Judicial caseloads, time of judicial review per case, and why do we need to dismantle the U.S. Supreme Court, as a wasteful and useless institution it is now, and build it back from scratch

On October 26, 2016, a well-known law professor Jonathan Turley made a presentation in front of 1300 federal Administrative Law Judges, and, in his report about that presentation, stated that he considers just 2.5 hours spent per an administrative appellate case a due process violation.

2.5 hours per appellate case = a due process violation

Let's remember that expert opinion.

And, with this number in mind, let's see how much time does the U.S. Supreme Court spend on review of one petition.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court's own admission on its website, takes "approximately" 8,000 petitions for writs of certiorari (final appeals) per year.
















There are 365 days in a year and 24 hours in every day - that is indisputable.

365 x 24 = 8,760 hours in a year

Let's compare these two figures:

1. There are 8,760 hours in a year;
2. The U.S. Supreme Court receives 8,000 petitions a year, and
3. The overwhelming majority of petitions are decided within the same year, often within months of when they were filed.

8,760 / 8,000 = 1.095 hours, or 1 hour 6 minutes that would have taken every U.S. Supreme Court Justice to review every filed petition if every U.S. Supreme Court justice would have used every minute of every day, 365 days a year, 24/7, for reviewing those petitions.

That's more than 1/2 of 2.5 hours spent on an administrative appellate case that Professor Turley said was already a due process violation.

But, justices of the U.S. Supreme Court do not and cannot physically use every second of every day to review petitions.

U.S. Supreme Court Justices have

• 5-business-day workweeks (that's 52 weeks times 2 weekend days),
• a 3-month vacation, July 1st to September 30, for 91 days, 13 weeks/65 workdays, 
• 10 federal holidays per year, as all federal employees,

and 

• 8 hour working days.

When we factor all of it in, U.S. Supreme Court Justices - presumably - work per year:

365-10-(52*2)-65 = 186 days, 8 hours each day

186 x 8 = 1,488 hours

So, U.S. Supreme Court Justices have

1,488 / 8,000 = 0.186 of an hour, or, approximately, less than 1/5 of an hour, that is less than 12 minutes, to review, research and decide each of the certiorari petition, each coming to court with complex legal issues, several underlying court decisions, often reversing one another, after years of litigation.

12 minutes per petition.

Remember, Professor Jonathan Turley stated that 2.5 hours, which is 150 minutes per administrative appellate case, is such an inadequately short time reminding him of a conveyor in Detroit, and a due process violation.

12 minutes is 12.5 times less than that.

And, those 12 minutes do not take into account:

• cases reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of its original, not appellate, jurisdiction;

• review of briefing and oral arguments, legal research and drafting of final opinions for cases accepted for review;

• the judges' sick leaves - of course, Ruth Bader Ginsburg can claim that she was reviewing cases while undergoing cancer surgeries and chemos, but, first, it is unbelievable, and second, to me as a litigant that would constitute a problem - a review under surgery and/or chemo may suffer through the judge's, let's say, lack of concentration and energy;

• the time judges take for hobbies such as writing books and then advertise and promote them, including book interviews and book tours; and such as theater performances - and preparation for such performances;

• the time judges take for "reimbursed travel" - it has been reported that justices of the U.S. Supreme Court took 1,009 trips in the 10 years from 2004 to 2014 while they were supposed to use every 12 minutes of their valuable time to review and decide yet another petition for a writ of certiorari;

• the time judges take during working days to attend private events. 

For example, only recently, 6 out of 8 judges attended the ceremony of re-naming George Mason School of Law after the recently deceased Justice Antonin Scalia.

The justices did not attend that ceremony during their 3-month vacation, but cut into their just-commenced new term, into their work time, into somebody's 12 minutes-per-petition time.

The ceremony was held on October 6, 2016, on a Thursday, in the middle of a business week.  Justices who attended the ceremony - instead of doing their jobs - are:

1. Elena Kagan
2. Anthony M. Kennedy,
3. Clarence Thomas,
4. Stephen G. Breyer,
5. Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. and
6. Sonia Sotomayor

See picture posted on Twitter from the ceremony announcing attendance by 6 U.S. Supreme Court justices:

See the time stamp when the picture was posted - 2:10 p.m.

Chief Judge Roberts and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wisely did not attend.

Now, these "ceremonies" that have nothing to do with the jobs of a U.S. Supreme Court justice, but which "justices" attend, during their work time and despite the number of petitions that they cannot physically conscientiously review, analyze and decide already (including death penalty appeals), are not the only encroachment on the "justice's" time.

Justices also write books.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg just published a book on October 4, 2016, a 400-page book:

That is in addition to the time it took her to follow the news, give interviews as to her opinions

• about Trump's potential election and the need to flee to New Zealand (with subsequent retraction) - despite the possibility of a Trump v Clinton case coming in front of Justice Ginsburg, and her opinion
• about how allegedly stupid Kaepernick is for "taking the knee" to the national anthem (with a subsequent retraction - where Ginsburg, once again, blurted out an opinion on the case that can come in the future in front of her, with a subsequent retraction, making one think whether Justice Ginsburg is altogether mentally, whether she can control herself and whether she can be truly impartial;
• her sleeping episode at the State of the Union address in January of 2015, and

her recent supposedly planned stint as a theatre actress.

Also, here are books by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer:

I wonder when the justice got time to write those.  If justices have so much time to write books, they cannot complain about crushing caseloads, can they? Apparently, they are writing books INSTEAD of doing the jobs taxpayers are paying them for - and need to be replaced by those who will actually do their jobs properly.

*  *  *

So, judges of the U.S. Supreme Court spend even less than 12 minutes per petition (186 days judges work per year, with 8 hours per day = 1,488 hours per year to read, research and resolve 8,000 petitions) given their important hobbies and trips.

Of course, every U.S. Supreme Court justice has 4 law clerks who are hired for a year, at a salary of, reportedly, $86,557 per year.

According to various books published about law clerks of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices, such law clerks are mandated to work 80 to 100 hours per week, 7 days a week, no vacations, and are not allowed to stop working even during lunch breaks - for law clerks, a separate section of the cafeteria within the courthouse is devised so that they could continue working and discussing cases while eating.

That's 5,200 hours of work per year, 3.5 times more than the judges work.

Yet, we the litigants for whom the U.S. Supreme Court is the last step for JUDICIAL review of our long-suffering cases, expect JUDICIAL review, and not review by inexperienced youngsters who were not (1) nominated by the U.S. President and were not (2) confirmed by the U.S. Senate to decide cases of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have no authority to delegate decisions of cases, including the decision whether the court will or will not exercise its discretion to review a certain petition, to inexperienced privileged youngsters, no matter how well educated, who are NOT JUDGES OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.

This is one of a book reviews on the book about U.S. Supreme Court Justice's law clerks traded on Amazon.com:

It does appear that, while Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court PHYSICALLY do not have enough time to properly handle their jobs and review their caseloads, it appears that they don't even attempt to do their jobs, instead unlawfully delegating their authority to privileged youngsters, the "Junior Supreme Court" as U.S. Supreme Court Justices "jokingly" call these house slaves, who make decisions to toss 99.9 per cent of cases and have the high court decide only cases from its "Echo Chamber" - the 66 lawyers, connected with the court, whose cases, according to Reuters, are repeatedly heard by the U.S. Supreme Court while others are tossed.

Those people whose certiorari petition, painstakingly prepared following punitive U.S. Supreme Court rules that are designed to block people from filing meritorious cases with the U.S. Supreme Court - and to give judges more time for their worthy pursuits, such as book-writing, theater, white-water rafting and hunting trips with high-ranking litigants - we the average Joes and Janes whose petitions are tossed not even by judges, but by the "sorcerer's apprentices", never even know the names of those people who decided our fates.

Let's face it.

There is NO U.S. SUPREME COURT in this country.

There is NO RIGHT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW in that court.

With cases decided by young law school graduates instead of judges - there is no JUDICIAL review in that court - unless you are "connected" with judges through prior clerkships, hunting trips or through other social connections.

12 minutes per petition per judge is NOT judicial review.

Law clerks deciding cases is NOT judicial review.

Impersonating a judge by a law clerk is an indictable offense for the law clerk in Illinois (but the judge who allowed it escaped discipline so far).

In the U.S. Supreme Court, there is no impersonation.  Yet, there is no physical possibility for judges to conduct review of petitions and records, and do research in the less than 12 minutes they have during the year for each petition on their caseloads, so there is no avoiding of the fact that it is law clerks and not the U.S. Supreme Court justices who make decisions as to which cases they review and which they toss (save for those cases which come from "their own", connected attorneys and parties, the "Echo Chamber", and the trip sponsors).

Senator Cruz recently came up with a brilliant idea that the seat on the U.S. Supreme Court emptied with the death of judge Antonin Scalia, can remain empty.

I would say that if all other 8 seats are emptied, it will only be better for this country - the way the High Court operates.

A lot of savings for taxpayers who would not need to pay for the posh marble palace, the over 2 million dollars in salaries of judges alone per year, the enormous amount of money for salaries to maintain and provide security for that building - where 9 people (now 8) do nothing for a lot of money of our money, and do something for a little extra for the connected attorneys and parties.

A marble palace that,

• for over $2,255,100 in salaries of judges per year ($260,700 for the Chief Justice and $249,300 per each of 8 associate justices) and
• for over $3,182,000 in salaries for clerks per year (approximately $86,000 per each of 4 law clerks per each of 9 justices, 5 law clerks for the Chief Justice) , not even counting the benefits that go with the salaries, and the salaries and benefits of the support and security personnel of the U.S. Supreme Court - decide 80 cases per year, and
• with a marble building worth many millions of dollars; and
• with a multi-million budget for support staff.

The court is a huge waste for the American people.

That, of course, is not the position of the U.S. Supreme Court justices, for example, Justice Anthony Kennedy testified before the U.S. Senate, asking for MORE money for the U.S. Supreme Court and claiming that the court is the absolute joy and pride of the American people and an example of the rule of law in this country.

Here is Justice Kennedy's testimony:

==

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. CONGRESSMAN BISHOP, CONGRESSMAN WOMACK.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND GREETING TO JUSTICE BREYER AND TO ME, AND WE BRING OUR MESSAGES OF GREETING FROM OUR COLLEAGUES.

WITH US TODAY I'LL JUST GO IN THE ORDER OF WHERE THEY'RE SEATED, ARE JEFF MINIER, COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT -- OR COUNSELOR TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE. AND KEVIN KLINE, OUR BUDGET AND PERSONNEL DIRECTOR.

AND PAM, THE MARSHAL OF THE COURT.

SCOTT HARRIS, WHO'S THE CLERK OF THE COURT.

AND WE -- IS PATRICIA HERE WITH YOU? WE HAVE KATHY AND PATRICIA FROM OUR PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE.

AS YOU INDICATED, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE'RE ALWAYS VERY CAREFUL, VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT BUDGETARY EXPENDITURES.

AS YOU WELL KNOW, AS THE COMMITTEE WELL KNOWS, THE BUDGET OF THE SUPREME COURT IS A VERY SMALL PART OF THE BUDGET OF THE COURTS AS A WHOLE.

AND THE BUDGETS FOR THE COURTS OF A WHOLE IS A VERY SMALL PART OF THE UNITED STATES BUDGET.

AND I THINK A DAY YOU WILL HEAR PRESENTATION FROM JUDGE JULIA GIBBONS OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ON THE BUDGET FOR THE JUDICIARY AS A WHOLE.

AND THIS IS OF IMMENSE IMPORTANCE.

SHE DOES A MARVELOUS JOB FOR THE JUDICIARY.

SPENDS MANY DAYS AND WEEKS ON THIS SUBJECT.

AND THE BUDGET FOR THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY AS A WHOLE, IT'S IMPORTANT, I THINK, FOR THE CONGRESS TO REALIZE, IT ISN'T JUST JUDGES.

THERE ARE 7900 PROBATION AND PRESENTENCING OFFICERS.

AND THIS IS COST EFFECTIVE BECAUSE THIS KEEPS PEOPLE ON SUPERVISED RELEASE.

SO THAT THEY'RE NOT IN CUSTODY, WHICH IS COST SAVING. AND OVER THE YEARS, IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM, WE HAVE A VERY LOW RECIDIVISM RATE FOR OUR -- FOR THOSE WHO ARE ON RELEASE.

IT'S HIGH IF YOU LOOK AT IT AS ONE-THIRD BUT QUITE LOW COMPARED TO THE STATE. SO, THIS IS COST EFFECTIVE.

AND THE FEDERAL COURTS AS A WHOLE, MR. CHAIRMAN, ARE A TANGIBLE, PALPABLE, VISIBLE, CLEAR MANIFESTATION OF OUR COMMITMENT TO THE RULE OF LAW.

WHEN PEOPLE FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES COME, AS JUDGES OFTEN COME, AND THEY SEE THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND THEY ADMIRE IT.

THEY'RE INSPIRED BY IT.

AND THEY GO BACK TO THEIR COUNTRIES AND SAY THAT THIS IS A NATION THAT'S COMMITTED TO THE RULE OF LAW.

AND LAW IS THE CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

YOU CAN'T HAVE A FREE ENTERPRISE WITHOUT A FUNCTIONING LEGAL SYSTEM. SO WHAT YOU DO IS OF IMMENSE IMPORTANCE, AND WE APPRECIATE IT.

AS TO OUR OWN BUDGET, AS YOU INDICATED, MR. CHAIRMAN, OVERALL, WE HAVE A DECREASE IN OUR OWN COURT OPERATIONS AND EXPENDITURES.

WE HAVE ALMOST EXACTLY A 1% -- A LITTLE OVER 1% INCREASE.

AND THAT IS FOR MANDATED INCREASES FOR INFLATION AND SALARY INCREASES THAT ARE MANDATED.

AND OVER HALF OF THAT, WE HAVE ABSORBED BY COST CUTTING IN THE COURT.

SO, WE'VE ABSORBED OVER HALF OF THE MANDATED INCREASES IN THE EXISTING FRAMEWORK THAT WE HAVE.

THE COURT IS PLANNING TO HAVE, IN THE YEAR 2016, AN ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM SO THAT ALL OF THE PAPERS THAT ARE FILED WITH THE COURT WILL BE ON ELECTRONIC FILING.

WE WAITED, IN PART, TILL THE DISTRICT COURTS AND CIRCUIT COURTS COULD GET ON THAT SYSTEM SO THAT WE COULD THEN TAKE IT FROM THEM.

BUT OF COURSE THIS INCLUDES FILINGS FROM STATE COURTS AND FROM PRISONERS.

WE THINK THIS MAY REQUIRE AN INCREASE IN PERSONNEL BY ONE OR TWO PEOPLE.

WE'RE NOT SURE.

THE PRO SE PETITIONS, OF WHICH THERE ARE -- I DON'T KNOW.

PROBABLY IN THE AREA OF 6,000 A YEAR.

ARE USUALLY HANDWRITTEN, PRISONER HANDWRITTEN.

WHEN THIS IS PUT ON ELECTRONIC RETRIEVABLE SYSTEM, YOU WILL HAVE A DATABASE FROM WHICH SCHOLARS AND ANALYSTS CAN LOOK AT THE WHOLE CRIMINAL SYSTEM, BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL AND MAKE COMPARISONS, HOW MANY -- WHAT ARE THE PERCENTAGE OF CASES WHERE THERE'S A COMPLAINT ON INADEQUATE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OR SEARCH AND SEIZURE.

AND SO THIS WILL BE A DATABASE THAT WILL GIVE US CONSIDERABLE DATA FOR SCHOLARS SO THAT WE CAN -- SO THAT WE CAN STUDY OUR SYSTEM."

==

And so on, an so forth.

THIS is a supposedly "brilliant legal scholar" who takes just 12 minutes to make a determination which complex legal issues should or should not occupy the court's "valuable time".

Justice Kennedy can barely put two words together!  He is "not sure" about facts that he uses as a basis for his funding request.

If you come to a bank to ask for a loan, and you mumble the way Kennedy did in the U.S. Senate, you will be politely told good bye, with no money given.

All that Kennedy says is some clichés about "the rule of law" in this country - while the same justice undermines that same rule of law by delegating his own duties to a bunch of overworked nameless youngsters.

Kennedy's mumbling testimony raises real questions as to his capacity, competence and energy levels to remain on the bench - as well as who makes "his" decisions in court for him.

Justice Kennedy is on the court for a very long time, and knows how the court operates very well.

Had Justice Kennedy had the residual level of integrity, he should have honestly told the U.S. Senate:

• our court CANNOT PHYSICALLY handle the caseload we have;
• we DELIBERATELY delay introduction of the e-filing system;
• we DELIBERATELY require petition filers to satisfy the costly and unnecessary requirements of our Rule 33, so that less people would file cases with the court;
• we DELIBERATELY allow law clerks to decide which cases we review and which we don't because there is not enough time in the year for the number of judges on the court to meaningfully review all petitions that are filed;
• We need to change that if we are seriously talking about the rule of law and the right of judicial review through the U.S. Supreme Court.

But, that is not what Justice Kennedy said.

Justice Kennedy said that the U.S. Supreme Court

(where as we know, judges spend 12 minutes, if they spend any time at all, on certiorari petitions, 12.5 times less time than what Professor Turley believed to be a due process violation in review of federal administrative appeals, or where the judges, rather, let their secret "Junior Supreme Court" decide cases)

is an ideal of how a court should operate, and an envy to all other countries, that's why Justice Kennedy needs more money for the court to continue to decide 80 cases per year for connected attorneys in the Echo Chamber, likely before or after private trips for judges sponsored by the parties and/or their attorneys.

Since the 18th century when the U.S. Supreme Court was first impaneled, the country's population has changed dramatically, the literacy levels grew, caseloads in lower courts and number of appeals grew, it is now, according to my calculations, 55 TIMES more people in the U.S. per one U.S. Supreme Court Justice than it was at the time the U.S. Supreme Court was first impaneled. 

So, a 21st century U.S. Supreme Court Justice does 55 less work for the country than the 18th U.S. Supreme Court Justice did, with a lot more income, power and privilege - which makes no sense at all.

The U.S. Supreme Court is not pride, joy or envy in the national or international community.

At this time, the U.S. Supreme Court, 

• the self-serving way it operates deciding cases without disqualification for its own employees and its own benefits (note that Justice Kennedy in his recently testimony to Senate called the court's Marshall 'Pam', while she was appearing in front of the court as an opponent to a petition for the writ of certiorari - decided, without a recusal, in her favor) without a code of conduct that all other attorneys and judges in the country have, 
• the games legislators undertake to put in "their own" U.S. Supreme Court justice after Scalia's death - even though all candidates for a U.S. Supreme Court seat should be equally competent, impartial, and decide cases on the merits (if that was really happening, nobody would be interested in the nominating game) 

is turning into a laughingstock in the national and international community and a tremendous waste for us taxpayers, if you consider that for the budget of several million dollars per year the court reviews and decides just 80 cases per year, for friends or in high publicity cases.

We do not need this marble circus.

If we do need a U.S. Supreme Court, the one provided by the U.S. Constitution, to ensure that it operates in a way providing MEANINGFUL JUDICIAL review, review BY JUDGES and not by unknown inexperienced youngsters from privileged families, law clerks picked by previous law clerks (according to published books about law clerks, they are picked by "committees" of prior law clerks, practicing attorneys appearing in front of U.S. Supreme Court).

In order for the court to provide meaningful judicial review, we need to scrap the way it operates now top to bottom, and to change the number of judges, the filing system, the life term guaranteeing to the people not independence of judges, but corruption with impunity and waste of public money over nomination fights.

We need to DROP the salaries of U.S. Supreme Court judges.

We need to leave each judge with one law clerk, for research purposes only.

We need to set strict rules for law clerks, such as a 5-day-a-week 8-hour working day, which would discourage judges from using such law clerks as substitute judges.

We need to demand TIME SHEET accountability from such judges, displayed to the public for each day of the judge's work - to make sure that judges write their books, go on their speaking tours and teach in law schools during their spare time, not at the time they have to decide cases.

In Tennessee, a judge is currently being prosecuted in a disciplinary proceedings for leaving the courtroom early - and adjourning a hearing that left a man in pre-trial detention - to speak to schoolchildren.

As to the U.S. Supreme Court, the whole country appears to admire the judge's leaving their office in the middle of their business day in order to attend a "dedication", re-naming of a law school, in exchange for a large private donation, to be now named after Judge Antonin Scalia, who died under mysterious circumstances suggesting corruption by a party in litigation.

Why the double standard?

Why anybody else who leaves their jobs without permission gets sacked, and U.S. Supreme Court justices don't.

Aren't they those with the "crushing caseloads".

Aren't they those who already have only 12 minutes per petition in the entire year, so they should not take an extra trip to the bathroom, much less to a "dedication ceremony" in order to do their job properly.

We also need the judges of the U.S. Supreme Court - as well as in all other courts - to be prohibited to rule on cases while undergoing surgeries, chemotherapy and radiation therapy - due to obvious inability of people to have the necessary level of energy and concentration to make life-changing decisions for people and for the country - as Ruth Ginsburg did.


There is no doubt that, while Ruth Ginsburg was undergoing surgeries, chemo and radiation therapy, we had her clerks deciding cases instead of her. 

We as citizens have a right to know the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, and whether at any time any judges are physically or mentally unable to serve - at all times.

We need to require judges to disclose their disabilities - it is as important for us the citizens of this country to know whether the President who holds his finger on the Big Red Button can be physically or mentally disabled to properly handle that button, as it is important for us to know whether judges of the top court who may be holding their fingers on the Big Red Buttons of our lives are physically and mentally capable to do that.

We need to introduce legislation imposing severe punishment on judges, including criminal punishment, for deciding cases in which judges have personal interest, and to prohibit judges to accept "sponsored" trips of contributions from parties or attorneys of any kind.

We need to make sure that the entire review process in the U.S. Supreme Court:

1. preliminary review of petitions and records and decisions whether to take the case;
2. review of briefs;
3. oral arguments;
4. research of legal issues involved;
5. drafting of judicial opinions

is done by JUDGES THEMSELVES, not their clerks.

Those are JUDICIAL tasks, not tasks for apprentices, and litigants applying to the U.S. Supreme Court, the court of last resort and of last hope, are entitled to JUDICIAL review, not review by law clerks.

• When this country's economy is not so great,
• when many taxpayers are hurting,
• when people are losing homes if they cannot pay taxes,
• when people are put in prison for not paying federal taxes,

public officials of all levels must be held CRIMINALLY accountable when they float around during their taxpayer-funded business time, or waste those taxes on activities unrelated to their job duties.

80 cases (mainly for their own connected attorneys or parties or for publicity circus cases) decided per year in a marble palace by a bunch of self-important people for millions of dollars of our money, while spending 12 minutes, if any time at all, to toss MOUNTAINS of people's petitions where 12 minutes is not enough to even read each case, much less research and decide it, is too much of a luxury for us as a country, for us as taxpayers, to allow to continue.

We have other pressing needs in this country than to throw money away on this marble circus.

The "Roy Moore" full-panel judicial recusal in the Alabama Supreme Court, the "Katrina" partial-panel recusal at the U.S. 5th Circuit and the necessity for a "special U.S. Supreme Court"

An unusual thing is happening in Alabama - the ENTIRE top court of the State of Alabama recused from hearing the appeal of its suspended Chief Judge Roy Moore, and a procedure was devised to convene a "Special Supreme Court", from retired judges.

While many times judges have personal knowledge of litigated facts, and in most cases they stick like glue to those cases and decide them for parties they favor, in this case the sheer rank of the litigant, the judge's prior boss - who may well get back into saddle as a result of that appeal and become their actual boss once again - dictated the recusals, apparently out of caution and self-preservation.

Back in 2010, there was a similar recusal with dissimilar results in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, where 8 judges recused from hearing an appeal because judges held stocks in companies that appeared as defendants in that court case.

Yet, contrary to what happened in Alabama where a procedure was devised to not deprive Chief Judge Roy Moore of access to court, even though the entire appellate court recused from hearing his appeal, the 5th Circuit simply refused to hear the petition for rehearing "en banc" (by a full court) - and provided to the litigants no alternative for the procedural step they were entitled to.

A good case for a full recusal of the U.S. Supreme Court presented itself in 2016 in a case against the U.S. Supreme Court Marshall, seeking to strike the federal law prohibiting protests in the plaza in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I admire the courage of the district judge Beryl A. Howell 

of the lower federal court who has stood up for the U.S. Constitution and the 1st Amendment that she was sworn to protect, stood up to the powerful U.S. Supreme Court, and who has struck the ban on protests in the plaza in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, here is judge Howell's decision.

Yet, an obedient federal appellate court panel consisting of one senior judge, judge Steven Williams, here is his biography and picture

 and two hopefuls for the U.S. Supreme Court justice positions , D.C. Circuit judges Karen L. Henderson,

and judge Sri Srinivasan, who is on President Obama's "short list" for U.S. Supreme Court Justices - and who, likely, will be on the short list of President Hillary Clinton, if she is elected,

self-servingly reinstated the ban.


Naturally, the truly honorable, competent and courageous Judge Howell is not on a "short list" for the U.S. Supreme Court nomination, the brown-nosing Judge Srinivasan is.

That was a good case for a full-court recusal and for a "Special U.S. Supreme Court", like Alabama did, since the case is self-serving for the High Court, where all justices of the sitting U.S. Supreme Court had a conflict of interest in taking the case and deciding it in favor of its own marshals and in favor of their own desire to go to work without being annoyed by the pesky protestors in front of their courthouse.

But instead of recusing and allowing for convention of a "Special U.S. Supreme Court" to hear this important case, the U.S. Supreme Court self-servingly denied the petition to reverse the appellate court decision and reinstate the decision of the district court

despite the obvious conflict of interest of ALL justices of the court - same as in Alabama, but with dissimilar results.  In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for itself and for its own Marshall.  Without any compunction or scruples.

Somehow, state judges in Alabama Supreme Court had more integrity than federal judges on the issue of recusal in self-serving cases.  Well, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit judges, unlike "justices" of the U.S. Supreme Court at least had the decency to recuse from cases where they had a personal interest.

The Alabama Supreme Court recusal and a "Special Supreme Court" procedure sets up an important precedent making available an alternative procedure to the self-serving doctrine of an interested court sitting "in necessity" because there is nobody else to review a case where judges of the court have a personal interest.  Apparently, there are other people to review such cases, and there may be procedures provided for such a review. 

The Alabama Supreme Court decision should give an example to other states, to federal courts and to the U.S. Congress to create a procedure of appointment of "special courts" in cases involving a conflict of interest for all judges of a certain federal court, because, apparently, on their own federal courts will not do what is right without being forced to do that by Congress.

And, where integrity of federal judges, even those of the highest court of the country, is at such an unfortunate low that they would decide cases in favor of themselves and their employees without recusing themselves, that is a big problem in the country where federal judges are the last resort for victims of human rights violations. 

What is common between Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo and New York State Office of Children and Family Services? Shredgates

There is one common feature between

• the Democratic candidate for Presidential Office Hillary Clinton,
• New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and
• the New York State for Children and Family Services -

their adamant disregard for the public's right to know what is going on in the government and shredding evidence of their and their agencies' misconduct.

The Hillary Clinton's e-mail shredding scandal and continues to rage at this time, with

• Hillary Clinton protected by public officials as high as President Obama and the sudden support of his wife Michele Obama, by
• refusal of FBI Director James Comey to do his job and turn Hillary Clinton's case into the grand jury proceedings, by
• Loretta Lynch's Office refusal to prosecute Hillary Clinton after her peculiar airport meeting with Bill Clinton (while Loretta Lynch was a law partner in a law firm representing the Clintons) and instead giving immunity to lawyers and employees of Hillary Clinton who destroyed evidence despite court orders,
• by the cowardly reaction of attorney state disciplinary authorities "waiting" for federal authorities to pursue either Hillary Clinton or her attorneys who shredded evidence sought in court in defiance of court orders - before taking any actions of their own.

Hillary Clinton actually is not alone in her e-mail shredding rampage, and she follows the tradition of New York State public officials, recently created, by the way - so Hillary Clinton has a great example to follow.

In 2015 New York Governor Andrew Cuomo

(whose brother Chris Cuomo recently made waves by a claim that he and his employer the CNN, called by many the Clinton New Network, is a better interpreter of documents published by WikiLeaks, and that it is illegal for anybody to possess such publications - other than to Chris Cuomo and CNN, of course)

made his own waves by announcing a policy that the Executive branch of the State of New York will delete all e-mails older than 90 days.

Andrew Cuomo, of course, explained away and defended his policy, but nevertheless it was called a "purge" by the media, and happened at the time when

• Cuomo and his connections was investigated for his sacking of the Public Ethics ("Moreland") Commission after it turned its focus on Andrew Cuomo and his cronies,
• when U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara raised the temperature of criminal corruption prosecutions by prosecuting and convicting the leaders of New York Legislature, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and the Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, and when
• Preet Bharara has now arrested some employees and lobbyists close to Cuomo himself,

making Cuomo's Shredgate similar to Clinton's Shredgate.

But, prior to Cuomo's Shredgate and Clinton's Shredgate, there was a New York State Office of Children and Family Services' Shredgate from which Cuomo could take example - and Clinton could learn from Cuomo.

In 2007, NYS OCFS was sued in federal court for hiring temp workers and shredding 25,000 applications for "fair hearings" to cleanse people's "indicated reports" of child maltreatment which were pending for years - instead of two months, as required by statute - preventing people from obtaining jobs they were seeking.

Instead of any meaningful discipline in any of the three Shredgate cases, what we see is just some tongue-lashing in the press - and that is all.

Yet, there is a means of addressing such criminal conduct - filing complaints with the U.S. Attorney's office demanding criminal prosecutions of participants in such "Shredgates", and then filing writs of mandamus (federal court cases) to force the U.S. Attorney's office to turn such cases into the federal grant juries - if they refuse to do it on their own, afraid of consequences.

There is a U.S. Statute, 18 U.S.C. 3332(a) that provides:
                  

"It shall be the duty of each such grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district. Such alleged offenses may be brought to the attention of the grand jury by the court or by any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States for the presentation of evidence. Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney’s action or recommendation."

So, whether the U.S. Attorney General deems feasible bringing criminal proceedings against high-ranking public officials like Cuomo or Clinton, or President Obama who, it appears, knowingly sent e-mails to Hillary Clinton's unprotected private server,

if "any other person" complains to the U.S. Attorney General and requests the U.S. Attorney General to turn such information against Hillary Clinton, her shred-happy employees, President Obama, Andrew Cuomo and any other shred-happy public officials,

18 U.S.C. 3332(a) requires the U.S. Attorney General to present the complaint, on the complainant's request, to a federal grand jury.

And, if the U.S. Attorney refuses to do her duty under this statute, a writ of mandamus remedy (a lawsuit in federal court seeking to make the U.S. Attorney comply with the statute and present the case to the federal grand jury) is available.

I wonder why nobody is filing such a criminal complaint or such a writ of mandamus action.

Afraid of the all-powerful Clintons and their financial supporters?

But, since there is a long statute of limitations for federal felonies, Hillary Clinton and her Shredgate helpers may remain on the hook for criminal prosecutions for a long time, even if she is elected President of the United States.

It is unfortunate that we have a choice between a presidential candidate of questionable fitness such as Trump and a candidate of unquestionable unfitness such as Hillary Clinton.

Yet, where there is a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime, and especially a crime against national security, the person and his accomplices must be prosecuted as a criminal, no matter the rank, if this country has any hope of being respected by its own citizens and in the international community alike, as a country governed by the rule of law.

A criminal complaint was filed against #DelawareCountyClerkSharonODell and the #DenningTownJusticeJonathanSFollender for knowingly entering a false, fabricated multi-thousand dollar judgment contrary to a court order

In New York, judges of local justice courts are allowed to practice law part time.

So, attorney Jonathan S. Follender practices law, and is a judge in the Town of Denning, Ulster County.

Yet, off the bench conduct of judges is reviewable by the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, and it is a relatively frequent occurrence that judges of justice courts are taken off the bench because of their conduct as private individuals, if that conduct reflects on their fitness as judges.

Criminal conduct of judges, whether on or off the bench, certainly reflect on their fitness, and the Delhi Village Police, as well as the Delaware County Sheriff's Department (in New York) received yesterday, by certified mail, my sworn criminal complaint against the #DeningTownJustice  #JonathanSFollender and against the #DelawareCountyClerk #SharonODell and her personnel - for filing a fraudulent judgment contrary to a court order.

The court order allowed Jonathan S. Follender to enter a money judgment against me of $1,750.61 plus "allowable costs".  Follender claimed that his costs are $740.  I will appeal legality of that judgment, but that's not the point here.

The point is that attorney Jonathan S. Follender was allowed by the court, by order of July 18, 2016, to enter only a money judgment for $1,751.60 plus "allowable costs", and the costs claimed by Follender were $740, so the total of the judgment that Follender could enter was $2,491.60.

Follender offered for filing a judgment, and Delaware County Clerk Sharon O'Dell or personnel working under her supervision accepted and entered, with Sharon O'Dell's signature, a money judgment of $10,961.60, plus 9% interest, $8,470.00 plus 9% interest more than the court authorized.

That judgment was knowingly entered despite the fact that another $8,470.00 judgment plus 9% interest remained docketed against me by Follender in the same case, while Follender just received satisfaction of that judgment out of the court's escrow.

Sharon O'Dell personally took that money from me and put it into escrow, and Sharon O'Dell had on file, when entering the SECOND judgment for $8,470, not authorized by court, both the first judgment for the same amount, already satisfied from the escrow, and the "Turnover Order", releasing the amount of the first judgment from the escrow.

So, now instead of one outstanding judgment of $2,491.60 authorized by the court (with the first judgment for $8,470 satisfied out of escrow), Follender, in collusion with Sharon O'Dell, has THREE judgments filed and pending against me for the total amount of $19,431.60 plus 9% interest, nearly 10 TIMES MORE than the court authorized.

The fraudulent judgment was filed by Follender and entered by O'Dell on September 26, 2016 in the office of the Delaware County Clerk's office in the case Neroni v Follender, Index No. 2013-331, in defiance of the court order of July 18, 2016 in the same case.

That is a crime of fraud, fraud upon the court (for Follender, who is an attorney), and of knowingly filing a false public document.

I also filed an impeachment demand against the Delaware County Clerk Sharon O'Dell with the Chairman of the Delaware County Board of Supervisors James Eisel,

and, against Jonathan S. Follender, I filed, in addition to the criminal complaint,

an attorney grievance complaint - because padding a judgment authorized by the court with an additional amount not authorized by the court is a fraud upon the court and a disbarring offense, and

and a complaint to the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, asking to suspend Follender from the bench immediately, pending investigation and prosecution (the documentary evidence of his fraud is irrefutable), and to ultimately take him off the bench and prohibit him to ever be a judge again.

I will announce how these complaints are progressing.

Attorney Follender also sent the fraudulent judgment to another state, which is a federal crime of mail fraud, so if the State of New York does not prosecute him because he is a judge and has other judges in his pocket, the feds might.

Stay tuned.

The artist sued for denying that he is the author of a painting, won the lawsuit - but on the "alibi" evidence, not on the law, which is a dangerous trend

An update on a previous blog - Peter Doig, the artist who was sued to force him to admit, or to have the court declare that a certain painting was Peter Doig's work, when he denied it (and thus, the value of it went down), won the lawsuit.

The claim was made by the initial alleged buyer of the painting that he allegedly bought it from Peter Doig when he was incarcerated in Canada for possession of LCD.

Peter Doig provided "alibi" evidence that he was in school, not in prison, in 1976, the time of the alleged purchase.

More evidence was provided that the painting was made by a now-deceased Canadian carpenter Peter Doige.

Yet, what is scary is that the lawsuit was not dismissed outright, simply because the artist denied he painted the picture - and had to go to an evidentiary hearing.

That means, that more of such lawsuits are possible, and that is an extremely dangerous trend.

If a person denies that a certain work of art is his, that should be the final word in any "determinations" of authorship.

Good faith enactments turned into nightmares based on money interests - and the need of citizen panels for statutory retention reviews

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 introduced for the noble purpose of fighting terrorism, is now precluding the claims of actual innocence, contributed to mass incarceration in the U.S.,  and is precluding release of people kept in prisons on convictions based on old laws that were repealed or changed.  In order to preclude re-trying of these cases (and ostensibly saving taxpayers money), more money is spent on litigation of appeals and civil rights lawsuits, and grave injustice is done by keeping in prison individuals put there with gross constitutional violations, and especially to prevent release of people who are in jail because of convictions based on old changed or repealed laws, and people who are innocent.

But, there are people, including judges, who consider it ok to follow that law.

Adoption and Safe Families Act, introduced in 1997 to allegedly help children not to linger in foster care for too long without permanent families and provided money to terminate parental rights in child protective proceedings faster, and that allows payments to the states of thousands of dollars per each child for the increased number of adoption of foster care children,

caused not only

• increased removal of children from parents on fabricated charges, especially in areas where there are less children - and thus less "cash cows" to grab, but also, as it appears
• increased infant mortality FOUR TIMES - after a steady decline in infant mortality that was, before enactment of Adoption and Safe Families Act,  the lowest in the world - on par with Canada, at around 7 infant deaths at birth per 100,000 births;

Money talks, and if the money incentive is given to rip a family apart and to separate a newborn from his mother, do not expect social services to instead "make reasonable efforts to reunite the family", as state laws also require them to do.  Money talks louder.

Here are words out of Section 201 of Public Law 105-89, "Adoption Incentive Payments", that funds for "technical assistance" will be provided to the states (50% of those funds to the courts) for:

‘‘(E) Models to encourage the fast tracking of children who have not attained 1 year of age into pre-adoptive placements.

 ‘‘(F) Development of programs that place children into pre-adoptive families without waiting for termination of parental rights.

While state laws do not make a distinction in the child's age in the procedural speed of termination of parental rights, and parental rights are constitutional rights not to be easily severed, federal law specifically provides for payments for doing just that - making separation of newborns from parents faster.

Of course, newborns and babies under 1 year old, with no memory of their parents yet, are the best "adoption material".

So, under the guise of protecting unborn babies, pregnant women are arrested and kept in detention across the U.S. on charges of "fetal neglect" - and in reality, to keep them in jail until delivery so that they would not escape, and so that the state can snatch the child from the mother at birth, get the federal grant money for fast-track adoption, and give the child to adoptive (richer than the mother) parents - all while claiming that all "procedural protections" for the mother and the child are observed.

While federal money buys fast-tracking adoptable babies into the hands of adoption parents, in reality it means that mothers are discouraged from getting prenatal care and hospital delivery, mortality rate of mothers and infants rises, and there is, of course, no fairness in snatching babies from the poor and giving it to the rich-er adoption parents.

Actually, adoptive parents who adopt children out of foster care receive benefits to feed and clothe the child as if the child is still kept in foster care by special "agreements". 

Here are the rates for such maintenance in Delaware County, New York, according to the County's response to my FOIL request.

Yet, that same amount of money is denied birth mothers to support her child and prevent separation with the child.  And, separation with the birth mother of a newborn or a baby under 1 deprives the baby of mother's breast milk, too - and undermines the buildup of the child's immunity, which does not concern CPS. 

Once again, money talks louder.

So, in criminal law we have the blunder of AEDPA.

In child protection we have the blunder of ASFA.

Now we have a emerging blunder of "end of life" legislation.

Introduced, same as AEDPA and ASFA for noble reasons of protection of safety and human rights, the end-of-life legislation is declared to allow people who suffer intolerable pain and/or have incurable diseases severely undermining their quality of life, to make a CONSCIOUS DECISION to end their lives.

Of course, such a decision must be the person's OWN decision.

Many people, on religious grounds, may not end their own life no matter what kind of pain they are experiencing.

There were concerns when such legislation was introduced, that such legislation will lead to ration healthcare and cleanse the elderly and the disabled, as a cheaper solution, instead of treating them or providing chemo and hospice care.

A case was reported as early as in 2008 when, in Oregon, instead of authorizing a $4,000-a-month cancer treatment for a terminal patient, the insurance company instead authorized $50 for a physician-assisted death.

Some time ago, a terminally ill mother of four, Stephanie Packer, wants to stay with her four children for as long as she can.

Yet, in June, her home state of California has passed the assisted suicide law ALLOWING her to CHOOSE THE OPTION of assisted suicide.

Well, her insurance company tries to make it less than an option and more of a mandate: it denied Mrs. Packer money to cover her treatment, but approved, same as in Oregon in 2008, a suicide pill, with a co-payment of $1.20.  The pill that Mrs. Packer does not want and did not ask for.

Moreover, Mrs. Packer is reportedly a devout Roman Catholic, and for her a suicide is not an option on religious grounds.

Mrs. Packer did get approval for her treatments - but only after she threatened to go to the media about the "choice" she was offered.

What happened in Oregon in 2008 and what happened in California in 2016 - denying money for treatment because an option for physician-assisted suicide exists - should be legislatively prohibited.  I doubt though that legislatures, lobbied by insurance companies, will do that change on their own, without being prodded by grass-roots movements and volunteer citizen review panels.

And the same applies to the "Effective Death Penalty Act", which came to mean the opposite because of prosecutorial ambitions towards conviction, because of prosecutorial and judicial careers already made - and easily made -  with the help of this statute.  Advancement from prosecutor to a state judge, from a state judge to a federal judge means more money and more power.  To turn that extra money and power down for the mere "fairness" to criminal defendants? Let's not be naïve. 

There are also prison officers unions that are interested in keeping all their jobs, which would require to keep the incarceration rates at present level.

There are also private prison complexes who benefits from slave labor.

There are also all of us, let's face it, who benefit from prison slave labor - from cheaply produced, and thus, sold for low prices, household goods and even "organic", "whole foods" - to inmate-produced disaster relief items, such as sandbags recently produced by inmates in South Carolina, according to daily announcements by the State Governor, at 10,000 sandbags a day, I am sure, for no pay or minimal pay to the inmates.

Lobbies in the U.S. Congress will prevent any changes to AEDPA without a grass roots movement and without volunteer citizen retention review panels for statutes. 

Existence of such panels is not prohibited by the law. 

Establishing them may help greatly in bringing about necessary changes in the law - peacefully, by legal means.

And the same applies to review of effectiveness (or harm) or "Adoption and Safe Families Act" - which rips and harms families instead of keeping them "safe". 

According to various sources, a child in foster care produces revenue from $85,000 to $250,000 to various government actors and "providers of services" they hire.

That is OUR, taxpayer money.

Much less of that money, a fraction of it, given to the parents in terms of maternity leave and job-preservation assistance, housing assistance, transportation assistance, food assistance, daycare costs assistance - will what will make families safe, not the gestapo proceedings happening in Family Courts around the country nowadays.

But, legislators will not listen unless there will be a lot of evidence collected by citizen groups.  Citizen review panels.

Such panels may review whether the already enacted legislation - local, state and federal - fulfils purposes for which it was enacted, or, whether it operates contrary to such purposes, or in harmful ways.

Our legislators, for whom their Senatorial seats have become something of hereditary boons where Senators "serve" for 30-40 or more years and then pass their seats from father to son, do not seem much interested in looking at any enactments or at changing any enactments that lobbyists did not pay them for.

And I mean citizen review panels which are NOT appointed by the government, which are self-organized, grass-roots entities unaffected by conflicts of interests.

Once again, it's our money that is being poured down the drain to enact and enforce harmful legislation.

It's time for us to act and change that.