To give a free attorney with one hand, and to take him away with the other - now in death penatly cases, too

I wrote on this blog that caps on attorney fees for assigned appellate attorneys for the poor, practiced by New York appellate courts, is unconstitutional.

Often, at the $75 an hour rate and the $4400 cap, and a case with an extensive records - pretrial motions, transcripts of pretrial hearings, transcripts of the trial - an attorney exhausts the allowed limit of compensation after $58.66 hours of work, which is just 8 full working days for an attorney, while work on an appeal can take MONTHS, see, voucher forms from the New York State Appellate Division 3rd Judicial Department for compensation of assigned attorneys in criminal defense and Family Court cases.

Here is a voucher form for criminal cases:

The voucher form has a "note" that "The limit of compensation without showing an extraordinary circumstances is $4,400.  Claims for payment above the statutory cap must be accompanied by an affidavit in support of the excess fee claim".  I supplied once such an affidavit, showing an extraordinarily long record I was supposed to read, and, since the record was so large, an extraordinary fee I paid out of my own pocket for the required number of copies to reproduce it - the court only compensated 1/5 of what I paid out of pocket.  So, next time an attorney who would be so burned, would not opt for a "full record" option, but would go with an "Appendix" option which allows the court to skip its review by reviewing only a certain pages from the record, but not the entire record.

Judges of this court are not dummies, and they do realize when creating such a cap that any criminal case that made it to the appellate level will have a record that requires more than 8 days of work for an attorney to create a proper appeal, so with this voucher form and policy this court incentivizes (1) dishonesty in attorneys - since an attorney must claim he or she has read the full record to base the appeal on it, which is, if not paid, most often assigned attorneys simply do not do, and (2) poor work on behalf of the poor.

It goes without saying that this amount does not even come close to compensating an attorney's time for WestLaw research, which can cost up to $3400 an hour (!), and I do not mean that the attorney will charge that fee, but it will be an out-of-pocket expense of the attorney to pay in order to do proper research for a client in an assigned case, with a hope of compensation from the court in the future, when the appeal goes through and is decided, which will usually take months.

Not only the court system forces attorneys to finance the court system by not paying attorneys interest on fees generated, but not paid for for months, but attorneys are supposed to pay out of pocket, and provide diligent representation, where such diligent representation REQUIRES costly research - which the attorney knows will never be compensated.


So, assigned appellate attorneys are vigorously encouraged in New York to provide substandard representation for the poor, where, in a private appeal, an attorney will have full and often advance compensation from a client (through a retainer and advances as the work proceeds) for all necessary expenses AND attorney's own work.

Discriminatory compensation rules are no different in assigned cases in Family Court than in criminal court.


Here is a voucher form for civil cases:

The same "note" at the bottom.

As I said above, an attorney may exhaust the compensation cap by just be reading the record, noting the issues and before he even begins researching them, or through just a couple of hours of research, which is inadequate for a serious criminal or Family Court appeal, almost always fraught with multiple complex constitutional issues. 

As a result, there arises a huge conflict of interest for attorneys - to do their job properly, and then lose time (and opportunity to earn money in other cases, while having their own bills to pay and their own families to support) and do unpaid work for their clients, because the case requires more than the cap pays for - or to pretend you did your job, knowing that it is unlikely the higher appellate court will reverse on ineffective assistance of counsel issue if an appellate attorney will put in just some appellate brief, whether properly articulating all necessary issues the record raises or not.

Apparently, this problem has been brewing not only in New York State.

Recently, an appellate attorney in Utah asked to allow him to withdraw from a DEATH PENALTY case, because the appellate court capped compensation in that death penalty case.

In other words, like in New York, much of the work required by the death penalty case in question would have been unpaid work, and the attorney could not afford it, since he had to support his own family, naturally.

Of course, the press disrespectfully claimed "lamenting" the legitimate claim of the attorney that a huge conflict of interest arises when an attorney must pick whether he can properly represent his client, but then go unpaid - in a case where he is supposed to be FULLY paid by the government for his work as a constitutionally required counsel for his condemned client.

We are not talking about a greedy attorney not wanting to do his job.

We are talking about, potentially, hours, days, weeks, possibly, months of unpaid work.

Nobody should be required to do that.

13th Amendment prohibits slavery in this country, and that equally applies to attorneys.

And, if counsel is constitutionally required in certain cases, they must be FULLY paid for their jobs.

Anything else, any situation where a financial incentive is created for an attorney for the poor to do less to avoid being forced to work for free, is unconstitutional deprivation of counsel of the poor.

Which is happening all over the country for decades as we speak, and I do not see any demonstrations in the streets about it.

Of course, demonstrating to fell a statute that was not a bother for over a hundred years is more fun and will gain more political capital than protecting constitutional rights of the poor. 

New York to parents: prepare for your children's education to be screwed. New York cancels a reading test for teachers and by dropping certification scores. A question from a taxpayer and a parent: why do we need teacher certification at all?

New York State continues to "excel".

It is the state

• stifling property owners and taxpayers with taxes,
• vouching for sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants whose children those same property owners must educate at their own expense against their will (because public schools in New York State are financed by property taxes), 
• having the most expensive public education in the country while not providing the best public education.

It is also the state from where people run to other states - run from rampant government corruption and run from those same stifling taxes, "voting with their feet".

And, with all the claims of innovation in New York, the state has reportedly fallen behind a number of other states in creation of new millionaires (people who contribute heavily to the state's economy through taxes, creating jobs and spending), meaning that there are not so many opportunities (other than corruption, which does not produce public wealth) to earn big money in the state.

This state that, this year, canceled a reading test for teachers - for real, this is not a joke!  Because subjecting teachers who are supposed not only to KNOW how to read, but to TEACH it to our children, is supposedly "discriminatory to minorities" who want to become teachers.

Now, New York went even further than that.

It is dramatically cutting passing standards on teacher certification exam, in order to be able to hire the 180,000 teachers to cover the current shortage in New York public schools.

That is happening also at the background that New York vigorously pursues, and even sues, to preserve its supposed "right" to not report illegal immigrants to authorities. 

As recently as yesterday, NYS Governor signed an executive order barring New York State police and state agencies from even asking about people's immigration status.

At the very same time, Cuomo created a special police force to fight "Central American gangs" in public schools in New York City where teachers are intimidated by such gangs.

Of course, there are a lot of comments on social media that Cuomo was not right to do that, that he should not be "policing our youth", but should instead be "speaking to the immigrant community" and trying to fight gangs in schools through pleas.

So, teachers who parents are going to be getting (and paying for as taxpayers), as a result:

• will not be properly tested even in how they READ - not to offend their tender sensibilities;
• will not be required to pass as rigorous a testing as those who taught the previous generations of New York children - in order to cover a teacher shortage (I guess, if there is a shortage, you hire whoever, in order to cover it, and the quality be damned);
• and will not be allowed to report illegal aliens in their schools,
• will continue to be intimidated by gangs that now require already a separate police force to be addressed - so tell me, who in their right mind will go teach in such schools.

And, a federal judge just decreed that we, the federal taxpayers, MUST finance this beautiful arrangement through federal money, wherever in the U.S. we are.

So, parents in New York, rejoice, a large flock of low quality teachers are coming into the public school in your area - who may not be able to read, may not be able to pass the certification exam that the previous teachers were passing, and is so desperate to get any job that he/she does not mind teaching in a war zone where gangs run amok.

And a judge just ruled that you, the parents and taxpayers, and we, the federal taxpayers, are stuck with paying for it.

The mercenary tell-all of Judge Posner and the silence of the "legal experts" about Posner's decades of misconduct, to the detriment of thousands of appellate litigants

Recently, a famous federal appellate #JudgeRichardPosner - famous for his proliferant writing and appearances outside the court for a number of decades - have published a book.

Of course, the question is, how a 78-old judge with a large caseload had the time to put together yet another book (he has published many while "serving" as a judge, begging the same question - where did he get the time?).

Writing a book is not a walk in the park, it is a full-time job.  Judge Posner somehow had many books published.  I already discussed on this blog the BIG public issue of where judges who publish books, teach outside the courtroom and make trips all over the country during business time of the court, get time to do that.

There is no question that such behavior takes away from their work as judges, the quality of opinions which they produce.

As to judges of federal appellate courts, which all developed a "policy" of reviewing only a small number of cases with full opinions, and to issue only summary orders for nearly 100% of pro se litigants, with no proper review, analysis and resolution of issues, BECAUSE the court is very busy and cannot use its precious time equally for all appellants, it becomes even a bigger issue.

Judge Posner was a federal appellate judge for 36 years, since December 1, 1981.

As Judge Posner confirms in his new book, he had authored plenty of article, "blog posts", and full-blown books while working as a judge:

"...my intellectual activity was never limited to the court; in my lifetime I have authored or coauthored not only many books but also countless articles and blog postings; and though many of the books and articles and blogs preceded my becoming a judge, a large number of them have been written and published since my appointment."

Posner, Richard. Reforming the Federal Judiciary: My Former Court Needs to Overhaul Its Staff Attorney Program and Begin Televising Its Oral Arguments (Kindle Locations 186-188). Kindle Edition.

And that is an understatement of the century.

Books published by Judge Posner are listed on Amazon on 12 pages - only lists of books.

Now, I do not doubt that Judge Posner is a very talented lecturer, teacher and scholar.

But, what I as a taxpayer and member of the public, am appalled about is that Judge Posner considered it possible to take enough time out of his full-time job as a judge to write that 12 pages of lists of books, to teach in all those schools (brilliantly, I do not doubt), to travel across the country, to make those interviews to the press and the media.

He had a full-time job as a judge on a court reviewing death penalty cases, and cases of constitutional violations by the government, his court, as other federal courts, repeatedly claimed to the U.S. Congress and the American public being overloaded and understaffed.

Yet, at the very same time,

• he found enough time to write books, lecture, travel the country during his court's business time, and
• his court unlawfully reduced appellate review of practically all pro se civil rights appeals, to summary orders -

when Posner was a judge of that court, and when Posner was the Chief Judge of that court, setting up the court's policies.

If judges do not have enough time to treat equally all of appellants who pay equal filing fees and have an equal right to a full review of their appeals, not a negligent fly-over-the-roof review, if any at all, through a summary order, like described in this law review article,

where do the same judges find time (for their own entertainment and financial gain), like Judge Posner did, to write books, teach for a fee, participate in various societies,

speak for a fee or travel to speak for free, but have his/her expenses paid + entertainment and lavish wining and dining?

It does not look like a little bit of corruption, it is corruption.

And Judge Posner was part of that corrupt setup for a very long time, doing NOTHING to change it.

So, why would now the 78-old judge who was appointed for life, would retire instead of (like practically all federal judges do) "assume senior status" and pretend he authors opinion when his law clerks do that for him, until he drops dead or until the court can no longer conceal that a certain judge has completely lost his mind to dementia?

Why would Judge Posner only now become this revolutionary and rubble-rouser and claim that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit discriminates against pro se litigants and "does not give them a fair shake"?

Like, he did not know it before?

Like, he did not PARTICIPATE in the discrimination before, and did not create, enforce and perpetuate this discrimination?

Oh, no.

Apparently, first, Judge Posner had a piss-off battle, some kind of a grudge with his colleagues on the court, and at 78, apparently decided that a federal pension + book royalties and speech engagements/teaching fees will be enough for him in his "sunset years".

Second, Judge Posner retired with a door-slam for a distinct financial reason - to sell his new book.  I bet it will be selling well now.

Of course, it is too little too late for Judge Posner to persuade the public that he truly cares about that same discrimination - because, if he does, and he knew about it for years while being on that court, he should have gone public about it while still there, while still being able to make a difference about it through court decisions, while voicing dissent about tossing appeals of pro se litigants through summary orders.

There is no question that there is a silver lining in Judge Posner's self-serving door-bang retirement jest:

• he is a public figure of a caliber and renown who cannot be easily smeared by the court system for his criticism of the system's flaws;  
• the discrimination against pro se litigants in state and federal courts, and in federal appellate court specifically, does exist, and public attention was drawn to it by Judge Posner, no matter how late and for what self-serving reasons.

But, let me ask a question - a rhetorical question.

What would Judge Posner do if, when he is still on the bench, an attorney practicing in "his" court would publicly raise the question of "his" court's discrimination against pro se litigants, and listing Judge Posner as one of the judges who are practicing that discrimination (which would be correct)?

I have no doubt in my mind that such an attorney would be severely disciplined and would likely lose his/her law license and livelihood.

As it is happening from time to time, with increasing frequency, around the country.

Because in our day and age only a well-renowned judge, and only on the doorstep of his retirement, can tell the truth about discrimination in our courts.

And only to sell a book.

That are my thoughts on the timing of Judge Posner's "revolutionary" retirement.

As to the contents of the book, I will publish a full review of the book later.

Stay tuned.

And actually, the best accuser against Judge Posner here is - Judge Posner:

So, for 35 years, this judge created, promoted, perpetuated and financially gained from the discrimination against pro se litigants as a matter of policy, including in a position of Chief Judge of his court who could do away with that discrimination, as a matter of policy and rule of court, in one pen strike.

And 6 months ago he somehow "awoke from a slumber of 35 years" and "wanted to do something about it".

Like - sell a book, for $11.99 in paperback, or for whatever dribbles in royalties from KindleUnlimited sales.

So, for the public, and for the "legal experts" who are salivating over the supposed brilliancy of Judge Posner while having no courage to address his screaming misconduct over the years - this judge deserves only one "badge":  shameless.

Shall we overcome this nonsense?

The first time I have heard the song "We Shall Overcome" was when I was 16 and was invited to a concert of students in the Moscow Linguistic University in Moscow, Russia.  

Then, in mid-70s and in the USSR, that song was already known as the unofficial anthem of the civil rights movement in the U.S.

Yet, nowadays, that anthem has become the focus of a lawsuit against a corporation claiming a copyright for that song, according to the lawsuit, stifling its public performances.

Here are the relevant portions of the complaint filed on April 12, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the case is called: 

We Shall Overcome Foundation et al v. The Richmond Organization Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 16-02725.

In November of 2016, Judge Denise Cote dismissed state claims on preemption grounds - since the majority of state claims hinge upon the main issue, whether the Defendants own a copyright to this "song".

On September 8, 2017, while allowing the case to proceed to trial, Judge Cote decided for the Plaintiffs, and removed from the trial by a partial summary judgment, this issue:

Here are the differences that were claimed to be protected by copyright:

This is the first case when I felt really, really sorry for the judge who has to go through all this nonsense about copyright of a song which has been in the public domain for more than half of a century - and her meticulous work in her dismissal decision and her partial summary judgment decision is commendable.

Look at what she had to deal with:

So, the what is "copyrighted" is subtle changes to the melody that can be made by a specific singer of the song and not an author, and which do not add anything to the originality of the work - and especially of a "song" which has been in the public domain for over 70 years.

I am not saying that to file this lawsuit was silly, no. 

It was, unfortunately, necessary if the supposed "owners" of the "copyright" to the civil rights anthem claim royalties for performing this song and stifle performance of what has long ago become a civil rights anthem.

In other words, each time anybody sings this song publicly as a means of political expression, he or she, or they must pay the "owners" a fee, or be in violation of federal copyright law (which can be enforced as a federal crime, too).

The lawsuit brings up important issues - as to the status of songs that people like so much that they become the banner of a large political movement.

This case still goes to trial on all issues other than whether the Defendants own copyright for the melody and first verse of the "song".  They don't, according to the court's decision.

Other issues in the lawsuit

- read the full decision here - are fair game at trial.

It will be, of course, a good and decent thing to do for people to just cede their supposed "copyright claim" to the public domain and settle the lawsuit.  But, it did not happen since April 12, 2016 when the lawsuit was filed, and our public funds are continued to be spent on the long fight which appears (on behalf of Defendants) to be nonsensical and bizarre.

It is interesting to mention - and the Plaintiffs in this case mentioned it - that the Defendants never pursued anybody for copyright violations in court, probably, understanding that they do not have much ground to stand on.

What will the jury say as to the remaining issues, now that the judge threw a wrench into the litigation by declaring that the Defendants do not own copyright as to the music and words of the first verse?  

I will continue to follow and report on this case.

Stay tuned.

Texas Supreme Court's "generous" permission for out-of-state lawyers - and an interesting revelation regarding the true reason for attorney regulation in the U.S.

The Texas Supreme Court magnanimously allowed out-of-state lawyers to provide services to Harvey victims - but only on a pro bono basis, and 

The Texas Supreme Court did not make a ruling for the in-state attorneys though restricting their ability to provide their services to the same Harvey victims to only pro bono.

Why is it so?

A prominent legal blog "Above the Law" explains it this way:

So, "I get the economics of out-of-state restrictions"?

"This State's bar can't have That State's lawyers flying in and scooping up all the legal work"?

So, the legal profession, in the face of a HUGE NATURAL DISASTER, that affected millions of people, is still insisting on their right to keep out outsiders who will simply charge less and provide better services - only allowing those who can afford the personal expense (travel, accommodation, being away from work and paying clients) of coming in and offering their services for free?

But, isn't occupational regulation of any profession in general, and attorney regulation in particular, imposed upon the American public (including in the State of Texas) as a way to PROTECT THE PUBLIC, not in order to protect in-state lawyers from out-of-state competition?

Yet, the disaster of Harvey and the spectacularly protective decision of the Texas Supreme Court, even in the face of this disaster, where ANYBODY will legal knowledge, with or without a license, willing to provide legal services, would be welcome, especially taking into account the amount of illiterate and poor people who would need legal help in the aftermath of the hurricane - reveals the true nature of attorney regulation.

Texas lawyers should be ashamed of its State Supreme Court, and should request to allow not only out-of-state lawyers, but non-lawyers, too, law students, people with law degrees, but without licenses, to be able to help in the aftermath of Harvey - for a minimal pay or without pay. 

And, if Harvey victims should be helped pro bono (which I am totally ok with), the Texas Supreme Court should allow help through the Internet to such people from anywhere in the world, from people with knowledge of the English language and legal knowledge, and should impose the pro bono requirement on such help universally, to every person serving such victims - without regard whether the person is a licensed attorney or not, an in-state attorney or not.

That would serve the purpose of serving the victims of the hurricane, and protecting the public from those who would want to gouge on people's misfortune - wouldn't it?

The 11th Circuit's decision re district courts' obligation to serve complaints of poor pro se litigants - too little to overcome the widespread practice of discrimination against the poor by federal courts.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has issued a very important ruling regarding civil rights cases of indigent people:  that federal courts must themselves serve complaints of people who are given the so-called IFP status.

Yet, as important as this ruling is, it does not cancel the statute - and a very wide-spread practice - where federal trial courts dismiss pro se lawsuits of indigent people before serving them upon the opponents - as the 11th Circuit say they must do, pretending that they are "frivolous", and thus acting as advocates for the defendants.

Abolishing the statute is more in order, as this very rare case can be easily circumvented by dismissing the pro se IFP complaint and designating the appeal as "frivolous", as trial courts are allowed to do by statute, thus blocking appeals from their own decisions.

28 U.S.C. 1915(h) should be abolished as a disgusting statute allowing and encouraging discrimination against victims of civil rights violations by the government simply because they are poor.

#FederalJudgeClayDLand, an unlicensed OB/GYN - a severe case of menopause of the brain. #IStandWithAlishaColeman. #ImpeachJudgeClayDLand

I wrote on this blog earlier this year about a federal judge, Clay D Land, whose arbitrary decision to return a properly filed case from Georgia to South Carolina landed that case into the hands of local judicial mafia who catered for "their own" and disciplined an outsider attorney in an intellectual infringement case for following the law as it was written, on behalf of his wronged clients.

After that invaluable service saved the defendants from a 4.2 million dollar judgment, Judge Clay D Land

was promoted to the position of a Chief Judge of his District Court.

And, in that position he authored an opinion which I can only characterize as a menopause of the brain.

Because, the case IS about menopause.

Here is the name of the case.

Here is the complaint of Alisha Coleman, an African American middle-aged woman who is, while working, is struggling with the effects of menopause, same as many millions of American women do every day.

The complaint is trying to plead the case in the most clinical, sterile way, in the most politically correct language possible.

Yet, the facts of the case are messy and ugly - and I will present them as they were alleged, only without political correctness.

Alisha Coleman, a woman undergoing her menopause, worked for a federal contractor, provider of - guess what? - E-911 services!

And

I will translate.

Alisha Coleman's regular periods stopped, but once in a while she had breakthrough heavy bleeding and had blood clots dropping out of her.

Such bleedings can be sudden, unpredictable and very profuse.

And, as any bleeding, it can be a medical emergency, possibly a life-threatening emergency.

Let's see how much compassion Alisha Coleman got from her employer, a federal contractor, when such a sudden heavy bleeding happened to her at work.

When #AlishaColeman shared her very intimate condition with her supervisors, they expressed - concern about her health? no, of course, not - a concern that she needs this:

So - the proper thing to tell your employee who may periodically experience a medical emergency is to have enough stuff to mop her blood after herself.

Great people.

I wonder if any of them cared to look into what post-menstrual bleedings actually are, and whether commercially available "feminine sanitary devices" are able to "contain and absorb" a river of blood that may suddenly rush from a postmenopausal woman.

So, while working for this extraordinary compassionate employer, on one unfortunate occasion, Alisha Coleman had a sudden onset of that river of blood.

And, she bled so heavily that she "soiled an office chair".

Did her supervisor express a concern about her condition, took her to the emergency room to verify if she is ok?

Oh, no.  The supervisor has brought a DISCIPLINARY ACTION against a middle-aged woman for sudden heavy bleeding outside of her control, and was warned that if she ever "do that again" - meaning, if ever again a river of blood suddenly rushes from her, and she "soils" any other office furniture - she will be fired.

Apparently, the administration of the federal contractor never read the Americans with Disabilities Act requiring to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities - and that would include some accommodations for Alisha Coleman, which could be as easy as discreetly purchasing a look-alike, but washable office chair for her to use. 

And - did Alisha Coleman "did it again"?

She did.

"Became episodic" is a politically correct way of saying - Alisha Coleman suffered once again from a river of blood rushing down her legs that was so profuse that it soaked through her pads, ran down her legs and onto the carpet.

In other words, they had an employee in the office who was bleeding so heavily that she bled onto the carpet.

Now, was THAT considered by the employer as a medical emergency in order to show the woman some compassion and bring her to the emergency room?

Apparently, not.

Instead, Alisha Coleman, in her condition, did this:

Think about it.

A middle-aged woman who had a likely emergency condition, thought not about her health, but how to clean the office carpet of her own blood with "bleach and disinfectant" in order not to be fired - for bleeding.

But, she was fired anyway.

And, Alisha Coleman sued.

And, Chief Judge Clay D. Land was "assigned" to her case.

Nobody can accuse Judge Land of lack of intelligence - especially when he achieved such a rare (rarest, in fact) thing as "the order of coif", having straight "As" in law school.

But, Judge Land, in order to make this egregious case of discrimination to go away, pretended to be dumb anyway: he first correctly summarized the facts of the case as alleged in Alisha Coleman's lawsuit,

but then engaged in bizarred unlicensed OB/GYN diagnostics:

• alleging that heavy bleeding from the uterus indicating the process by which the body stops its reproductive function, is not related to childbirth or pregnancy - see how this argument is contradicted in the appellate brief filed on behalf of Alisha Coleman by ACLU;
• comparing heavy bleeding, through pads and on the floor, with urine incontinence; and
• claimed that Alisha Coleman failed to allege that men were treated differently with urine incontinence than she was with her heavy bleeding.

Once again, an "order of coif" guy cannot pretend to be THAT dumb.

Moreover, it may be a shocking piece of news for Judge Land, but women have incontinence, too, so urine incontinence was not a medical condition unique to the male gender, while post-menopausal heavy bleeding is unique to the female gender.

And, since Judge Land dismissed the case at the pleading stage, without the benefit of discovery and expert reports, with his accounting and law degree, he was certainly not qualified to act as a unsworn expert OB/GYN, claim that post-menopausal bleeding is not "related to childbirth or pregnancy" within the meaning of the statute, or that it is comparable to incontinence.

So, Judge Land, without any compunction, claimed in his decision dismissing her lawsuit that the only way Alisha Coleman could claim discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause (that she was fired because of a medical condition unique for her gender) was if her condition would be related to childbirth or pregnancy - and concluded the bleeding that occurs when the woman's ability for pregnancy is winding down - is NOT related to pregnancy.

Follow the reasoning:

The statute says that a woman may not be discriminated against by her employer because of medical conditions "because of her sex" or "on the basis of sex", which, as the statute explained, "include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; ... 42 U.S.C. 2000e(k)".

This is a civil rights enforcement statute, and the rule of construction of such statutes is (1) broad, (2) liberal, and (3) to ensure that legislative intent is followed.

And the legislative intent was clearly to ensure that women are not discriminated against and certainly not fired because of their sex, including, BUT NOT LIMITED TO conditions that arise on the basis of pregnancy or childbirth, or "related medical conditions".

How could an "order of coif" judge not conclude that a uterine bleeding by which nature winds up the process of pregnancy and childbirth in a certain female is not "related" to pregnancy or childbirth - is a scientific wonder.

But he did.

Here is what this "order of coif" judge says, and this is a direct quote from his decision:

Here Judge Land could just end his atrocious self-embarrassment.  But, he felt the need to continue.

"Not terminated simply because she was "pre-menopausal or menstruating".

She did not allege that she was menstruating - she alleged that she was bleeding as part of the menopause, which is a completely different story and may be a medical emergency.

Women do not usually "menstruate" through their clothes, pads, down their legs and on the floor - it is may be an emergency bleeding, as in "losing blood", as in "bleeding to death".

Doesn't a person with an "order of coif" get that?

But, again, without the benefit of discovery and expert evidence, Judge Lance decided to act as an unlicensed OB/GYN and claim that she was simply "pre-menopausal OR menstruating".

In fact, claiming that Alisha Coleman was "or menstruating" was a statement directly opposite her allegations in the complaint, and thus a statement made by the judge on behalf of defendants, as their advocate.

But, that did not embarrass Judge Land enough either.

He rushed head on:

Dear sisters, American women.

Mothers, wives, childless women - does not matter.

The Chief Prick (not sorry) of the U.S. District Court of the Middle District of Georgia, a middle-aged man), considers it appropriate and not discriminatory if a woman is fired "for being unable to control the heavy menstruation and soiling herself and company property".

How callous and humiliating is that?

First, Judge Land, once again, falsifies the record by downplaying the facts and alleging that it was menstruation, not heavy (very heavy) bleeding - so heavy that Alisha Coleman bled onto the floor through the pads and clothes.

Next, Judge Land claims that now a woman may be fired for soiling HERSELF (and a piece of carpet) with HER OWN BLOOD during A MEDIAL EMERGENCY. 

To say that in an official document, a man and a judge must be a special kind of jerk.

But, Judge Land did not end his atrocious woman-hating and racist rant even at that, he had to continue.

Once again Judge Land is attempting to:

1. equate emergency bleeding with incontinence;
2. imply that incontinence is a medical condition attributable to male sex only; and
3. claim that alleging that in order to claim discrimination in being fired for sudden emergency bleeding on the floor in the office, a woman must somehow allege that incontinent males will not be fired under the same circumstances.

That last claim is, in fact, no less disturbing than the implied claim that a woman may be fired for an emergency bleeding - Judge Clay clearly implies that, if a federal contractor and an E-911 operator would similarly discriminate against a man for "allowing" himself to be suddenly and unexpectedly incontinent through a spillover of urine or feces despite precautions, and fires such a man, that would be ok, and Alisha Coleman then cannot sue for discrimination either.

Since Judge Land attributed emergency bleeding as BAD BEHAVIOR and a proper reason to fire a middle-aged woman, and an African-American middle-aged woman, I must add - who was herself an E-911 employee, by sad irony - can he now be IMPEACHED for bad behavior for his misogynistic rant in Alisha Coleman's case and for creating for employers in the State of Georgia a practical invitation to fire pre-menopausal women for their medical condition.

Even if he is not incontinent yet and did not soil any chairs in the courthouse.

Sick, sick man.

And, what bothers me, too, is why Alisha Coleman's complaint did not include discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

After all, I agree that in this case it is a gender discrimination.

But, it would have provided yet another basis for the lawsuit to proceed if Alisha Coleman would also claim that it does not really matter from which part of the body you suddenly bleed when you are fired for that sudden bleeding on the company chair - or carpet - from a wound on your body, from your nose, mouth, ears or from your uterus.  

Such firing is clearly still a discrimination against a temporary disability, and is equally reprehensible.

Alisha Coleman could have fell, struck her head and bled on the same floor.

Alisha Coleman could have nose-bled on the same floor.

She would have been fired, too?

One thing appears to be clear - Judge Clay D. Land has no place on the federal bench, nor should he remain a licensed attorney.

He is a disgrace to his profession.