I've just posted a blog about two nightmare judges in New York - Richard Northrup and Kevin Dowd - who were elected while running unopposed.
Yet another nightmare like that just happened in California where Judge Aaron Persky, the one who gave a 6-month sentence to the Stanford rapist Turner Block, was just re-elected to a 6-year term.
As the report says, the voters "did not get to oust" the judge because her ran unopposed.
And that is, despite an international outcry to oust Judge Persky, an online petition that has gathered hundreds of thousands of votes to oust him and members of legislature calling upon him to resign and pledging to oust him if he doesn't.
It is clear that Persky is not resigning - he adamantly continued his election campaign and was re-elected unopposed.
By the way, the Stanford rapist case is not the first time when Persky made a decision favoring rapists.
In a civil trial alleging sexual assault by a group of De Anza College baseball players sued for allegations of gang rape, Persky derailed the case, which resulted in dismissal of the lawsuit against two of the defendants and private settlement against others, by admitting into evidence IRRELEVANT Facebook pictures of victims in revealing clothes made 6 months after assault.
It is apparent that the judge, same as in the Stanford rapist's case, sends a message that the victims were themselves to blame. You dressed scantily - don't complain when you are gang-raped, that's the message.
Same as in the Stanford case - you went to a party and got drunk, don't be surprised that you found yourself raped behind a dumpster, and your rapist will get a rehab-length of incarceration only because a longer term will be too hard for his tender sensibilities.
Great message from a judge to the public.
And - he was just re-elected for 6 more years.
The public can expect the same kind of rulings from him in the future.
I wonder whether Persky will be removed or even disciplined for abusing his discretion in the courtroom and using it to humiliate and demean victims of sexual assault - we'll see.
Friday, June 10, 2016
Judge Richard Northrup of Delaware County, NY, re-enters - as a judge - a case from which he was recused as a prosecutor, for purposes of choosing a judge
I was advised that Richard Northrup, after recusing as a prosecutor from a case where I was a defense attorney before my suspension, filed an ex parte affirmation with the court as a prosecutor requesting transfer of the case to another court (which he at that point had no right to do), but he did not stop at that.
Northrup then became a judge, re-entered the case where he was a - recused - prosecutor and engaged in ex parte communications with judges in local justice courts (several of them) offering to preside over a case of my former client, proceeding without me pro se.
After one judge recused, Northrup offered the case to another judge.
Then, somehow Judge Rosa got involved and, also based on an ex parte communications with judges and prosecutors, sent the case to yet another judge, without vacating Northrup's sending the case to a different court.
So, now the case has been sent to two different courts - to one by Judge Norhtrup, the former prosecutor in the case, and another by Judge Rosa, who is also full of conflicts of interest in that particular case.
The case involves not only ex parte communications of ALL judges who so far were involved in that case, and those are:
I will provide a more detailed analysis of Williams v Pennsylvania in a separate blog, believe me, the case is bad.
Northrup then became a judge, re-entered the case where he was a - recused - prosecutor and engaged in ex parte communications with judges in local justice courts (several of them) offering to preside over a case of my former client, proceeding without me pro se.
After one judge recused, Northrup offered the case to another judge.
Then, somehow Judge Rosa got involved and, also based on an ex parte communications with judges and prosecutors, sent the case to yet another judge, without vacating Northrup's sending the case to a different court.
So, now the case has been sent to two different courts - to one by Judge Norhtrup, the former prosecutor in the case, and another by Judge Rosa, who is also full of conflicts of interest in that particular case.
The case involves not only ex parte communications of ALL judges who so far were involved in that case, and those are:
- Yvonne Pagillo, of Walton Village Court;
- Douglas Card, of Deposit Town Court;
- Joseph Cawley, Chief Administrative Judge of Criminal Courts in the 6th Judicial District;
- Robert Mulvey, at that time Chief Administrative Judge of the 6th Judicial District;
- Michael Coccoma, Chief Administrative Judge of upstate New York;
- Richard Northrup, Delaware County Court judge (and former recused prosecutor);
- J. Neal Phelby, Deposit Town Court;
- Gary Rosa, Delaware County Court judge;
- Michael T. O'Brien, Hancock Town court judge;
- Herbert Buckley, Hancock Village court judge.
10 judges. From the top administrative level to the justice court level.
On a traffic ticket case.
All engaged in ex parte communications with the prosecutors in fixing the case.
And that is not just me talking about it - I have documentary evidence regarding such ex parte communications.
Apparently, the rule of ex parte communication does not exist any more.
New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct repeatedly tossed my documented complaints against judges who engaged in ex parte communications.
So, judges now believe that ex parte communications with the prosecution in Delaware County cases is the new law.
Defense counsel and litigants - beware.
By the way, JUST YESTERDAY the U.S. Supreme Court JUST reversed a case, Williams v Pennsylvania, where a former prosecutor who sought a death penalty then re-entered the case AS A JUDGE and decided against the death penalty defendant FOUR habeas corpus petitions, and that is, in a case where the judge's own behavior (or that of his subordinates) in concealing exculpatory evidence and eliciting perjury from a witness on several material issues, not just one, was at stake.
I will provide a more detailed analysis of Williams v Pennsylvania in a separate blog, believe me, the case is bad.
It has been held a violation of due process where a former accuser, a prosecutor reappears in the case as a judge and makes adverse determinations against the defendant.
That is even more of a misconduct where the former prosecutor recused from the case because of an ex parte communication with one judge (Yvonne Pagillo), then made an ex parte motion to recuse before another judge (Robert Mulvey), after he was disqualified, made another ex parte application in writing to yet another judge (Joseph Cawley asking without any authority to transfer the case), then re-entered the case as a judge and engaged in ex parte communications with at least three more judges -
- Douglas Card;
- J. Neal Felby and
- Michael O'Brien
Northrup, apparently, was very much interested in fixing the case, even after his recusal as a prosecutor.
Defense attorneys and litigants - be aware of yet another proof of Northrup's dishonesty.
By the way, Northrup's decision assigning Judge O'Brien was never even sent to the defendant. And, of course, Northrup's communications with other judges were never provided to the defendant (with Judges Card, Felby and O'Brien), nor to me as the defendant's counsel before my suspension (with Judges Mulvey and Cawley).
Remember - Northrup ran for the judicial seat unopposed, so the only vote that he needed to be elected was his own.
Litigants are saddled with Northrup for 10 years, Northrup just started - and so far has outdone even his predecessor and buddy Carl Becker in misconduct.
There is another in-famous local judge who was also elected without any opposition, the mentally unstable antisemitic Judge Kevin Dowd from Chenango County Supreme Court who:
- raves about law schools building urinals in his honor during child custody proceedings,
- holds ex parte trials to which he instructs court personnel not to allow public access, misleading the public that the trial is not being held;
- admits evidence by boxes without looking at it - if it comes from a "connected" attorney;
- blocks access to that evidence when his decisions are appealed;
- gives away evidence during the pendency of appeal precluding the appeal from being perfected;
- employes as court reporters Facebook friends of his long-time female law clerk to whom he has, apparently, tender feelings (Dowd reacted very personally to a motion to recuse involving her clear misconduct);
- allows antisemitic court personnel to engaged in violent revenge against Jewish litigants who dared to complain against them;
- throws Jewish litigants out of the courthouse for making motions to recuse him - after granting such motions, and claims that any motion to recuse is a disruption of court proceedings which entitle him to use armed court security against the moving parties.
Litigants are saddled with Dowd until 2026, according to NYS Unified Court System's website - unless Dowd retires earlier.
It is very clear that whether a judge should or should not be elected, should not depend on just one vote - the judge's own.
Yet, that's what happened in Northrup's and Dowd's case.
I do not know what the solution should be - but when a judge is running unopposed, I believe that rules requiring a minimum of a certain, and high, percentage of votes from the population of the District should be introduced, otherwise the judge is elected simply by himself, his friends, family, relatives and colleagues, and by those who paid for his election campaign and expect favorable decisions from him as a result.
For a story about yet another dishonest judge elected unopposed, from another state - stay tuned.
Thursday, June 9, 2016
The $368,332 "Moon Boon" of Delaware County DSS to Delaware County prosecutors - 4 times fatter than the $91,457 "Muehl Boon" to Otsego County prosecutors
I wrote on this blog previously about the Otsego County (NY) District Attorney John Muehl's contract with the Otsego County DSS for $91,457 to prosecute the poor.
Guess what, the present Delaware County (NY) Judge Richard Northrup - Delaware County District Attorney in 2014 - had a 4-times sweeter deal with the then Delaware County DSS Commissioner (now former) William Moon.
The contract of Delaware County DSS with the Delaware County District Attorney, signed in 2014 by William Moon and Richard Northrup, is for over $368,000, for the same purpose - to pay for investigators to investigate and prosecute social services fraud.
The interesting thing is that Otsego County has a population of 60,636 (in 2015) with a population density of 61 people per square mile (a reduction of population of 2.6% since 2010).
"The median income for a household in the county was $33,444, and the median income for a family was $41,110. Males had a median income of $29,988 versus $22,609 for females. The per capita income for the county was $16,806."
Delaware County has a population of 46,722 (in 2013) - actually, the population has dwindled since then, as evidence by the fact that a maternity hospital announced this year it is closing, and the community pool in Delhi, NY, the County seat, is not going forward.
The population density is 33 people per square mile.
"The median income for a household in the county was $32,461, and the median income for a family was $39,695. Males had a median income of $27,732 versus $22,262 for females. The per capita income for the county was $17,357."
Average per capita income in both counties is about the same - around $17,000 a year.
$17,000 is around 150% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines.
Since the majority of populations in the two counties are poor, that entitles residents in both counties to a number of subsidies from the government, see the schedule here.
Of course, there is a possibility that people apply where they are not eligible - but, since population in both Counties is also not quiet advanced in education, it is for those reviewing the application to reject and explain that to people, not to prosecute the admittedly poor population for being poor - but not eligible for help.
Yet, the approach in both counties is that public money needs to be poured into paying extra to the District Attorney's office for prosecutions on behalf of DSS, practically hiring the elected county official to provide his investigators to work for pay for certain class of cases - to recover federal money, by the way.
And, Otsego County DA got paid 4 times less than the Delaware County DA by the respective Social Services Departments.
Over $91,000 paid to Otsego County DA Muehl, out of the pockets of the poor-on-the-average Otsego County taxpayers - to prosecute the poor more vigorously. And to take resources away from prosecuting rampant corruption in Otsego County government.
In Delaware County, with less population and less population density, but the same levels of eligibility to government subsidies as in Otsego County, the levels of fraud in the use of government subsidies must be statistically lower.
If population in Delaware County is 30% lower than in Otsego County, then the numbers of fraud should be statistically lower by about the same levels.
So, the contract to bribe the District Attorney's office into dedicating its limited personnel to prosecute the poor and not other crimes in the county should be 30% less - around $60,000.
Right?
Wrong.
The contract to bribe Dick (oops, Judge) Northrup into prosecuting the poor - and not the rampant corruption in the Delaware County and its Department of Social Services - was $368,332, according to release of records I obtained from Delaware County on a FOIL request last week.
That is 4 times higher than the bribe of Otsego County DSS to Otsego County DA, and 6 times higher than what than what that amount would have been if compared with Otsego County contract and pro-rated by comparative population levels.
Now you have the answer why Dick (Judge) Northrup did not prosecute corruption in Delaware County government.
Now you have the answer why members of Delaware County government wanted Dick Northrup on the bench so badly - and put him there.
Now you have the answer why Dick Northrup chose not to prosecute his investigator Jeff Bowie's nephew Derek Bowie for two assaults and one attempted murder.
Jeff Bowie was a cash cow.
The contract was not a flat-rate contract, but "services-based". So, Dick Northrup had to earn his keep.
And, by the way, the contract for $368,332 for "services" of DA's investigator to work for DSS was signed after the press raised in 2013 the issue why DSS investigators were employed in the DA's office in the first place.
So, instead of laying off DSS investigators working out of the DA's office, DA Northrup signed a contract with DSS to provide paid investigations to the DSS.
Of course, when you are providing paid services to somebody, you have an incentive to overlook any transgressions - such as: crimes - in those who pay you.
One doesn't bite the hand that feeds one, right?
So, Northrup provide paid services to DSS, to the tune of $368,332 of taxpayers' money - and that's only in 2014.
And, when I called the DA's office in 2014 asking to prosecute then-judge Carl Becker (friend of Bill Moon) and the Republican Election Board Chairman Bill Campbell for forgery of public records and fraud, it is now more clear why such a request was rejected.
One doesn't bite the hand that feeds one.
Of course, the DA's office investigators must investigate all reported crimes - and not because somebody pays them extra to investigate some reported crime and not to investigate others.
But, that's not how it happens in Delaware - and Otsego - Counties.
And, Northrup got his reward for his corruption - a judgeship, with his salary immediately perked up, several months into his election.
When you are told that Dick Northrup is not an "Honorable", don't believe it.
It's a job title, nothing else.
Nothing can make a corrupt public official honorable.
But, the question is - will the Delaware County Judge Northrup and the Delaware County former DSS Commissioner Moon be investigated and prosecuted for corruption for this contract?
I doubt that.
After all, John Hubbard is the one who refused to prosecute Carl Becker - without disclosing that Carl Becker was his law partner, and John Hubbard and Dick Northrup did not disclose that fact for 13 years that Becker was on the bench, while appearing in front of him and obtaining thousands of criminal convictions - where all of defendants can now claim convictions were improper and seek their reversals, simply because John Hubbard's involvement with Carl Becker was not disclosed, and that will come at a price to Delaware County taxpayers.
But - corruption pays in Delaware County and in the State of New York.
Honor doesn't.
Guess what, the present Delaware County (NY) Judge Richard Northrup - Delaware County District Attorney in 2014 - had a 4-times sweeter deal with the then Delaware County DSS Commissioner (now former) William Moon.
The contract of Delaware County DSS with the Delaware County District Attorney, signed in 2014 by William Moon and Richard Northrup, is for over $368,000, for the same purpose - to pay for investigators to investigate and prosecute social services fraud.
The interesting thing is that Otsego County has a population of 60,636 (in 2015) with a population density of 61 people per square mile (a reduction of population of 2.6% since 2010).
"The median income for a household in the county was $33,444, and the median income for a family was $41,110. Males had a median income of $29,988 versus $22,609 for females. The per capita income for the county was $16,806."
Delaware County has a population of 46,722 (in 2013) - actually, the population has dwindled since then, as evidence by the fact that a maternity hospital announced this year it is closing, and the community pool in Delhi, NY, the County seat, is not going forward.
The population density is 33 people per square mile.
"The median income for a household in the county was $32,461, and the median income for a family was $39,695. Males had a median income of $27,732 versus $22,262 for females. The per capita income for the county was $17,357."
Average per capita income in both counties is about the same - around $17,000 a year.
$17,000 is around 150% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines.
Since the majority of populations in the two counties are poor, that entitles residents in both counties to a number of subsidies from the government, see the schedule here.
Of course, there is a possibility that people apply where they are not eligible - but, since population in both Counties is also not quiet advanced in education, it is for those reviewing the application to reject and explain that to people, not to prosecute the admittedly poor population for being poor - but not eligible for help.
Yet, the approach in both counties is that public money needs to be poured into paying extra to the District Attorney's office for prosecutions on behalf of DSS, practically hiring the elected county official to provide his investigators to work for pay for certain class of cases - to recover federal money, by the way.
And, Otsego County DA got paid 4 times less than the Delaware County DA by the respective Social Services Departments.
Over $91,000 paid to Otsego County DA Muehl, out of the pockets of the poor-on-the-average Otsego County taxpayers - to prosecute the poor more vigorously. And to take resources away from prosecuting rampant corruption in Otsego County government.
In Delaware County, with less population and less population density, but the same levels of eligibility to government subsidies as in Otsego County, the levels of fraud in the use of government subsidies must be statistically lower.
If population in Delaware County is 30% lower than in Otsego County, then the numbers of fraud should be statistically lower by about the same levels.
So, the contract to bribe the District Attorney's office into dedicating its limited personnel to prosecute the poor and not other crimes in the county should be 30% less - around $60,000.
Right?
Wrong.
The contract to bribe Dick (oops, Judge) Northrup into prosecuting the poor - and not the rampant corruption in the Delaware County and its Department of Social Services - was $368,332, according to release of records I obtained from Delaware County on a FOIL request last week.
That is 4 times higher than the bribe of Otsego County DSS to Otsego County DA, and 6 times higher than what than what that amount would have been if compared with Otsego County contract and pro-rated by comparative population levels.
Now you have the answer why Dick (Judge) Northrup did not prosecute corruption in Delaware County government.
Now you have the answer why members of Delaware County government wanted Dick Northrup on the bench so badly - and put him there.
Now you have the answer why Dick Northrup chose not to prosecute his investigator Jeff Bowie's nephew Derek Bowie for two assaults and one attempted murder.
Jeff Bowie was a cash cow.
The contract was not a flat-rate contract, but "services-based". So, Dick Northrup had to earn his keep.
And, by the way, the contract for $368,332 for "services" of DA's investigator to work for DSS was signed after the press raised in 2013 the issue why DSS investigators were employed in the DA's office in the first place.
So, instead of laying off DSS investigators working out of the DA's office, DA Northrup signed a contract with DSS to provide paid investigations to the DSS.
Of course, when you are providing paid services to somebody, you have an incentive to overlook any transgressions - such as: crimes - in those who pay you.
One doesn't bite the hand that feeds one, right?
So, Northrup provide paid services to DSS, to the tune of $368,332 of taxpayers' money - and that's only in 2014.
And, when I called the DA's office in 2014 asking to prosecute then-judge Carl Becker (friend of Bill Moon) and the Republican Election Board Chairman Bill Campbell for forgery of public records and fraud, it is now more clear why such a request was rejected.
One doesn't bite the hand that feeds one.
Of course, the DA's office investigators must investigate all reported crimes - and not because somebody pays them extra to investigate some reported crime and not to investigate others.
But, that's not how it happens in Delaware - and Otsego - Counties.
And, Northrup got his reward for his corruption - a judgeship, with his salary immediately perked up, several months into his election.
When you are told that Dick Northrup is not an "Honorable", don't believe it.
It's a job title, nothing else.
Nothing can make a corrupt public official honorable.
But, the question is - will the Delaware County Judge Northrup and the Delaware County former DSS Commissioner Moon be investigated and prosecuted for corruption for this contract?
I doubt that.
After all, John Hubbard is the one who refused to prosecute Carl Becker - without disclosing that Carl Becker was his law partner, and John Hubbard and Dick Northrup did not disclose that fact for 13 years that Becker was on the bench, while appearing in front of him and obtaining thousands of criminal convictions - where all of defendants can now claim convictions were improper and seek their reversals, simply because John Hubbard's involvement with Carl Becker was not disclosed, and that will come at a price to Delaware County taxpayers.
But - corruption pays in Delaware County and in the State of New York.
Honor doesn't.
A California Judge who was censured for having sex with two women in chambers just got re-elected
I wrote in this blog about a California judge Scott Steiner who was censured for having sex in chambers with two women, see my blogs from 2014 here and here.
One woman was an attorney practicing in front of the judge, and the other was the judge's former intern - and the judge, after having sex with her, advocated on her behalf with the local District Attorney's office for her employment.
Guess what - Judge Steiner just got re-elected, in a contested election.
Meaning, the voters support and condone such judicial behavior.
So - judges, have sex in chambers with your interns and pay back for sex with jobs in high places.
The public approves.
One woman was an attorney practicing in front of the judge, and the other was the judge's former intern - and the judge, after having sex with her, advocated on her behalf with the local District Attorney's office for her employment.
Guess what - Judge Steiner just got re-elected, in a contested election.
Meaning, the voters support and condone such judicial behavior.
So - judges, have sex in chambers with your interns and pay back for sex with jobs in high places.
The public approves.
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
Talking heads thumping Trump for criticizing Judge Curiel are in denial of existing law and practices in American courts
For years, the media avoided like plague the issue of judicial impropriety and bias.
For the last couple of days, the talking heads on TV and the media discuss nothing else.
Because it is safe to do so now - because thinking is not required to just say: to accuse a judge of appearance of impropriety is:
1) racist;
2) unamerican;
3) makes the accuser unfit to be a president.
Of course, it is not just the race of Judge Gonzalo Curiel that drove Donald Trump to raise the appearance of impropriety in Judge Curiel presiding over the case of Trump University and repeatedly ruling against Trump University.
It is what is called the "totality of circumstances" including:
1) the heritage of Judge Curiel - his parents were both Mexican immigrants, and, with all the frenzy in the media, I did not see any efforts to uncover and produce documents indicating that Judge Curiel's parents entry into this country was legal;
With the amount of money thrown into this media frenzy, to rely upon statements of Judge Curiel's brother Raul that his parents entered the country legally is irresponsible journalism.
Trump is right to raise the issue that a large part of Trump's election campaign is to build a wall and prevent further illegal immigration from Mexico.
It is nonsense to say that a judge would not feel for his immigrant parents (now deceased) and would not try to use his position of power to hurt a critic (fair or unfair) of his heritage - and it is especially so when the judge is honored in supporting the "community" which honors as its part organizations of illegal immigrants.
I wrote on this blog about a lot of different motives for judges to act as advocates and not as impartial tribunals.
The triggers range from being an athlete (like the defendant), a churchgoer (while the defendant went to the same church choir), and most definitely, the race.
The media accuses Trump of being a "racist", "unamerican" for "assaults on a judge".
There was no physical assault.
There was criticism.
Can a party in litigation raise the appearance of impropriety?
Sure.
And, are there legal standards in this country indicating that NOT taking into account the race of the factfinder is a violation of the litigant's due process of law?
Sure. The media conveniently forgets about that.
On May 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a death sentence because it was meted out to a black defendant by an all-white jury - in 1987, that is 30 years ago:
"The State’s new argument today does not dissuade us
from the conclusion that its prosecutors were motivated in
substantial part by race when they struck Garrett and
Hood from the jury 30 years ago. Two peremptory strikes
on the basis of race are two more than the Constitution
allows.
The order of the Georgia Supreme Court is reversed,
and the case is remanded for further proceedings not
inconsistent with this opinion."
In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court, in 2016, overturned a death sentence - that a judge allowed - which was motivated by race of the fact-finders.
Which means, race of the fact-finders matters.
Very much so.
Why do we actually strive for "judicial diversity"?
Why do we want more judges of color on the bench?
The U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor answered that question:
In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, then an appeals court judge, "gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”"
Sonya Sotomayor was recently in the middle of a controversy with her other statement - to force lawyers to provide free services for the poor as a condition of having a law license.
That statement of Sonya Sotomayor was vigorously discussed in the press.
The 2001 - on point - statement of Sonya Sotomayor that the ethnicity and sex of a judge "may and will make a difference in our judging" is all but forgotten, and Trump is jumped upon - for saying the same.
That the ethnicity of a judge does matter and, in his case, does raise an appearance of impropriety.
Sonya Sotomayor, in her famous speech, rejected the notion that it does not matter that the decision is made by a white or non-white judge, by a man or woman (which is how it should be).
Sonya Sotomayor, who was since PROMOTED to the U.S. Supreme Court, thinks otherwise:
"In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
That's EXACTLY what Trump doesn't want in a judge in his case.
A "wise Latino man" who would draw from and based his decisions not upon the record and the law, but upon the "richness of his experience" - and from the "richness of experience" of his Mexican immigrant parents, now both deceased, and thus even more honored by the judge.
In other words, Trump wanted to exclude a possibility of Judge Curiel making a decision in his case based on extra-judicial factors - which is EXACTLY what the "wise Latina woman" Sonya Sotomayor was calling upon judges to do since 2001.
2) Affiliations of Judge Curiel with advocacy organizations for illegal immigrants
It was discussed in the media ad nauseam whether Judge Curiel's participation in a lawyers' group which itself is affiliated with the nationalist La Raza movement raises an appearance of impropriety.
From the point of view of ensuring a right to a fair trial for Trump University - where its founder has pledged to fight illegal immigration from Mexico, and made offensive statements against Mexican immigrants equating them with criminals - Trump has a point, and that is especially given the speech of Sonya Sotomayor and her "wise Latina woman" drawing upon her experiences as opposed a white man who "didn't live that life".
Trump also has a point where Judge Curiel:
I received recently an e-mail from an individual in some advocacy group appealing to members of the e-mail list to distance from Trump and not to discuss the issue whether there is or there is no appearance of impropriety in Judge Curiel presiding over the class lawsuit against the Trump University.
The e-mail was pointing out that it is the wrong person and the wrong situation where the appearance of impropriety should be raised, in other words, not a "perfect showcase".
I disagree.
The media's silence - in general - on the issues of judicial misconduct, bias, and impropriety, of judges of all races and genders - and the media's frenzy once a prominent, and much hated (deservedly on many points), presidential candidate raises this issue, and the way the public responds, after being heated up by the cues from the mass media, actually warrants and even mandates a response from those of use who see what is really going on.
It is not inappropriate to raise ANY issues raising the appearance of impropriety.
The right of access to court, the right to an impartial judge, the right to a fair trial are all fundamental constitutional rights, guaranteed by the 1st, 5th and 14th Amendment.
The right to criticize a member of the government - any member, including a judge - is a fundamental constitutional right, guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to any one of us, including a presidential candidate, no matter how he is hated by some people, and no matter whether that hate is deserved or not.
A Latino U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor endorsed judicial decision-making influenced by race and gender of the judge, and drawing on the judge's background and experiences outside of the record.
I do not see the media talking heads criticizing her.
The pleading standards in federal court - the infamous Iqbal and Twombly cases - allow judges to draw upon their own extrajudicial experiences.
Once again, Judge Curiel is allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court precedent - which he pledged to follow at his confirmation hearing, whether it is erroneous (unconstitutional) or not - to draw on his own personal experiences in deciding court cases.
I do not see the media criticizing or even mentioning Iqbal and Twombly cases.
I only see the media in a frenzy DENYING that Judge Curiel would do what the precedents allow him to do.
And I only see the media eating alive Donald Trump for saying that doing what Sonya Sotomayor claimed a judge must be doing, and what the U.S. Supreme Court in Iqbal and Twombly allowed judges to do - drawing upon their own personal experiences in deciding cases - which is what Trump discerned in Judge Curiel's decisions - was wrong.
It is wrong.
Let's sum it up.
1) Race matters in court decision-making, as ruled in:
Batson v Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986);
Foster v Chatman, (May 23, 2016)
2) Drawing upon a judge's personal experiences related to his racial heritage should be done as part of judicial decision-making - according to the U.S. Supreme Court justice, a "wise Latina woman" Sonya Sotomayor.
3) Drawing upon a judge's personal experience in deciding federal cases is allowed at the pleading stage, for purposes of deciding a motion to dismiss before reviewing any evidence in the case - by a U.S. Supreme Court case
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009):
"whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense" - see criticism of that decision here and here.
In 2010 there was an empirical study conducted of decisions made by judges of different races.
The article describing the study actually indicated that racial diversity in the judiciary is important because:
"[i]t is essential that judges have an ability to relate to a rapidly growing diverse culture and the experiences of minorities vulnerable to White people in positions of power within industries predominantly controlled by Whites."
A judge's "ability to relate", or empathy to a certain class of litigants, is called "bias".
A judge should be even-handed, impartial and should correctly and fairly apply the existing law, based on the record of the case - that's all the judge has to do.
If in any judicial confirmation hearings, a judge would be tested for his or her "ability to relate" to various classes of litigants - there will be a media frenzy of another kind, condemning the judicial candidate for seeking his judicial seat to promote interests of a certain class of litigants to which the judge "relates".
The existing law, the existing studies, statements of a presently sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice clearly indicates that race matters in judicial decision-making.
Many litigants, mostly pro se (because attorneys are afraid to raise the issue) are raising the issue - in pleadings and in social media - that judges make decisions in favor of people with backgrounds similar to the judge, including ethnicity, religion, church, cultural values etc.
But, when such an issue is uttered by a presidential candidate - the media immediately calls him racist, and political capital is made on bashing him.
Based on the facts at his disposal, and existing laws and practices as described above, Trump had every right to raise the issue of appearance of impropriety in Judge Curiel presiding over his case and repeatedly ruling against his institution.
The taint is not removed by claims that Judge Curiel's decisions are supported by evidence.
For purposes of fairness of adjudication, appearance of bias and impropriety is as important as the actual bias and impropriety.
And, if the media really wanted to protect a judge from racist attacks - the media should protect the recently suspended Judge Olu Stevens of Kentucky - a black judge who was suspended by a racist judicial system for insisting that the anti-racist law, Batson v Kentucky, is followed in the racist criminal justice proceedings.
The black judge Judge Olu Stevens actually called out a white prosecutor for being a racist.
And was suspended for his efforts to enforce the anti-discrimination law.
I don't see any media frenzy defending Judge Olu Stevens though.
A judge has no claim for racial discrimination where he is in a position of power to decide a case of a litigant, is allowed to draw upon his personal experience to make such a decision, and where the top judges in the country encourage judicial decision-making based on the judge's racial heritage.
Don't fall into the trap of bashing Trump on this issue.
It is not un-American to question impartiality of a judge.
It is not un-American to try to secure a fair trial for yourself, by statements in court and out of court.
It is not un-American to criticize a judge in a public forum, including for decisions based on the judge's racial heritage.
I will never forget how a black client, an Army Veteran who went through combat where his country has sent him, a man with no criminal record, told me about civil court proceedings in front of white judges - "they are not ready to see the likes of us without shackles".
That was not in the Bible Belt states. That was in the State of New York.
Race in judicial decision-making matters.
To deny it is to deny the obvious.
If there can be prejudiced decisions by a white judge against a black litigant, there can be prejudiced decisions by a judge of any race against a representative of another race.
How to fight ethnic-based bias in judicial decision-making?
On a case by case basis.
Like Trump is doing.
To support Trump-bashing at this time, when he had every right to raise the issues he is raising, is to deny yourself in the future a possibility to raise issues of judicial impartiality and appearance of impropriety in court proceedings, and I am talking about litigants of any racial and ethnic background.
You have a right to a fair trial.
You have a right to a judge who is, at the very least, not an advocate for a group you are criticizing or whose access to the U.S. you are trying to restrict, and especially not an advocate because of blood ties.
You know the saying - "blood is thicker than water".
It is.
In racial and ethnic issues, too, and judges are human.
When a litigant feels he is treated unfairly and may be the victim of an ethnic-based judicial bias, he must be able to raise that issue.
It is a legitimate issue ensuring access to court and the right to impartial judicial review and fair trial to all of us.
Don't sell yourself out, don't fall into the traps of the talking heads.
They have money to make - as well as politicians who condemn Trump for "judge-bashing" to make political capital out of it.
On our backs.
And, before continuing to bash Trump, please, consider reading these law review articles:
Cornell Law Review, 2009 - "Does unconscious racial bias affect trial judges?"
An article claiming that judges stereotype - and make their decisions - based on judge's own race and race of litigants in front of them.
This article, measuring sentences by white judges against white and minority defendants. If a white judge on minority defendant bias exists, a minority judge on white defendant bias may exist, too - don't you think?
Yet another study on race-based judicial bias claims that "[s]ince African American judges have likely experienced discrimination themselves, they can recognize more complex and subtle forms of racial harassment".
If you are in a jury pool, and you have "likely experienced" the type of crime you are judging - you will be taken off the case, because there is a high likelihood you will act as an advocate.
Judge Curiel - let's remember that - was raised in poverty, by two laborer Mexican immigrant parents who both died young, likely because of their hard labor past.
And finally, there are many judges in the district court where Judge Curiel "serves".
Once again, Judge Gonzalo Curiel was picked to be assigned to 2 out of 3 lawsuits against the Trump University, out of 16 available judges:
By ethnicity,
Ok, so the population is more than 1/3 Hispanic.
Out of 16 judges of the court - 2, possibly 3 Hispanic judges, that is 12 to 19%.
Once again - there are 38.6% of Hispanic people in population, and 12 to 19% (I am not sure about Judge Bencivengo/Palumbo).
That is less than 1/3 of the proportion of Hispanics in the population.
There are 14.4% Asians in California's population.
There is 1 (one) judge who is half-Japanese in the court. That is 6% of the court, more than 2 times less than the proportion of Asians in the population.
There are 6.5% of African Americans in the California population - and there is only one African American judge, about the same as proportion of the population (the question is though why the African American population is so scarce, twice less than the average in the U.S. - is California actively discriminating and preventing African Americans from settling in?).
Four females out of 16 judges, too.
So, the court where Judge Curiel serves was composed as a mysoginistic white male-dominated body.
There are only 2 (possibly, 3) Hispanic judges on that body.
There are only 3 judges who have any personal experience with immigration - one judge was born in Havana, Cuba, one judge has a Japanese immigrant mother, and the third judge, Judge Curiel, has two Mexican immigrant parents.
Judge Curiel is the ONLY judge out of 16 judges who has Mexican immigrant parents.
Trump is fighting illegal immigration, specifically out of Mexico.
Is it a coincidence that out of the body that was composed in such a way that it is dominated by white male judges (it is not Trump who made up that court that way), the judge assigned to him is the ONLY judge with Mexican immigrant parents?
Don't talk racism.
Talk common sense.
Judge Curiel was picked for this case for a reason. And he is doing his "job" well.
For the last couple of days, the talking heads on TV and the media discuss nothing else.
Because it is safe to do so now - because thinking is not required to just say: to accuse a judge of appearance of impropriety is:
1) racist;
2) unamerican;
3) makes the accuser unfit to be a president.
Of course, it is not just the race of Judge Gonzalo Curiel that drove Donald Trump to raise the appearance of impropriety in Judge Curiel presiding over the case of Trump University and repeatedly ruling against Trump University.
It is what is called the "totality of circumstances" including:
1) the heritage of Judge Curiel - his parents were both Mexican immigrants, and, with all the frenzy in the media, I did not see any efforts to uncover and produce documents indicating that Judge Curiel's parents entry into this country was legal;
With the amount of money thrown into this media frenzy, to rely upon statements of Judge Curiel's brother Raul that his parents entered the country legally is irresponsible journalism.
Trump is right to raise the issue that a large part of Trump's election campaign is to build a wall and prevent further illegal immigration from Mexico.
It is nonsense to say that a judge would not feel for his immigrant parents (now deceased) and would not try to use his position of power to hurt a critic (fair or unfair) of his heritage - and it is especially so when the judge is honored in supporting the "community" which honors as its part organizations of illegal immigrants.
I wrote on this blog about a lot of different motives for judges to act as advocates and not as impartial tribunals.
The triggers range from being an athlete (like the defendant), a churchgoer (while the defendant went to the same church choir), and most definitely, the race.
The media accuses Trump of being a "racist", "unamerican" for "assaults on a judge".
There was no physical assault.
There was criticism.
Can a party in litigation raise the appearance of impropriety?
Sure.
And, are there legal standards in this country indicating that NOT taking into account the race of the factfinder is a violation of the litigant's due process of law?
Sure. The media conveniently forgets about that.
On May 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a death sentence because it was meted out to a black defendant by an all-white jury - in 1987, that is 30 years ago:
"The State’s new argument today does not dissuade us
from the conclusion that its prosecutors were motivated in
substantial part by race when they struck Garrett and
Hood from the jury 30 years ago. Two peremptory strikes
on the basis of race are two more than the Constitution
allows.
The order of the Georgia Supreme Court is reversed,
and the case is remanded for further proceedings not
inconsistent with this opinion."
In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court, in 2016, overturned a death sentence - that a judge allowed - which was motivated by race of the fact-finders.
Which means, race of the fact-finders matters.
Very much so.
Why do we actually strive for "judicial diversity"?
Why do we want more judges of color on the bench?
The U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor answered that question:
In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, then an appeals court judge, "gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”"
Sonya Sotomayor was recently in the middle of a controversy with her other statement - to force lawyers to provide free services for the poor as a condition of having a law license.
That statement of Sonya Sotomayor was vigorously discussed in the press.
The 2001 - on point - statement of Sonya Sotomayor that the ethnicity and sex of a judge "may and will make a difference in our judging" is all but forgotten, and Trump is jumped upon - for saying the same.
That the ethnicity of a judge does matter and, in his case, does raise an appearance of impropriety.
Sonya Sotomayor, in her famous speech, rejected the notion that it does not matter that the decision is made by a white or non-white judge, by a man or woman (which is how it should be).
Sonya Sotomayor, who was since PROMOTED to the U.S. Supreme Court, thinks otherwise:
"In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
That's EXACTLY what Trump doesn't want in a judge in his case.
A "wise Latino man" who would draw from and based his decisions not upon the record and the law, but upon the "richness of his experience" - and from the "richness of experience" of his Mexican immigrant parents, now both deceased, and thus even more honored by the judge.
In other words, Trump wanted to exclude a possibility of Judge Curiel making a decision in his case based on extra-judicial factors - which is EXACTLY what the "wise Latina woman" Sonya Sotomayor was calling upon judges to do since 2001.
2) Affiliations of Judge Curiel with advocacy organizations for illegal immigrants
It was discussed in the media ad nauseam whether Judge Curiel's participation in a lawyers' group which itself is affiliated with the nationalist La Raza movement raises an appearance of impropriety.
From the point of view of ensuring a right to a fair trial for Trump University - where its founder has pledged to fight illegal immigration from Mexico, and made offensive statements against Mexican immigrants equating them with criminals - Trump has a point, and that is especially given the speech of Sonya Sotomayor and her "wise Latina woman" drawing upon her experiences as opposed a white man who "didn't live that life".
Trump also has a point where Judge Curiel:
- sat on panels awarding scholarships to illegal immigrants; where
- the organization he sponsors honored him for "support of community" and of the La Raza San Diego Association as recently as on May 26, 2016;
- organizations of illegal immigrants are considered by the San Diego Lawyers Association as part of the "community" that Judge Curiel was just honored for serving so well;
That would give any litigant enough pause and a basis to make a motion to recuse judge Curiel.
The reason why Trump's lawyers do not make such a motion is not because it is not merited, but because the current climate of sanctions against attorneys who make motions to recuse, and the media frenzy around the case intimidated the lawyers into considering their own interests (in not being sanctioned and not losing other business and not to be boycotted) over and above the interests of their client.
3) What would also give me pause is the answers of Judge Curiel at his confirmation hearing before the U.S. Congress.
In his answer to questions ## 6 and 8 below (which was pre-prepared by Judge Curiel), Judge Curiel put precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court and federal appellate court, even erroneous (unconstitutional?) precedents, above the U.S. Constitution - while such precedents are NOT part of the Supremacy Clause, DO NOT trump the U.S. Constitution, and ARE NOT binding upon any court if they are made in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
I received recently an e-mail from an individual in some advocacy group appealing to members of the e-mail list to distance from Trump and not to discuss the issue whether there is or there is no appearance of impropriety in Judge Curiel presiding over the class lawsuit against the Trump University.
The e-mail was pointing out that it is the wrong person and the wrong situation where the appearance of impropriety should be raised, in other words, not a "perfect showcase".
I disagree.
The media's silence - in general - on the issues of judicial misconduct, bias, and impropriety, of judges of all races and genders - and the media's frenzy once a prominent, and much hated (deservedly on many points), presidential candidate raises this issue, and the way the public responds, after being heated up by the cues from the mass media, actually warrants and even mandates a response from those of use who see what is really going on.
It is not inappropriate to raise ANY issues raising the appearance of impropriety.
The right of access to court, the right to an impartial judge, the right to a fair trial are all fundamental constitutional rights, guaranteed by the 1st, 5th and 14th Amendment.
The right to criticize a member of the government - any member, including a judge - is a fundamental constitutional right, guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to any one of us, including a presidential candidate, no matter how he is hated by some people, and no matter whether that hate is deserved or not.
A Latino U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor endorsed judicial decision-making influenced by race and gender of the judge, and drawing on the judge's background and experiences outside of the record.
I do not see the media talking heads criticizing her.
The pleading standards in federal court - the infamous Iqbal and Twombly cases - allow judges to draw upon their own extrajudicial experiences.
Once again, Judge Curiel is allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court precedent - which he pledged to follow at his confirmation hearing, whether it is erroneous (unconstitutional) or not - to draw on his own personal experiences in deciding court cases.
I do not see the media criticizing or even mentioning Iqbal and Twombly cases.
I only see the media in a frenzy DENYING that Judge Curiel would do what the precedents allow him to do.
And I only see the media eating alive Donald Trump for saying that doing what Sonya Sotomayor claimed a judge must be doing, and what the U.S. Supreme Court in Iqbal and Twombly allowed judges to do - drawing upon their own personal experiences in deciding cases - which is what Trump discerned in Judge Curiel's decisions - was wrong.
It is wrong.
Let's sum it up.
1) Race matters in court decision-making, as ruled in:
Batson v Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986);
Foster v Chatman, (May 23, 2016)
2) Drawing upon a judge's personal experiences related to his racial heritage should be done as part of judicial decision-making - according to the U.S. Supreme Court justice, a "wise Latina woman" Sonya Sotomayor.
3) Drawing upon a judge's personal experience in deciding federal cases is allowed at the pleading stage, for purposes of deciding a motion to dismiss before reviewing any evidence in the case - by a U.S. Supreme Court case
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009):
"whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense" - see criticism of that decision here and here.
In 2010 there was an empirical study conducted of decisions made by judges of different races.
The article describing the study actually indicated that racial diversity in the judiciary is important because:
"[i]t is essential that judges have an ability to relate to a rapidly growing diverse culture and the experiences of minorities vulnerable to White people in positions of power within industries predominantly controlled by Whites."
A judge's "ability to relate", or empathy to a certain class of litigants, is called "bias".
A judge should be even-handed, impartial and should correctly and fairly apply the existing law, based on the record of the case - that's all the judge has to do.
If in any judicial confirmation hearings, a judge would be tested for his or her "ability to relate" to various classes of litigants - there will be a media frenzy of another kind, condemning the judicial candidate for seeking his judicial seat to promote interests of a certain class of litigants to which the judge "relates".
The existing law, the existing studies, statements of a presently sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice clearly indicates that race matters in judicial decision-making.
Many litigants, mostly pro se (because attorneys are afraid to raise the issue) are raising the issue - in pleadings and in social media - that judges make decisions in favor of people with backgrounds similar to the judge, including ethnicity, religion, church, cultural values etc.
But, when such an issue is uttered by a presidential candidate - the media immediately calls him racist, and political capital is made on bashing him.
Based on the facts at his disposal, and existing laws and practices as described above, Trump had every right to raise the issue of appearance of impropriety in Judge Curiel presiding over his case and repeatedly ruling against his institution.
The taint is not removed by claims that Judge Curiel's decisions are supported by evidence.
For purposes of fairness of adjudication, appearance of bias and impropriety is as important as the actual bias and impropriety.
And, if the media really wanted to protect a judge from racist attacks - the media should protect the recently suspended Judge Olu Stevens of Kentucky - a black judge who was suspended by a racist judicial system for insisting that the anti-racist law, Batson v Kentucky, is followed in the racist criminal justice proceedings.
The black judge Judge Olu Stevens actually called out a white prosecutor for being a racist.
And was suspended for his efforts to enforce the anti-discrimination law.
I don't see any media frenzy defending Judge Olu Stevens though.
A judge has no claim for racial discrimination where he is in a position of power to decide a case of a litigant, is allowed to draw upon his personal experience to make such a decision, and where the top judges in the country encourage judicial decision-making based on the judge's racial heritage.
Don't fall into the trap of bashing Trump on this issue.
It is not un-American to question impartiality of a judge.
It is not un-American to try to secure a fair trial for yourself, by statements in court and out of court.
It is not un-American to criticize a judge in a public forum, including for decisions based on the judge's racial heritage.
I will never forget how a black client, an Army Veteran who went through combat where his country has sent him, a man with no criminal record, told me about civil court proceedings in front of white judges - "they are not ready to see the likes of us without shackles".
That was not in the Bible Belt states. That was in the State of New York.
Race in judicial decision-making matters.
To deny it is to deny the obvious.
If there can be prejudiced decisions by a white judge against a black litigant, there can be prejudiced decisions by a judge of any race against a representative of another race.
How to fight ethnic-based bias in judicial decision-making?
On a case by case basis.
Like Trump is doing.
To support Trump-bashing at this time, when he had every right to raise the issues he is raising, is to deny yourself in the future a possibility to raise issues of judicial impartiality and appearance of impropriety in court proceedings, and I am talking about litigants of any racial and ethnic background.
You have a right to a fair trial.
You have a right to a judge who is, at the very least, not an advocate for a group you are criticizing or whose access to the U.S. you are trying to restrict, and especially not an advocate because of blood ties.
You know the saying - "blood is thicker than water".
It is.
In racial and ethnic issues, too, and judges are human.
When a litigant feels he is treated unfairly and may be the victim of an ethnic-based judicial bias, he must be able to raise that issue.
It is a legitimate issue ensuring access to court and the right to impartial judicial review and fair trial to all of us.
Don't sell yourself out, don't fall into the traps of the talking heads.
They have money to make - as well as politicians who condemn Trump for "judge-bashing" to make political capital out of it.
On our backs.
And, before continuing to bash Trump, please, consider reading these law review articles:
Cornell Law Review, 2009 - "Does unconscious racial bias affect trial judges?"
An article claiming that judges stereotype - and make their decisions - based on judge's own race and race of litigants in front of them.
This article, measuring sentences by white judges against white and minority defendants. If a white judge on minority defendant bias exists, a minority judge on white defendant bias may exist, too - don't you think?
Yet another study on race-based judicial bias claims that "[s]ince African American judges have likely experienced discrimination themselves, they can recognize more complex and subtle forms of racial harassment".
If you are in a jury pool, and you have "likely experienced" the type of crime you are judging - you will be taken off the case, because there is a high likelihood you will act as an advocate.
Judge Curiel - let's remember that - was raised in poverty, by two laborer Mexican immigrant parents who both died young, likely because of their hard labor past.
And finally, there are many judges in the district court where Judge Curiel "serves".
Once again, Judge Gonzalo Curiel was picked to be assigned to 2 out of 3 lawsuits against the Trump University, out of 16 available judges:
- Cynthia Bashant - white Non-Hispanic female, no evidence of immigrant parents;
- Anthony J. Battaglia - white non-Hispanic male, no evidence of immigrant parents;
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (nee Palumbo) - a white female, possibly Hispanic, no evidence of immigrant parents;
- Roger T. Benitez - Hispanic, immigrant, born in Havana, Cuba;
- Larry Alan Burns - white male, U.S.-born, no evidence of immigrant parents;
- Gonzalo P. Curiel - Hispanic, born to Mexican immigrant parents;
- William B. Enright (born 1925, 91 years old) - a white Non-Hispanic male, no evidence of immigrant parents;
- William Q. Hayes - white non-Hispanic male, no evidence of immigrant parents;
- John A. Houston - African American, no evidence of immigrant parents;
- Marylin L. Huff - white non-Hispanic female, no evidence of immigrant parents;
- M. James Lorenz - white non-Hispanic male, no evidence of immigrant parents;
- Jeffrey T. Miller - white non-Hispanic male, no evidence of immigrant parents;
- Barry Ted Moskowitz - white non-Hispanic male, no evidence of immigrant parents;
- Dana M. Sabraw - a male judge, has a Japanese immigrant mother
- Janis L. Sammartino - white female, no evidence of immigrant parents
- Thomas J. Whelan - white male, no evidence of immigrant parents
The state of California where the court sits has the following demographic composition:
According to 2014 US Census Bureau estimates, California's population was:
- 73.2% White,
- 6.5% Black or African American,
- 14.4% Asian,
- 1.7% American Indian,
- 0.5% Pacific Islander and
- 3.7% from two or more races.
By ethnicity,
- 38.6% of the total population is Hispanic-Latino (of any race) and
- 61.4% Non-Hispanic (of any race).[11]
Ok, so the population is more than 1/3 Hispanic.
Out of 16 judges of the court - 2, possibly 3 Hispanic judges, that is 12 to 19%.
Once again - there are 38.6% of Hispanic people in population, and 12 to 19% (I am not sure about Judge Bencivengo/Palumbo).
That is less than 1/3 of the proportion of Hispanics in the population.
There are 14.4% Asians in California's population.
There is 1 (one) judge who is half-Japanese in the court. That is 6% of the court, more than 2 times less than the proportion of Asians in the population.
There are 6.5% of African Americans in the California population - and there is only one African American judge, about the same as proportion of the population (the question is though why the African American population is so scarce, twice less than the average in the U.S. - is California actively discriminating and preventing African Americans from settling in?).
Four females out of 16 judges, too.
So, the court where Judge Curiel serves was composed as a mysoginistic white male-dominated body.
There are only 2 (possibly, 3) Hispanic judges on that body.
There are only 3 judges who have any personal experience with immigration - one judge was born in Havana, Cuba, one judge has a Japanese immigrant mother, and the third judge, Judge Curiel, has two Mexican immigrant parents.
Judge Curiel is the ONLY judge out of 16 judges who has Mexican immigrant parents.
Trump is fighting illegal immigration, specifically out of Mexico.
Is it a coincidence that out of the body that was composed in such a way that it is dominated by white male judges (it is not Trump who made up that court that way), the judge assigned to him is the ONLY judge with Mexican immigrant parents?
Don't talk racism.
Talk common sense.
Judge Curiel was picked for this case for a reason. And he is doing his "job" well.
A DA with a toy electric chair
A district attorney anywhere is supposed to carry out "dual roles" - to vigorously prosecute crimes, and at the same time to make sure he is fair to the accused and to the public and the victim.
Right.
We know how it works generally - prosecutors are drumming up convictions no matter what is the law or the record, and are unflinchingly offering false evidence, feeling fully protected to do that by the judge-created concept of absolute prosecutorial immunity.
But, usually prosecutors at least keep the front of pretending that they are doing their dual duties/roles and are fair and impartial to the accused.
Not so in a case in Georgia, a state with a death penalty, where a "toy electric chair" was on display in the office of Alcovy Judicial Circuit #DistrictAttorneyLaylaZon.
Here is Layla Zon's official biography on her DA's website.
She is prosecuting death penalty cases.
And in her office she keeps on display a "toy" described as follows:
“Death Row Marv” is a battery-powered toy electric chair that produces an electric buzzing sound with Marv’s eyes glowing red under a helmet attached to electrodes. After his “electrocution,” Marv asks, “That the best you can do, you pansies?”
And because of that toy - a motion to vacate a death penalty was recently filed in court where the defense counsel puts it out like it is - that Layla Zon "is 'pathologically enthralled' with the death penalty and has pursued it with a fervor and zeal unmatched by any other district attorney in the state".
AFTER the motion was brought, DA Layla Zon said that she seeks only death penalty in cases that "warrant" it, that the toy was in her office before she became a DA in 2010 and that she has "recently" removed "the toy".
Well.
2010 was 6 years ago.
Layla Zon worked in the DA's office - and obviously saw the "toy" before, too - she joined the DA's office in 2000.
If it was the previous DA's idea to display this "toy", and Layla Zon did not have authority, as a subordinate employee, to remove it, Layla Zon's DUTY was to REPORT it as PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT to disciplinary authorities, to the courts and to the defense counsel in all death penalty cases - which she obviously did not do before 2010.
When Layla Zon became the DA herself - in 2010 - it was her duty to remove the "toy" and give an ethics course to her staff about it - which she did not do either.
And, Layla Zon, when cornered, displayed an astounding casualness about what the "toy" is and represents:
"'It was not something I purchased to decorate my office,' she said. 'It was a left-behind trinket that became part of the woodwork. … I never sat and looked and fixated on it, like it was part of some medieval mindset.'"
So, we need to be grateful that Layla Zon just had an electric chair on display in her office and "never sat and looked and fixated on it".
You know what says that she did fixate on it?
The toy was battery operated.
If anybody saw it operated during the term of Layla Zon - from 2010 to 2016, it is not simply a "trinket left behind", batteries go bad quickly, they need to be replaced.
The toy was obviously a cherished "part of the woodwork".
And, whatever Layla Zon says now that the "toy" is exposed to the media scrutiny and to a motion to vacate a death penalty, the appearance that for the DA death penalty is entertainment requires her removal from that position - together with her subordinates and staff who supported such entertainment.
Predictably, the person condemned to death by a white prosecutor in the Southern State of Georgia, is black.
His name is Rodney Young, and he is poor - otherwise he would have had a private attorney and not the "state capital defender" representing him.
The motion of Rodney Young's public defender also says that Layla Zon turned down Rodney Young's request to plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence, even though such a rejection of a plea offer resulted in, probably, millions of dollars for state taxpayers for the trial and for the death row appeals that may go on for years.
A conviction on a plea bargain with a life sentence would not have been subject to such appeals.
She was determined - and inspired by the "Death Row Marv" (which is still sold on Amazon, by the way - which would not have happened in any civilized country) - to put Rodney Young on the death row.
Georgia is a death penalty state.
But, the death penalty in the state is administered by a lethal injection.
The lethal injection - and the death penalty itself - are subject to increasing protests and U.S. Supreme Court filings addressing it as a cruel and unusual punishment.
But, whether it is or it isn't a cruel and unusual punishment, the electric chair is not and has not for a while, been used in Georgia for executions.
The motion of Rodney Young said that
" The motion notes that the Georgia Supreme Court in 2001 found that death by electrocution caused excruciating pain with a certainty of “cooked brains and blistered bodies.”
“The idea of any elected state official memorializing such a barbaric (and unconstitutional) practice with an office ornament would be surprising and troubling,” the motion said. “The fact that the elected official at issue here is a constitutional officer entrusted with virtually unfettered discretion in deciding which defendants under her jurisdiction will be singled out for execution, and which will be spared, is cause for real concern.”
Now Layla Zon says she regrets she didn't trash the toy when she came to office.
But - she didn't trash it specifically because that she didn't think it is inappropriate for a prosecutor in a death penalty state to display such a thing in her office.
And that is the problem, whether the "toy" will be now removed or not.
With the "toy" Layla Zon and all members of her staff who supported such entertainment, should be removed, too.
Right.
We know how it works generally - prosecutors are drumming up convictions no matter what is the law or the record, and are unflinchingly offering false evidence, feeling fully protected to do that by the judge-created concept of absolute prosecutorial immunity.
But, usually prosecutors at least keep the front of pretending that they are doing their dual duties/roles and are fair and impartial to the accused.
Not so in a case in Georgia, a state with a death penalty, where a "toy electric chair" was on display in the office of Alcovy Judicial Circuit #DistrictAttorneyLaylaZon.
Here is Layla Zon's official biography on her DA's website.
She is prosecuting death penalty cases.
And in her office she keeps on display a "toy" described as follows:
“Death Row Marv” is a battery-powered toy electric chair that produces an electric buzzing sound with Marv’s eyes glowing red under a helmet attached to electrodes. After his “electrocution,” Marv asks, “That the best you can do, you pansies?”
And because of that toy - a motion to vacate a death penalty was recently filed in court where the defense counsel puts it out like it is - that Layla Zon "is 'pathologically enthralled' with the death penalty and has pursued it with a fervor and zeal unmatched by any other district attorney in the state".
AFTER the motion was brought, DA Layla Zon said that she seeks only death penalty in cases that "warrant" it, that the toy was in her office before she became a DA in 2010 and that she has "recently" removed "the toy".
Well.
2010 was 6 years ago.
Layla Zon worked in the DA's office - and obviously saw the "toy" before, too - she joined the DA's office in 2000.
If it was the previous DA's idea to display this "toy", and Layla Zon did not have authority, as a subordinate employee, to remove it, Layla Zon's DUTY was to REPORT it as PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT to disciplinary authorities, to the courts and to the defense counsel in all death penalty cases - which she obviously did not do before 2010.
When Layla Zon became the DA herself - in 2010 - it was her duty to remove the "toy" and give an ethics course to her staff about it - which she did not do either.
And, Layla Zon, when cornered, displayed an astounding casualness about what the "toy" is and represents:
"'It was not something I purchased to decorate my office,' she said. 'It was a left-behind trinket that became part of the woodwork. … I never sat and looked and fixated on it, like it was part of some medieval mindset.'"
So, we need to be grateful that Layla Zon just had an electric chair on display in her office and "never sat and looked and fixated on it".
You know what says that she did fixate on it?
The toy was battery operated.
If anybody saw it operated during the term of Layla Zon - from 2010 to 2016, it is not simply a "trinket left behind", batteries go bad quickly, they need to be replaced.
The toy was obviously a cherished "part of the woodwork".
And, whatever Layla Zon says now that the "toy" is exposed to the media scrutiny and to a motion to vacate a death penalty, the appearance that for the DA death penalty is entertainment requires her removal from that position - together with her subordinates and staff who supported such entertainment.
Predictably, the person condemned to death by a white prosecutor in the Southern State of Georgia, is black.
His name is Rodney Young, and he is poor - otherwise he would have had a private attorney and not the "state capital defender" representing him.
The motion of Rodney Young's public defender also says that Layla Zon turned down Rodney Young's request to plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence, even though such a rejection of a plea offer resulted in, probably, millions of dollars for state taxpayers for the trial and for the death row appeals that may go on for years.
A conviction on a plea bargain with a life sentence would not have been subject to such appeals.
She was determined - and inspired by the "Death Row Marv" (which is still sold on Amazon, by the way - which would not have happened in any civilized country) - to put Rodney Young on the death row.
Georgia is a death penalty state.
But, the death penalty in the state is administered by a lethal injection.
The lethal injection - and the death penalty itself - are subject to increasing protests and U.S. Supreme Court filings addressing it as a cruel and unusual punishment.
But, whether it is or it isn't a cruel and unusual punishment, the electric chair is not and has not for a while, been used in Georgia for executions.
The motion of Rodney Young said that
" The motion notes that the Georgia Supreme Court in 2001 found that death by electrocution caused excruciating pain with a certainty of “cooked brains and blistered bodies.”
“The idea of any elected state official memorializing such a barbaric (and unconstitutional) practice with an office ornament would be surprising and troubling,” the motion said. “The fact that the elected official at issue here is a constitutional officer entrusted with virtually unfettered discretion in deciding which defendants under her jurisdiction will be singled out for execution, and which will be spared, is cause for real concern.”
Now Layla Zon says she regrets she didn't trash the toy when she came to office.
But - she didn't trash it specifically because that she didn't think it is inappropriate for a prosecutor in a death penalty state to display such a thing in her office.
And that is the problem, whether the "toy" will be now removed or not.
With the "toy" Layla Zon and all members of her staff who supported such entertainment, should be removed, too.
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
That white guy Shakespeare
I've just written a blog about the Afro-Russian poet Alexander Pushkin who, during his short life (he was fatally wounded at a duel at the age of 37 in 1736) managed to produce an enormous amount of rhymed verse, plays and prose - and is until this day considered the founder of the Russian literature and the greatest Russian poet.
Alexander Pushkin was black.
Yesterday was his birthday.
I did not see a lot of celebrations of his heritage as a heritage of a literary genius of African descent.
What I saw instead is an announcement that Yale students call for abolishment of a "core course" in English literature.
Why?
Because only white male straight poets were included into the curriculum. And students rebelled and claimed that the English major must be "decolonized".
So, who "colonized" the English major at Yale university?
Here are the names of the offending poets:
For the fall semester:
Students actually filed a petition to abolish the course which says, among other things:
“A year spent around a seminar table where the literary contributions of women, people of color, and queer folk are absent actively harms all students, regardless of their identity,” the petition reads. “The Major English Poets sequences creates a culture that is especially hostile to students of color. When students are made to feel so alienated that they get up and leave the room, or get up and leave the major, something is wrong.”
I wonder if "students of color" or women or "queer folk" would stand up and leave the room where they are taught, let's say, chemistry, or physics, or any other science that was, until recently dominated by white males.
It apparently does not occur to students of any identity that even in the United States, homosexuality was a crime until just 15 years ago, and it was punishable by death in Europe in the middle ages.
What kind of "literary contributions of the 'queer folk'" - acknowledging their homosexuality in the open - do our modern-time students expect?
Actually, hints at homosexuality exists in the works of the same:
Geoffrey Chaucer;
Edmund Spenser;
William Shakespeare;
John Donne
Should straight students now get offended of the same course and feel that the course creates a "hostile environment"?
Actually, to me, a person who has been born and raised in a Communist country, the USSR, this petition caused a flashback to the years of the so-called "socialist realism" in the literature.
Because the Yale students did not say the poets chosen were bad poets, or that they did not reflect the literary tradition - which is exactly what they came to Yale to study.
They did not like the fact that the identity of the poets and topics of their poetry - allegedly - did not reflect the latest-day concept of diversity, which did not exist at the time the overwhelming majority of these poets (7 of 8) lived and worked.
In the USSR a person could not be considered a bona fide writer worth to be known to the public if he or she did not write in the tradition of "socialist realism".
My memory is still crammed - from childhood, cannot uncram it - with verses I was made to memorize at school that, if I recite today, will raise quite a few eyebrows.
Yet, at that time that was the requirement of the day for poets and writers who wanted to see their name in print to write in that "tradition".
The verses that I was made to memorize at school promoted loyalty to the country and the Communist party beyond your life, rejection of relatives and their religion, glorifying snitching to authorities of your parents if they were idelogically opposed to the party.
Movies in the country swept by pre- and post-WWII hunger and destruction was about the greatness of Stalin and of the same communist party.
The true issues were not allowed to be described.
It appears that now the future rulers of this country - the intellectual elite from Yale - claim they will be offended by simply learning about the literary tradition, because the literary masterpieces they are assigned to read were not created by women, "people of color" and "queer folk".
As to the "queer folk" I already pointed out that the youngsters who were keyboard-happy to write and file the petition, did not give themselves time to research the history of the time when the "assigned" poets lived and whether those poets were actually "closet" homosexuals who were simply afraid to reveal their identity because there was a death penalty for homosexuality that was considered a sin by the church.
The students did not consider that women were predominantly illiterate at that time and property of men - so what kind of creativity, and especially published literary works, could you expect from women of 14th to 18th century?
For example, a 12th-13th century female poet Marie de France was (as scholars say) an abbess and a half-sister of English King Henry II.
Marie De France wrote in French, so her work cannot be attributed to the English literary tradition.
Another known female medieval poet, and also a member of the nobility, is known only by name, Gwerful Fychan - and her literary works reportedly did not survive, and she lived in Wales, which is a different language.
There are many medieval female poets known - but all of them appear to be from either Wales, or France, or Spain, or Italy, or they were Arabic, so their works could not be assigned in an English major class.
What I did not see in the students' petition is suggestions.
The youngsters came to Yale to study English literature and the English literary tradition.
That literary tradition was created gradually, for centuries, and was influenced by history of the period when literary works were created.
While it may be offensive that women, and people of color, and homosexuals were not well represented - or represented at all - in the English literary tradition of several centuries back, if that is part of history, history cannot be re-written just because we want it.
If there were no known outstanding female poets, or openly homosexual poets, or poets who were "people of color" who contributed to the English tradition of 14th to 19th centuries - we cannot re-write the history where a few white males were the privileged class and prevented education of everybody else.
That history cannot be re-written, and hiring a modern female African American poet will not replace knowledge of the English literary tradition of 14th - 19th centuries.
If students want to find such authors - they can just as well do it, and present the faculty with the names and the works they want to be assigned, which they did not do in their petition.
Yet, if students pressure the faculty as to how to restructure assigned courses, the university can always ask such students to go some place else, where they will like the curriculum better.
Because a petition without any suggestions as to who is going to replace the "eight white male poets", the renowned classics of English literature, is simply pressure seeking publicity and disrupting work of the school, and nothing else.
I cannot imagine while people cannot read - and enjoy - good poetry without seeing whether the person who wrote it is a woman, what is the author's sexual preferences and what is the author's skin color.
It is profoundly bizarre to me to assess the worth of a work of art by the identity of who created it. If it is written by a woman - the poem is good, by a white male - bad?
If Yale yields to this pressure, we will then see pressure upon professors in other courses, and in other schools - from chemistry to math - to assign for studying only the work created by "women", "people of color" and "queer folk", without regard of the actual value of that work, and while overlooking the work created by "white male" authors.
If the Yale faculty allows students to control the curriculum, governed by the students' desire to remain illiterate as to the actual classics of the English literary tradition because of identity of their authors, that would be the end of education.
I will then suggest, as a taxpayer, that IRS should withdraw the tax exemption from Yale, and from any other "public charity" schools, if schools eliminate proper educational content from the curriculum because of the color of the author's skin.
I wonder if William Shakespeare could imagine that at any time in the future he and his works will be sought to be banned from the curriculum of one of the best universities in the world because of the color of his skin.
To those students who continue to engage in this educational racism, I suggest: stop using all modern time inventions and conveniences unless you verify that they were not created by white males, but instead are created exclusively by women, people of color and "queer folks".
Be consistent.
Alexander Pushkin was black.
Yesterday was his birthday.
I did not see a lot of celebrations of his heritage as a heritage of a literary genius of African descent.
What I saw instead is an announcement that Yale students call for abolishment of a "core course" in English literature.
Why?
Because only white male straight poets were included into the curriculum. And students rebelled and claimed that the English major must be "decolonized".
So, who "colonized" the English major at Yale university?
Here are the names of the offending poets:
For the fall semester:
- Geoffrey Chaucer (1343-1400);
- Edmund Spenser (1552-1599);
- William Shakespeare (1564-1616);
- John Donne (1572-1631), and
For the spring semester:
5. John Milton (1607-1664);
6. Alexander Pope (1688-1744);
7. William Wordsworth (1770-1850);
8. TS Eliot (1888-1965)
The course was meant to "provide all students with a generous introduction to the abiding formal and thematic concerns of the English literary tradition.”
One of the students renouncing the "poets sequence", "Margaret Shultz ’16, who majored in English, said she supports the request to abolish the Major English Poets sequence. She added that while there are many great courses in the department that relate to race, gender, ethnicity and sexuality, they are mainly upper-level courses that are not emphasized as the “core curriculum.”
Students actually filed a petition to abolish the course which says, among other things:
“A year spent around a seminar table where the literary contributions of women, people of color, and queer folk are absent actively harms all students, regardless of their identity,” the petition reads. “The Major English Poets sequences creates a culture that is especially hostile to students of color. When students are made to feel so alienated that they get up and leave the room, or get up and leave the major, something is wrong.”
I wonder if "students of color" or women or "queer folk" would stand up and leave the room where they are taught, let's say, chemistry, or physics, or any other science that was, until recently dominated by white males.
It apparently does not occur to students of any identity that even in the United States, homosexuality was a crime until just 15 years ago, and it was punishable by death in Europe in the middle ages.
What kind of "literary contributions of the 'queer folk'" - acknowledging their homosexuality in the open - do our modern-time students expect?
Actually, hints at homosexuality exists in the works of the same:
Geoffrey Chaucer;
Edmund Spenser;
William Shakespeare;
John Donne
Should straight students now get offended of the same course and feel that the course creates a "hostile environment"?
Actually, to me, a person who has been born and raised in a Communist country, the USSR, this petition caused a flashback to the years of the so-called "socialist realism" in the literature.
Because the Yale students did not say the poets chosen were bad poets, or that they did not reflect the literary tradition - which is exactly what they came to Yale to study.
They did not like the fact that the identity of the poets and topics of their poetry - allegedly - did not reflect the latest-day concept of diversity, which did not exist at the time the overwhelming majority of these poets (7 of 8) lived and worked.
In the USSR a person could not be considered a bona fide writer worth to be known to the public if he or she did not write in the tradition of "socialist realism".
My memory is still crammed - from childhood, cannot uncram it - with verses I was made to memorize at school that, if I recite today, will raise quite a few eyebrows.
Yet, at that time that was the requirement of the day for poets and writers who wanted to see their name in print to write in that "tradition".
The verses that I was made to memorize at school promoted loyalty to the country and the Communist party beyond your life, rejection of relatives and their religion, glorifying snitching to authorities of your parents if they were idelogically opposed to the party.
Movies in the country swept by pre- and post-WWII hunger and destruction was about the greatness of Stalin and of the same communist party.
The true issues were not allowed to be described.
It appears that now the future rulers of this country - the intellectual elite from Yale - claim they will be offended by simply learning about the literary tradition, because the literary masterpieces they are assigned to read were not created by women, "people of color" and "queer folk".
As to the "queer folk" I already pointed out that the youngsters who were keyboard-happy to write and file the petition, did not give themselves time to research the history of the time when the "assigned" poets lived and whether those poets were actually "closet" homosexuals who were simply afraid to reveal their identity because there was a death penalty for homosexuality that was considered a sin by the church.
The students did not consider that women were predominantly illiterate at that time and property of men - so what kind of creativity, and especially published literary works, could you expect from women of 14th to 18th century?
For example, a 12th-13th century female poet Marie de France was (as scholars say) an abbess and a half-sister of English King Henry II.
Marie De France wrote in French, so her work cannot be attributed to the English literary tradition.
Another known female medieval poet, and also a member of the nobility, is known only by name, Gwerful Fychan - and her literary works reportedly did not survive, and she lived in Wales, which is a different language.
There are many medieval female poets known - but all of them appear to be from either Wales, or France, or Spain, or Italy, or they were Arabic, so their works could not be assigned in an English major class.
What I did not see in the students' petition is suggestions.
The youngsters came to Yale to study English literature and the English literary tradition.
That literary tradition was created gradually, for centuries, and was influenced by history of the period when literary works were created.
While it may be offensive that women, and people of color, and homosexuals were not well represented - or represented at all - in the English literary tradition of several centuries back, if that is part of history, history cannot be re-written just because we want it.
If there were no known outstanding female poets, or openly homosexual poets, or poets who were "people of color" who contributed to the English tradition of 14th to 19th centuries - we cannot re-write the history where a few white males were the privileged class and prevented education of everybody else.
That history cannot be re-written, and hiring a modern female African American poet will not replace knowledge of the English literary tradition of 14th - 19th centuries.
If students want to find such authors - they can just as well do it, and present the faculty with the names and the works they want to be assigned, which they did not do in their petition.
Yet, if students pressure the faculty as to how to restructure assigned courses, the university can always ask such students to go some place else, where they will like the curriculum better.
Because a petition without any suggestions as to who is going to replace the "eight white male poets", the renowned classics of English literature, is simply pressure seeking publicity and disrupting work of the school, and nothing else.
I cannot imagine while people cannot read - and enjoy - good poetry without seeing whether the person who wrote it is a woman, what is the author's sexual preferences and what is the author's skin color.
It is profoundly bizarre to me to assess the worth of a work of art by the identity of who created it. If it is written by a woman - the poem is good, by a white male - bad?
If Yale yields to this pressure, we will then see pressure upon professors in other courses, and in other schools - from chemistry to math - to assign for studying only the work created by "women", "people of color" and "queer folk", without regard of the actual value of that work, and while overlooking the work created by "white male" authors.
If the Yale faculty allows students to control the curriculum, governed by the students' desire to remain illiterate as to the actual classics of the English literary tradition because of identity of their authors, that would be the end of education.
I will then suggest, as a taxpayer, that IRS should withdraw the tax exemption from Yale, and from any other "public charity" schools, if schools eliminate proper educational content from the curriculum because of the color of the author's skin.
I wonder if William Shakespeare could imagine that at any time in the future he and his works will be sought to be banned from the curriculum of one of the best universities in the world because of the color of his skin.
To those students who continue to engage in this educational racism, I suggest: stop using all modern time inventions and conveniences unless you verify that they were not created by white males, but instead are created exclusively by women, people of color and "queer folks".
Be consistent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)