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

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

Interesting information came out of my preliminary research.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Code Type of case                                  NY AG role                Court     Date filed        Date closed   # of days

                                                                                                                                                           between filing

                                                                                                                                                           and closing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. poverty;
2. immigration status and
3. race

of litigants in this court, because it sure appears that way.

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

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

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

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

Stay tuned.

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eric Schneiderman

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

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

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

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

There must be some other reasons for the prosecution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the picture of the "hero":

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay tuned.

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

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



Note the words:

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

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

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

The defendants.

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

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

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

You know why they are frivolous?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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