Los Angeles, California
January 3, 2014
(Today's date)
December 18, 2013
(Original date)
*Denotes change or new infomation added to original blog after completion of original blog.
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW infomation added AFTER original blog has been completed)
The Honorable Nelson "Madiba" Mandela has now passed away and has been buried. I cannot add anything more to what has already been said about Madiba, so I will merely comment on what I believe was his greatest display of strength, integrity, and dignity. That is, when he had an opportunity to leave the South African jail, where he was placed in isolation for much of the time, he chose not to in the interest of the potential freedom of black South African citizens. Although Mandela spent 27 years in prison, he didn't have to stay that long. He was offered the opportunity to leave prison on several occasions, if only he would denounce violence. He refused to do so. The strength aspect was simply to remain in prison and endure the prison conditions, when he didn't have to, when he could have gone home to family, friends, and the struggle. The integrity aspect came into play when he said no to denouncing violence, knowing that he would remain in prison for doing so, but also knowing that he could have deceptively gotten out to perpetuate any violence that he had deceptively denounced. In other words, Madiba could have agreed to denounce violence, while knowing inside himself that he had no intention to do so, and after being released, commence to perpetuate the very violence that he had denounced. But that way, while allowing him to be free of prison and free to assist with the struggle, would have been absent integrity and dignity, and most likely, respect from the world.
But Mandela didn't do what he did out of any concern for respect from the world; he did what he did because that was who he was. Madiba was a special man.
Much is made of Mandela's capacity to forgive, especially by white people, and most especially by white South Africans, because that capacity allowed white South Africans to continue to maintain its economic and/or financial, i.e., monetary, power or control over black South Africans, even though the white dominant government was purportedly supposed to be turning over majority control to the majority black population; but, I do not place as much value on that aspect of Mandela's greatness as I do other aspects or manifestations of his greatness, because his capacity to forgive does not seem to have achieved a significant objective in the struggle for civil and human rights of black South Africans. That is, while one should have the capacity to forgive, the extent of forgiveness, in the context of the South African civil rights movement, should not go beyond the call for equality and decency. While Mandela might have forgiven the white minority government for its inhumane treatment of black South Africans, in their own country (where they are the majority), including poverty, homelessness, killings and/or murders, rapes, etc., that forgiveness should not cause the black majority to not take drastic steps to cure their civil rights ills, such as correcting some of those things I have just identified.
I believe Mandela's deep capacity for forgiveness may have served to delay any achievement of complete civil rights for black South Africans. But, this is not a criticism of Mandela, it is merely an observation of what I see as the white minority of South Africa benefiting from Mandela's generous extension of forgiveness to the demise of the down-trotten and improvished black South Africans. "People speak of Mandela's 'foregiveness' much as they speak of Martin Luther King's 'dream'. Can forgiveness be poured from a can of tinned milk to comfort the hungry child in the shanty? Is forgiveness a simple rhetorical term for those South Africans who are moving on up, and a broken promise for those who remain on the ground?" Los Angeles Wave, "Voices", "Mandela's long road to freedom", Julianne Malveaux, December 12, 2013. *"It is not clear when the economic gap in South Africa will be closed, or even narrowed. In many ways, black South Africans control the political sphere, while the white business establishments control the money, just as is the case in several cities in the U.S. South.". Id.
But, let me get back to the greatness and "specialness" of Madiba.
While I continue to state that I can't add much to what has already been said about this great man, I must mention a few things that have already been said in order to demonstrate how he set the stage for the "new" war on racial discrimination in the United States and California. "Nelson Mandela's resolve was to dismantle a system of racial oppression. And that he did. In dismantling apartheid, he dismantled his enemies." Id., "The resolve of Nelson Mandela", Anthony A. Samad, December 12, 2013. "Nelson Mandela saved South Africa from itself. The prisoner-to-president story of Nelson Mandela is one of the greatest in the history of mankind. It is a story of the power of resolve." Id. So, like the resolve of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.(who was also incarcerated multiple times), this helps set the stage for some of our young Black people, especially our young Black males, who are or have been incarcerated or imprisoned. It helps them understand that they should not allow that imprisonment or incarceration to prevent them from trying to achieve goals, especially civil rights goals, and especially if their incarceration was due to civil rights struggles. It is not probable that they can achieve the office of President of the United States with a felony conviction, but it is absolutely probable that they can achieve other, lesser, goals, and Mandela's journey supports that.
"Mandela was among the ANC (African National Congress), the head of its political arm, and a chief negotiator for the dignity of (the) black majority. He, and others, were arrested for trying to sabotage the government, a crime punishable by death. Nelson Mandela had the wisdom then to use his trial, to put South African apartheid on trial. He knew the world would be watching and in an era of the assassinations of heads of state, he knew the possibility of death was real." Id. This helps set the stage for future leaders of the WRD, and Christopher Dorner was the first leader because he had that strait. Dorner did not fear death and he was prepared to die. And he did. "With its racial politics on the world stage, South Africa chose not to kill Mandela and add to his martyrdom." Id. Christopher Dorner was killed because the white establishment knew that had Dorner lived, racial discrimination in California would have been put on trial. But, the white establishment did not recognize Dorner as a martyr. Unfortunately, for the civil rights movement, neither did enough Black people. So, Mandela set the stage for future WRD leaders to recognize that as leaders in the WRD, they must be prepared to die. Aaron Alexis met this standard as well. And he also died.
Finally,"The isolation Mandela was to endure at Robben Island, the apartheid government's barren penal colony, did not make the world forget him. It made it remember him--as the talk of decolonization and freedom filled the air in Black Africa; and the talk of freedom and equal rights filled the air in the United States, and in South Africa." Id., "The indispensable Nelson Mandela", Lee Daniels, December 19, 2013. "The white-racist government thought they had destroyed a leader of the freedom movement. How could they know they were doing their part to help create an indispensable man ?" Id. Mandela's "unbreakable commitment to bringing democracy to South Africa (,) became the hallmark of the man. That enabled him to emerge from nearly three decades in prison, as President Barack Obama said in his eulogy, 'as the last great liberator of the 20th century." Id. Mandela's commitment sets the stage for the "new" WRD. It is what is missing from so many of our so-called civil rights leaders of today. For instance, when the NAACP made a request of the Justice Department to pursue a prosecution of George Zimmerman for violating Trayvon Martin's civil rights, there was no commitment to the cause. After the initial request, neither the NAACP nor any other organization placed any pressure on the Justice Department to at least provide a public response to the NAACP's (and some local governments--through resolutions, e.g., Los Angeles and Carson) request. There was no commitment from any civil rights faction in the country to require a public response from the Justice Department or to require a justification for not prosecuting Zimmerman. And, clearly there was a basis for doing so. Thus, the Justice Department decided to quietly and secretly not prosecute Zimmerman without any public reaction. This was a civil rights failure, based on a lack of commitment to the cause. So, if the new WRD is to be successful, there must be commitment; the type of commitment that Madiba demonstrated on the way to the liberation of South Africa.
"Nelson Mandela's existence as a living being was irreplaceable, vital, urgent, requisite and all other such synonyms for 'indispensable.' Now, it's essential that we, his survivors, understand that the qualities that made him indispensable are still available to inspire us." Id. I am inspired and I will forever play some role in the WRD towards complete eradication of racial discrimination in the United States and California (and hopefully, the world).
Peace be with you, Madiba, and may you forever rest in peace.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
NINTH CIRCUIT JUDGE MARY M. SCHROEDER V. BARRY BONDS : A CASE OF ONE CRIMINAL JUDGING ANOTHER CRIMINAL REGARDING THE SAME CRIME; THE IRONY AND INJUSTICE OF OBAMA'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS "FOR WHITE PEOPLE ONLY" .
Los Angeles, California
LAURACK D. BRAY, M.S., M.P.A., J.D.
April 30, 2015
(Today's date)
October 22, 2013
(Original Date)
*(Denotes a change or new information added to the original blog)
**UPDATE(Denotes NEW information added after the original blog was published)
****This blog is submitted as part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California
When 9th Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder in September, 2013 wrote a panel decision affirming the conviction of major league baseball player Barry Bonds for obstruction of justice, it was a case of one criminal judging another criminal for the same crime. This is so because judge Schroeder herself has been charged, through a federal civilian criminal complaint, with obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice, and the only reason that she likely hasn't been convicted and sentenced like Bonds, is because the U.S. Justice Department has refused to prosecute her, while, at the same time, prosecuting Bonds for the same crime. The Complaint against Schroeder is still pending, and was pending at the time that she decided Bonds' appeal.***
In 2007, I, a Black lawyer, and on behalf of two clients, one a white male, Harold Griffith, and one, a white female, Jeanette Andrews, filed a multi-party criminal-civil rights complaint in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles charging multiple individuals, including several (and mostly) judges, both state and federal, with a range of criminal violations or crimes associated with the conduct or misconduct of those individuals in the treatment of our cases, at both the state level (my case only) and the federal level (all our cases). Schroeder was one of those charged. See my "ICR" blog for other individuals charged in the complaint. Although each individual named in the Complaint was charged with and for his or her own individual action, the general theme of the Complaint was racial discrimination directed at me (likely in part because I had charged several state court judges with racism or racial discrimination) which ultimately affected my clients, resulting in my clients being denied relief when they should have received relief. One vivid example was Ms. Andrews' case (a disability discrimination case), where, after the Navy defaulted and a default had been entered against the Navy (which was brought about, in part, by and through actions of a panel of judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals through a writ of mandamus), the final panel of Ninth Circuit judges (the so-called merits panel) refused to order that a default judgment be entered (and the entering of the judgment should have been done as a matter of course--and my client would have been provided relief), for no legitimate reason (only offering a boilerplate statement of denial). This was a simple default.
At the time Schroeder was charged in the criminal Complaint, she was the Chief Judge or former Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Alex Kozinski took over as Chief Judge during this time period, 2006-2009), at least, she was charged in the Complaint based on her position and actions as Chief Judge of the Court. And because the Chief Judge is the chief, and ultimate, administrator of the Court, she was charged with the administrative actions of the Clerk of the Court at the time, Cathy Catterson (Catterson was also charged in the Complaint).
***NOTE : Schroeder is also listed on my premiere "1st Annual List of Racist Judges and Other Public Officials in California", which is being published concurrently with this blog.
Before I proceed further, I should comment on the merits of the overall criminal Complaint. As some evidence that our criminal complaint had merit and was not frivolous, the George Bush FBI took actions against several of the named individuals in our complaint. While the U.S. Attorney's Office refused to prosecute any of the individuals, including Schroeder, the FBI, apparently utilizing its own authority, took action against at least six individuals, whom (together with another individual who ultimately resigned) I designated the "Judicial
Seven". At least two of the individuals, state court judges Steven Hintz and Barry Klopfer, whom I had charged with racial discrimination, were made to step down from the state court bench (Ventura County, CA). Others, including two district court judges and a Ninth Circuit Clerk (Cathy Catterson), were made to retire or resign. However, even with the FBI actions (which were conducted quietly and secretly), neither I nor my clients were provided with any relief for the Defendants' misconduct.
Among other things, we charged Schroeder with obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice, which, like the affirmance of Barry Bonds' conviction on appeal in the Ninth Circuit, was based, in part, on Schroeder refusing to answer questions that were central to proof of illegal actions by her and other Ninth Circuit judges. To summarize the obstruction for this blog: we charged that a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit acted illegally (and without authority) in purportedly making a ruling (which ultimately resulted in my being denied the right to seek en banc or full court review of my case), which they had no authority or legal basis to make. In an effort to obtain proof or evidence of the illegal activity, and through a memorandum directed to Schroeder as Chief Judge of the Court, I asked three questions. Two of which were :
1. May a three-judge panel usurp the authority of an en banc court and address a motion directed specifically to the en banc court, thereby denying the en banc court itself of an opportunity to review or consider the motion?
2. May a three-judge panel, rather than an en banc court, deny a plaintiff the right to an initial rehearing (sic) en banc?
Schroeder, as chief judge, refused to answer either of the questions. Thus, in addition to other matters regarding Griffith and Andrews that went to obstruction of justice, we charged Schroeder with, among other charges, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and the denial of constitutional rights under color of law (with the racial component). As alluded to above, the Complaint against Schroeder is still pending.
As I explain more fully in my ICR blog (#61), Schroeder is a criminal because she has committed a crime, in violation of federal criminal law (and the crime was witnessed and/or experienced, either directly or indirectly, by a victim of the crime), but, she has not been processed through the criminal justice system, like Bonds was (i.e., he was indicted); therefore, she has not been cloaked with the presumption of "innocent until proven guilty" that the criminal justice system provides. So, she remains a criminal until she is so-processed.
THE IRONY OF OBAMA'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
It is ironic that the Justice Department in attempting to shield Schroeder from prosecution for her crimes, while prosecuting Bonds for his, has likely caused the perhaps valid prosecution of Bonds, although questionable at best, to be placed in jeopardy or question. Where, if it had prosecuted Schroeder for her crimes, as it should have, and as it did Bonds for his, Schroeder, likely, would not have been available to decide Bonds' appeal; therefore, she could not have placed Bonds prosecution in jeopardy.
It is also ironic that the Justice Department, in providing favorable treatment to Schroeder which was meant to help keep her out of trouble, while providing Bonds with unfavorable treatment meant to keep him in trouble, may see its objectives reversed because Schroeder heard and decided Bond's appeal. That is, with a finding that Schroeder should not have decided Bond's appeal, the results may be that Schroeder ends up in trouble and Bonds ends up out of trouble.
THE INJUSTICE OF OBAMA'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS "FOR WHITE PEOPLE ONLY"
So, why did the Justice Department prosecute Barry Bonds and not prosecute Mary Schroeder, when they both committed the same crime (obstruction of justice)? :
1. Could it be that Schroeder's obstruction was less serious or less severe than Bond's obstruction? I think not. First of all, even though Bonds waivered in answering a specific question (which was the basis of his conviction for obstruction of justice being affirmed on appeal), he eventually answered the question. Yet, he was still convicted of obstruction of justice, and Schroeder affirmed that conviction on appeal, stating that nonetheless, "The statement was. . . evasive" and "The statement was also at the very least misleading." However, Schroeder, when the above-stated questions were posed to her, refused to answer the questions altogether . Clearly, the refusal to answer a question at all is more serious and/or severe than waivering prior to answering the question. At least Bonds answered the question that was asked. Schroeder did not. Schroeder's violation was clear and absolute obstruction of justice, because she refused to answer the question at all, while Bonds' obstruction, if obstruction at all, was merely "temporary".
Moreover, Bonds obstruction of justice only affected Barry Bonds himself, while Schroeder's obstruction and other misconduct affected other parties, and more specfically, other litigants, i.e., Mr. Griffith, Ms. Andrews, and myself. Further, while Griffith, Andrews, and myself turned to the Court to protect our rights, Schroeder instead destroyed our rights, through the obstruction and other misconduct.
In fact, Schroeder's obstruction of justice was done for the specific purpose and with the specific intent to deny me my due process right to have a full court (en banc) consider whether my case could be re-heard and decided by the full court. And, through her actions, I was finally denied that right.
As a footnote to this discussion, I think there is a serious question as to whether Bonds could legally be convicted of obstruction of justice after answering the question that was asked. But that's a discussion for another time perhaps. However, had I been Bonds' appellate attorney, I would have raised this issue on appeal. I would have argued that even if bonds had temporarily obstructed justice in fudging on answering the question initially, he repaired or corrected the obstruction when he finally answered the question. I am a federal appellate attorney. Furthermore, if every witness who "fudged" or avoided answering a question before finally answering it (during a criminal or civil proceeding) was charged with obstruction of justice for "misleading" the Court, criminal courts nationwide would be overwhelmed with obstruction of justice cases and trials. Witnesses (a few) do this all the time, when they do not wish to answer a certain question. Sometimes judges are called upon to make them answer the specific question that was asked. But, the witnesses are not charged with obstruction of justice. Bonds was charged with obstruction of justice because Bonds is Bonds.
2. Could it be because Bonds' obstruction occurred during a grand jury investigation, while Bonds was on the witness stand before a grand jury? Again, I think not. Because the statute that Schroeder relied on to affirm Bond's obstruction of justice conviction is the same statute that applies to her obstruction crime, and that statute, 18 U.S.C. sec. 1503, applies to, among other proceedings, all judicial proceedings, including grand jury, trial, appellate proceedings (which is the focus of Schroeder's obstruction of justice charge), etc.. The statute simply states, in part, "Whoever. . . corruptly. . . obstructs. . . or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided . . . ." Therefore, "That portion of the statute, known as the omnibus clause, is comprehensive. We have described it as being 'designed to proscribe all manner of corrupt methods of obstructing justice.'" (Citation omitted). United States v. Bonds, NO. 11-10669, September 13, 2013, 9th Cir., (Slip Opinion). In fact, per Schroeder herself (who authored the opinion), "The essence of the statute is that it criminalizes conduct intended to deprive the factfinder (one of whom was myself) of relevant information." Id., at 10. Moreover, "Section 1503 punishes any 'endeavor' to obstruct." Id., at 13. That is, "It 'procribes all manner of corrupt methods of obstructing justice.'" (Citation omitted). Id.
3. Could it be because Schroeder is a judge and Bonds is just a professional baseball player? Probably. But, it's neither legal nor constitutional. Unlike conduct occurring during civil actions, which is usually protected by judicial immunity, judicial misconduct which amounts to a crime (or is criminal) is not protected by judicial immunity, therefore, the Justice Department cannot refuse to prosecute Schroeder because she is a judge. Again, it's neither legal nor constitutional (in terms of due process and equal protection of the law). And, as some proof that Schroeder was not prosecuted because she is a judge, I cite the recent case of an ex-BP engineer who was convicted of "obstructing an investigation of the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico." L.A. Times, "Ex-BP engineer convicted in gulf oil spill case", December 19, 2013. According to the Times, "A former BP engineer has been convicted of obstructing an investigation of the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, in the first criminal trial to result from environmental disaster." Id. "(A) drilling engineer who formerly worked for the oil giant, was convicted Wednesday of obstructing the investigation of the massive spill. . . ." Id.
So why was a BP engineer prosecuted for obstruction of justice, but Schroeder wasn't? ANS: Because, at least in part, Schroeder is a federal judge and the engineer is just an engineer. Furthermore, according to the Times, Mythili Raman, acting assistant attorney general of the Justice's Department's Criminal Division, stated (after the verdict was returned in New Orleans) "This prosecution shows the commitment of the Justice Department to hold accountable those who attempt to interfere with the administration of justice." Id. So, why isn't the Justice Department holding Schroeder accountable, as compared to the engineer ? ANS: Because she is a federal judge (and because the Complaint against her was brought by a Black male). But, she is not legally protected from prosecution.
4. Could it be because Schroeder is a (white) female and Bonds is a (Black) male? Yes. But, once more, it is neither legal nor constitutional (due process and equal protection of the law). While the Justice Department (U.S. Attorney Office in Los Angeles) has protected (from prosecution) both male and female Defendants in the 2007 Complaint, I believe that it has provided "extra" protection to Schroeder because she is a white female, here, being pitted against a black male, Bonds, for the same crime. Quite illustrative of this circumstance in Los Angeles is the case of Teresa Evans, a white female police officer, versus Christopher Dorner, a former (and deceased) black male police officer (who killed several people in pursuance of clearing his name) and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). When the LAPD was faced with charging either Evans, the supervising officer (at the scene) or Dorner with kicking an arrestee, it chose to charge Dorner with lying about the kicking rather than charge Evans with the actual kicking, although it had significant evidence supporting the proposition that Evans actually kicked the arrestee. The LAPD chose to accept the word or position of a white female supervising officer, Evans (who denied doing the kicking), over the testimony (supported by substantial, including eyewitness-victim, evidence) of a Black officer, Dorner, to protect the white female officer from guilt or liability (even if it was at the sacrifice of Dorner losing his job). Here, when Obama's Justice Department received Schroeder's Complaint in 2008-2009, it decided that it would protect Schroeder from prosecution, notwithstanding evidence of an absolute obstruction of justice, because Schroeder was a white female federal judge (former chief judge). On the other hand, when Obama's Justice Department had to decide whether to prosecute Barry Bonds for obstruction of justice, after Bonds' grand jury testimony, it decided that it would not protect Bonds, notwithstanding his high profile and record-setting status and his questionable obstruction of justice, because he is a black male. It decided that it would treat Bonds like it does other Black males , and other Black males would be prosecuted for the questionable obstruction of justice, so Bonds would be too, notwithstanding the effect that it might have on his Hall of Fame future.
So, Schroeder was protected, at least in part, because she is a white female, and Bonds was not protected, at least in part, because he is a Black male.
5. Could it be because Schroeder is white and Bonds is black? Yes. But, it is neither legal nor constitutional (due process and equal protection). Even if there are other reasons for the Justice Department prosecuting Bonds and not prosecuting Schroeder, clearly the fact that Bonds is Black and Schroeder is white is one reason. "But much of the reaction to Bonds is simply bad old-fashioned racism. Not since Jack Johnson has an athlete become the repository for so much racial animus--and revealed broader gaps in Black and white perceptions--as Barry Lamar Bonds." Zirin, D., "The Unforgiven: Jack Johnson and Barry Bonds", International Socialist Review, July-August, 2007. "But the Black-white divide on Bonds is not about people being 'more concerned with race than right.' Rather, it represents a visceral response to the way Bonds has been subjected to criticism when white players with reputations of steroid use haven't gotten nearly the heat he has. For instance, suspicions have swirled around future Hall of Fame pitcher Roger Clemens, but he hasn't come close to receiving Bonds' level of media and investigative scrutiny." Id. But, again, prosecuting Bonds because he is Black, and not prosecuting Schroeder because she is white is neither legal nor constitutional. Clearly, it's a denial of equal protection of the law to Bonds.
Consequently, there are no legitimate or justifiable reasons for the Justice Department to have prosecuted Bonds and not prosecuted Schroeder for obstruction of justice, especially since both could have been indicted at the time Bonds was indicted, i.e., 2007.
Schroeder should have been prosecuted like Bonds was. Schroeder should have been prosecuted when Bonds was, i.e., 2007. And, she should be prosecuted now.
OBAMA'S "FOR WHITE PEOPLE ONLY" JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Clearly, Obama's Justice Department is "for white people only". That is, the Justice Department generally prosecutes cases or people that white people want prosecuted and, conversely, do not prosecute cases or people that black people want prosecuted. The prosecution of Barry Bonds, when placed in the context of our 2007 Complaint and the recent murders of Oscar Grant, Trayvon Martin, and now Miriam Carey, vividly illustrates the point.
A significant number of white people wanted Barry Bonds prosecuted for something, anything, as long as he was prosecuted. "This just wouldn't be America if somehow race didn't factor into things. And what jumps out is that blacks tend to be twice as likely as whites to support Bonds' grab for the history books. Going with a New York Times/CBS News poll, 57 percent of blacks are rooting for Bonds to break the record, with only 29 percent of whites showing similar support." NPR, "The Unforgivable Blackness of Barry Bonds", John Ridley, July 23, 2007. "Bonds has also earned the ample attention of the federal government that has joined the media in the Get Barry Brigade." International Socialist Review, supra. "Federal prosecutors have made it all too clear that they want to imprison Bonds for perjury, tax evasion, anything short of kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. One writer cited an agent saying, 'He's our Capone.' The anti-Bonds cottage industry has become so bombastic, so disproportionate to his alleged offenses, that it is having an ugly and divisive effect on society." Id. "Mainstream radio is a veritable 'I hate Barry' parade." Id. "Countless black athletes have been adored and appreciated by fans of all races. Only difference : They were not Barry Bonds." USA TODAY, "Bonds' attitude, not his race, triggers fans' disapproval", Editorial/Opinion, April 4, 2006.
This desire for Bonds' prosecution was in large part based on Bonds' attitude and the white public's reaction to that attitude. "The amount of media detritus hurled at Bonds boggles the mind. As Jeff Pearlman, a writer for ESPN wrote, Barry Bonds is an evil man. A truly evil man. As a husband, he has cheated on both his wives. As a father, he has been absent and indifferent. As a role model, he has spit at autograph seekers and directed kids to 'f--- off'. As a Giant, he has held a franchise hostage and refused to help teammates in need. As a blatant abuser of steroids and human growth hormone, he has deprived the game of integrity and turned its record books into mush." International Socialist Review, supra. Very few Black people reacted to Bonds' attitude the way white people reacted to it. "(H)e generates animosity because he's a straight up, uh. . . jerk. He's a cocky guy with a bad attitude who does not care one thing for being liked, and I think that plays differently with some blacks ---some, in this case, being that divergent 28 percent. Why? Because likability has never been an issue with blacks." NPR, supra.
And so, because white people wanted Bonds prosecuted, the Obama-Holder Justice Department prosecuted Bonds.
On the other hand, Black people (including myself) wanted George Zimmerman, Johannes Mehserle, and Schroeder prosecuted, but the Justice Department has refused to prosecute any of them, because Black people want them prosecuted.
Thus, under the "black" leadership of President (Barack) Obama and Attorney General (Eric) Holder, the Justice Department, in some ways, has returned us to the days of the old Jim Crow South, where whites, at times, could mistreat blacks as they saw fit, and generally nothing was done. While Black people, including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others, have lost their lives and put their lives on the line (e.g.,Congressman John Lewis) to get rid of "for colored only" and "for whites only" signs of the early Civil Rights Era, our black leadership today is progressively taking us back there, beginning with the Justice Department. And, there's no attempt to disguise it. While Obama and Holder make civil rights speeches purportedly supporting Black rights, their actions are not supportive of the speeches. Rather, their actions are indicative of a new sign that should be placed in front of the Justice Department, "For White People Only."
BARRY BONDS HAVE A RIGHT TO A NEW APPEAL BEFORE A NEW THREE-JUDGE PANEL
The consequence of judge Mary M. Schroeder presiding over Barry Bonds' appeal must be a new appeal for Bonds before a new three-judge appeals panel. And there is a serious question as to whether Bonds new appeal should be heard before a different Circuit, because the Ninth Circuit judges may have a tendency to want to sustain the affirmation of Bonds conviction in order to support a colleague and demonstrate that Schroeder's ruling would have been the right one regardless of the inappropriateness of her presiding over Bonds appeal. But that's an issue for Bonds' attorneys to address.
Additionally, while I will leave it up to Bonds and his attorneys how they wish to approach the matter, I will offer the following based on some information that I am aware of:
I believe that Schroeder ought not have presided over Bonds appeal in the first place, because of the pending criminal Complaint against her; but especially, because of the identical claim lodged against her, obstruction of justice. I think it presented an appearance of impropriety, as well as a conflict of interest for Schroeder, based on the fact that Schroeder wasn't prosecuted by the Justice Department for the same crime or criminal offense. That is, it could easily be perceived that Schroeder had a personal interest in affirming Bonds' appeal of his conviction, to wit: she owed the Justice Department a favor for not prosecuting her for the same crime (and the rest of the crimes that she is charged with), while simultaneously, knowing (at least via press coverage) that the Justice Department wanted Bonds convicted of something, anything. So, she returned the favor and affirmed Bonds' conviction for obstruction of justice. "Federal prosecutors have made it all too clear that they want to imprison Bonds for perjury, tax evasion, anything short of kidnapping the Lindbergh baby." International Socialist Review, supra. However, even without Schroeder's personal interest, the Justice Department had a duty, with knowledge of the Complaint against Schroeder, to not only investigate the Complaint while informing Schroeder, but to move for the recusal of Schroeder if Schroeder did not voluntarily recuse or self-recuse. So, the Justice Department is equally as liable as Schroeder for Schroeder presiding over Bonds' appeal. Actually, the Justice Department is more liable than Schroeder because the Justice Department's investigation and prosecution of Schroeder for her crimes would have prevented Schroeder from even being considered for assignment as a panel judge, thereby preventing Schroeder from playing any role in Bonds' appeal.
Schroeder should have recused herself from hearing Bonds appeal. Furthermore, under the circumstances, she was required to do so. In a similar case involving 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of judge Kozinski to recuse himself from presiding over an obscenity trial in which it could have been concluded that he had an interest in the subject matter and/or outcome of the trial, or that in someway his personal life's endeavors had a connection to the subject matter of the trial that might be prejudicial to one of the parties in the case. That case was U.S. v. Isaacs, District Court(D.C.). No. CR 07-732-GHK. Briefly, from Wikipedia :
Kozinski was assigned an obscenity case in which Ira Isaacs was accused of distributing videos depicting bestiality and other images, similar to the 1973 Miller v. California case. During the trial, on June 11, 2008, the Los Angeles Times reported that Kozinski had "maintained a publicly accessible Web site featuring sexually explicit photos and videos" at alex.kozinski.com. The Times reported that Kozinski's site included a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows, a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal, images of masturbation and public and contortionist sex, a slide show striptease featuring a transexual, a series of photos of women's crotches as seen through snug fitting clothing or underwear, and content with themes of defecation and urination. Kozinski agreed that some of the material was inappropriate, but defended other content as "funny". Kozinski initially refused to comment on disqualifying himself, then granted a 48-hour stay after the prosecutor requested time to explore "a potential conflict of interest." On June 13, Kozinski petitioned an ethics panel to investigate his own conduct. He asked Chief Justice John Roberts to assign the inquiry to a panel of judges outside the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction. Also, he said that his son Yale, and his family or friends may have been responsible for posting some of the material.
On June 15, 2008, it was reported that Kozinski had recused himself from the case.
(End of Wikipedia information).
Kozinski, apparently (and based on my knowlege and information) did not provide any specific reasons for recusing himself. He simply stated that he was recusing himself from the case. But his recusal was clearly based on the connection between his personal life's endeavors (his website with the pornographic materials that could be questioned as "obscene") and the actual obscenity trial, where a defendant was on trial for distributing obscene materials.
Both the District Court and the Ninth Circuit upheld Kozinski's recusal. Neither court determined that Kozinski should not have recused himself from the case. The District Court stated, "Under 28 U.S.C. sec. 455(a) a judge must recuse himself if 'a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.'" U.S. v. Isaacs, No. CR 07-732-GHK, Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment With Prejudice, September, 2008. And the Court went on to state, "The purpose of (sec.) 455 is to 'promote public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.' (Citation omitted). With that in mind, the question before us is not whether Judge Kozinski had any actual bias, either for or against Defendant or the Government, but whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." (Citation omitted). . . . Therefore, based upon the entire record, taken in context and its entirety, we find and conclude that Judge Kozinski's recusal was required by 28 U.S.C. (sec. 455(a)." Id.
The Ninth Circuit stated, "Judge King did not err in ruling that Judge Kozinski properly recused himself from Isaacs's case under 28 U.S.C. (sec.) 455(a). In analyzing (sec.) 455(a) recusals, we ask 'whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.' (Citation omitted)." U.S. v. Isaacs, No. 08-50423 (9th Cir. 2009)(unpublished Memorandum). Most importantly, "We find that a well-informed observer may reasonably have questioned Judge Kozinski's ability to act as an impartial judge in Isaacs's trial. Thus, we affirm Judge King's determination that the recusal was proper under (sec.) 455(a).'" Id.
Schroeder's connection in the Bonds' appeal : Schroeder's personal life and judicial endeavors were (1) she exercised conduct or misconduct as Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit that amounted to obstruction of justice (judicial); (2) she was charged (by Complainants) with obstruction of justice (centered on her response to questions on appeal related to illegalities) and other charges by multiple parties (personal); (3) she was not prosecuted by the Justice Department (personal); and (4) Bonds and his lawyers were probably not aware of this information when Schroeder presided over Bonds' appeal (and Schroeder and/or the Justice Department had at least an ethical duty to disclose the information, particularly information that there was an unresolved criminal Complaint against Schroeder charging her with racial discrimination directed against a Black male (like Bonds), to Bonds and his lawyers)(personal/judicial). Schroeder's endeavors were connected to Bonds' appeal because Bonds' appeal was from a conviction for obtruction of justice (which is the same crime Schroeder was charged with) and it was centered on Bonds' response to a grand jury question (like Schroeder's obstruction was centered on Schroeder's failure to respond to an appellate question).
Moreover, an additional reason why Schroeder was required to recuse herself was because of the above-mentioned charge of racial discrimination lodged against her via 18 U.S.C. sec. 242, that is, violation of a constitutional right under color of law and based on race or color. Again, this was an unresolved claim of racial discrimination exercised against a Black male that was brought against Schroeder in the criminal Complaint. At minimum, because it was unresolved, the charge or claim created an appearance of impropriety and impartiality for Schroeder to preside over and decide the appeal of Barry Bonds, who is a Black male. If Schroeder had been prosecuted, tried, and found guilty of the racial discrimination charge, it would be beyond an "appearance" of impropriety, and it would have been absolutely improper for Schroeder to preside over Bonds' trial, because it would have been proven that she was prejudiced against Black males. If Schroeder had been found not guilty of the racial discrimination charge, then, with respect to Bonds being a Black male, it would not have presented an appearance of impropriety or impartiality for Schroeder to preside over Bonds' appeal. However, since Schroeder has not been prosecuted and tried for the racial discrimination charge, and since the charge is so serious (and, in fact, a felony), and so prejudicial (to Bonds, if true), it created an appearance of impropriety and impartiality for Schroeder to have presided over Bonds' appeal. Criminals are ordinarily, and generally, arrested based on criminal complaints alone. Especially, when the complaints are based on eyewitness testimony and/or documentary evidence (which was the case for Schroeder). In fact, there would be an appearance of impropriety and impartiality for Schroeder to preside over the appeals of any black males until the pending racial discrimination charge against her is resolved.
Plus, Schroeder was charged with other offenses, such as : either through participation or approval, (1) allowing the Clerk to fraudulently change the true title of a case to a false title (and false District Court case number) in order to coverup misconduct by the Clerk herself (who was actually named in the true title, and she removed her name in the false title)(and we can see the effects of utilizing false documents and fraud by way of two convicts serving life sentences who were able to escape or leave prison relying on false documents and fraud--see the L.A. Times article, "Police recapture two Florida prison escapees", October 20, 2013, where "The bogus paperwork, complete with case numbers and the forged signature of a judge, duped prison officials. It purportedly reduced the men's sentences to 15 years"); and (2) causing Griffith (a Social Security disability claim appellant) to be denied a due process appeal by inappropriately and invidiously removing his case from an oral argument calendar (or deciding the case without oral argument after it had been calendared for argument), and subsequently denying him relief, because neither Griffith nor I, as his counsel of record (and only counsel on appeal), would accept a white lawyer designated by the Court (through the Clerk) to either join the appeal and/or argue the appeal of Griffith's case.
NOTE: The Ninth Circuit had no problem with me arguing a criminal, no-money, case alone (while representing a black client), see Jackson v. Giurbino, 364 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004)(I was retained by Jackson's parents and when I entered the case, Jackson was proceeding pro se and had already filed his Opening Brief--which is why there were so many issues raised in the case--so I had to file a Supplemental Brief, and it was the Miranda issue that I raised in my supplemental brief that caused the vacation of Jackson's murder conviction), but because the Griffith case potentially involved a substantial amount of money (perhaps $2 million), the Court decides it wants to force a white lawyer on both my client and I. We rejected the offer. The act of attempting to interject a white lawyer into our case unsolicited was both racism and racial discrimination. Yet, we received no relief for this conduct either (with the court intentionally denying Griffith relief--without putting it's intent in writing--because we refused to accept a white lawyer as part of our case).
Therefore, it appears that, under the circumstances of Schroeder's conduct or misconduct and the connection of that conduct to Bonds' appeal, Schroeder was required to and should have recused herself from hearing and deciding Bonds' appeal. Bonds must be given another appeal before a new and different three-judge panel.
BONDS HAS A RIGHT TO CHALLENGE HIS CONVICTION; AND THAT SHOULD BE HIS PRIORITY
Bonds also has a right to challenge his lower court conviction, based on selective prosecution and/or denial of equal protection of the law. And, it appears, this challenge would present Bonds with his greatest potential for exoneration of the obstruction of justice charge; therefore, this should be his first priority with respect to challenging the appeal. Because, if he is successful in challenging the conviction itself, he may not need to exercise his right to a new appeal. Moreover, a new appeal would still leave the possibility of the conviction being affirmed again; while, a successful challenge of the conviction would foreclose this possibility. Moreover, if Bonds has any desire to be admitted to the Hall of Fame, and he should have, based on his accomplishments, i.e., he's earned it, he must at least try to rid himself of the felony conviction. I know of no Hall of Famer admitted with a felony conviction on his record. And, for those searching for reasons to keep Bonds out of the Hall, the felony conviction is the easiest and best one. That is, "They didn't get him on the perjury counts, but they got him on something, and that's enough to keep him out of the Hall of Fame." A current example of the effect that a felony conviction might have on the prospect of Bonds entering the Hall of Fame is the case of Jameis Winston, the Black quarterback of Florida State University, who was faced with a rape charge and conviction and who is a prospect for being awarded the Heisman Trophy (for being college football's best player). The Florida state attorney has now decided not to bring charges against Winston, so his Heisman prospects should not be affected. But, its clear that a felony conviction would have had a near lethal, if not lethal, effect on his Heisman prospects; if not for this year, for future years (Winston is a redshirt freshman). "No charges for Winston. . . he still has a shot at the Heisman", L.A. Times, December 6, 2013. "Winston, had he been charged with a felony, would immediately have been ruled ineligible by Florida State and his Heisman chances would have been gravely imperiled." Id. "Because Winston was not charged, . . . (m)any Heisman voters had their consciences cleared enough to pull the lever for Winston in advance of next Monday's voting deadline. One Heisman voter, on the fence before Thursday's ruling, said he was now leaning toward casting his first-place vote for Winston." Finally, "Thursday was a good day for Florida State and Winston. It was also a good day for Heisman voters, who won't have to worry about voting for a player who may end up convicted of a felony." Id. UPDATE: Jameis Winston has now won the 2013 Heisman Trophy!
But, entrance into the Hall of Fame should not be the most important reason for Bonds challenging the felony obstruction conviction. The most important reason should be his own integrity and dignity. Bonds did not obstruct justice, and he now has a second opportunity to demonstrate that. Once the door is opened by the selective prosecution and/or equal protection of the law defense, Bonds can again challenge the sufficiency of the evidence which was used to convict him. I believe that he would prevail in his challenge.
Lastly, if Bonds does not challenge his conviction when he has an opportunity to do so, it would reveal a level of lack of self-respect and weakness that would be embarrassing to Bonds and an injustice to the men, women, and children of the civil rights movement, who significantly helped produce the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and particularly so for those who lost their lives, in order for Bonds, as a Black man in America, to have the right to exercise this challenge. Further, it would also ignore the contributions of those who lost their lives on the way towards erection of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
I will submit a copy of this blog to Barry Bonds and his appellate attorneys, or at least notify them in some way.
**UPDATE--August 15, 2014
Thusfar, I haven't heard anything about Bonds' response to my blog, or to his appellate situation. That is, I haven't heard of any actions taken by Bonds in response to my blog, and I sent him a copy of the blog (addressed to him and his attorneys at the address of the law firm of his appellate attorneys).
If he doesn't take any action, I will absolutely lose respect for him, and I will have no sympathy for him regarding his conviction, his appeal, or the Hall of Fame. Any negative outcomes that he receives will be his own doing for not fighting for his civil and/or constitutional rights and likely listening to white lawyers, who generally, though not always , are part of the system themselves, that is, the white establishment, as far as challenging the system (in this instance, the court systems)in an assertion of civil/constitutional rights involving race and Black people.
In earlier years, Bonds was rebellious and anti-establishment, and was generally ostracized for it (as noted above). But, generally, he didn't care, and maintained his autonomy, which the white establishment characterized as an "attitude". I respected him for being himself.
Now, after baseball and his conviction, Bond has appeared to take a "new" attitude. He says, for instance, whatever the Court of Appeals decides is fine with him (in so many words). He agreed to serve his time and has done so. He purportedly stated earlier, "I went through the system. And that's what it is." ESPN.com news services, May 28, 2012.
But, now, he has an opporunity to challenge the system in the protection of his constitutional and/or civil rights, not only for himself, but for others, especially other Black men who have been denied their constitutional rights at trial and on appeal.
So, now the 9th Circuit, after the publishing and re-publishing of this blog, has decided to grant Bonds a rehearing of his appeal. How convenient! But, Bonds has a right to a new appeal now, and a right to challenge his conviction, regardless of the grant of a rehearing. However, Bonds must pursue those rights. Otherwise, he must wait and rely on the 9th Cir. to decide his justice. The same Ninth Circuit that affirmed his conviction with a judge who ought not have been on the appellate panel.
On OBAMA'S "FOR WHITE PEOPLE ONLY" JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
We can now add to the list of people that Black people want prosecuted based on recent events. Black people now want the racially motivated killers of Eric Garner of New York, Michael Brown of Missouri, and Ezell Ford of California prosecuted for civil rights violations involving and resulting in death. Black people also want the California Highway Patrol Officer that beat the Black woman, Marlene M. Pinnock, near or on the Santa Monica Freeway in Los Angeles, California prosecuted for civil rights violations resulting in bodily harm.
Let's see how many, if any, are prosecuted federally, or by the federal Justice Department. And, the Justice Department need not wait for state action in order to conduct its own investigation and to bring its own prosecution. And, with the multiple eye witnesses who have appeared and given statements, there clearly is sufficient probable cause evidence to make an arrest for civil rights violations, with or without a hate crime element.
However, it is likely that the only thing that's going to happen is the Justice Department is going to pretend to investigate (that is ,give the appearance of investigating--some investigation will clearly be done, but, the Justice Department knows, at the time, that it has no intention of bringing a federal prosecution. In other words, it's for show only. While Obama and/or Holder will give speeches on how the country needs to come together, but not get violent, while nothing gets done in terms of prosecuting the white police officers who murdered the young Black males. And, without a federal prosecution of any of the white police officers who murdered or assaulted/battered the Black males and/or female, i.e., Garner, Brown, Ford, and Pinnock, or otherwise deprived them of their constitutional rights under color of law and based on race or color, Obama's Justice Department continues to be "for white people only".
Finally, although Obama and Holder are Democrats, it took a Republican, Sen. Rand Paul, to address the issue of racism and racial discrimination head-on with respect to the murder of Michael Brown and the criminal justice system as applied to minorities, particularly black and brown men and women. "Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention." "Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth." Quotes by Paul, according to the L.A. Times, "No law-and-order Republican", August 15, 2014. Race and racism is clearly a part of the murder of Michael Brown, and if the Justice Department would acknowledge that, maybe it would do something or work for Black people as it does for whites.
UPDATE--April 25, 2015
A few days ago, the Ninth Circuit issued its en banc decision in the Bonds' case. Bonds' conviction for obstruction of justice has now been reversed. Surprise!! Please.
It was quite expected. *This provides Bonds with positive relief without implicating (or discussing) Judge Schroeder; and Bonds need not pursue the matter further (which might also implicate judge Schroeder).
And, as I stated and forecasted above, the en banc Court found that there was insufficent evidence with which to convict Bonds of obstruction of justice. See above where I stated, "Once the door is opened by the selective prosecution and/or equal protection of the law defense, Bonds can again challenge the sufficiency of the evidence which was used to convict him. I believe that he would prevail in his challenge."
The en banc Court found, in its Per Curiam decision, "A reversal for insufficient evidence implicates defendant's right under the Double Jeoppardy Clause. (Citations omitted). His conviction and sentence must therefore be vacated, and he may not be tried again on that count."
But, the Justice Department and Judge Schroeder got off the hook, because Bonds refused to assert his constitutional rights. And, for this, I disrespect Bonds.
More later.
**UPDATE--April 30, 2015
WHY WASN'T JUDGE SHROEDER A MEMBER OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT EN BANC PANEL?
Judge Shroeder, who wrote the Bonds' panel decision, was not a member of the en banc panel. This is unusual. Ordinarily, the author of the three-judge panel upon en banc review is usually a member of the en banc panel. That was not the case here. I wonder why or why not? Could it have anything to do with my blog?
More next time.
LAURACK D. BRAY, M.S., M.P.A., J.D.
April 30, 2015
(Today's date)
October 22, 2013
(Original Date)
*(Denotes a change or new information added to the original blog)
**UPDATE(Denotes NEW information added after the original blog was published)
****This blog is submitted as part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California
When 9th Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder in September, 2013 wrote a panel decision affirming the conviction of major league baseball player Barry Bonds for obstruction of justice, it was a case of one criminal judging another criminal for the same crime. This is so because judge Schroeder herself has been charged, through a federal civilian criminal complaint, with obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice, and the only reason that she likely hasn't been convicted and sentenced like Bonds, is because the U.S. Justice Department has refused to prosecute her, while, at the same time, prosecuting Bonds for the same crime. The Complaint against Schroeder is still pending, and was pending at the time that she decided Bonds' appeal.***
In 2007, I, a Black lawyer, and on behalf of two clients, one a white male, Harold Griffith, and one, a white female, Jeanette Andrews, filed a multi-party criminal-civil rights complaint in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles charging multiple individuals, including several (and mostly) judges, both state and federal, with a range of criminal violations or crimes associated with the conduct or misconduct of those individuals in the treatment of our cases, at both the state level (my case only) and the federal level (all our cases). Schroeder was one of those charged. See my "ICR" blog for other individuals charged in the complaint. Although each individual named in the Complaint was charged with and for his or her own individual action, the general theme of the Complaint was racial discrimination directed at me (likely in part because I had charged several state court judges with racism or racial discrimination) which ultimately affected my clients, resulting in my clients being denied relief when they should have received relief. One vivid example was Ms. Andrews' case (a disability discrimination case), where, after the Navy defaulted and a default had been entered against the Navy (which was brought about, in part, by and through actions of a panel of judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals through a writ of mandamus), the final panel of Ninth Circuit judges (the so-called merits panel) refused to order that a default judgment be entered (and the entering of the judgment should have been done as a matter of course--and my client would have been provided relief), for no legitimate reason (only offering a boilerplate statement of denial). This was a simple default.
At the time Schroeder was charged in the criminal Complaint, she was the Chief Judge or former Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Alex Kozinski took over as Chief Judge during this time period, 2006-2009), at least, she was charged in the Complaint based on her position and actions as Chief Judge of the Court. And because the Chief Judge is the chief, and ultimate, administrator of the Court, she was charged with the administrative actions of the Clerk of the Court at the time, Cathy Catterson (Catterson was also charged in the Complaint).
***NOTE : Schroeder is also listed on my premiere "1st Annual List of Racist Judges and Other Public Officials in California", which is being published concurrently with this blog.
Before I proceed further, I should comment on the merits of the overall criminal Complaint. As some evidence that our criminal complaint had merit and was not frivolous, the George Bush FBI took actions against several of the named individuals in our complaint. While the U.S. Attorney's Office refused to prosecute any of the individuals, including Schroeder, the FBI, apparently utilizing its own authority, took action against at least six individuals, whom (together with another individual who ultimately resigned) I designated the "Judicial
Seven". At least two of the individuals, state court judges Steven Hintz and Barry Klopfer, whom I had charged with racial discrimination, were made to step down from the state court bench (Ventura County, CA). Others, including two district court judges and a Ninth Circuit Clerk (Cathy Catterson), were made to retire or resign. However, even with the FBI actions (which were conducted quietly and secretly), neither I nor my clients were provided with any relief for the Defendants' misconduct.
Among other things, we charged Schroeder with obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice, which, like the affirmance of Barry Bonds' conviction on appeal in the Ninth Circuit, was based, in part, on Schroeder refusing to answer questions that were central to proof of illegal actions by her and other Ninth Circuit judges. To summarize the obstruction for this blog: we charged that a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit acted illegally (and without authority) in purportedly making a ruling (which ultimately resulted in my being denied the right to seek en banc or full court review of my case), which they had no authority or legal basis to make. In an effort to obtain proof or evidence of the illegal activity, and through a memorandum directed to Schroeder as Chief Judge of the Court, I asked three questions. Two of which were :
1. May a three-judge panel usurp the authority of an en banc court and address a motion directed specifically to the en banc court, thereby denying the en banc court itself of an opportunity to review or consider the motion?
2. May a three-judge panel, rather than an en banc court, deny a plaintiff the right to an initial rehearing (sic) en banc?
Schroeder, as chief judge, refused to answer either of the questions. Thus, in addition to other matters regarding Griffith and Andrews that went to obstruction of justice, we charged Schroeder with, among other charges, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and the denial of constitutional rights under color of law (with the racial component). As alluded to above, the Complaint against Schroeder is still pending.
As I explain more fully in my ICR blog (#61), Schroeder is a criminal because she has committed a crime, in violation of federal criminal law (and the crime was witnessed and/or experienced, either directly or indirectly, by a victim of the crime), but, she has not been processed through the criminal justice system, like Bonds was (i.e., he was indicted); therefore, she has not been cloaked with the presumption of "innocent until proven guilty" that the criminal justice system provides. So, she remains a criminal until she is so-processed.
THE IRONY OF OBAMA'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
It is ironic that the Justice Department in attempting to shield Schroeder from prosecution for her crimes, while prosecuting Bonds for his, has likely caused the perhaps valid prosecution of Bonds, although questionable at best, to be placed in jeopardy or question. Where, if it had prosecuted Schroeder for her crimes, as it should have, and as it did Bonds for his, Schroeder, likely, would not have been available to decide Bonds' appeal; therefore, she could not have placed Bonds prosecution in jeopardy.
It is also ironic that the Justice Department, in providing favorable treatment to Schroeder which was meant to help keep her out of trouble, while providing Bonds with unfavorable treatment meant to keep him in trouble, may see its objectives reversed because Schroeder heard and decided Bond's appeal. That is, with a finding that Schroeder should not have decided Bond's appeal, the results may be that Schroeder ends up in trouble and Bonds ends up out of trouble.
THE INJUSTICE OF OBAMA'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS "FOR WHITE PEOPLE ONLY"
So, why did the Justice Department prosecute Barry Bonds and not prosecute Mary Schroeder, when they both committed the same crime (obstruction of justice)? :
1. Could it be that Schroeder's obstruction was less serious or less severe than Bond's obstruction? I think not. First of all, even though Bonds waivered in answering a specific question (which was the basis of his conviction for obstruction of justice being affirmed on appeal), he eventually answered the question. Yet, he was still convicted of obstruction of justice, and Schroeder affirmed that conviction on appeal, stating that nonetheless, "The statement was. . . evasive" and "The statement was also at the very least misleading." However, Schroeder, when the above-stated questions were posed to her, refused to answer the questions altogether . Clearly, the refusal to answer a question at all is more serious and/or severe than waivering prior to answering the question. At least Bonds answered the question that was asked. Schroeder did not. Schroeder's violation was clear and absolute obstruction of justice, because she refused to answer the question at all, while Bonds' obstruction, if obstruction at all, was merely "temporary".
Moreover, Bonds obstruction of justice only affected Barry Bonds himself, while Schroeder's obstruction and other misconduct affected other parties, and more specfically, other litigants, i.e., Mr. Griffith, Ms. Andrews, and myself. Further, while Griffith, Andrews, and myself turned to the Court to protect our rights, Schroeder instead destroyed our rights, through the obstruction and other misconduct.
In fact, Schroeder's obstruction of justice was done for the specific purpose and with the specific intent to deny me my due process right to have a full court (en banc) consider whether my case could be re-heard and decided by the full court. And, through her actions, I was finally denied that right.
As a footnote to this discussion, I think there is a serious question as to whether Bonds could legally be convicted of obstruction of justice after answering the question that was asked. But that's a discussion for another time perhaps. However, had I been Bonds' appellate attorney, I would have raised this issue on appeal. I would have argued that even if bonds had temporarily obstructed justice in fudging on answering the question initially, he repaired or corrected the obstruction when he finally answered the question. I am a federal appellate attorney. Furthermore, if every witness who "fudged" or avoided answering a question before finally answering it (during a criminal or civil proceeding) was charged with obstruction of justice for "misleading" the Court, criminal courts nationwide would be overwhelmed with obstruction of justice cases and trials. Witnesses (a few) do this all the time, when they do not wish to answer a certain question. Sometimes judges are called upon to make them answer the specific question that was asked. But, the witnesses are not charged with obstruction of justice. Bonds was charged with obstruction of justice because Bonds is Bonds.
2. Could it be because Bonds' obstruction occurred during a grand jury investigation, while Bonds was on the witness stand before a grand jury? Again, I think not. Because the statute that Schroeder relied on to affirm Bond's obstruction of justice conviction is the same statute that applies to her obstruction crime, and that statute, 18 U.S.C. sec. 1503, applies to, among other proceedings, all judicial proceedings, including grand jury, trial, appellate proceedings (which is the focus of Schroeder's obstruction of justice charge), etc.. The statute simply states, in part, "Whoever. . . corruptly. . . obstructs. . . or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided . . . ." Therefore, "That portion of the statute, known as the omnibus clause, is comprehensive. We have described it as being 'designed to proscribe all manner of corrupt methods of obstructing justice.'" (Citation omitted). United States v. Bonds, NO. 11-10669, September 13, 2013, 9th Cir., (Slip Opinion). In fact, per Schroeder herself (who authored the opinion), "The essence of the statute is that it criminalizes conduct intended to deprive the factfinder (one of whom was myself) of relevant information." Id., at 10. Moreover, "Section 1503 punishes any 'endeavor' to obstruct." Id., at 13. That is, "It 'procribes all manner of corrupt methods of obstructing justice.'" (Citation omitted). Id.
3. Could it be because Schroeder is a judge and Bonds is just a professional baseball player? Probably. But, it's neither legal nor constitutional. Unlike conduct occurring during civil actions, which is usually protected by judicial immunity, judicial misconduct which amounts to a crime (or is criminal) is not protected by judicial immunity, therefore, the Justice Department cannot refuse to prosecute Schroeder because she is a judge. Again, it's neither legal nor constitutional (in terms of due process and equal protection of the law). And, as some proof that Schroeder was not prosecuted because she is a judge, I cite the recent case of an ex-BP engineer who was convicted of "obstructing an investigation of the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico." L.A. Times, "Ex-BP engineer convicted in gulf oil spill case", December 19, 2013. According to the Times, "A former BP engineer has been convicted of obstructing an investigation of the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, in the first criminal trial to result from environmental disaster." Id. "(A) drilling engineer who formerly worked for the oil giant, was convicted Wednesday of obstructing the investigation of the massive spill. . . ." Id.
So why was a BP engineer prosecuted for obstruction of justice, but Schroeder wasn't? ANS: Because, at least in part, Schroeder is a federal judge and the engineer is just an engineer. Furthermore, according to the Times, Mythili Raman, acting assistant attorney general of the Justice's Department's Criminal Division, stated (after the verdict was returned in New Orleans) "This prosecution shows the commitment of the Justice Department to hold accountable those who attempt to interfere with the administration of justice." Id. So, why isn't the Justice Department holding Schroeder accountable, as compared to the engineer ? ANS: Because she is a federal judge (and because the Complaint against her was brought by a Black male). But, she is not legally protected from prosecution.
4. Could it be because Schroeder is a (white) female and Bonds is a (Black) male? Yes. But, once more, it is neither legal nor constitutional (due process and equal protection of the law). While the Justice Department (U.S. Attorney Office in Los Angeles) has protected (from prosecution) both male and female Defendants in the 2007 Complaint, I believe that it has provided "extra" protection to Schroeder because she is a white female, here, being pitted against a black male, Bonds, for the same crime. Quite illustrative of this circumstance in Los Angeles is the case of Teresa Evans, a white female police officer, versus Christopher Dorner, a former (and deceased) black male police officer (who killed several people in pursuance of clearing his name) and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). When the LAPD was faced with charging either Evans, the supervising officer (at the scene) or Dorner with kicking an arrestee, it chose to charge Dorner with lying about the kicking rather than charge Evans with the actual kicking, although it had significant evidence supporting the proposition that Evans actually kicked the arrestee. The LAPD chose to accept the word or position of a white female supervising officer, Evans (who denied doing the kicking), over the testimony (supported by substantial, including eyewitness-victim, evidence) of a Black officer, Dorner, to protect the white female officer from guilt or liability (even if it was at the sacrifice of Dorner losing his job). Here, when Obama's Justice Department received Schroeder's Complaint in 2008-2009, it decided that it would protect Schroeder from prosecution, notwithstanding evidence of an absolute obstruction of justice, because Schroeder was a white female federal judge (former chief judge). On the other hand, when Obama's Justice Department had to decide whether to prosecute Barry Bonds for obstruction of justice, after Bonds' grand jury testimony, it decided that it would not protect Bonds, notwithstanding his high profile and record-setting status and his questionable obstruction of justice, because he is a black male. It decided that it would treat Bonds like it does other Black males , and other Black males would be prosecuted for the questionable obstruction of justice, so Bonds would be too, notwithstanding the effect that it might have on his Hall of Fame future.
So, Schroeder was protected, at least in part, because she is a white female, and Bonds was not protected, at least in part, because he is a Black male.
5. Could it be because Schroeder is white and Bonds is black? Yes. But, it is neither legal nor constitutional (due process and equal protection). Even if there are other reasons for the Justice Department prosecuting Bonds and not prosecuting Schroeder, clearly the fact that Bonds is Black and Schroeder is white is one reason. "But much of the reaction to Bonds is simply bad old-fashioned racism. Not since Jack Johnson has an athlete become the repository for so much racial animus--and revealed broader gaps in Black and white perceptions--as Barry Lamar Bonds." Zirin, D., "The Unforgiven: Jack Johnson and Barry Bonds", International Socialist Review, July-August, 2007. "But the Black-white divide on Bonds is not about people being 'more concerned with race than right.' Rather, it represents a visceral response to the way Bonds has been subjected to criticism when white players with reputations of steroid use haven't gotten nearly the heat he has. For instance, suspicions have swirled around future Hall of Fame pitcher Roger Clemens, but he hasn't come close to receiving Bonds' level of media and investigative scrutiny." Id. But, again, prosecuting Bonds because he is Black, and not prosecuting Schroeder because she is white is neither legal nor constitutional. Clearly, it's a denial of equal protection of the law to Bonds.
Consequently, there are no legitimate or justifiable reasons for the Justice Department to have prosecuted Bonds and not prosecuted Schroeder for obstruction of justice, especially since both could have been indicted at the time Bonds was indicted, i.e., 2007.
Schroeder should have been prosecuted like Bonds was. Schroeder should have been prosecuted when Bonds was, i.e., 2007. And, she should be prosecuted now.
OBAMA'S "FOR WHITE PEOPLE ONLY" JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Clearly, Obama's Justice Department is "for white people only". That is, the Justice Department generally prosecutes cases or people that white people want prosecuted and, conversely, do not prosecute cases or people that black people want prosecuted. The prosecution of Barry Bonds, when placed in the context of our 2007 Complaint and the recent murders of Oscar Grant, Trayvon Martin, and now Miriam Carey, vividly illustrates the point.
A significant number of white people wanted Barry Bonds prosecuted for something, anything, as long as he was prosecuted. "This just wouldn't be America if somehow race didn't factor into things. And what jumps out is that blacks tend to be twice as likely as whites to support Bonds' grab for the history books. Going with a New York Times/CBS News poll, 57 percent of blacks are rooting for Bonds to break the record, with only 29 percent of whites showing similar support." NPR, "The Unforgivable Blackness of Barry Bonds", John Ridley, July 23, 2007. "Bonds has also earned the ample attention of the federal government that has joined the media in the Get Barry Brigade." International Socialist Review, supra. "Federal prosecutors have made it all too clear that they want to imprison Bonds for perjury, tax evasion, anything short of kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. One writer cited an agent saying, 'He's our Capone.' The anti-Bonds cottage industry has become so bombastic, so disproportionate to his alleged offenses, that it is having an ugly and divisive effect on society." Id. "Mainstream radio is a veritable 'I hate Barry' parade." Id. "Countless black athletes have been adored and appreciated by fans of all races. Only difference : They were not Barry Bonds." USA TODAY, "Bonds' attitude, not his race, triggers fans' disapproval", Editorial/Opinion, April 4, 2006.
This desire for Bonds' prosecution was in large part based on Bonds' attitude and the white public's reaction to that attitude. "The amount of media detritus hurled at Bonds boggles the mind. As Jeff Pearlman, a writer for ESPN wrote, Barry Bonds is an evil man. A truly evil man. As a husband, he has cheated on both his wives. As a father, he has been absent and indifferent. As a role model, he has spit at autograph seekers and directed kids to 'f--- off'. As a Giant, he has held a franchise hostage and refused to help teammates in need. As a blatant abuser of steroids and human growth hormone, he has deprived the game of integrity and turned its record books into mush." International Socialist Review, supra. Very few Black people reacted to Bonds' attitude the way white people reacted to it. "(H)e generates animosity because he's a straight up, uh. . . jerk. He's a cocky guy with a bad attitude who does not care one thing for being liked, and I think that plays differently with some blacks ---some, in this case, being that divergent 28 percent. Why? Because likability has never been an issue with blacks." NPR, supra.
And so, because white people wanted Bonds prosecuted, the Obama-Holder Justice Department prosecuted Bonds.
On the other hand, Black people (including myself) wanted George Zimmerman, Johannes Mehserle, and Schroeder prosecuted, but the Justice Department has refused to prosecute any of them, because Black people want them prosecuted.
Thus, under the "black" leadership of President (Barack) Obama and Attorney General (Eric) Holder, the Justice Department, in some ways, has returned us to the days of the old Jim Crow South, where whites, at times, could mistreat blacks as they saw fit, and generally nothing was done. While Black people, including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others, have lost their lives and put their lives on the line (e.g.,Congressman John Lewis) to get rid of "for colored only" and "for whites only" signs of the early Civil Rights Era, our black leadership today is progressively taking us back there, beginning with the Justice Department. And, there's no attempt to disguise it. While Obama and Holder make civil rights speeches purportedly supporting Black rights, their actions are not supportive of the speeches. Rather, their actions are indicative of a new sign that should be placed in front of the Justice Department, "For White People Only."
BARRY BONDS HAVE A RIGHT TO A NEW APPEAL BEFORE A NEW THREE-JUDGE PANEL
The consequence of judge Mary M. Schroeder presiding over Barry Bonds' appeal must be a new appeal for Bonds before a new three-judge appeals panel. And there is a serious question as to whether Bonds new appeal should be heard before a different Circuit, because the Ninth Circuit judges may have a tendency to want to sustain the affirmation of Bonds conviction in order to support a colleague and demonstrate that Schroeder's ruling would have been the right one regardless of the inappropriateness of her presiding over Bonds appeal. But that's an issue for Bonds' attorneys to address.
Additionally, while I will leave it up to Bonds and his attorneys how they wish to approach the matter, I will offer the following based on some information that I am aware of:
I believe that Schroeder ought not have presided over Bonds appeal in the first place, because of the pending criminal Complaint against her; but especially, because of the identical claim lodged against her, obstruction of justice. I think it presented an appearance of impropriety, as well as a conflict of interest for Schroeder, based on the fact that Schroeder wasn't prosecuted by the Justice Department for the same crime or criminal offense. That is, it could easily be perceived that Schroeder had a personal interest in affirming Bonds' appeal of his conviction, to wit: she owed the Justice Department a favor for not prosecuting her for the same crime (and the rest of the crimes that she is charged with), while simultaneously, knowing (at least via press coverage) that the Justice Department wanted Bonds convicted of something, anything. So, she returned the favor and affirmed Bonds' conviction for obstruction of justice. "Federal prosecutors have made it all too clear that they want to imprison Bonds for perjury, tax evasion, anything short of kidnapping the Lindbergh baby." International Socialist Review, supra. However, even without Schroeder's personal interest, the Justice Department had a duty, with knowledge of the Complaint against Schroeder, to not only investigate the Complaint while informing Schroeder, but to move for the recusal of Schroeder if Schroeder did not voluntarily recuse or self-recuse. So, the Justice Department is equally as liable as Schroeder for Schroeder presiding over Bonds' appeal. Actually, the Justice Department is more liable than Schroeder because the Justice Department's investigation and prosecution of Schroeder for her crimes would have prevented Schroeder from even being considered for assignment as a panel judge, thereby preventing Schroeder from playing any role in Bonds' appeal.
Schroeder should have recused herself from hearing Bonds appeal. Furthermore, under the circumstances, she was required to do so. In a similar case involving 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of judge Kozinski to recuse himself from presiding over an obscenity trial in which it could have been concluded that he had an interest in the subject matter and/or outcome of the trial, or that in someway his personal life's endeavors had a connection to the subject matter of the trial that might be prejudicial to one of the parties in the case. That case was U.S. v. Isaacs, District Court(D.C.). No. CR 07-732-GHK. Briefly, from Wikipedia :
Kozinski was assigned an obscenity case in which Ira Isaacs was accused of distributing videos depicting bestiality and other images, similar to the 1973 Miller v. California case. During the trial, on June 11, 2008, the Los Angeles Times reported that Kozinski had "maintained a publicly accessible Web site featuring sexually explicit photos and videos" at alex.kozinski.com. The Times reported that Kozinski's site included a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows, a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal, images of masturbation and public and contortionist sex, a slide show striptease featuring a transexual, a series of photos of women's crotches as seen through snug fitting clothing or underwear, and content with themes of defecation and urination. Kozinski agreed that some of the material was inappropriate, but defended other content as "funny". Kozinski initially refused to comment on disqualifying himself, then granted a 48-hour stay after the prosecutor requested time to explore "a potential conflict of interest." On June 13, Kozinski petitioned an ethics panel to investigate his own conduct. He asked Chief Justice John Roberts to assign the inquiry to a panel of judges outside the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction. Also, he said that his son Yale, and his family or friends may have been responsible for posting some of the material.
On June 15, 2008, it was reported that Kozinski had recused himself from the case.
(End of Wikipedia information).
Kozinski, apparently (and based on my knowlege and information) did not provide any specific reasons for recusing himself. He simply stated that he was recusing himself from the case. But his recusal was clearly based on the connection between his personal life's endeavors (his website with the pornographic materials that could be questioned as "obscene") and the actual obscenity trial, where a defendant was on trial for distributing obscene materials.
Both the District Court and the Ninth Circuit upheld Kozinski's recusal. Neither court determined that Kozinski should not have recused himself from the case. The District Court stated, "Under 28 U.S.C. sec. 455(a) a judge must recuse himself if 'a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.'" U.S. v. Isaacs, No. CR 07-732-GHK, Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment With Prejudice, September, 2008. And the Court went on to state, "The purpose of (sec.) 455 is to 'promote public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.' (Citation omitted). With that in mind, the question before us is not whether Judge Kozinski had any actual bias, either for or against Defendant or the Government, but whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." (Citation omitted). . . . Therefore, based upon the entire record, taken in context and its entirety, we find and conclude that Judge Kozinski's recusal was required by 28 U.S.C. (sec. 455(a)." Id.
The Ninth Circuit stated, "Judge King did not err in ruling that Judge Kozinski properly recused himself from Isaacs's case under 28 U.S.C. (sec.) 455(a). In analyzing (sec.) 455(a) recusals, we ask 'whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.' (Citation omitted)." U.S. v. Isaacs, No. 08-50423 (9th Cir. 2009)(unpublished Memorandum). Most importantly, "We find that a well-informed observer may reasonably have questioned Judge Kozinski's ability to act as an impartial judge in Isaacs's trial. Thus, we affirm Judge King's determination that the recusal was proper under (sec.) 455(a).'" Id.
Schroeder's connection in the Bonds' appeal : Schroeder's personal life and judicial endeavors were (1) she exercised conduct or misconduct as Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit that amounted to obstruction of justice (judicial); (2) she was charged (by Complainants) with obstruction of justice (centered on her response to questions on appeal related to illegalities) and other charges by multiple parties (personal); (3) she was not prosecuted by the Justice Department (personal); and (4) Bonds and his lawyers were probably not aware of this information when Schroeder presided over Bonds' appeal (and Schroeder and/or the Justice Department had at least an ethical duty to disclose the information, particularly information that there was an unresolved criminal Complaint against Schroeder charging her with racial discrimination directed against a Black male (like Bonds), to Bonds and his lawyers)(personal/judicial). Schroeder's endeavors were connected to Bonds' appeal because Bonds' appeal was from a conviction for obtruction of justice (which is the same crime Schroeder was charged with) and it was centered on Bonds' response to a grand jury question (like Schroeder's obstruction was centered on Schroeder's failure to respond to an appellate question).
Moreover, an additional reason why Schroeder was required to recuse herself was because of the above-mentioned charge of racial discrimination lodged against her via 18 U.S.C. sec. 242, that is, violation of a constitutional right under color of law and based on race or color. Again, this was an unresolved claim of racial discrimination exercised against a Black male that was brought against Schroeder in the criminal Complaint. At minimum, because it was unresolved, the charge or claim created an appearance of impropriety and impartiality for Schroeder to preside over and decide the appeal of Barry Bonds, who is a Black male. If Schroeder had been prosecuted, tried, and found guilty of the racial discrimination charge, it would be beyond an "appearance" of impropriety, and it would have been absolutely improper for Schroeder to preside over Bonds' trial, because it would have been proven that she was prejudiced against Black males. If Schroeder had been found not guilty of the racial discrimination charge, then, with respect to Bonds being a Black male, it would not have presented an appearance of impropriety or impartiality for Schroeder to preside over Bonds' appeal. However, since Schroeder has not been prosecuted and tried for the racial discrimination charge, and since the charge is so serious (and, in fact, a felony), and so prejudicial (to Bonds, if true), it created an appearance of impropriety and impartiality for Schroeder to have presided over Bonds' appeal. Criminals are ordinarily, and generally, arrested based on criminal complaints alone. Especially, when the complaints are based on eyewitness testimony and/or documentary evidence (which was the case for Schroeder). In fact, there would be an appearance of impropriety and impartiality for Schroeder to preside over the appeals of any black males until the pending racial discrimination charge against her is resolved.
Plus, Schroeder was charged with other offenses, such as : either through participation or approval, (1) allowing the Clerk to fraudulently change the true title of a case to a false title (and false District Court case number) in order to coverup misconduct by the Clerk herself (who was actually named in the true title, and she removed her name in the false title)(and we can see the effects of utilizing false documents and fraud by way of two convicts serving life sentences who were able to escape or leave prison relying on false documents and fraud--see the L.A. Times article, "Police recapture two Florida prison escapees", October 20, 2013, where "The bogus paperwork, complete with case numbers and the forged signature of a judge, duped prison officials. It purportedly reduced the men's sentences to 15 years"); and (2) causing Griffith (a Social Security disability claim appellant) to be denied a due process appeal by inappropriately and invidiously removing his case from an oral argument calendar (or deciding the case without oral argument after it had been calendared for argument), and subsequently denying him relief, because neither Griffith nor I, as his counsel of record (and only counsel on appeal), would accept a white lawyer designated by the Court (through the Clerk) to either join the appeal and/or argue the appeal of Griffith's case.
NOTE: The Ninth Circuit had no problem with me arguing a criminal, no-money, case alone (while representing a black client), see Jackson v. Giurbino, 364 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004)(I was retained by Jackson's parents and when I entered the case, Jackson was proceeding pro se and had already filed his Opening Brief--which is why there were so many issues raised in the case--so I had to file a Supplemental Brief, and it was the Miranda issue that I raised in my supplemental brief that caused the vacation of Jackson's murder conviction), but because the Griffith case potentially involved a substantial amount of money (perhaps $2 million), the Court decides it wants to force a white lawyer on both my client and I. We rejected the offer. The act of attempting to interject a white lawyer into our case unsolicited was both racism and racial discrimination. Yet, we received no relief for this conduct either (with the court intentionally denying Griffith relief--without putting it's intent in writing--because we refused to accept a white lawyer as part of our case).
Therefore, it appears that, under the circumstances of Schroeder's conduct or misconduct and the connection of that conduct to Bonds' appeal, Schroeder was required to and should have recused herself from hearing and deciding Bonds' appeal. Bonds must be given another appeal before a new and different three-judge panel.
BONDS HAS A RIGHT TO CHALLENGE HIS CONVICTION; AND THAT SHOULD BE HIS PRIORITY
Bonds also has a right to challenge his lower court conviction, based on selective prosecution and/or denial of equal protection of the law. And, it appears, this challenge would present Bonds with his greatest potential for exoneration of the obstruction of justice charge; therefore, this should be his first priority with respect to challenging the appeal. Because, if he is successful in challenging the conviction itself, he may not need to exercise his right to a new appeal. Moreover, a new appeal would still leave the possibility of the conviction being affirmed again; while, a successful challenge of the conviction would foreclose this possibility. Moreover, if Bonds has any desire to be admitted to the Hall of Fame, and he should have, based on his accomplishments, i.e., he's earned it, he must at least try to rid himself of the felony conviction. I know of no Hall of Famer admitted with a felony conviction on his record. And, for those searching for reasons to keep Bonds out of the Hall, the felony conviction is the easiest and best one. That is, "They didn't get him on the perjury counts, but they got him on something, and that's enough to keep him out of the Hall of Fame." A current example of the effect that a felony conviction might have on the prospect of Bonds entering the Hall of Fame is the case of Jameis Winston, the Black quarterback of Florida State University, who was faced with a rape charge and conviction and who is a prospect for being awarded the Heisman Trophy (for being college football's best player). The Florida state attorney has now decided not to bring charges against Winston, so his Heisman prospects should not be affected. But, its clear that a felony conviction would have had a near lethal, if not lethal, effect on his Heisman prospects; if not for this year, for future years (Winston is a redshirt freshman). "No charges for Winston. . . he still has a shot at the Heisman", L.A. Times, December 6, 2013. "Winston, had he been charged with a felony, would immediately have been ruled ineligible by Florida State and his Heisman chances would have been gravely imperiled." Id. "Because Winston was not charged, . . . (m)any Heisman voters had their consciences cleared enough to pull the lever for Winston in advance of next Monday's voting deadline. One Heisman voter, on the fence before Thursday's ruling, said he was now leaning toward casting his first-place vote for Winston." Finally, "Thursday was a good day for Florida State and Winston. It was also a good day for Heisman voters, who won't have to worry about voting for a player who may end up convicted of a felony." Id. UPDATE: Jameis Winston has now won the 2013 Heisman Trophy!
But, entrance into the Hall of Fame should not be the most important reason for Bonds challenging the felony obstruction conviction. The most important reason should be his own integrity and dignity. Bonds did not obstruct justice, and he now has a second opportunity to demonstrate that. Once the door is opened by the selective prosecution and/or equal protection of the law defense, Bonds can again challenge the sufficiency of the evidence which was used to convict him. I believe that he would prevail in his challenge.
Lastly, if Bonds does not challenge his conviction when he has an opportunity to do so, it would reveal a level of lack of self-respect and weakness that would be embarrassing to Bonds and an injustice to the men, women, and children of the civil rights movement, who significantly helped produce the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and particularly so for those who lost their lives, in order for Bonds, as a Black man in America, to have the right to exercise this challenge. Further, it would also ignore the contributions of those who lost their lives on the way towards erection of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
I will submit a copy of this blog to Barry Bonds and his appellate attorneys, or at least notify them in some way.
**UPDATE--August 15, 2014
Thusfar, I haven't heard anything about Bonds' response to my blog, or to his appellate situation. That is, I haven't heard of any actions taken by Bonds in response to my blog, and I sent him a copy of the blog (addressed to him and his attorneys at the address of the law firm of his appellate attorneys).
If he doesn't take any action, I will absolutely lose respect for him, and I will have no sympathy for him regarding his conviction, his appeal, or the Hall of Fame. Any negative outcomes that he receives will be his own doing for not fighting for his civil and/or constitutional rights and likely listening to white lawyers, who generally, though not always , are part of the system themselves, that is, the white establishment, as far as challenging the system (in this instance, the court systems)in an assertion of civil/constitutional rights involving race and Black people.
In earlier years, Bonds was rebellious and anti-establishment, and was generally ostracized for it (as noted above). But, generally, he didn't care, and maintained his autonomy, which the white establishment characterized as an "attitude". I respected him for being himself.
Now, after baseball and his conviction, Bond has appeared to take a "new" attitude. He says, for instance, whatever the Court of Appeals decides is fine with him (in so many words). He agreed to serve his time and has done so. He purportedly stated earlier, "I went through the system. And that's what it is." ESPN.com news services, May 28, 2012.
But, now, he has an opporunity to challenge the system in the protection of his constitutional and/or civil rights, not only for himself, but for others, especially other Black men who have been denied their constitutional rights at trial and on appeal.
So, now the 9th Circuit, after the publishing and re-publishing of this blog, has decided to grant Bonds a rehearing of his appeal. How convenient! But, Bonds has a right to a new appeal now, and a right to challenge his conviction, regardless of the grant of a rehearing. However, Bonds must pursue those rights. Otherwise, he must wait and rely on the 9th Cir. to decide his justice. The same Ninth Circuit that affirmed his conviction with a judge who ought not have been on the appellate panel.
On OBAMA'S "FOR WHITE PEOPLE ONLY" JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
We can now add to the list of people that Black people want prosecuted based on recent events. Black people now want the racially motivated killers of Eric Garner of New York, Michael Brown of Missouri, and Ezell Ford of California prosecuted for civil rights violations involving and resulting in death. Black people also want the California Highway Patrol Officer that beat the Black woman, Marlene M. Pinnock, near or on the Santa Monica Freeway in Los Angeles, California prosecuted for civil rights violations resulting in bodily harm.
Let's see how many, if any, are prosecuted federally, or by the federal Justice Department. And, the Justice Department need not wait for state action in order to conduct its own investigation and to bring its own prosecution. And, with the multiple eye witnesses who have appeared and given statements, there clearly is sufficient probable cause evidence to make an arrest for civil rights violations, with or without a hate crime element.
However, it is likely that the only thing that's going to happen is the Justice Department is going to pretend to investigate (that is ,give the appearance of investigating--some investigation will clearly be done, but, the Justice Department knows, at the time, that it has no intention of bringing a federal prosecution. In other words, it's for show only. While Obama and/or Holder will give speeches on how the country needs to come together, but not get violent, while nothing gets done in terms of prosecuting the white police officers who murdered the young Black males. And, without a federal prosecution of any of the white police officers who murdered or assaulted/battered the Black males and/or female, i.e., Garner, Brown, Ford, and Pinnock, or otherwise deprived them of their constitutional rights under color of law and based on race or color, Obama's Justice Department continues to be "for white people only".
Finally, although Obama and Holder are Democrats, it took a Republican, Sen. Rand Paul, to address the issue of racism and racial discrimination head-on with respect to the murder of Michael Brown and the criminal justice system as applied to minorities, particularly black and brown men and women. "Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention." "Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth." Quotes by Paul, according to the L.A. Times, "No law-and-order Republican", August 15, 2014. Race and racism is clearly a part of the murder of Michael Brown, and if the Justice Department would acknowledge that, maybe it would do something or work for Black people as it does for whites.
UPDATE--April 25, 2015
A few days ago, the Ninth Circuit issued its en banc decision in the Bonds' case. Bonds' conviction for obstruction of justice has now been reversed. Surprise!! Please.
It was quite expected. *This provides Bonds with positive relief without implicating (or discussing) Judge Schroeder; and Bonds need not pursue the matter further (which might also implicate judge Schroeder).
And, as I stated and forecasted above, the en banc Court found that there was insufficent evidence with which to convict Bonds of obstruction of justice. See above where I stated, "Once the door is opened by the selective prosecution and/or equal protection of the law defense, Bonds can again challenge the sufficiency of the evidence which was used to convict him. I believe that he would prevail in his challenge."
The en banc Court found, in its Per Curiam decision, "A reversal for insufficient evidence implicates defendant's right under the Double Jeoppardy Clause. (Citations omitted). His conviction and sentence must therefore be vacated, and he may not be tried again on that count."
But, the Justice Department and Judge Schroeder got off the hook, because Bonds refused to assert his constitutional rights. And, for this, I disrespect Bonds.
More later.
**UPDATE--April 30, 2015
WHY WASN'T JUDGE SHROEDER A MEMBER OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT EN BANC PANEL?
Judge Shroeder, who wrote the Bonds' panel decision, was not a member of the en banc panel. This is unusual. Ordinarily, the author of the three-judge panel upon en banc review is usually a member of the en banc panel. That was not the case here. I wonder why or why not? Could it have anything to do with my blog?
More next time.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
THE KILLING OF MIRIAM CAREY: ANOTHER RACIALLY-PROFILED MURDER BY POLICE; THIS TIME IT OCCURRED IN THE BACKYARD OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; BUT, DON'T EXPECT MUCH FROM THEM, OTHER THAN SPEECHES (IF THAT); IF THIS WAS A STATE CRIME, IT WOULD BE FIRST DEGREE MURDER .
Los Angeles, California
October 15, 2013
*(Denotes a change made or new information added to the original blog)
**(Denotes NEW information added to the blog after publishing of the original blog)
***This blog is submitted as part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in America, and it is dedicated to Miriam Carey and the Carey family especially, and also to Chris Dorner, Aaron Alexis, Trayvon Martin, and Oscar Grant.
Several days ago Miriam Carey was shot to death by police (or secret service agents--term "police" will apply to all officers, including secret service agents, Capitol police, or D.C. police, or police who took part in the killing or who were in any way associated with the killing on the day of the killing), after leading police on a short police chase in her automobile after having run into a White House barricade. It is unknown why or what caused Ms. Carey to run into the barricade, and now that she's dead, we will never know.
The mass-media have already started with their clean-up efforts: discuss the mental history record of Ms. Carey, including a purported obsession that she had with President Obama. Then, discuss the problems she may have had with past employers or landlords (she apparently has no criminal record, i.e., convictions, so they can't go there), and finally, question why she didn't stop immediately after running into the White House barricade. Further, the government thereafter conducted a thorough search of Ms. Carey's residence to try and recover more evidence; but, nothing they can recover at her residence is going to provide justification for killing her at the scene of the murder. Because even if they find that she was a paid assassinator or killer, with an assortment of weapons, it would not excuse or justify the police handling of the incident in Washington, because the police would not have known those facts at the time that they killed Ms. Carey. Therefore, all of the clean-up efforts are submitted with the intent of steering the public away from the real issue : police misconduct.
But, here's what I know, or believe from the news reports that I am aware of, and why I believe what happen to Ms. Carey was nothing more than another racially-profiled murder of a black citizen:
1. Ms. Carey is a Black American. The mass media, in their news reports, especially the print media, specifically avoided informing the public that Ms. Carey is Black (although some television stations did display a picture of her, whereby you could ascertain that she was black). As if it makes no difference, or as if race in America makes no difference. Race or color in America does make a difference, and it is that difference that caused Ms. Carey to be killed or die.
2. Ms. Carey apparently was not violating any laws prior to the police chase (where she failed to stop and obey police officers). And this includes her running into the police barricade. At most, she would have been civilly liable for any damage to the barricade, but, at this time there is no proof that the barricade was damaged by her collision.
3. There is no evidence that Ms. Carey's collision with the barricade was not an accident. And now that she's dead, we will never know if it was an accident or not. And, because she's dead and cannot tell her side of the story, we (the public) have the right to assume that it was an accident (and there's no proof that it was not).
The public is not required to accept the government's version of the incident that Carey "rammed" the barrier, as opposed to simply running into the barrier.
4. Ms. Carey had her one-year old daughter in the car with her at the time of the collision and the murder. If she had bad intentions, or intentions that she believed might place her life in danger, would she have left her daughter in the car with her? I think not.
5. Ms. Carey only began to run from police when she became frightened from the police drawing weapons on her and her daughter. She likely did not know why the police felt a need to draw weapons because she did not believe she had done anything wrong, or at least anything that would provoke a drawing of weapons. So, when she saw all the police with weapons drawn, she panicked, and fled (likely in an attempt to protect both herself and her daughter).
6. After Ms. Carey finally stopped, after apparently colliding with an object on the sidewalk, she did not exit the car with a weapon (and she had not displayed a weapon before or during the chase). So, why did the police (or secret service officers--one report says that it was secret service officers in pursuit, but, the same thing would apply if it was them) have to shoot her? Why couldn't they just apprehend her or at least give her a chance to surrender? ANS: Because she was Black (and because of the assumptions and conclusions drawn about black people--race or skin color--in this country ). If Ms. Carey would have been white, does anyone truly believe she would have been slaughtered the way she was (thusfar, I am not aware of how many bullets were used to kill her, but because it has not been revealed, you can bet there were several bullets used to kill her)? With a white child in the car? Please! Does anyone with an ounce of common sense and reality in America believe that a white woman with a white child in the car would have been murdered by white (or black) police officers simply because she ran into a White House barrier and refused to stop in a short car chase?
7. The police had no justification for drawing their weapons in the first place, even after Ms. Carey's collision with the barricade. Since there were several police officers (as opposed to only one--but one should not have acted that way either without more evidence of a threat to safety), so they could have simply surrounded the car and ordered Ms. Carey out of the car, without guns drawn. And, without guns drawn, she likely would have obeyed them, especially with her daughter in the car.
8. Ms. Carey was apparently shot after she exited the car (and this I perceived from a picture of the car after it had careened off the road, with the driver's side door opened--there was no signs of bullet holes on the car or windows shattered by bullets)(also there were no signs of damage to the front of the car--that may have come from a major collision with the barrier. Ms. Carey didn't have a chance. It was the same as hunting an animal, and killing it at the first opportunity to do so. The only positive thing about the scenario was that the the baby was protected. They allowed Ms. Carey to get further enough away from the car so that the baby was not harmed. The mass media broadcast that "they were taking the baby to safety" (after "they" had killed her mother). Safety from "who"? The Police?
9. The fact that the incident took place around or near the White House made no difference as to the approach of the police because they know that American citizens are the predominant group utilizing the facilities around the White House, therefore, they are required to respect the rights of U.S. citizens (unless there is some real and observable threat) before adopting some notion of a foreign threat, if such a notion arose, and reducing the constitutional rights of citizens and taking a person's life. Even with heightened scrutiny around the White House, it does not excuse racial profiling.
These are just some of the facts, notions, or inferences (and some of the information I saw firsthand from the video that was shown of parts of the incident) that I believe leads to the conclusion that the Capitol Police, or whatever police (e.g., secret service officers) did the shooting, conducted a racially-profiled murder of Ms. Carey. From the time the police first recognized that Ms. Carey was black, they operated differently towards her than they would have if she was white. They assumed that her collision with the barricade was in bad faith (or up to no good), i.e., "ramming", rather than an accident. They had no right to assume that she was a criminal, rather than a clumpsy person (even with a so-called "heightened scrutiny", based on the location and protection of the President). And their further pursuance of her proceeded on the same basis, i.e., their assumption that she was proceeding in bad faith. Ms. Carey was killed because she was black and racially-profiled.
This murder took place in Washington, D.C., near the White House, and not far from the Capitol. So it happened in the backyard of the President and the U.S. Attorney General (whose office is not that far from the scene of the killing).
But, don't expect the President and the Attorney General to pursue any justice for Ms. Carey, other than give speeches, if they do that (and thusfar, they haven't even done that). We are still waiting on a decision for the murders of Oscar Grant and Trayvon Martin, so why is Ms. Carey's case going to be any different, notwithstanding the fact that the police has now taken the baby's mother from her? Carey's child will now have to grow up without a mother. And, if the father or other family members don't step up to the plate, the little girl may end up in a foster home. For what? Because Carey ran into a barrier and lead the police on a chase?
IF THIS WAS A STATE CRIME, IT WOULD BE FIRST DEGREE MURDER--THERE WAS PREMEDITATION, DELIBERATION, AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT.
Although this is a federal crime, which must be prosecuted under federal law, if it was a state crime, it would be first degree murder. The cops (or secret service agents) that first confronted Ms. Carey at the White House after she ran into the barrier decided at that point that it presented a circumstance that might allow them to use their weapons (which is why the weapons were drawn)(some of them may not have ever used their weapons in the line of duty before). When Carey did not get out of the car (after weapons were drawn), the cops then decided that at the first opportunity, they would use their weapons, using the failure to stop and the automobile as their excuse. This was the premeditation.
Next, from the site of the collision with the barrier until Carey's second collision onto the sidewalk, the cops decided that whenever the automobile finally stopped that they would fire into the vehicle. But, because they saw the baby in the vehicle, they were hesitant. However, Carey didn't allow them to act beyond the hesitation, because she bolted from the car when the car came to a halt. This was the deliberation period. They (the cops that started at the White House barrier only) thought about what they would do from the White House to the point of the killing.
Finally, the malice aforethought. Once the cops saw that Carey was black, and it didn't matter that she was a woman and a mother, they decided that they would utilize the opportunity brought about by the circumstances of the encounter to use deadly force to kill a criminal, who happened to be black (whose life, to the police, had less value than a white person, and therefore, they could act more recklessly). And, the devaluation of the black life, together with the decision to use deadly force was the malice aforethought.
So, if the killing of Ms. Carey was a state crime, the police officers actually doing the shooting and killing should be charged with first degree murder and a hate crime.
But, because the crime is a federal crime, it will have to be prosecuted pursuant to federal criminal-civil rights law, which also includes hate crime law. But, I won't go into the particulars of the appropriate federal civil rights statutes, because its clear that they were violated. There was a violent and unjustifiable death, based on race, and under color of law.
MS. CAREY'S MOTHERLY INSTINCT AND LOVE SAVED HER DAUGHTER'S LIFE; SHE GAVE HER LIFE TO SAVE HER DAUGHTER
When Ms. Carey (who had an A.A. degree in dental hygiene and a B.S. degree in health and nutrition science, and who was a working mother) first ran into the barricade at the White House and was suddenly surrounded by government officers with drawn weapons, she panicked. Her human and personal intuition and gut reaction suggested to her that the best way to avoid her and her daughter being shot at or killed at the time was to flee in the car. At least in that way they had the protection of the car, including the windows, and maybe by the time they stopped, somehow and someway, they would have greater protection (because perhaps it would become more public and draw more people and the police would not shoot them at that time).
However, because of her erratic driving, she eventually careened off the road to a sidewalk. This is where her motherly instinct and love for her daughter kicked in (and only a good mother would think this way--a poor mother would only think of herself). She instinctively, and automatically (within seconds) thought to herself, "I can stay in the car with my daughter , with the windows rolled up, and just wait and do nothing (which would endanger both our lives if the officers decide to shoot into the car) or, I can bolt from the car and leave my daughter behind and hopefully, the officers with the guns will pursue me and not my daughter, so that she will be saved". Ms. Carey bolted, and she paid the ultimate price, her life. But, she saved her daughter's life. She was her daughter's "hero".
I believe that had Ms. Carey stayed in the car, the officers would have shot into the car, even with the baby in the car. I believe that when the car first careened into the sidewalk, because of the baby, the officers had a "moment of hesitation" (and Ms. Carey used this moment of hesitation to bolt from the car). But, if Ms. Carey had not bolted immediately (during this moment of hesitation), and had remained in the car, and especially if she would have made any "movement" in the car with her hands(even to place them on the steering wheel, one at-a-time), the police officers would have opened fire into the car, notwithstanding the baby's presence. And don't say "that would never happen". It happened here in Los Angeles to a Hispanic man and his baby girl, while he was holding the baby in his arms. Purportedly, the man had a gun, but, nevertheless, the LAPD did not let the fact that the man was holding the baby in his arms stop them from firing and killing both the baby and the man. The LAPD and SWAT didn't wait until a time that they could possibly disarm the man by shooting him in the legs or waiting the man out, so that he could be talked into releasing the baby. The LAPD fired on the baby and the man, killing them both. And I believe the same thing would have happened here with Ms. Carey had she not bolted away from her daughter.
So, the Carey family should tell Carey's daughter when she is old enough to understand that her mother loved her, so much so that she gave her life so that "you" could live. There is no greater love.
**UPDATE--October 15, 2013
It's now up to the Carey family to pressure the government into seeking justice for Miriam.
October 15, 2013
*(Denotes a change made or new information added to the original blog)
**(Denotes NEW information added to the blog after publishing of the original blog)
***This blog is submitted as part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in America, and it is dedicated to Miriam Carey and the Carey family especially, and also to Chris Dorner, Aaron Alexis, Trayvon Martin, and Oscar Grant.
Several days ago Miriam Carey was shot to death by police (or secret service agents--term "police" will apply to all officers, including secret service agents, Capitol police, or D.C. police, or police who took part in the killing or who were in any way associated with the killing on the day of the killing), after leading police on a short police chase in her automobile after having run into a White House barricade. It is unknown why or what caused Ms. Carey to run into the barricade, and now that she's dead, we will never know.
The mass-media have already started with their clean-up efforts: discuss the mental history record of Ms. Carey, including a purported obsession that she had with President Obama. Then, discuss the problems she may have had with past employers or landlords (she apparently has no criminal record, i.e., convictions, so they can't go there), and finally, question why she didn't stop immediately after running into the White House barricade. Further, the government thereafter conducted a thorough search of Ms. Carey's residence to try and recover more evidence; but, nothing they can recover at her residence is going to provide justification for killing her at the scene of the murder. Because even if they find that she was a paid assassinator or killer, with an assortment of weapons, it would not excuse or justify the police handling of the incident in Washington, because the police would not have known those facts at the time that they killed Ms. Carey. Therefore, all of the clean-up efforts are submitted with the intent of steering the public away from the real issue : police misconduct.
But, here's what I know, or believe from the news reports that I am aware of, and why I believe what happen to Ms. Carey was nothing more than another racially-profiled murder of a black citizen:
1. Ms. Carey is a Black American. The mass media, in their news reports, especially the print media, specifically avoided informing the public that Ms. Carey is Black (although some television stations did display a picture of her, whereby you could ascertain that she was black). As if it makes no difference, or as if race in America makes no difference. Race or color in America does make a difference, and it is that difference that caused Ms. Carey to be killed or die.
2. Ms. Carey apparently was not violating any laws prior to the police chase (where she failed to stop and obey police officers). And this includes her running into the police barricade. At most, she would have been civilly liable for any damage to the barricade, but, at this time there is no proof that the barricade was damaged by her collision.
3. There is no evidence that Ms. Carey's collision with the barricade was not an accident. And now that she's dead, we will never know if it was an accident or not. And, because she's dead and cannot tell her side of the story, we (the public) have the right to assume that it was an accident (and there's no proof that it was not).
The public is not required to accept the government's version of the incident that Carey "rammed" the barrier, as opposed to simply running into the barrier.
4. Ms. Carey had her one-year old daughter in the car with her at the time of the collision and the murder. If she had bad intentions, or intentions that she believed might place her life in danger, would she have left her daughter in the car with her? I think not.
5. Ms. Carey only began to run from police when she became frightened from the police drawing weapons on her and her daughter. She likely did not know why the police felt a need to draw weapons because she did not believe she had done anything wrong, or at least anything that would provoke a drawing of weapons. So, when she saw all the police with weapons drawn, she panicked, and fled (likely in an attempt to protect both herself and her daughter).
6. After Ms. Carey finally stopped, after apparently colliding with an object on the sidewalk, she did not exit the car with a weapon (and she had not displayed a weapon before or during the chase). So, why did the police (or secret service officers--one report says that it was secret service officers in pursuit, but, the same thing would apply if it was them) have to shoot her? Why couldn't they just apprehend her or at least give her a chance to surrender? ANS: Because she was Black (and because of the assumptions and conclusions drawn about black people--race or skin color--in this country ). If Ms. Carey would have been white, does anyone truly believe she would have been slaughtered the way she was (thusfar, I am not aware of how many bullets were used to kill her, but because it has not been revealed, you can bet there were several bullets used to kill her)? With a white child in the car? Please! Does anyone with an ounce of common sense and reality in America believe that a white woman with a white child in the car would have been murdered by white (or black) police officers simply because she ran into a White House barrier and refused to stop in a short car chase?
7. The police had no justification for drawing their weapons in the first place, even after Ms. Carey's collision with the barricade. Since there were several police officers (as opposed to only one--but one should not have acted that way either without more evidence of a threat to safety), so they could have simply surrounded the car and ordered Ms. Carey out of the car, without guns drawn. And, without guns drawn, she likely would have obeyed them, especially with her daughter in the car.
8. Ms. Carey was apparently shot after she exited the car (and this I perceived from a picture of the car after it had careened off the road, with the driver's side door opened--there was no signs of bullet holes on the car or windows shattered by bullets)(also there were no signs of damage to the front of the car--that may have come from a major collision with the barrier. Ms. Carey didn't have a chance. It was the same as hunting an animal, and killing it at the first opportunity to do so. The only positive thing about the scenario was that the the baby was protected. They allowed Ms. Carey to get further enough away from the car so that the baby was not harmed. The mass media broadcast that "they were taking the baby to safety" (after "they" had killed her mother). Safety from "who"? The Police?
9. The fact that the incident took place around or near the White House made no difference as to the approach of the police because they know that American citizens are the predominant group utilizing the facilities around the White House, therefore, they are required to respect the rights of U.S. citizens (unless there is some real and observable threat) before adopting some notion of a foreign threat, if such a notion arose, and reducing the constitutional rights of citizens and taking a person's life. Even with heightened scrutiny around the White House, it does not excuse racial profiling.
These are just some of the facts, notions, or inferences (and some of the information I saw firsthand from the video that was shown of parts of the incident) that I believe leads to the conclusion that the Capitol Police, or whatever police (e.g., secret service officers) did the shooting, conducted a racially-profiled murder of Ms. Carey. From the time the police first recognized that Ms. Carey was black, they operated differently towards her than they would have if she was white. They assumed that her collision with the barricade was in bad faith (or up to no good), i.e., "ramming", rather than an accident. They had no right to assume that she was a criminal, rather than a clumpsy person (even with a so-called "heightened scrutiny", based on the location and protection of the President). And their further pursuance of her proceeded on the same basis, i.e., their assumption that she was proceeding in bad faith. Ms. Carey was killed because she was black and racially-profiled.
This murder took place in Washington, D.C., near the White House, and not far from the Capitol. So it happened in the backyard of the President and the U.S. Attorney General (whose office is not that far from the scene of the killing).
But, don't expect the President and the Attorney General to pursue any justice for Ms. Carey, other than give speeches, if they do that (and thusfar, they haven't even done that). We are still waiting on a decision for the murders of Oscar Grant and Trayvon Martin, so why is Ms. Carey's case going to be any different, notwithstanding the fact that the police has now taken the baby's mother from her? Carey's child will now have to grow up without a mother. And, if the father or other family members don't step up to the plate, the little girl may end up in a foster home. For what? Because Carey ran into a barrier and lead the police on a chase?
IF THIS WAS A STATE CRIME, IT WOULD BE FIRST DEGREE MURDER--THERE WAS PREMEDITATION, DELIBERATION, AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT.
Although this is a federal crime, which must be prosecuted under federal law, if it was a state crime, it would be first degree murder. The cops (or secret service agents) that first confronted Ms. Carey at the White House after she ran into the barrier decided at that point that it presented a circumstance that might allow them to use their weapons (which is why the weapons were drawn)(some of them may not have ever used their weapons in the line of duty before). When Carey did not get out of the car (after weapons were drawn), the cops then decided that at the first opportunity, they would use their weapons, using the failure to stop and the automobile as their excuse. This was the premeditation.
Next, from the site of the collision with the barrier until Carey's second collision onto the sidewalk, the cops decided that whenever the automobile finally stopped that they would fire into the vehicle. But, because they saw the baby in the vehicle, they were hesitant. However, Carey didn't allow them to act beyond the hesitation, because she bolted from the car when the car came to a halt. This was the deliberation period. They (the cops that started at the White House barrier only) thought about what they would do from the White House to the point of the killing.
Finally, the malice aforethought. Once the cops saw that Carey was black, and it didn't matter that she was a woman and a mother, they decided that they would utilize the opportunity brought about by the circumstances of the encounter to use deadly force to kill a criminal, who happened to be black (whose life, to the police, had less value than a white person, and therefore, they could act more recklessly). And, the devaluation of the black life, together with the decision to use deadly force was the malice aforethought.
So, if the killing of Ms. Carey was a state crime, the police officers actually doing the shooting and killing should be charged with first degree murder and a hate crime.
But, because the crime is a federal crime, it will have to be prosecuted pursuant to federal criminal-civil rights law, which also includes hate crime law. But, I won't go into the particulars of the appropriate federal civil rights statutes, because its clear that they were violated. There was a violent and unjustifiable death, based on race, and under color of law.
MS. CAREY'S MOTHERLY INSTINCT AND LOVE SAVED HER DAUGHTER'S LIFE; SHE GAVE HER LIFE TO SAVE HER DAUGHTER
When Ms. Carey (who had an A.A. degree in dental hygiene and a B.S. degree in health and nutrition science, and who was a working mother) first ran into the barricade at the White House and was suddenly surrounded by government officers with drawn weapons, she panicked. Her human and personal intuition and gut reaction suggested to her that the best way to avoid her and her daughter being shot at or killed at the time was to flee in the car. At least in that way they had the protection of the car, including the windows, and maybe by the time they stopped, somehow and someway, they would have greater protection (because perhaps it would become more public and draw more people and the police would not shoot them at that time).
However, because of her erratic driving, she eventually careened off the road to a sidewalk. This is where her motherly instinct and love for her daughter kicked in (and only a good mother would think this way--a poor mother would only think of herself). She instinctively, and automatically (within seconds) thought to herself, "I can stay in the car with my daughter , with the windows rolled up, and just wait and do nothing (which would endanger both our lives if the officers decide to shoot into the car) or, I can bolt from the car and leave my daughter behind and hopefully, the officers with the guns will pursue me and not my daughter, so that she will be saved". Ms. Carey bolted, and she paid the ultimate price, her life. But, she saved her daughter's life. She was her daughter's "hero".
I believe that had Ms. Carey stayed in the car, the officers would have shot into the car, even with the baby in the car. I believe that when the car first careened into the sidewalk, because of the baby, the officers had a "moment of hesitation" (and Ms. Carey used this moment of hesitation to bolt from the car). But, if Ms. Carey had not bolted immediately (during this moment of hesitation), and had remained in the car, and especially if she would have made any "movement" in the car with her hands(even to place them on the steering wheel, one at-a-time), the police officers would have opened fire into the car, notwithstanding the baby's presence. And don't say "that would never happen". It happened here in Los Angeles to a Hispanic man and his baby girl, while he was holding the baby in his arms. Purportedly, the man had a gun, but, nevertheless, the LAPD did not let the fact that the man was holding the baby in his arms stop them from firing and killing both the baby and the man. The LAPD and SWAT didn't wait until a time that they could possibly disarm the man by shooting him in the legs or waiting the man out, so that he could be talked into releasing the baby. The LAPD fired on the baby and the man, killing them both. And I believe the same thing would have happened here with Ms. Carey had she not bolted away from her daughter.
So, the Carey family should tell Carey's daughter when she is old enough to understand that her mother loved her, so much so that she gave her life so that "you" could live. There is no greater love.
**UPDATE--October 15, 2013
It's now up to the Carey family to pressure the government into seeking justice for Miriam.
Friday, October 4, 2013
AARON ALEXIS : ANOTHER LEADER IN THE WAR ON RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (WRD) IN AMERICA; HIS ACTIONS : ANOTHER WAKE-UP CALL FOR AMERICA ; I PREDICTED THAT IT WOULD HAPPEN AGAIN AND I MAKE THE SAME PREDICTION NOW; ALEXIS NOW JOINS CHRISTOPHER DORNER; HOW MANY "LEADERS" WILL IT TAKE BEFORE THE UNITED STATES BEGAN A SERIOUS AND CONCERTED EFFORT TO ERADICATE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN AMERICA ?
Los Angeles, California
March 21, 2014
(Today's date)
October 4, 2013
(Original date)
*(Denotes a change or new information added to the original blog)
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added to the blog after the original blog)
***This blog is submitted and contributed as a part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California (and the United States). It is particularly dedicated to Christopher Dorner, the first leader of the WRD, and now, Aaron Alexis, a new leader.
When Aaron Alexis set out on his killing spree, he, like Christopher Dorner before him, declared war, and joined in the war, on racial discrimination in America. While he likely did not possess all of the qualities of a leader that Dorner possessed, he clearly possessed the most important two: he had no fear of death and he was willing and prepared to die. "There are indicators that Alexis was prepared to die during the attack and that he accepted death as the inevitable consequence of his actions." L.A. Times, "Alexis said he was 'driven' to kill", September 26, 2013. See my blog on Christopher Dorner as the first leader of the WRD. I do not know enough about Alexis to fully comment on whether or to what extent he possessed any of the remaining qualities of a leader, so I will place any further comment on his leadership qualities on hold until later. See Id. (the Christopher Dorner blog on Dorner's leadership qualities, i.e., no fear of death and ready to die).
While the white mass media has attempted to focus on such things as a suspect security clearance, mental problems, and gun control as contributors to Alexis's killing spree, while publicly stating that a motive for the killing is undetermined, I choose to focus on racial discrimination both as the cause and motive for the killings.
While the white mass media (and some of the Black press has succumb to the same indoctrination) has (and intentionally I believe) propagandized the fact that no motive has been ascertained for the killings (because unlike Chris Dorner, Alexis did not leave a "mainfesto" explaining his actions or what lead to the actions), and that it appears that Alexis was experiencing mental problems (which, through insinuation, caused him to "go off" as a crazy man and just start killing people, e.g., "Alexis had complained that he was hearing voices and being bombarded by microwaves", L.A. Times, "Navy didn't have full story on shooter", September 24, 2013), I choose to ignore the propaganda and focus on the bits and pieces of information that I have been abled to discover which sensibly (reasonably and rationally), together with America's racial history involving Black people, lead to the conclusion that Alexis's killing spree was the result of Alexis feeling and believing that he had been discriminated against at his job based on race, and more importantly, believing that he had no other recourse for relief, i.e., he had no confidence that he could obtain relief for the discrimination from the "system" (and he was probably right).
What little information that I have been able to acquire regarding the racial discrimination has generally come from the internet, not the mass media. Although one very important piece of evidence did come from television news, as an aside. See infra.
Here are a few of the "bits and pieces of information" that support a motive of racial (and/or employment) discrimination for Alexis's killing spree :
1. "Another friend said Alexis had complained of racial discrimination." Mail Online, September 16, 2013. "Mr. (Michael) Ritrovato, a 50-year-old government worker and New York native, said that Alexis, an African-American, had complained to him that he was the victim of racial discrimination." Id.
2. "Alexis also complained about the Navy and being a victim of discrimination during his time as a reservist from 2007 to 2011." Id.
3. (Ty)"Thairintr said Alexis told him he was upset with the Navy because 'he thought he never got a promotion because of the color of his skin. He hated his commander.'" Id.
4. "Aaron Alexis reportedly felt. . . that he was racially discriminated against." Breitbart Connect (breitbart.com), September 17, 2013.
5. "According to his best friend, Nutpisit Suthamtewakul, 31, who runs the Happy Bowl Thai restaurant, Alexis 'had been in the Navy but was unemployed. . . . He never got angry with us. He was always very nice to us. He had a couple of issues with being black. He felt he hadn't been treated right, not by the Navy, just generally. He didn't have a lot of friends - me, my wife and family, and people from temple." Id.
***6. "New information on the history and motivations of Aaron Alexis, the Navy Yard shooter who took the lives of 12 individuals, reveals that Alexis was fueled by what he felt was 'racial discrimination' during his top secret level job." Infowars (infowars.com), "Aaron Alexis Fueled By The Establishment's Race War", September 17, 2013.
***I principally rely on this asserted fact for the basis of my assertion and belief that Alexis was principally motivated by a feeling of racial discrimination for committing his killing spree.
7. "'He also felt racially discriminated against, and believed he had been financially "screwed" over a contracting job in Japan at the end of last year, friends said.'" Id.
8. "An African American, Mr. Alexis sometimes complained he was the victim of dicrimination and racial bias. Noticing that Mr. Alexis did not have steady employment, Mr. Suthamtewakul invited him to work at the restaurant, where Mr. Alexis, who spoke fluent Thai, made a positive impression on customers." Stormfront.org, "Did racial bias and discrimination drive Aaron Alexis to commit Navy Yard shooting?", September 16, 2013.
9. "Alexis was generally easygoing, she (Suthamtewakul) said in an interview at the family restaurant, the Happy Bowl in White settlement. But he bristled when describing his service in the Navy and the benefits he believed had been withheld. 'He just felt slighted by what he was getting each month,' she said." L.A. Times, "Disparate profiles emerge after attack", September 17, 2013.
***10. "Alexis seemed to hold grudges. He was upset over a salary dispute with his employer, a government subcontractor called The Experts, according to an official close to the investigation. Id.
***(see above)
11. "Ty Thairintr, 52, a Fort Worth tooling design engineer, said he met Alexis about five years ago, when Alexis was still in the Navy. 'He told me he believed he has superior abilities to his co-workers but he didn't get promoted,' he said. Id. "Alexis felt discriminated against because he was black, he said." Id.
12. "A Buddist convert who had also had flare-ups of rage, Alexis, a black man who grew up in New York City and whose last known address was in Fort Worth, Texas, complained about the Navy and being a victim of discrimination." L.A. Watts Times, "Gunman Navy Yard rampage had mental problems", September 19, 2013 .
13. Valerie Parlave, assistant director in charge of the FBI's Washington Field Office stated that Alexis "was involved in a 'routine' office disagreement the Friday before. . . ." L.A. Times, September 26, 2013 (above). Only Alexis knows for sure how Alexis interpreted that office disagreement and whether or not that "office disagreement" affected Alexis's motive for the killings.
***14. Finally, as reported on television, the killings took place at Alexis's latest workplace, Bldg. 197. This was not a coincidence; it was deliberate. Why did he choose his latest workplace to do the killings, if the killings were strictly random killings by a "madman"? Clearly, the workplace building was targeted, even if the particular people were not.
*** (see above)
So, Aaron Alexis's motive for the killing spree at the Naval Yard was retaliation for or reaction to racial discrimination that he believed he suffered at the hands of the Navy in prior years (i.e., a delayed response) and his last employer, The Experts, presently.
Aaron Alexis, like Chris Dorner before him, declared war on racial discrimination in America. And, as I indicated in my Dorner blog, some innocent people will nearly always die during a war. Regarding the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and Army Pfc. Bradley Manning providing classified materials to WikiLeaks, "Among the secret material that WikiLeaks obtained from Manning and posted on its site were combat videos of civilians being killed in U.S. airstrikes. . . ." L.A. Times, "Private's trial, government's test", June 2, 2013. And, "The government of Pakistan has consistently maintained that drone strikes are counterproductive, entail loss of innocent civilian lives, have human rights and humanitarian implications and violate the principles of national sovereignty, territorial integrity and international law. . . ." L.A. Times, "Drone target accused of 'horrific attacks'", May 30, 2013.
"Obama acknowledged that drone strikes he has ordered have killed innocent people." L.A. Times, "Obama reveals conflicted thinking on drone strikes", May 24, 2013. "'For me and those in my chain of command, those deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred throughout conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq,' he (Obama) said."
If you review my Dorner blog, you will see where I predicted that "Of course, the method of Christopher Dorner will, necessarily, be one of the methods used in the war(WRD). But, as with Chris Dorner, it will be a method of last resort. But, there's no doubt that the method will ultimately have to be used again because the white majority generally sleeps on the other methods; again, review my case after the racially-motivated closure of my law office. It requires the Dorner method to wake them up, and clearly, Dorner woke them up." As did Alexis here.
When Dorner started the war, he killed about four or five people (and spared others) while wounding several others. Alexis surpassed Dorner and killed 12 people during the war. How many will the next leader kill ?
My biggest regret about the killings is that Alexis did not target the real racists, because without knowing for sure, I do believe that several of the people he killed likely were "innocent" people, although some may not have been, and I do feel for innocent people dying, even during a racial war. But, for the racist or "racial" people who were killed, they got what they deserve.
Another regret I have about the Alexis killings is that Alexis did not leave a "manifesto" like Chris Dorner. All future WRD leaders should follow the leadership of Chris Dorner and leave manifestoes, so that it will be clear that any related killings are part of the WRD and not just random or unintended.
So, how many "leaders" will it take before America wakes up and decide to take drastic steps to eradicate racial discrimination in the country? How many more innocent people will need to die?
Although Dr. Janis Orlowski, chief medical officer of Medstar Washington Hospital Center *in Washington, D.C., indirectly addressed the issue of racial discrimination in the country when she stated, "There is something evil in our society that we as Americans have to work to try and eradicate", Press-Telegram, "There's 'Something evil in our society'", September 18, 2013, I will address the issue directly by stating that the "something evil in our society" is racial discrimination, and "we as Americans have to work to try and eradicate it". Dr. Orlowski continued, "There's something wrong here", Id., and I will state that the "something wrong" is racial discrimination. She continued, "The only thing I can say is we have to work together to get rid of it." Id. I will state, the "it" is racial discrimination. Finally, she stated, "We've got to figure this out". Id. I state directly, we have got to take immediate steps to eradicate racial discrimination. I think the country knows about the problem of racial discrimination, so there's no figuring it out needed. What is needed is implementation of the solution (stop the discrimination on the basis of race--either voluntarily or through civil and criminal prosecution).
I realize that at points Dr. Orlowski may be referring to mass killings by gunshots in general. However, I am convinced that the "evil" she refers to in our society that we have to work to eradicate is racial discrimination, because unlike the several other mass killings (which really arose from personal problems, usually associated with mistreatment of some kind, of the individuals doing the shooting), the Alexis killings, like the Dorner killings, arose from societal problems, stemming from racial discrimination.
So, I predict that there will be other "leaders", because it's clear that the U.S. government (including the white mass media which projects the government's voice), at this time, instead of trying to address the problem of racial discrimination in the country, is trying to cover it up, e.g., broadcasting to the American people that there is no motive for Alexis's killings when they know that there is at least some evidence that the motive is racial discrimination at the workplace, and that there is no indication of a workplace dispute (knowing that there was), and emphasizing such things as a security clearance, Alexis's past disciplinary record, or mental problems as reasons for the killings, in order to divert attention away from the real problem, which is racial discrimination.
Nothing the Government would have done regarding Alexis's security clearance would have prevented what happened. These types of mass killings cannot be prevented by any security methods because they are brought by surprise and they would thwart any type of security mechanism, e.g., if a building has a security setup like the federal buildings and airports, a determined shooter would simply do his shooting before or without entering the building.
Further proof that the Government has no intention of trying to quell or eradicate racial discrimination at this time is the Justice Department's refusal to issue a decision regarding the prosecution of George Zimmerman and Johannes Mehserle for violating the civil rights of Trayvon Martin and Oscar Grant, respectively.
Any proof to the American people that the Government is intending to try and eradicate racial discrimination will have to initially come from the Justice Department, with a showing that it is earnestly prosecuting civil rights cases, both civil and criminal. Thusfar, on the whole, it is not doing so.
I believe that the relatives of the "innocent" killed victims will have to play a major role in the pursuance of the eradication of racial discrimination in the country. They suffer the greatest immediate loss, and they would have the most influential voice with the Government. President Obama and Attorney General Holder pay no attention to the pleas of Black people in this country, e.g., the prosecution of George Zimmerman and Johannes Mehserle, but they would likely pay attention to the mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers of the killed victims of the racial discrimination war and crusade, especially if they are white. It would be unusual for the relatives to charge the government with "doing nothing to stop racial discrimination" (which caused the deaths of their loved ones), but it would be justified and probably, most effective in trying to prevent further loss of life in the future. It was racial discrimination (and the lack of confidence that anything was being done about it) that caused the loss of the 13 lives lost in the Navy Yard killings.
Finally, although Alexis did not possess all of the leadership traits of Chris Dorner, he did possess most of them. From the seven identified traits, see the Chris Dorner blog, Alexis possessed the following :
(1)Strength- it took strength to do what Alexis did, knowing that he would probably die in the end. A weak person could not have and would not have done what he did. He or she might have thought about it, but the follow-through wouldn't have been there.
(2)Courage- it took courage to do what Alexis did because he realized that the probable consequences of his actions would be to give up any hope of pursuing happiness or the so-called "American Dream", e.g., a family, a home, a future, or any other ventures that he may have wanted to entertain in the future, because , again, he knew that he would probably die. There are many Black men who want to do what Alexis and Chris Dorner did, trust me, but they don't have the courage to do it; especially when it comes to dying. Rather, like me, some of them choose to rely on the non-Dorner methods to try and obtain so-called "justice", which rarely work.
(4) Character- Alexis revealed some attributes about himself that indicated he possessed at least some good character. Even though I believe that Alexis believed that he was the victim of racial discrimination, Alexis himself, like Chris Dorner, apparently, was not a racist. He did not target only white people to kill. He killed both black and white people. He was simply targeting people at his worksite, whoever they were. His anger was worksite-related rather than racially- motivated. Again,"Mr. Alexis, who spoke fluent Thai, made a positive impression on customers." Stormfront.org. How many non-Asian Americans, not to mention Black Americans, can speak fluent Thai? And to travel to a foreign country and learn the language of that country, and a Black man too? Please! And then communicate with Asian people in Thai in an American restaurant. Please! That's character. "He was a very nice person", (Afton) Bradley said in a phone interview. 'It kind of blows my mind away. I wouldn't think anything bad at all.'" MailOnline. Moreover, "Alexis was awarded the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and the National Defense Service Medal prior to his discharge (from the Navy)." MailOnline. And, (H)e attended Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and worked as a network technician at SinglePoint Technologies." Id.
(6) No fear of death- Alexis, like Chris Dorner, had no fear of death, apparently.
(7) Ready to die- as alluded to above, Alexis, like Chris Dorner, was ready to die when he began his killing spree, knowing that he would probably lose his life, and all of life's potential offerings.
I do not have enough information to solidly comment on Alexis's possession of traits or qualities (3)integrity and (5)honesty. I would need more information.
Rest in peace, Aaron. Your dying will not be in vain. The war continues.
**UPDATE--March 21, 2014
The white news media has produced another article trying to rationalize Aaron Alexis's shooting spree towards a mental health problem rather than a racial discrimination or employment discrimination problem, and continues to stress a "defective" security clearance as a possible cause of the shooting. The article cites a recent Navy investigation which suggests that the killing spree "might have been stopped if his employer had reported his strange behavior to the government." Sure, and his killing spree might have been stopped if his employers didn't discriminate against him also. The article also notes that the Naval investigation "concluded that the Navy and the Defense Department repeatedly failed to follow their own rules for monitoring Alexis". Yet another scapegoat excuse and refusal to face reality (that the people who discriminated against Alexis want to and intend to discriminate racially again in the future).
Again, Alexis went on his shooting spree because he was fed up and mad as hell, and was not going to take anymore. He had reached his breaking point and decided it was time to take some kind of action against his discriminating enemies. If he had any real mental problems, they only helped him to do what he did sooner. Without the mental problems, he might have delayed the shooting spree. But, it was the racial discrimination that prompted or motivated him to go on the shooting spree in the first place. And, it could not have been prevented, regardless of information about his mental state or security clearance, because no one knew it was coming (which demonstrates that his mental state was not that bad).
March 21, 2014
(Today's date)
October 4, 2013
(Original date)
*(Denotes a change or new information added to the original blog)
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added to the blog after the original blog)
***This blog is submitted and contributed as a part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California (and the United States). It is particularly dedicated to Christopher Dorner, the first leader of the WRD, and now, Aaron Alexis, a new leader.
When Aaron Alexis set out on his killing spree, he, like Christopher Dorner before him, declared war, and joined in the war, on racial discrimination in America. While he likely did not possess all of the qualities of a leader that Dorner possessed, he clearly possessed the most important two: he had no fear of death and he was willing and prepared to die. "There are indicators that Alexis was prepared to die during the attack and that he accepted death as the inevitable consequence of his actions." L.A. Times, "Alexis said he was 'driven' to kill", September 26, 2013. See my blog on Christopher Dorner as the first leader of the WRD. I do not know enough about Alexis to fully comment on whether or to what extent he possessed any of the remaining qualities of a leader, so I will place any further comment on his leadership qualities on hold until later. See Id. (the Christopher Dorner blog on Dorner's leadership qualities, i.e., no fear of death and ready to die).
While the white mass media has attempted to focus on such things as a suspect security clearance, mental problems, and gun control as contributors to Alexis's killing spree, while publicly stating that a motive for the killing is undetermined, I choose to focus on racial discrimination both as the cause and motive for the killings.
While the white mass media (and some of the Black press has succumb to the same indoctrination) has (and intentionally I believe) propagandized the fact that no motive has been ascertained for the killings (because unlike Chris Dorner, Alexis did not leave a "mainfesto" explaining his actions or what lead to the actions), and that it appears that Alexis was experiencing mental problems (which, through insinuation, caused him to "go off" as a crazy man and just start killing people, e.g., "Alexis had complained that he was hearing voices and being bombarded by microwaves", L.A. Times, "Navy didn't have full story on shooter", September 24, 2013), I choose to ignore the propaganda and focus on the bits and pieces of information that I have been abled to discover which sensibly (reasonably and rationally), together with America's racial history involving Black people, lead to the conclusion that Alexis's killing spree was the result of Alexis feeling and believing that he had been discriminated against at his job based on race, and more importantly, believing that he had no other recourse for relief, i.e., he had no confidence that he could obtain relief for the discrimination from the "system" (and he was probably right).
What little information that I have been able to acquire regarding the racial discrimination has generally come from the internet, not the mass media. Although one very important piece of evidence did come from television news, as an aside. See infra.
Here are a few of the "bits and pieces of information" that support a motive of racial (and/or employment) discrimination for Alexis's killing spree :
1. "Another friend said Alexis had complained of racial discrimination." Mail Online, September 16, 2013. "Mr. (Michael) Ritrovato, a 50-year-old government worker and New York native, said that Alexis, an African-American, had complained to him that he was the victim of racial discrimination." Id.
2. "Alexis also complained about the Navy and being a victim of discrimination during his time as a reservist from 2007 to 2011." Id.
3. (Ty)"Thairintr said Alexis told him he was upset with the Navy because 'he thought he never got a promotion because of the color of his skin. He hated his commander.'" Id.
4. "Aaron Alexis reportedly felt. . . that he was racially discriminated against." Breitbart Connect (breitbart.com), September 17, 2013.
5. "According to his best friend, Nutpisit Suthamtewakul, 31, who runs the Happy Bowl Thai restaurant, Alexis 'had been in the Navy but was unemployed. . . . He never got angry with us. He was always very nice to us. He had a couple of issues with being black. He felt he hadn't been treated right, not by the Navy, just generally. He didn't have a lot of friends - me, my wife and family, and people from temple." Id.
***6. "New information on the history and motivations of Aaron Alexis, the Navy Yard shooter who took the lives of 12 individuals, reveals that Alexis was fueled by what he felt was 'racial discrimination' during his top secret level job." Infowars (infowars.com), "Aaron Alexis Fueled By The Establishment's Race War", September 17, 2013.
***I principally rely on this asserted fact for the basis of my assertion and belief that Alexis was principally motivated by a feeling of racial discrimination for committing his killing spree.
7. "'He also felt racially discriminated against, and believed he had been financially "screwed" over a contracting job in Japan at the end of last year, friends said.'" Id.
8. "An African American, Mr. Alexis sometimes complained he was the victim of dicrimination and racial bias. Noticing that Mr. Alexis did not have steady employment, Mr. Suthamtewakul invited him to work at the restaurant, where Mr. Alexis, who spoke fluent Thai, made a positive impression on customers." Stormfront.org, "Did racial bias and discrimination drive Aaron Alexis to commit Navy Yard shooting?", September 16, 2013.
9. "Alexis was generally easygoing, she (Suthamtewakul) said in an interview at the family restaurant, the Happy Bowl in White settlement. But he bristled when describing his service in the Navy and the benefits he believed had been withheld. 'He just felt slighted by what he was getting each month,' she said." L.A. Times, "Disparate profiles emerge after attack", September 17, 2013.
***10. "Alexis seemed to hold grudges. He was upset over a salary dispute with his employer, a government subcontractor called The Experts, according to an official close to the investigation. Id.
***(see above)
11. "Ty Thairintr, 52, a Fort Worth tooling design engineer, said he met Alexis about five years ago, when Alexis was still in the Navy. 'He told me he believed he has superior abilities to his co-workers but he didn't get promoted,' he said. Id. "Alexis felt discriminated against because he was black, he said." Id.
12. "A Buddist convert who had also had flare-ups of rage, Alexis, a black man who grew up in New York City and whose last known address was in Fort Worth, Texas, complained about the Navy and being a victim of discrimination." L.A. Watts Times, "Gunman Navy Yard rampage had mental problems", September 19, 2013 .
13. Valerie Parlave, assistant director in charge of the FBI's Washington Field Office stated that Alexis "was involved in a 'routine' office disagreement the Friday before. . . ." L.A. Times, September 26, 2013 (above). Only Alexis knows for sure how Alexis interpreted that office disagreement and whether or not that "office disagreement" affected Alexis's motive for the killings.
***14. Finally, as reported on television, the killings took place at Alexis's latest workplace, Bldg. 197. This was not a coincidence; it was deliberate. Why did he choose his latest workplace to do the killings, if the killings were strictly random killings by a "madman"? Clearly, the workplace building was targeted, even if the particular people were not.
*** (see above)
So, Aaron Alexis's motive for the killing spree at the Naval Yard was retaliation for or reaction to racial discrimination that he believed he suffered at the hands of the Navy in prior years (i.e., a delayed response) and his last employer, The Experts, presently.
Aaron Alexis, like Chris Dorner before him, declared war on racial discrimination in America. And, as I indicated in my Dorner blog, some innocent people will nearly always die during a war. Regarding the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and Army Pfc. Bradley Manning providing classified materials to WikiLeaks, "Among the secret material that WikiLeaks obtained from Manning and posted on its site were combat videos of civilians being killed in U.S. airstrikes. . . ." L.A. Times, "Private's trial, government's test", June 2, 2013. And, "The government of Pakistan has consistently maintained that drone strikes are counterproductive, entail loss of innocent civilian lives, have human rights and humanitarian implications and violate the principles of national sovereignty, territorial integrity and international law. . . ." L.A. Times, "Drone target accused of 'horrific attacks'", May 30, 2013.
"Obama acknowledged that drone strikes he has ordered have killed innocent people." L.A. Times, "Obama reveals conflicted thinking on drone strikes", May 24, 2013. "'For me and those in my chain of command, those deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred throughout conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq,' he (Obama) said."
If you review my Dorner blog, you will see where I predicted that "Of course, the method of Christopher Dorner will, necessarily, be one of the methods used in the war(WRD). But, as with Chris Dorner, it will be a method of last resort. But, there's no doubt that the method will ultimately have to be used again because the white majority generally sleeps on the other methods; again, review my case after the racially-motivated closure of my law office. It requires the Dorner method to wake them up, and clearly, Dorner woke them up." As did Alexis here.
When Dorner started the war, he killed about four or five people (and spared others) while wounding several others. Alexis surpassed Dorner and killed 12 people during the war. How many will the next leader kill ?
My biggest regret about the killings is that Alexis did not target the real racists, because without knowing for sure, I do believe that several of the people he killed likely were "innocent" people, although some may not have been, and I do feel for innocent people dying, even during a racial war. But, for the racist or "racial" people who were killed, they got what they deserve.
Another regret I have about the Alexis killings is that Alexis did not leave a "manifesto" like Chris Dorner. All future WRD leaders should follow the leadership of Chris Dorner and leave manifestoes, so that it will be clear that any related killings are part of the WRD and not just random or unintended.
So, how many "leaders" will it take before America wakes up and decide to take drastic steps to eradicate racial discrimination in the country? How many more innocent people will need to die?
Although Dr. Janis Orlowski, chief medical officer of Medstar Washington Hospital Center *in Washington, D.C., indirectly addressed the issue of racial discrimination in the country when she stated, "There is something evil in our society that we as Americans have to work to try and eradicate", Press-Telegram, "There's 'Something evil in our society'", September 18, 2013, I will address the issue directly by stating that the "something evil in our society" is racial discrimination, and "we as Americans have to work to try and eradicate it". Dr. Orlowski continued, "There's something wrong here", Id., and I will state that the "something wrong" is racial discrimination. She continued, "The only thing I can say is we have to work together to get rid of it." Id. I will state, the "it" is racial discrimination. Finally, she stated, "We've got to figure this out". Id. I state directly, we have got to take immediate steps to eradicate racial discrimination. I think the country knows about the problem of racial discrimination, so there's no figuring it out needed. What is needed is implementation of the solution (stop the discrimination on the basis of race--either voluntarily or through civil and criminal prosecution).
I realize that at points Dr. Orlowski may be referring to mass killings by gunshots in general. However, I am convinced that the "evil" she refers to in our society that we have to work to eradicate is racial discrimination, because unlike the several other mass killings (which really arose from personal problems, usually associated with mistreatment of some kind, of the individuals doing the shooting), the Alexis killings, like the Dorner killings, arose from societal problems, stemming from racial discrimination.
So, I predict that there will be other "leaders", because it's clear that the U.S. government (including the white mass media which projects the government's voice), at this time, instead of trying to address the problem of racial discrimination in the country, is trying to cover it up, e.g., broadcasting to the American people that there is no motive for Alexis's killings when they know that there is at least some evidence that the motive is racial discrimination at the workplace, and that there is no indication of a workplace dispute (knowing that there was), and emphasizing such things as a security clearance, Alexis's past disciplinary record, or mental problems as reasons for the killings, in order to divert attention away from the real problem, which is racial discrimination.
Nothing the Government would have done regarding Alexis's security clearance would have prevented what happened. These types of mass killings cannot be prevented by any security methods because they are brought by surprise and they would thwart any type of security mechanism, e.g., if a building has a security setup like the federal buildings and airports, a determined shooter would simply do his shooting before or without entering the building.
Further proof that the Government has no intention of trying to quell or eradicate racial discrimination at this time is the Justice Department's refusal to issue a decision regarding the prosecution of George Zimmerman and Johannes Mehserle for violating the civil rights of Trayvon Martin and Oscar Grant, respectively.
Any proof to the American people that the Government is intending to try and eradicate racial discrimination will have to initially come from the Justice Department, with a showing that it is earnestly prosecuting civil rights cases, both civil and criminal. Thusfar, on the whole, it is not doing so.
I believe that the relatives of the "innocent" killed victims will have to play a major role in the pursuance of the eradication of racial discrimination in the country. They suffer the greatest immediate loss, and they would have the most influential voice with the Government. President Obama and Attorney General Holder pay no attention to the pleas of Black people in this country, e.g., the prosecution of George Zimmerman and Johannes Mehserle, but they would likely pay attention to the mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers of the killed victims of the racial discrimination war and crusade, especially if they are white. It would be unusual for the relatives to charge the government with "doing nothing to stop racial discrimination" (which caused the deaths of their loved ones), but it would be justified and probably, most effective in trying to prevent further loss of life in the future. It was racial discrimination (and the lack of confidence that anything was being done about it) that caused the loss of the 13 lives lost in the Navy Yard killings.
Finally, although Alexis did not possess all of the leadership traits of Chris Dorner, he did possess most of them. From the seven identified traits, see the Chris Dorner blog, Alexis possessed the following :
(1)Strength- it took strength to do what Alexis did, knowing that he would probably die in the end. A weak person could not have and would not have done what he did. He or she might have thought about it, but the follow-through wouldn't have been there.
(2)Courage- it took courage to do what Alexis did because he realized that the probable consequences of his actions would be to give up any hope of pursuing happiness or the so-called "American Dream", e.g., a family, a home, a future, or any other ventures that he may have wanted to entertain in the future, because , again, he knew that he would probably die. There are many Black men who want to do what Alexis and Chris Dorner did, trust me, but they don't have the courage to do it; especially when it comes to dying. Rather, like me, some of them choose to rely on the non-Dorner methods to try and obtain so-called "justice", which rarely work.
(4) Character- Alexis revealed some attributes about himself that indicated he possessed at least some good character. Even though I believe that Alexis believed that he was the victim of racial discrimination, Alexis himself, like Chris Dorner, apparently, was not a racist. He did not target only white people to kill. He killed both black and white people. He was simply targeting people at his worksite, whoever they were. His anger was worksite-related rather than racially- motivated. Again,"Mr. Alexis, who spoke fluent Thai, made a positive impression on customers." Stormfront.org. How many non-Asian Americans, not to mention Black Americans, can speak fluent Thai? And to travel to a foreign country and learn the language of that country, and a Black man too? Please! And then communicate with Asian people in Thai in an American restaurant. Please! That's character. "He was a very nice person", (Afton) Bradley said in a phone interview. 'It kind of blows my mind away. I wouldn't think anything bad at all.'" MailOnline. Moreover, "Alexis was awarded the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and the National Defense Service Medal prior to his discharge (from the Navy)." MailOnline. And, (H)e attended Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and worked as a network technician at SinglePoint Technologies." Id.
(6) No fear of death- Alexis, like Chris Dorner, had no fear of death, apparently.
(7) Ready to die- as alluded to above, Alexis, like Chris Dorner, was ready to die when he began his killing spree, knowing that he would probably lose his life, and all of life's potential offerings.
I do not have enough information to solidly comment on Alexis's possession of traits or qualities (3)integrity and (5)honesty. I would need more information.
Rest in peace, Aaron. Your dying will not be in vain. The war continues.
**UPDATE--March 21, 2014
The white news media has produced another article trying to rationalize Aaron Alexis's shooting spree towards a mental health problem rather than a racial discrimination or employment discrimination problem, and continues to stress a "defective" security clearance as a possible cause of the shooting. The article cites a recent Navy investigation which suggests that the killing spree "might have been stopped if his employer had reported his strange behavior to the government." Sure, and his killing spree might have been stopped if his employers didn't discriminate against him also. The article also notes that the Naval investigation "concluded that the Navy and the Defense Department repeatedly failed to follow their own rules for monitoring Alexis". Yet another scapegoat excuse and refusal to face reality (that the people who discriminated against Alexis want to and intend to discriminate racially again in the future).
Again, Alexis went on his shooting spree because he was fed up and mad as hell, and was not going to take anymore. He had reached his breaking point and decided it was time to take some kind of action against his discriminating enemies. If he had any real mental problems, they only helped him to do what he did sooner. Without the mental problems, he might have delayed the shooting spree. But, it was the racial discrimination that prompted or motivated him to go on the shooting spree in the first place. And, it could not have been prevented, regardless of information about his mental state or security clearance, because no one knew it was coming (which demonstrates that his mental state was not that bad).
Monday, September 9, 2013
THE WEST LOS ANGELES V.A. : A 2ND EXAMPLE OF HOW THE ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION OF THE WEST LOS ANGELES V.A. PUTS PROFIT ABOVE SERVICE, CARE, AND CONCERN FOR VETERANS
Los Angeles, California
March 27, 2013
(Today's date)
September 9, 2013
(Original date)
*(Denotes change made or additional information added to original blog)
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added after publishing the original blog)
Last week a federal judge, S. James Otero, USDC, Los Angeles, ruled that the West L.A. campus of the Department of Veteran Affairs abused its discretion in leasing land for "purposes 'totally divorced from the provision of healthcare'", L.A. Times, "Federal judge rules VA misused its sprawling West L.A. campus", August 29, 2013. Apparently, the West L.A. V.A.(Veteran Administration) had leased out property to various private organizations or individuals for the purpose of garnering revenue for the West L.A. site; and purportedly, the revenue obtained was for "veteran healthcare services". Id. However, even if that was the case, and the money would have to be traced to confirm this, the ACLU argued that there are presently homeless veterans with healthcare needs, e.g., post tramatic stress disorder (PTSD) and brain injuries, who are not being properly served (if they are being served at all), and the property or land being leased could be used to "house and help homeless veterans too disabled to seek outpatient services". Id.
While the ACLU places the priority of leasing the land for profit in terms of "putting the needs of private school students and college students over our veterans" (referring to a private K to 12 school that utilizes part of the West L.A. campus "as an athletic complex" and UCLA students who have used "the VA property in Jackie Robinson Stadium for nearly 50 years", Id.), I prefer to characterize the action as putting profits over our veterans (since there are various types of entities and/or individuals utilizing the leases, e.g., "Sodexho Marriot Laundry Services, which cleaned hotel linens on the property, and Twentieth Century Fox Television, which used its parcel to store sets", Id.; and the ultimate purpose of the leases is profit to the V.A.). That is, profits obtained to help or further help veterans is fine, but, general profits should never be given priority over the direct needs of veterans or the service, care, and concern for the welfare of veterans.
In the present case, the ACLU should not have been required to bring a lawsuit, on behalf of homeless veterans, in order for the VA to recognize that the needs of homeless veterans required it to utilize the properties first to provide homes and other services for homeless veterans. The VA's care and concern for its veterans should have lead it to that conclusion (the plight of homeless veterans on skid row has been well-publicized for years, and the VA must have known of those circumstances when it decided to leased properties on VA land to non-veterans rather than provide housing for veterans--especially in view of the fact that VA land is specifically assigned for use for veterans, and more specifically, for homeless veterans). And, because the VA didn't arrive at that conclusion, the VA placed "general" profit over the welfare of its veterans. I emphasize "general" profits because if the profits were specific, such as to provide homes to the homeless because there were no other available property or resources to provide homes and other sources, the profits might be sustainable. But, here, the profits are simply general profits, to be used for various purposes (only one of which might be healthcare services, and apparently, none of which is to provide housing and associated services for those suffering special physical ailments--otherwise, the VA would have provided these services without a lawsuit). Therefore, the West L.A. VA placed profits over the specific needs of some of its veterans, i.e., the homeless, and over the service, care, and concern of its veterans in general.
I am a veteran of the Vietnam Era war, and I utilize the healthcare services of the West L.A. VA (hereinafter "VA"). And, before I proceed any further, I want it to be clear that my comments henceforth are directed to the administrative aspect of the VA, not the healthcare aspect. For I have generally received good healthcare services from the VA, and my eye care services have been excellent, especially in the area of care and concern.
Moving on, I am also a poor (or indigent) veteran (how I became poor or indigent, since 2003, is a subject for another discussion, made elsewhere--but, for the present discussion, it is neither at issue nor relevant). Consequently, since at least about 2003, in utilizing *non-career out-patient veteran services, I have proceeded as an indigent veteran, which has required that co-payments which would ordinarily be made, be waived, upon satisfaction of a "means test" (that is, a demonstration that the veteran do not have the "means" to make the payment--and although I have never been informed of the definitive level of means, it is likely based on or around the federal poverty level). The actual "means test" itself is nothing more than a condensed income tax form, whereby a veteran must indicate his income level for the prior 12 months to show that he did not earn income in excess of the amount allowed to obtain a waiver. The basic difference between the "means test" form and the income tax form is that the income tax form ask for more information, and more personal information. But, the bottomline is the same for both: how much money did you earn the previous year. And, if one's income did not go beyond the treshhold amount allowed, you pass the means test, and your co-payments are waived (or you are not required to make them).
One final thing, the means test form offers the veteran the options of either paying the co-payments outright(because he believes that he can afford to and because he does not wish to divulge his personal income information) or providing the required personal information regarding his income to secure a waiver of payment. I provide the required information. The VA sends out means tests forms annually (with a self-addressed envelope enclosed for the form to be returned by mail). But, for the last few years (which includes this year), I've walked my test into the office because I continued to receive test forms after I mailed it in.
I will now provide a second example of how the administrative arm of the West L.A. VA places profits over service, care, and concern for its veterans, and specifically over service, care, and concern for me as a veteran, and how it might be doing so with other similarly-situated veterans, even if not in the exact same way. Although it may be on a smaller scale in terms of the income the VA obtained for the various leases of property discussed above, it is on the same scale in terms of the effect of the VA's lack of service, care, and concern for a veteran (in relation to making a profit), and, specifically, in regard to this veteran.
About a month and a half ago, I received a bill from the VA in the amount of $1182.23, purportedly for medical services and/or co-payments for prescriptions for the years 2005 and 2007. I had never received a bill during the actual years of 2005 and 2007, only this year (2013). Further, there was no proof attached to the bill that confirmed that I had actually incurred the services or prescriptions identified in the bill. For example, from the bill (in part):
05/02/2005 OUTPATI $144.25
05/04/2005 RX CO-P 22.00
01/08/2007 OUTPATI 52.00
01/08/2007 RX CO-P 56.00
And, it has never been proven thusfar that I am the one who incurred the services and charges in the bill. *Again, I never received a bill during the years 2005 and 2007.
Anyway, before I received the bill, I had received another means test form from the VA after I had already mailed one in. So, I decided to take both forms to the VA at the same time (to cut down on trips to the VA, it is quite a ways from where I live), to re-submit the means test form and to get an explanation about the medical bill.
After traveling to the VA office with both forms, I was advised that a separate office was handling means test forms, so I spent the remaining time in the initial office, i.e., CPAC (Consolidated Patient Account Centers).
Initially, in discussing the bill with the first primary worker, and later with a supervisor that was brought in, we never reached the issue of whether the bill was actually for me or for services that I incurred, because I stated that even if the bill was truly for services that I had obtained, the billing would be a mistake because I was indigent during those periods of time (and I continue to be indigent now), and I would not have been required to pay for the services (which is probably why I hadn't received a bill in 2005 and 2007).
The supervisor, during the course of the discussion, stated that she could eliminate or get rid of the bill, but she stated that the only way that she would do it was by me providing her proof that a means test had been filed during the years 2005 and 2007. She said that she could eliminate the bill without the means test but that "someone" might question it. Then, the primary worker checked some record and stated that the VA's system showed no record of a means test for me between the years 2002 to 2008. And, she stated that I was the only veteran with that indication. It should be noted that this set of CPAC workers were new (having relaced a crew about a year ago). I then stated that the VA must have maintained records as to whether I had submitted a means test or not, because all non-career veterans must submit a means form, even if a veteran can or choose to pay for services. Further, I did not maintain copies of any means test forms submitted during 2005 and 2007. How many veterans do?
So, the supervisor left me with the decision that she would only remove the bill if she received proof of a means test submitted for the years 2005 and 2007. Further, since I suggested that the VA should have records of the tests as well as other matters during that time period, she referred me to a one Earleen Young in the Patient Fund Section of the VA. The eventful matters demonstrating that the Administration places profits over the service, care, and concern of veterans, and demonstrating the 2nd example of such by the West L.A. V.A. now began to evolve.
Before going to see Ms. Young, I decided that I would try and search for prior income tax forms that covered the years 2005 and 2007. So, I went home to return another day.
Before proceeding further, these are the "strange or peculiar things" that had occurred already concerning this matter: (1) I had received a medical bill in 2013 for medical bills that purportedly accrued in 2005 and 2007--and I didn't receive a bill in 2005 and 2007--why was I just now receiving this bill? No one could provide me with an answer; (2) the medical bill provided no proof that the bill was truly services or prescriptions that I had received or incurred; and (3) the VA staff indicated that I was the only veteran (of probably all non-career vetrans) who did not have a means form for the years 2002 to 2008 on file.
After going home and conducting a search, I was able to find an income tax form and other proof that covered the years 2004 through 2006, demonstrating that I earned little or no income for those years. So, I returned with the documents another day to the CPAC office (around the last of July or first of August, 2013). The events demonstrating that the Administration placed profits over the service, care, and concern of me as a veteran now began to emerge.
EVENT #1
After I returned to the VA and the CPAC office and presented the documents(an income tax form filed for 2004 showing an adjusted gross income of $403.00) and/or proof (I didn't file income tax in 2005 and 2006 because I earned so little income) to the supervisor, Blance B., after having told her that I've been indigent since about 2003, she still refused to extract the bill. She said that she needed to see means test forms. This was the first event where it was clear that the Administration was placing profits (the health care bill) over its service, care, and concern for me as a veteran. There was no justifiable reason that Blance should not have accepted the income tax information in lieu of a means test form to eliminate the bill. It simply was more important to the Administration to collect the medical bill fee from an indigent veteran than it was to recognize, understand, and empathize with the plight of that veteran. It was the Administration's policy of putting profits over the welfare of veterans that caused Blance to be worried about "someone" (top level supervisors) questioning her wiping away the bill (even if she herself wanted to do so). So, I set out to visit Earleen Young regarding means test records (I tried to avoid this by submitting the income tax forms).
EVENT #2
When I met with Young and inquired about the means test records for the years 2005 and 2007, I stated that I had been told that there was no record of me filing a means test in 2005 and 2007, and that I wanted the records for those years, because I believe that I either filed one or one was not required. She stated that there were no means test records for that time. I told her that for several years there was no means test form submitted by veterans, and that the VA simply interviewed veterans and made a decision regarding ability to pay based on that interview, and therefore, the VA was solely responsible for those records. She maintained that there weren't any means test records or records of any other means test infomation. Further, she stated that she wasn't even at the VA during that time, so she didn't know anything about what went on then. And, she added, all of the people who handled means test records at that time are probably dead. I told her that I believe the VA had a duty to maintain those records. There was no response.
I told her that the need for the records was because of a dispute over the bill, which I showed her. She said that CPAC was responsible for the bill, and there was nothing that she could do. So, she referred me back to CPAC (who had referred me to her). I believe the VA was negligent in either losing or destroying the means test records, or there is a commission of fraud if the records are there. Either way, when Young determined that there were no records of a means test or no means test, I believe she had a duty to recommend to Blance to extract the bill based on the lack of records, and based on service to and care and concern for an indigent veteran. But, she didn't do it. This was the second event where the VA continued to place profits over the service, care, and concern of a veteran.
EVENT #3
After leaving Young, I returned to the CPAC office to speak with Blanche. After explaining to Blanche what had happened with Young, Blanche continued to maintain her earlier position that she would have to have means test records for 2005 and 2007 in order to extract the bill. This was the third event. Even without Young making a recommendation to extract the bill, Blanche should have extracted the bill based on the fact that there was a determination that there were no means test records for the applicable years (even if she had to contact Young and confirm it). That should have been enough for Blanche to extract the bill if she was giving priority to service, care, and concern for a veteran rather than to profits. But, again, she wasn't.
Subsequently, another woman in the CPAC office was called into the discussion. This lady then said that CPAC could eliminate the bill but that a supervisory authority would have to o.k. it. So she identified such an authority and wrote down the name, Shirin Mathai, Assistant Chief of HAS?. So, I asked if I could speak with him at that time. The new lady said that it would be better to call and make an appointment with him (and she gave me his number).
EVENT #4
I called Mathai at his office. He was not in, so I was connected to a voice mail. I left a message explaining the circumstances of the bill and also mentioned the names of Blanche and the other woman (I won't provide the other woman's name because, even though I know it, I believe she proceeded entirely in good faith, and there's no need to mention her name at this time). Mathai never returned my call. This was the fourth profit over veteran event. I believe Mathai, particularly under the circumstances (I explained in the voice mail that the two supervisors said that he could approve an extraction of the bill), had a duty to return the call promptly. Instead, he was discourteous and, again, placed profit over a veteran (knowing that without his input, I would continue to be responsible for the medical bill). And this was a higher level supervisor with authority to squash the bill.
EVENT #5
After Mathai did not return my call, I decided to return to the VA to try and see Mathai in person or make an appointment with him. I had an upcoming appointment at the VA so I decided that I would go to Mathai's office on the same day. When I arrived on the day of the appointment, I first went to the CPAC office and contacted Blanche. I told her that Mathai did not return my call, so I wanted to go to his office and speak with him. Blanche was initially reluctant to show me to his office (I believe because of his high level position), but after she spoke with someone else, she showed me to his office area and to a secretary in the area. I explained the circumstances to the secretary and asked to speak with Mathai or set up an appointment to speak with him. She then said that he wasn't in the office, but that she could contact him by e-mail. She showed me the e-mail that she was sending to him. I told her that I would go to my appointment and return later for a response to her e-mail. However, during my appointment, I received a call on my cellphone. It was Earleen (I didn't take the call, rather I checked the voicemail later). And she left a message to contact her before she would be leaving with a carpool. This was the fifth profit over veteran event. Mathai, rather than meeting with me himself or setting up an appointment to meet with him, *referred the matter back to Earleen, knowing that he was the one who could authorize the extraction of the bill, and learning after speaking with her, that I had already spoke with *her (and exhausted any remedy with her). This clearly was not only disrespectful to me as a person and a veteran (in not responding himself or personally), but it also continued to place profit over a veteran, and clearly displayed a lack of service to and care and concern for a veteran. He had no idea of what I would be discussing with him or what I would be presenting to him.
EVENT #6
After my appointment was complete and after Earleen called and left the message to call her, I went over to her office area to speak with her, rather than calling back. We did ultimately speak, and, as expected, nothing was accomplished. However, when we were speaking, she sat at a computer, going over my case, and she mentioned something about "admissions", i.e., admitted for treatment. This is speculation, but I believe she detected some defects in my record that would support me or my position. So, she said that she had to leave to travel with a carpool. But, twice she said that she would call me the next day (after I asked for confirmation). Finally, as she was leaving, she said that my means test for this year does not qualify me for a waiver, that is, the amount of money I made over 12 months (which is still near the federal poverty level--and its the most I've made over a 12 month period since about 2003). Earleen never called me the next day, August 23, 2013. And, Mathai never called either. This represents the sixth event of placing profit over a veteran. Mathai knew that my effort to contact him was for the purpose of approving the extraction of my medical bill. Yet, with discourtesy and disrespect, he refused to meet with me and discuss the matter. And, because payment of the medical bill would place a strain on my already indigent state, it displays a total lack of care and concern for me and my welfare as a veteran. It also vividly reveals the Administration's priority of profit over the welfare of a veteran.
EVENT #7
As I stated above, Earleen Young never called me back as she said she would. Therefore, this affected two things: one, we never resolved the issue of the questionable medical bill and two, Young, after indicating that I didn't qualify for a waiver this year, did not explain to me why I didn't qualify, or *what the threshhold level of income to qualify is, or whether the decision regarding qualification could be contested. In other words, after she blurted out that I didn't qualify, she never contacted me to set up an interview to explain the consequences. As a consequence, in the interim, I had received a bill that purportedly was produced after submission of my latest means test (which made up the $1182 total). The failure to contact me after the 8/22/13 meeting presents the seventh event that displayed the administration giving priority to profits from a medical bill payment over the service, care, and concern of a veteran. Even though the issue of the original bill had not been resolved at our last meeting, which allowed the bill to still be outstanding, and even though there had been no explanation or interview regarding the disqualification of a waiver, the administration did not contact me and act to resolve either matter, showing a desire to collect the bill notwithstanding the fact that the aforementioned issues regarding payment of the bill or any future bill had not been satisfied. Service to a veteran required the scheduling of an interview to explain the consequences of "not passing the means test", what the threshhold level of income is, and what are the available options of contesting a questionable determination of means test qualification. Care and concern for a veteran, especially an indigent one, required resolving the medical bill issues and the waiver qualification issues before continuing any future billing to avoid an unwarranted hardship on a veteran, and on this veteran.
EVENT #8
While awaiting a response from the VA, I have now received a bill for a payment of interest on the current, and disputed, bill. This represents the eighth event showing the Adminstration's priority of profits over service, care, and concern for a veteran. At minimmum, out of care and concern for the welfare of a veteran, and more specifically, this veteran, the VA should discontinue any future billing until the status of the current bill is properly resolved. Because this is not happening, the VA is not only treating this matter as an ordinary billing matter, without regard to my status as a veteran, but, it is also placing the profits of that billing over my circumstance as an indigent veteran.
So, while Judge Otero awaits a decision by the government as to whether it will appeal or not, he should consider the above information regarding the VA administration's true concern for its veterans in securing profits from the leased properties. It is likely that some of the profits from the leased land are going to healthcare of the veterans, but it is just as likely that some of the profits are going to other non-veteran related matters, based in part on the VA placing general profits before its care and concern for its veterans.
My next move, before considering other action, will be to speak with the Director of the VA.
UPDATE--September 21, 2013
On Wednesday, I visited the VA to try and set up an appointment to speak with the Director. However, I was informed by an officer in the new Veteran's Experience Office (formerly the Patient Advocacy Office) that I couldn't arrange an appointment with the Director, rather, I had to write a letter to the Director explaining why I wanted to meet with her or the reasons for the meeting. I was provided an address with a "code". But, why do I have to write a letter and provide an explanation in order to speak with the Director? And, if my reasons for wanting to meet with her are not satisfactory to her, does that mean that I will not be able to speak with her? Or, perhaps the reasons are prioritized to determine who will get to speak with her and who will not, depending on the reason?
Yet, a more fundamental problem with the letter-writing requirement is: what if a veteran can't write? Even if a veteran is not totally illiterate, he may be partially illiterate, in that he may not have sufficient or adequate writing skills. And, this is a very real possibility with older veterans who have lost their writing skills simply because of age. Are these unable-to-write veterans then precluded from meeting with the Director simply because they can't write a letter? If so, it would be an unjustifiable denial of access to the Director. And, if a veteran is unable to write a letter to the Director, the Director will never know that the veteran wanted to speak with her in the first place. So, any number of veterans will likely want to speak with the Director (and not get to speak with her), without the Director even knowing it. And, an equal problem would apply to the use of typewriters or computers, especially for older or senior veterans. All seniors may not have access to a typewriter or computer. If this is the case, they would not be able to type a letter for submission to the Director.
Moreover, having someone else write a letter for a veteran would probably be unacceptable for most veterans because the vast majority would likely consider the matter that they want to discuss with the Director private or confidential, even as to relatives or friends. And, even if a veteran himself or herself would not consider the matter to be private or confidential, the Director should consider all meetings with veterans private or confidential, unless subsequently waived by a veteran during or after the meeting.
The bottomline is: the letter-writing requirement for veterans in order for veterans to get access to speak with the Director should be abolished and/or withdrawn. Veterans should be able to simply make an appointment to speak with the Director. If the Director become overburdened with requests, she will have to work out a solution to the problem. But, if a Director becomes overburdened with requests, it will be some evidence that her subordinates are not performing their jobs satisfactorily, otherwise, a veteran would not need to speak with the Director. And, I believe that most veterans would not request to speak with a Director until they have exhausted their remedies with subordinates to the Director. As it stands, the letter-writing requirement is nothing more than an unnecessary obstacle to veterans having access to the Director, which should be an unburdened right of all veterans.
Nevertheless, I can write. So, I will comply with the directive and write the Director a short letter explaining why I want to meet with her.
I'll let you know the outcome.
*(Material deleted.)
Until next time, I'm out.
UPDATE--October 1, 2013
I have now sent out the letter. I await a response.
UPDATE--October 16, 2013
I still haven't received a response to my letter or an appointment.
UPDATE--November 4, 2013
I have now received another bill from the VA adding on more charges. Yet, I still have not received a response from the Director regarding an appointment to discuss whether or not I am responsible for the bill.
Consequently, at this point, I am convinced and I charge that this conduct on the part of the Administration is intentional and invidious. Further, I conclude that all of the conduct by all of the personnel prior to this latest bill I have received has been intentional and invidious. I no longer believe that it could be an interpretation of the facts or the documents that is supporting their conduct. Those actors include Blanche Burton, Earleen Young, Sharin Mathai, and the Director, Donna M. Beiter.
Finally, I have not mentioned this fact before because I was trying to get a resolution of this matter without raising the issue of race, but I am African American or Black. And, because I now conclude that the Administration's actions are intentional and invidious, I believe my race or color is a factor in the handling of this matter. Therefore, whatever actions that I may decide to take in the future, they will be on the basis of intentional and invidious conduct on the part of federal employees.
UPDATE--November 9, 2013
Two days ago, I dropped off a copy of the original letter I wrote to Director Donna M. Beiter to Beiter's office at the VA. Along the way, I was discouraged from going directly to her office (some VA official suggesting that I go through the Veteran Experience office), but I went anyway, to assure that the letter reached the Director, since I haven't heard from her since I originally sent the letter, September, 2013. I was able to leave the letter at her office. So, now I will await a response.
Also, yesterday, I received a letter from the VA's CPAC office in Las Vegas, Nevada. That letter only reduced to writing what the VA Administration has said all along, but providing no new information or proof of my liability for the bill. So, essentially, that letter adds nothing to the controversy, and I still need to speak to the Director.
UPDATE--December 4, 2013
I have now received another bill (charging interest on the disputed bill) from the VA's CPAC, yet, I still haven't been contacted by the Director, Donna M. Beiter, regarding an appointment to speak with her about the bill. It is clear that the matter must be resolved by the VA through proof of my incurring charges. Thusfar, the VA has offered no proof of my having received the services that they are charging me with, and the Director refuses to meet with me to discuss the matter.
Furthermore, even though CPAC's letter indicates that I am in co-payment status now, there has been no counsultation or discussion with me regarding how I arrived at or in that status or the criteria or standard which caused me to enter the status, or whether the standard can be challenged. I should have been summoned (figuratively)in for a status discussion to acknowledge my change of status, an explanation of why the status changed, and the ramifications of the change. The failure to do so amounts to poor management and a lack of concern for the rights and welfare of veterans.
**UPDATE--March 27, 2014
The VA continues to send me bills, but it still has not granted me an opportunity to speak with the Director to determine whether or not I actually owe the bill. So, now, every time I receive a bill without having had an opportunity to speak with the Director to assure that I owe the bill, I treat the bill as an act of harassment by the VA.
Moreover, the VA and Donna Beiter has apparently appealed the decision of Central District judge Otero finding that the VA and Beiter abused its discretion in leasing out the land for non-VA purposes. The problem is Beiter and the VA do not go to the 9th Cir. with "clean hands", and it should be denied relief on that basis alone. Beiter's treatment of my case alone causes her to go the Ninth Circuit Court with unclean hands. It is a basic principle of law that one seeking equity from a court of equity must go to court with "clean hands". Beiter's hands are dirty. And the dirt is her refusal to grant me a meeting to discuss the issue of whether I owe a bill and to discuss whether or not my income took me over the threshold of waiver, where the threshold was never discussed with me. The way things are going now, I will likely have to file a discrimination lawsuit just to obtain a hearing on my position that I do not owe a bill, at least none of the charges prior my latest or last classification. And, that discrimination lawsuit will be valid.
March 27, 2013
(Today's date)
September 9, 2013
(Original date)
*(Denotes change made or additional information added to original blog)
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added after publishing the original blog)
Last week a federal judge, S. James Otero, USDC, Los Angeles, ruled that the West L.A. campus of the Department of Veteran Affairs abused its discretion in leasing land for "purposes 'totally divorced from the provision of healthcare'", L.A. Times, "Federal judge rules VA misused its sprawling West L.A. campus", August 29, 2013. Apparently, the West L.A. V.A.(Veteran Administration) had leased out property to various private organizations or individuals for the purpose of garnering revenue for the West L.A. site; and purportedly, the revenue obtained was for "veteran healthcare services". Id. However, even if that was the case, and the money would have to be traced to confirm this, the ACLU argued that there are presently homeless veterans with healthcare needs, e.g., post tramatic stress disorder (PTSD) and brain injuries, who are not being properly served (if they are being served at all), and the property or land being leased could be used to "house and help homeless veterans too disabled to seek outpatient services". Id.
While the ACLU places the priority of leasing the land for profit in terms of "putting the needs of private school students and college students over our veterans" (referring to a private K to 12 school that utilizes part of the West L.A. campus "as an athletic complex" and UCLA students who have used "the VA property in Jackie Robinson Stadium for nearly 50 years", Id.), I prefer to characterize the action as putting profits over our veterans (since there are various types of entities and/or individuals utilizing the leases, e.g., "Sodexho Marriot Laundry Services, which cleaned hotel linens on the property, and Twentieth Century Fox Television, which used its parcel to store sets", Id.; and the ultimate purpose of the leases is profit to the V.A.). That is, profits obtained to help or further help veterans is fine, but, general profits should never be given priority over the direct needs of veterans or the service, care, and concern for the welfare of veterans.
In the present case, the ACLU should not have been required to bring a lawsuit, on behalf of homeless veterans, in order for the VA to recognize that the needs of homeless veterans required it to utilize the properties first to provide homes and other services for homeless veterans. The VA's care and concern for its veterans should have lead it to that conclusion (the plight of homeless veterans on skid row has been well-publicized for years, and the VA must have known of those circumstances when it decided to leased properties on VA land to non-veterans rather than provide housing for veterans--especially in view of the fact that VA land is specifically assigned for use for veterans, and more specifically, for homeless veterans). And, because the VA didn't arrive at that conclusion, the VA placed "general" profit over the welfare of its veterans. I emphasize "general" profits because if the profits were specific, such as to provide homes to the homeless because there were no other available property or resources to provide homes and other sources, the profits might be sustainable. But, here, the profits are simply general profits, to be used for various purposes (only one of which might be healthcare services, and apparently, none of which is to provide housing and associated services for those suffering special physical ailments--otherwise, the VA would have provided these services without a lawsuit). Therefore, the West L.A. VA placed profits over the specific needs of some of its veterans, i.e., the homeless, and over the service, care, and concern of its veterans in general.
I am a veteran of the Vietnam Era war, and I utilize the healthcare services of the West L.A. VA (hereinafter "VA"). And, before I proceed any further, I want it to be clear that my comments henceforth are directed to the administrative aspect of the VA, not the healthcare aspect. For I have generally received good healthcare services from the VA, and my eye care services have been excellent, especially in the area of care and concern.
Moving on, I am also a poor (or indigent) veteran (how I became poor or indigent, since 2003, is a subject for another discussion, made elsewhere--but, for the present discussion, it is neither at issue nor relevant). Consequently, since at least about 2003, in utilizing *non-career out-patient veteran services, I have proceeded as an indigent veteran, which has required that co-payments which would ordinarily be made, be waived, upon satisfaction of a "means test" (that is, a demonstration that the veteran do not have the "means" to make the payment--and although I have never been informed of the definitive level of means, it is likely based on or around the federal poverty level). The actual "means test" itself is nothing more than a condensed income tax form, whereby a veteran must indicate his income level for the prior 12 months to show that he did not earn income in excess of the amount allowed to obtain a waiver. The basic difference between the "means test" form and the income tax form is that the income tax form ask for more information, and more personal information. But, the bottomline is the same for both: how much money did you earn the previous year. And, if one's income did not go beyond the treshhold amount allowed, you pass the means test, and your co-payments are waived (or you are not required to make them).
One final thing, the means test form offers the veteran the options of either paying the co-payments outright(because he believes that he can afford to and because he does not wish to divulge his personal income information) or providing the required personal information regarding his income to secure a waiver of payment. I provide the required information. The VA sends out means tests forms annually (with a self-addressed envelope enclosed for the form to be returned by mail). But, for the last few years (which includes this year), I've walked my test into the office because I continued to receive test forms after I mailed it in.
I will now provide a second example of how the administrative arm of the West L.A. VA places profits over service, care, and concern for its veterans, and specifically over service, care, and concern for me as a veteran, and how it might be doing so with other similarly-situated veterans, even if not in the exact same way. Although it may be on a smaller scale in terms of the income the VA obtained for the various leases of property discussed above, it is on the same scale in terms of the effect of the VA's lack of service, care, and concern for a veteran (in relation to making a profit), and, specifically, in regard to this veteran.
About a month and a half ago, I received a bill from the VA in the amount of $1182.23, purportedly for medical services and/or co-payments for prescriptions for the years 2005 and 2007. I had never received a bill during the actual years of 2005 and 2007, only this year (2013). Further, there was no proof attached to the bill that confirmed that I had actually incurred the services or prescriptions identified in the bill. For example, from the bill (in part):
05/02/2005 OUTPATI $144.25
05/04/2005 RX CO-P 22.00
01/08/2007 OUTPATI 52.00
01/08/2007 RX CO-P 56.00
And, it has never been proven thusfar that I am the one who incurred the services and charges in the bill. *Again, I never received a bill during the years 2005 and 2007.
Anyway, before I received the bill, I had received another means test form from the VA after I had already mailed one in. So, I decided to take both forms to the VA at the same time (to cut down on trips to the VA, it is quite a ways from where I live), to re-submit the means test form and to get an explanation about the medical bill.
After traveling to the VA office with both forms, I was advised that a separate office was handling means test forms, so I spent the remaining time in the initial office, i.e., CPAC (Consolidated Patient Account Centers).
Initially, in discussing the bill with the first primary worker, and later with a supervisor that was brought in, we never reached the issue of whether the bill was actually for me or for services that I incurred, because I stated that even if the bill was truly for services that I had obtained, the billing would be a mistake because I was indigent during those periods of time (and I continue to be indigent now), and I would not have been required to pay for the services (which is probably why I hadn't received a bill in 2005 and 2007).
The supervisor, during the course of the discussion, stated that she could eliminate or get rid of the bill, but she stated that the only way that she would do it was by me providing her proof that a means test had been filed during the years 2005 and 2007. She said that she could eliminate the bill without the means test but that "someone" might question it. Then, the primary worker checked some record and stated that the VA's system showed no record of a means test for me between the years 2002 to 2008. And, she stated that I was the only veteran with that indication. It should be noted that this set of CPAC workers were new (having relaced a crew about a year ago). I then stated that the VA must have maintained records as to whether I had submitted a means test or not, because all non-career veterans must submit a means form, even if a veteran can or choose to pay for services. Further, I did not maintain copies of any means test forms submitted during 2005 and 2007. How many veterans do?
So, the supervisor left me with the decision that she would only remove the bill if she received proof of a means test submitted for the years 2005 and 2007. Further, since I suggested that the VA should have records of the tests as well as other matters during that time period, she referred me to a one Earleen Young in the Patient Fund Section of the VA. The eventful matters demonstrating that the Administration places profits over the service, care, and concern of veterans, and demonstrating the 2nd example of such by the West L.A. V.A. now began to evolve.
Before going to see Ms. Young, I decided that I would try and search for prior income tax forms that covered the years 2005 and 2007. So, I went home to return another day.
Before proceeding further, these are the "strange or peculiar things" that had occurred already concerning this matter: (1) I had received a medical bill in 2013 for medical bills that purportedly accrued in 2005 and 2007--and I didn't receive a bill in 2005 and 2007--why was I just now receiving this bill? No one could provide me with an answer; (2) the medical bill provided no proof that the bill was truly services or prescriptions that I had received or incurred; and (3) the VA staff indicated that I was the only veteran (of probably all non-career vetrans) who did not have a means form for the years 2002 to 2008 on file.
After going home and conducting a search, I was able to find an income tax form and other proof that covered the years 2004 through 2006, demonstrating that I earned little or no income for those years. So, I returned with the documents another day to the CPAC office (around the last of July or first of August, 2013). The events demonstrating that the Administration placed profits over the service, care, and concern of me as a veteran now began to emerge.
EVENT #1
After I returned to the VA and the CPAC office and presented the documents(an income tax form filed for 2004 showing an adjusted gross income of $403.00) and/or proof (I didn't file income tax in 2005 and 2006 because I earned so little income) to the supervisor, Blance B., after having told her that I've been indigent since about 2003, she still refused to extract the bill. She said that she needed to see means test forms. This was the first event where it was clear that the Administration was placing profits (the health care bill) over its service, care, and concern for me as a veteran. There was no justifiable reason that Blance should not have accepted the income tax information in lieu of a means test form to eliminate the bill. It simply was more important to the Administration to collect the medical bill fee from an indigent veteran than it was to recognize, understand, and empathize with the plight of that veteran. It was the Administration's policy of putting profits over the welfare of veterans that caused Blance to be worried about "someone" (top level supervisors) questioning her wiping away the bill (even if she herself wanted to do so). So, I set out to visit Earleen Young regarding means test records (I tried to avoid this by submitting the income tax forms).
EVENT #2
When I met with Young and inquired about the means test records for the years 2005 and 2007, I stated that I had been told that there was no record of me filing a means test in 2005 and 2007, and that I wanted the records for those years, because I believe that I either filed one or one was not required. She stated that there were no means test records for that time. I told her that for several years there was no means test form submitted by veterans, and that the VA simply interviewed veterans and made a decision regarding ability to pay based on that interview, and therefore, the VA was solely responsible for those records. She maintained that there weren't any means test records or records of any other means test infomation. Further, she stated that she wasn't even at the VA during that time, so she didn't know anything about what went on then. And, she added, all of the people who handled means test records at that time are probably dead. I told her that I believe the VA had a duty to maintain those records. There was no response.
I told her that the need for the records was because of a dispute over the bill, which I showed her. She said that CPAC was responsible for the bill, and there was nothing that she could do. So, she referred me back to CPAC (who had referred me to her). I believe the VA was negligent in either losing or destroying the means test records, or there is a commission of fraud if the records are there. Either way, when Young determined that there were no records of a means test or no means test, I believe she had a duty to recommend to Blance to extract the bill based on the lack of records, and based on service to and care and concern for an indigent veteran. But, she didn't do it. This was the second event where the VA continued to place profits over the service, care, and concern of a veteran.
EVENT #3
After leaving Young, I returned to the CPAC office to speak with Blanche. After explaining to Blanche what had happened with Young, Blanche continued to maintain her earlier position that she would have to have means test records for 2005 and 2007 in order to extract the bill. This was the third event. Even without Young making a recommendation to extract the bill, Blanche should have extracted the bill based on the fact that there was a determination that there were no means test records for the applicable years (even if she had to contact Young and confirm it). That should have been enough for Blanche to extract the bill if she was giving priority to service, care, and concern for a veteran rather than to profits. But, again, she wasn't.
Subsequently, another woman in the CPAC office was called into the discussion. This lady then said that CPAC could eliminate the bill but that a supervisory authority would have to o.k. it. So she identified such an authority and wrote down the name, Shirin Mathai, Assistant Chief of HAS?. So, I asked if I could speak with him at that time. The new lady said that it would be better to call and make an appointment with him (and she gave me his number).
EVENT #4
I called Mathai at his office. He was not in, so I was connected to a voice mail. I left a message explaining the circumstances of the bill and also mentioned the names of Blanche and the other woman (I won't provide the other woman's name because, even though I know it, I believe she proceeded entirely in good faith, and there's no need to mention her name at this time). Mathai never returned my call. This was the fourth profit over veteran event. I believe Mathai, particularly under the circumstances (I explained in the voice mail that the two supervisors said that he could approve an extraction of the bill), had a duty to return the call promptly. Instead, he was discourteous and, again, placed profit over a veteran (knowing that without his input, I would continue to be responsible for the medical bill). And this was a higher level supervisor with authority to squash the bill.
EVENT #5
After Mathai did not return my call, I decided to return to the VA to try and see Mathai in person or make an appointment with him. I had an upcoming appointment at the VA so I decided that I would go to Mathai's office on the same day. When I arrived on the day of the appointment, I first went to the CPAC office and contacted Blanche. I told her that Mathai did not return my call, so I wanted to go to his office and speak with him. Blanche was initially reluctant to show me to his office (I believe because of his high level position), but after she spoke with someone else, she showed me to his office area and to a secretary in the area. I explained the circumstances to the secretary and asked to speak with Mathai or set up an appointment to speak with him. She then said that he wasn't in the office, but that she could contact him by e-mail. She showed me the e-mail that she was sending to him. I told her that I would go to my appointment and return later for a response to her e-mail. However, during my appointment, I received a call on my cellphone. It was Earleen (I didn't take the call, rather I checked the voicemail later). And she left a message to contact her before she would be leaving with a carpool. This was the fifth profit over veteran event. Mathai, rather than meeting with me himself or setting up an appointment to meet with him, *referred the matter back to Earleen, knowing that he was the one who could authorize the extraction of the bill, and learning after speaking with her, that I had already spoke with *her (and exhausted any remedy with her). This clearly was not only disrespectful to me as a person and a veteran (in not responding himself or personally), but it also continued to place profit over a veteran, and clearly displayed a lack of service to and care and concern for a veteran. He had no idea of what I would be discussing with him or what I would be presenting to him.
EVENT #6
After my appointment was complete and after Earleen called and left the message to call her, I went over to her office area to speak with her, rather than calling back. We did ultimately speak, and, as expected, nothing was accomplished. However, when we were speaking, she sat at a computer, going over my case, and she mentioned something about "admissions", i.e., admitted for treatment. This is speculation, but I believe she detected some defects in my record that would support me or my position. So, she said that she had to leave to travel with a carpool. But, twice she said that she would call me the next day (after I asked for confirmation). Finally, as she was leaving, she said that my means test for this year does not qualify me for a waiver, that is, the amount of money I made over 12 months (which is still near the federal poverty level--and its the most I've made over a 12 month period since about 2003). Earleen never called me the next day, August 23, 2013. And, Mathai never called either. This represents the sixth event of placing profit over a veteran. Mathai knew that my effort to contact him was for the purpose of approving the extraction of my medical bill. Yet, with discourtesy and disrespect, he refused to meet with me and discuss the matter. And, because payment of the medical bill would place a strain on my already indigent state, it displays a total lack of care and concern for me and my welfare as a veteran. It also vividly reveals the Administration's priority of profit over the welfare of a veteran.
EVENT #7
As I stated above, Earleen Young never called me back as she said she would. Therefore, this affected two things: one, we never resolved the issue of the questionable medical bill and two, Young, after indicating that I didn't qualify for a waiver this year, did not explain to me why I didn't qualify, or *what the threshhold level of income to qualify is, or whether the decision regarding qualification could be contested. In other words, after she blurted out that I didn't qualify, she never contacted me to set up an interview to explain the consequences. As a consequence, in the interim, I had received a bill that purportedly was produced after submission of my latest means test (which made up the $1182 total). The failure to contact me after the 8/22/13 meeting presents the seventh event that displayed the administration giving priority to profits from a medical bill payment over the service, care, and concern of a veteran. Even though the issue of the original bill had not been resolved at our last meeting, which allowed the bill to still be outstanding, and even though there had been no explanation or interview regarding the disqualification of a waiver, the administration did not contact me and act to resolve either matter, showing a desire to collect the bill notwithstanding the fact that the aforementioned issues regarding payment of the bill or any future bill had not been satisfied. Service to a veteran required the scheduling of an interview to explain the consequences of "not passing the means test", what the threshhold level of income is, and what are the available options of contesting a questionable determination of means test qualification. Care and concern for a veteran, especially an indigent one, required resolving the medical bill issues and the waiver qualification issues before continuing any future billing to avoid an unwarranted hardship on a veteran, and on this veteran.
EVENT #8
While awaiting a response from the VA, I have now received a bill for a payment of interest on the current, and disputed, bill. This represents the eighth event showing the Adminstration's priority of profits over service, care, and concern for a veteran. At minimmum, out of care and concern for the welfare of a veteran, and more specifically, this veteran, the VA should discontinue any future billing until the status of the current bill is properly resolved. Because this is not happening, the VA is not only treating this matter as an ordinary billing matter, without regard to my status as a veteran, but, it is also placing the profits of that billing over my circumstance as an indigent veteran.
So, while Judge Otero awaits a decision by the government as to whether it will appeal or not, he should consider the above information regarding the VA administration's true concern for its veterans in securing profits from the leased properties. It is likely that some of the profits from the leased land are going to healthcare of the veterans, but it is just as likely that some of the profits are going to other non-veteran related matters, based in part on the VA placing general profits before its care and concern for its veterans.
My next move, before considering other action, will be to speak with the Director of the VA.
UPDATE--September 21, 2013
On Wednesday, I visited the VA to try and set up an appointment to speak with the Director. However, I was informed by an officer in the new Veteran's Experience Office (formerly the Patient Advocacy Office) that I couldn't arrange an appointment with the Director, rather, I had to write a letter to the Director explaining why I wanted to meet with her or the reasons for the meeting. I was provided an address with a "code". But, why do I have to write a letter and provide an explanation in order to speak with the Director? And, if my reasons for wanting to meet with her are not satisfactory to her, does that mean that I will not be able to speak with her? Or, perhaps the reasons are prioritized to determine who will get to speak with her and who will not, depending on the reason?
Yet, a more fundamental problem with the letter-writing requirement is: what if a veteran can't write? Even if a veteran is not totally illiterate, he may be partially illiterate, in that he may not have sufficient or adequate writing skills. And, this is a very real possibility with older veterans who have lost their writing skills simply because of age. Are these unable-to-write veterans then precluded from meeting with the Director simply because they can't write a letter? If so, it would be an unjustifiable denial of access to the Director. And, if a veteran is unable to write a letter to the Director, the Director will never know that the veteran wanted to speak with her in the first place. So, any number of veterans will likely want to speak with the Director (and not get to speak with her), without the Director even knowing it. And, an equal problem would apply to the use of typewriters or computers, especially for older or senior veterans. All seniors may not have access to a typewriter or computer. If this is the case, they would not be able to type a letter for submission to the Director.
Moreover, having someone else write a letter for a veteran would probably be unacceptable for most veterans because the vast majority would likely consider the matter that they want to discuss with the Director private or confidential, even as to relatives or friends. And, even if a veteran himself or herself would not consider the matter to be private or confidential, the Director should consider all meetings with veterans private or confidential, unless subsequently waived by a veteran during or after the meeting.
The bottomline is: the letter-writing requirement for veterans in order for veterans to get access to speak with the Director should be abolished and/or withdrawn. Veterans should be able to simply make an appointment to speak with the Director. If the Director become overburdened with requests, she will have to work out a solution to the problem. But, if a Director becomes overburdened with requests, it will be some evidence that her subordinates are not performing their jobs satisfactorily, otherwise, a veteran would not need to speak with the Director. And, I believe that most veterans would not request to speak with a Director until they have exhausted their remedies with subordinates to the Director. As it stands, the letter-writing requirement is nothing more than an unnecessary obstacle to veterans having access to the Director, which should be an unburdened right of all veterans.
Nevertheless, I can write. So, I will comply with the directive and write the Director a short letter explaining why I want to meet with her.
I'll let you know the outcome.
*(Material deleted.)
Until next time, I'm out.
UPDATE--October 1, 2013
I have now sent out the letter. I await a response.
UPDATE--October 16, 2013
I still haven't received a response to my letter or an appointment.
UPDATE--November 4, 2013
I have now received another bill from the VA adding on more charges. Yet, I still have not received a response from the Director regarding an appointment to discuss whether or not I am responsible for the bill.
Consequently, at this point, I am convinced and I charge that this conduct on the part of the Administration is intentional and invidious. Further, I conclude that all of the conduct by all of the personnel prior to this latest bill I have received has been intentional and invidious. I no longer believe that it could be an interpretation of the facts or the documents that is supporting their conduct. Those actors include Blanche Burton, Earleen Young, Sharin Mathai, and the Director, Donna M. Beiter.
Finally, I have not mentioned this fact before because I was trying to get a resolution of this matter without raising the issue of race, but I am African American or Black. And, because I now conclude that the Administration's actions are intentional and invidious, I believe my race or color is a factor in the handling of this matter. Therefore, whatever actions that I may decide to take in the future, they will be on the basis of intentional and invidious conduct on the part of federal employees.
UPDATE--November 9, 2013
Two days ago, I dropped off a copy of the original letter I wrote to Director Donna M. Beiter to Beiter's office at the VA. Along the way, I was discouraged from going directly to her office (some VA official suggesting that I go through the Veteran Experience office), but I went anyway, to assure that the letter reached the Director, since I haven't heard from her since I originally sent the letter, September, 2013. I was able to leave the letter at her office. So, now I will await a response.
Also, yesterday, I received a letter from the VA's CPAC office in Las Vegas, Nevada. That letter only reduced to writing what the VA Administration has said all along, but providing no new information or proof of my liability for the bill. So, essentially, that letter adds nothing to the controversy, and I still need to speak to the Director.
UPDATE--December 4, 2013
I have now received another bill (charging interest on the disputed bill) from the VA's CPAC, yet, I still haven't been contacted by the Director, Donna M. Beiter, regarding an appointment to speak with her about the bill. It is clear that the matter must be resolved by the VA through proof of my incurring charges. Thusfar, the VA has offered no proof of my having received the services that they are charging me with, and the Director refuses to meet with me to discuss the matter.
Furthermore, even though CPAC's letter indicates that I am in co-payment status now, there has been no counsultation or discussion with me regarding how I arrived at or in that status or the criteria or standard which caused me to enter the status, or whether the standard can be challenged. I should have been summoned (figuratively)in for a status discussion to acknowledge my change of status, an explanation of why the status changed, and the ramifications of the change. The failure to do so amounts to poor management and a lack of concern for the rights and welfare of veterans.
**UPDATE--March 27, 2014
The VA continues to send me bills, but it still has not granted me an opportunity to speak with the Director to determine whether or not I actually owe the bill. So, now, every time I receive a bill without having had an opportunity to speak with the Director to assure that I owe the bill, I treat the bill as an act of harassment by the VA.
Moreover, the VA and Donna Beiter has apparently appealed the decision of Central District judge Otero finding that the VA and Beiter abused its discretion in leasing out the land for non-VA purposes. The problem is Beiter and the VA do not go to the 9th Cir. with "clean hands", and it should be denied relief on that basis alone. Beiter's treatment of my case alone causes her to go the Ninth Circuit Court with unclean hands. It is a basic principle of law that one seeking equity from a court of equity must go to court with "clean hands". Beiter's hands are dirty. And the dirt is her refusal to grant me a meeting to discuss the issue of whether I owe a bill and to discuss whether or not my income took me over the threshold of waiver, where the threshold was never discussed with me. The way things are going now, I will likely have to file a discrimination lawsuit just to obtain a hearing on my position that I do not owe a bill, at least none of the charges prior my latest or last classification. And, that discrimination lawsuit will be valid.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)