.

On May 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a criminal conviction for violation of the Batson rule and of skewed racial composition of the jury.

Yet, in the State of Georgia African-American criminal defendants, and other litigants, do not have to worry about the Batson rule where both the judge and the judge's former law clerk, and now prosecutor, vigorously seek to intimidate and punish two people for seeking proof that a judge is a racist, and that the court system paid for the cover-up of that racism with taxpayers' money.

I wonder whether Judge Weaver and prosecutor Sosebee will be disciplined for their role in the arrest of Mark Thomason and attorney Russel Stookey.

The Society of Professional Journalists of Georgia already called for investigation of Judge Brenda Weaver, and for recusal of Judge Weaver (who is the Chairman of the commission that is supposed to investigate her) from such investigation.

Good luck with that - in my case, I was suspended for seeking recusal of a judge because of collusion with Vice-Chair of the Commission for Judicial Conduct in the investigation of the judge regarding a collusion in a criminal case.

I was also punished for seeking investigation and disbarment of attorneys for two disciplinary committees when they adamantly refuse to investigate themselves (from which they are obviously disqualified) or to have a special investigator and prosecutor appointed.

The same refers to judges sought to be recused for misconduct - they usually refuse and lash out against the challenger, as it happened in my case and in many more cases I am aware of.

If Judge Weaver stooped to using her former law clerk to criminally prosecute investigative reporters who sought public records that may implicate her or her subordinates in mishandling public money, there is not much Judge Weaver will not consider too low to stoop down to.

And, let's not forget that reporter Thomason is also charged with "making a false statement in an open records request" - requesting copies of checks "cashed illegally".

Please, tell me, what is a false statement in a request?

How is it possible to make a false statement in a request?

If a person asks for copies of checks "cashed illegally", the answer can be - if there are no checks cashed illegally, then the request is denied becuase there are no records answering the request, the way it is worded, that's all.

But, there is no legal possibility of charging a person for fraud for making a false statement in an open records request - other than if the prosecutor is the friend and former law clerk of the judge who asks for the prosecution.

I wonder whether the judge and her former law clerk, the prosecutor, will be charged by the State Attorney General for a crime based on their respective roles in this story.  At least, such a request has been made to the Attorney Genera of the State of Georgia.

That is, despite Mark Thomason - and people like him, seeking open records of the government - was addressed in a demeaning manner, by a "former public prosecutor", as a "public gadfly", something stinging, but decidedly with a negative connotation of a pest.

I do not see anybody discussing Judge Weaver were addressing Judge Weaver with any labels.

The only label I am going to give her, and prosecutor Sosebee, is that of a public anti-hero who should be removed from their positions immediately.

For continued coverage of this mess, stay tuned.