AN OPEN LETTER TO U.S. SENATOR BARABARA BOXER REGARDING THE SUPREME COURT'S DENIAL OF ACCESS TO THE COURT AND DISCRIMINATION

Los Angeles, California


March 6, 2014
(Current or today's date)

February 28, 2013 *(last day of Black History Month)
(Original date)

*(this denotes change to original blog)

**UPDATE (this designates NEW updated information in the blog added after the original blog)


This blog is about my request to U.S. Senator Barabara Boxer for assistance in my gaining access to the United States Supreme Court to have my district court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case heard. At minimum, I'm requesting Senator Boxer's assitance in addressing the issue as to why I have been denied access to the court, and if reasons are provided, *why or if those reasons are justifiable. In denying me access to the Court, the Supreme Court has also denied me equal protection of the law.

While recognizing that the Supreme Court has near absolute, if not absolute discretion in deciding what cases it wants to hear and decide after a case has been submitted, docketed, and received (i.e., filed and presented to the Court for a decision as to whether to grant or deny certiorari), that discretion does not extend to access to the Court, i.e., the ability of a citizen to request that the Court hear and decide his or her case. In other words, the Court's discretion does not kick in or is not activated until after a case is docketed, i.e., after a citizen has been allowed access to the court, which is a constitutional right of all U.S. citizens.

I was denied this right, so I am seeking assistance from Congress through one of my representatives in Congress, Senator Barabara Boxer. My letter to Senator Boxer requesting assistance is printed below (minus the exhibits identified in the letter):

LAURACK D. BRAY, ESQ.
FEDERAL ATTORNEY
P.O. BOX 611432
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
TEL: (805) 901-2693

February 26, 2013
Black History Month


Senator Barbara Boxer
Office of Senator Barbara Boxer
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Boxer:

My name is Laurack D. Bray, and I am presently a resident of Los Angeles, California. I am writing to seek your assistance as my Senator representative in Congress. I’m writing you and seeking assistance from you because as I have attempted to exercise my legal and constitutional rights in the Supreme Court of the United States, I have been met with what I perceive has been abuse of authority, violation of Supreme Court Rules and/or law by the Supreme Court itself, and refusal of the Supreme Court to correct the misconduct of its clerks. The combination and culmination of which have resulted in the Supreme Court’s denial of my constitutional rights to access to the Court and equal protection of the law.

I am a poor, Black, veteran, pro se, lawyer, and I was the same when I attempted to exercise my statutory and constitutional rights to gain access to the Supreme Court to have my case and related matters reviewed by the Court as an appeal of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the United States District Court, C.D. of California case of Bray v. Department of Justice, No. 12-5704CJC . The Ninth Circuit’s decision is in the form of a denial of a writ of mandamus (which charged a district court judge, Cormac J. Carney, with acting without authority in ruling on my district court case).

I am Black by birth. I am poor by racial discrimination in the state and federal courts in California (but, I am not going to do what Christopher Dorner did; although, I absolutely feel what he felt and I absolutely understand why he did what he did) . I am a veteran by serving three years of active duty service in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War Era (and I received an honorable discharge) . I am a lawyer by graduating from Howard University law school, passing the bar, and practicing the law for over 25 years now (I also happen to be a member of the Supreme Court Bar, which means I am licensed to practice before the Court); and, I am proceeding pro se because I could not find any courageous lawyers to take on the issues in my district court complaint, which involves, among other things, allegations of misconduct by state and federal judges.

And, while I am writing for myself, regarding the facts and circumstances of my experience before the Supreme Court, I am also writing on behalf of any other similarly-situated poor, black, pro se litigants who have experienced the same or similar circumstances as I have in attempting to gain access to the Supreme Court to have their claims or cases heard . While I have not conducted a survey or sought responses as to any other prospective and/or respective litigants, I am convinced that I am not the only one who has experienced what I experienced while attempting to gain access to the Supreme Court as a poor, black, litigant (who happens to be a lawyer). I believe this because regarding one Supreme Court Rule, Rule 39 infra, even I, as an attorney (and a member of the Supreme Court Bar) had to read the rule more than once to ascertain its actual requirement of me and court clerks. Not that the Rule is overly complex or complicated, because it’s not, but it does have moments of complexity. But in order to understand its true directive to Court clerks, I had to have a second take. And, it is the second take that proved to me that Supreme Court clerks, in my case, were violating that Rule. So, I am convinced that other IFP litigants, who are not lawyers, and who have been denied access to the Court, likely did not realize the right (to access to the Court) that they possessed.

Senator Boxer, there are two specific issues that I would like you to address: (1) the Supreme Court’s denial of access to the Court to me (and, conjunctively, the denial of my constitutional rights to : petition the government, due process of law, and equal protection of the law) ; and (2) the feasibility of : (a) civil rights legislation to supplement and implement a Supreme Court Rule that is intended to protect and enforce the rights of IFP litigants, and (b) civil rights legislation to supplement and implement a Supreme Court Rule that is intended to allow prospective litigants the right to gain access to the Court by submitting an application to a single Supreme Court Justice.


Regarding the first issue, the denial of access to the Court, I would like you to pose some questions to Chief Justice Roberts; questions that I, as a prospective litigant, could not pose to the Chief Justice myself, but, that affect my fundamental rights. “The right of access to the courts is basic to our system of government, and it is well established today that it is one of the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution.” Ryland v. Shapiro, 708 F.2d 967 (5th Cir. 1983). Further, “The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government. It is one of the highest and most essential privileges of citizenship. . . .” Id. And, “Equality of treatment. . . is granted and protected by the Federal Constitution.” Id. Finally, “The right of access to the courts. . . is founded in the Due Process Clause and assures that no person will be denied the opportunity to present to the judiciary allegations concerning violations of fundamental constitutional rights.” Id.

Before I present the questions, I will offer a:

Brief Background

After the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in the district court case of Bray v. Department of Justice, I filed a motion and supportive declaration to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the Supreme Court. And, because I believed that the Ninth Circuit ought not have exercised jurisdiction over my appeal in the first place, in conjunction with the IFP application, I also submitted an application for declaratory relief, to be submitted to a single Justice, in this case, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

The requirements for the Supreme Court Rules dealing with both the IFP motion and the declaratory judgment application were met ; however, an issue was subsequently raised regarding the declaratory relief application, but that issue, as will be seen infra, was of no consequence as to the denial of access to the Court. Especially because I also supplemented the declaratory judgment application with a request for an extension of time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari, which eliminated the declaratory judgment issue.

I subsequently filed another application, this time for a mandatory injunction against the Clerk and a renewed request for an extension of time to file a certiorari petition.

The IFP motion and applications were all returned without docketing or filing three times , by three different deputy clerks and the Court Clerk himself, and each time they were returned, there was no explanation or reason given as to why the documents were not docketed or filed. On one occasion a reason was offered as to why the application was not submitted to Justice Kennedy, i.e., that there was no provision in the rules for submitting a declaratory judgment to a single Justice. But, again, no reason was given for the IFP motion not being docketed or filed. I will submit the three letters offered with the returned document as Exhibits #1, #2, and #3 here (NOTE: Even though all clerks suggested or advised me as to the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari or mandamus, none of the clerks provided a reason why the IFP motion and the declaratory judgment application were not docketed or filed. Also note: I am a “Mr.” and not a “Ms.”, and even though I left a message with one clerk and actually spoke with another who addressed me as “Mr. Bray”, the Court, through the clerks, still sent out the form letters with “Ms.” instead of “Mr.”) .

Even though this letter is not intended to be a legal document, per se, I must provide some discussion of the applicable Supreme Court Rules and a federal statute , 28 U.S.C. sec. 1915, in order to provide you with proper clarification of the Supreme Court’s denial of my constitutional due process right of access to the Court.

When Congress established the IFP statute, 28 U.S.C., sec. 1915, the statute was(is) “intended to guarantee that no citizen shall be denied an opportunity to commence, prosecute, or defend an action, civil or criminal, ‘in any court of the United States’ solely because his poverty makes it impossible for him to pay or secure the costs.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331 (1948)(emphasis added). Therefore, the primary purpose of sec. 1915 was(is) to provide poor people with access to the courts, the same access as those with money or the ability to pay for access. And, it is clear that sec. 1915 applies to the Supreme Court. “Under (sec.) 1915(a) ‘any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor. . .” (citing sec. 1915(a)). Perroton v. Gray, 958 F. 2d 889 (9th Cir. 1992). “Under that section a ‘court of the United States’ is defined as the Supreme Court of the United States, courts of appeals, district courts. . . .” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. sec. 451). I relied on sec. 1915 to gain access to the Supreme Court to prosecute my appeal of the Ninth Circuit’s “decision” in Bray v. Department of Justice (and the first step in that appeal was my filing an application for a declaratory judgment).

Pursuant to Section 1915 and Supreme Court Rule 39 (which, apparently, is intended to implement 28 U.S.C. sec. 1915 in the Supreme Court), I filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), together with a declaration, and the applicable copies of the application for a declaratory judgment to be submitted to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Additionally, I also filed an indigency motion and declaration pursuant to Rule 40, as a veteran.

Subsequent to filing the IFP motion and the application, I filed a Memorandum with a request for an extension of time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari (as the expiration time for filing a certiorari petition was growing near). See Exhibit #4 (Memorandum).

Finally, I filed a second application to Justice Kennedy for a mandatory injunction against the Court Clerk for the clerk’s refusal to perform a ministerial duty. See Exhibit #4 (Application). Neither the IFP motion nor the applications were docketed or filed with the Court, and no explanations were provided as to why they weren’t docketed.

Now , for how my statutory rights and constitutional due process rights to access to the Supreme Court of the United States were denied.

Supreme Court Rule 39.4 states, “When the documents required by paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Rule (i.e., IFP motion and declaration and applications for declaratory relief and mandatory injunctive relief) are presented to the clerk, accompanied by proof of service as required by Rule 29(and proof of service was provided), they will be placed on the docket without the payment of a docket fee or any other fee.”

After I fully complied with the requirements of Rule 39.4, the Clerk nonetheless refused to docket the IFP motion or the applications on three separate occasions (two original submissions and one return submission), without any explanation as to why the documents were not docketed pursuant to Rule 39.4. Therefore, on three separate occasions, Supreme Court clerks, without explanation, violated Rule 39.4, refused to docket the IFP documents, and denied me access to the Court.

Because the time was drawing near for me to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in a timely fashion, I timely requested an extension of time within which to file a certiorari petition from Justice Kennedy. The Clerk refused to submit the request to Justice Kennedy, so naturally, the request was not acted upon nor granted, and the time has now expired for me to file a certiorari petition. Therefore, I have now been denied the primary vehicle for review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision. And, necessarily, I have been denied my right to access to the Court, in violation of 28 U.S.C. sec. 1915, a congressional statute.

Because it was the Clerk that initially violated my rights, denied me access to the Court, and refused to perform a ministerial duty, i.e., docket the IFP and application documents , I filed an application for submission to Justice Kennedy seeking a mandatory injunction to require the Clerk to perform his ministerial duty to docket the IFP documents and submit the applications to Justice Kennedy. I also renewed my request for an extension of time to file a petition for a writ of mandamus.

However, instead of the Supreme Court acting on the injunction application, the Court allowed the Clerk himself ( rather than recuse himself), to respond to an injunction against him. So, the Clerk , naturally, refused to docket the application, in violation of Rule 39.4, and refused to submit it to Justice Kennedy, in violation of Supreme Court Rule 22. Further, I sent courtesy copies of the injunction application to Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Those Justices, in turn, allowed the clerk to return their courtesy copies. Consequently, the actions of the Clerk are now the actions of the Supreme Court itself. Thus, it is the Supreme Court that has denied me statutory rights, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 1915 and Supreme Court Rules 39, 22, and 12, and constitutional rights, pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, particularly the First and Fifth Amendments (and the Due Process Clause—both due process and equal protection of the law). Since the Court denied me access without providing a justifiable reason (or any reason—for denial of the IFP motion and the applications—for that matter), I must believe, and I do, that at least part of any reason is my being poor and Black.

There are no legal mechanisms of review (or appeal) for the Supreme Court’s violation of its own rules or its disregard of a federal statute erected to provide access to its court for the poor. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and the court of last resort. Thus, if I am to obtain a remedy for the Supreme Court’s conduct, it must come from Congress. So, Senator Boxer, I am turning to you , as my ally in Congress, to try and address the violations which I have identified. I think the Supreme Court’s denial of my basic right to access to the Court is similar to the denial of the right to vote, and “The 15th Amendment, added in 1870, says the right to vote ‘shall not be abridged or denied. . . on account of race’ and ‘Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’ ” L.A. Times, “Voting act faces test in high court”, February 19, 2013 (emphasis added). More specifically, Section 1 of the Fifteenth Amendment states “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude”. (Emphasis added) And Section 2 states “The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”. (Emphasis added). Congress has the same power with respect to the judiciary. If Congress has the power to prevent the United States from denying or abridging a citizen’s right to vote, then, it must have the power to prevent the United States (as in Supreme Court) from denying or abridging a citizen’s right of and to access to the Court.

To that end, as identified earlier, I am seeking two specific actions from you towards an ultimate remedy for violation of my rights to access to the Court and to be free from economic and racial discrimination : (1) to have the Supreme Court answer certain questions from you, as a member of Congress, that I, as a prospective litigant ( I never became a litigant because the Court refused to docket my case), could not ask and require an answer to; and (2) to entertain the feasibility of certain civil rights legislation to convert certain Supreme Court Rules into civil rights legislation.

First, the questions. I would like you to pose the following questions to the Supreme Court regarding my denied access to the Court:

1. With no facial indication that Applicant Bray’s IFP documentation was not in proper order according to Supreme Court Rules:
(a) What justifiable reason, based on Supreme Court Rules, do you offer for not docketing Applicant’s IFP motion and the applications, on three separate occasions ?
(b) After Applicant Bray made a request to Justice Kennedy for an extension of time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari, why wasn’t his application or request submitted to Justice Kennedy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 2101(c)(“A Justice of the Supreme Court , for good cause shown, may extend the time for applying for a writ of certiorari for a period not exceeding sixty days”) ?

2. Why was the Court Clerk, rather than recuse himself from the matter:

(a) Allowed to respond to the application for a mandatory injunction (against the Clerk) instead of Justice Kennedy or the Chief justice ?

(b) Allowed or permitted to return documents that were personally addressed to Supreme Court Justices, which addressed misconduct of the Clerk himself ? Was this proper under the circumstances?

3. If Applicant Bray’s IFP motion and attached documents contained deficiencies that prevented them from being docketed of filed, why weren’t those deficiencies identified and pointed out to the Applicant so that they could be corrected?

4. When was the last time the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case brought by a poor, Black, pro se litigant? Or a black, pro se litigant ?


Second, the feasibility of proposed civil rights legislation. I believe Supreme Court clerks have too much unintended power, and because that power is susceptible to abuse, I believe that Congress should erect legislation to curb the power, and hopefully the abuse, of clerks. Thus, I propose the following :

(1). To begin with, I think Supreme Court Rule 39.4 should be converted to federal civil rights legislation with criminal ramifications, similar to 18 U.S.C. sections 241 and 242. Apparently, because this is a Court Rule rather than a congressional statute, the clerks feel that they are at liberty to disregard its mandate. Further, even though Rule 39.4 , even in its present state, provides very little discretion for the clerks, e.g., likely checking for signatures on IFP documents or the attached documents, a congressional civil rights statute would make it clear that they have no discretion not to docket IFP motions and applications once an IFP applicant has met the requirements of Rule 39.4; and it would especially be the case when the applicants are people of color. For instance, with respect to the similarity of sec. 242, an appropriate statute would begin with “Whenever a clerk of the United States Supreme Court, under color of any law. . . subjects any movant, applicant, or petitioner for in forma pauperis status to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, . . . secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States (e.g., 28 U.S.C. sec. 1915)… on account of such movant, applicant, or petitioner being an alien, or by reason of his being poor, or by reason of his color or race , shall be fined $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year or both.”

(2). With respect to Supreme Court Rule 22.1(“An application addressed to an individual Justice shall be filed with the Clerk, who will transmit it promptly to the justice concerned if an individual Justice has authority to grant the sought relief”), I believe this Rule is clearly susceptible to abuse by clerks. Even though I understand the Court’s and Justice’s desire for an intermediary to screen potential applications, the Rule provides clerks with what I believe is unintended power, susceptible to abuse by allowing the clerks to decide, on their own whim, whether a person’s application for relief is decided or not. For example, the clerks can decide “if an individual Justice has authority to grant the sought relief” , rather than a Justice deciding this—but ,the clerk is not a Justice, and he ought not have that kind of power ( and I do not believe that it was intended for him or her to have that type of power). Therefore, the clerk can decide if a Justice rules on an applicant’s application and can decide, by whim, that they do not want the Justice to rule on the applicant’s application.

I believe the minimum legislation needed to cut down on abuse by the clerks is to convert the Rule to legislation and identify certain specific types of matters that are clearly within the single justice’s authority, such as applications for stays, injunctions, bail, and for extensions of time to file a certiorari petition (although this provision is contained in a statute, as is a stay, most lay people, i.e., IFP, pro se litigants, are probably not aware of the statutes). I also believe declaratory relief is clearly within the single Justice’s authority, but there is a valid question there. This would cut down on the clerk’s discretion as to whether the Justice “has authority to grant the sought relief” for the identified matters, i.e., stay, injunction, etc. Presently, the Rule does not identify any specific types of matters that are within the Justice’s authority, so that places the decision of whether the Justice hears and decides an application entirely within the hands of the Clerk. And, as alluded to above, the Clerk can decide if this is the type of matter, depending on who files the application, that the Justice can and will decide. And, if the clerk decides against an applicant, the applicant generally has no recourse, since he or she cannot make the request directly to the Justice.

And Senator, if the applicant attempts to have the full Court review the Clerk’s decision, you need only review what happened to my application when I sought review of the clerk’s conduct. The Court refused to review the conduct (and returned the application to me, un-docketed). And, keep in mind Senator, the remedy I sought (asking the full court to review the clerk’s conduct) had been suggested by a district court and court of appeals as an “adequate remedy” for getting a clerk’s conduct corrected. See Borutrager v. Stevas, 772 F.2d 419 (8th Cir. 1985) where, “The plaintiff has a fully adequate alternative remedy, a motion directed to the Supreme Court seeking review of the defendant’s (clerk’s) conduct. Although the Court recognized that no statute or rule expressly authorizes the Justices to conduct such a review, it reasoned that the Supreme Court’s power over its clerks is inherent in the nature of the relationship between the two, pointing out that ‘it is the right and duty of the court. . . to correct the irregularities of its officer and compel him to perform his duty’ ” (citing Griffin v. Thompson, 2 How. 244, 257, 43 U.S. 244, 11 L.Ed. 253 (1844). Therefore, it seems clear that congressional intervention is needed. And, if Congress would require the identification of specific types of matters within the single Justice’s authority, it would at least lessen the complete discretion that the clerk presently has. And, there should be criminal civil rights ramifications for when the clerk’s misconduct is directed to people of color, similar to 18 U.S.C. sec. 242. If nothing else, it will cause clerks to reflect on their decision when dealing with people of color.

Finally, while the Eight Circuit suggested that resort to a district court for mandamus relief might be a possible remedy for Supreme Court clerk misconduct if the Supreme Court denies review, my search reveals that most lower courts (district courts and court of appeals) will refuse to grant such relief.



OVERALL RELIEF SOUGHT


The specific relief that I’m seeking of course is the restoration of my rights to file my applications to Justice Kennedy, and to file a petition for a writ of certiorari, if I choose to file one.

Beyond that, I also have a right to file a petition for a writ of mandamus against the Ninth Circuit, but because the IFP motion was not docketed and granted, that right has been denied as well. The compelling question is: What body is or should be charged with review of actions by the Supreme Court of the United States when it is alleged that the Supreme Court itself has violated statutory rights and U.S. Constitutional rights of United States citizens ? I believe Congress should establish a “special” court to review actions by the Supreme Court, especially actions involving violations of the law, and most especially actions regarding violations of provisions of the U.S. Constitution .

Finally, the ultimate relief I am seeking is the return of my home- law office in Ventura, California (and damages for its unlawful and invidious shutdown and the years of non-use following the shutdown; and damages and injunctive relief for my district court claims in Bray v. Department of Justice), that was taken pursuant to racial discrimination . As I have attempted to obtain relief through the courts, rather than pursue the course that Christopher Dorner did, all I have received is further racial discrimination in the California courts (state and federal). Like Christopher Dorner, when I was wrongfully and racially evicted from my home-law office, I had to move in with my mother and sister; and like Christopher Dorner, because of the loss of my law office (and I was unable to secure another law office since—having to improvise with the use of other office facilities to maintain my limited practice), I’ve been unable to start a family as well. So, while I never met him, I know Christopher Dorner , and I know racial discrimination (and the affect and effect of racial discrimination) in America.

I would appreciate a prompt reply Senator.

Sincerely yours,


Laurack D. Bray, Esq.

P.S. This will be an open and public letter.
Enclosures

cc : Dianne Feinstein, Senator for California
John Conyers, Congressman, and the Congressional Black Caucus


This blog will follow Senator Boxer's response to the letter and any related matters *pursuant thereto.

Until next time.

UPDATE--March 15, 2013

After I wrote this blog, there was oral argument in the Supreme Court regarding the Voting Rights Act and the "pre-clearance" provision. According to the L.A. Times, "At one point, Justice Antonin Scalia referred to the law as a "perpetuation of racial entitlement." L.A. Times,"Voting Rights Act is questioned", February 28, 2013. So I'm wondering whether Justice Scalia would consider my right to access to the Court a "racial entitlement". And, whether that thought pattern contributed to the Supreme Court denying me my right to access to the Court, that is, a Black man demanding a right to access to the Court like black people demanding the right to vote. Thusfar, I haven't heard of any civil rights leaders challenging that statement made by Justice Scalia. Black people have to rely on Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who at least questioned the statement, for at least a response to the statement. Where is the NAACP? I mean that statement by Justice Scalia generally questions whether black people should have a right to vote, and insinuates that the right to vote that black people possess is merely a "privilege" or an "entitlement" and not a right, which is possessed by all citizens of the United States.

I hope Senator Boxer addresses this issue as well when she responds to my letter, that is: Whether my demand for my constitutional right to access to the Supreme Court is truly a "right" that is the same right that is possessed by all citizens of the United States of America, or is it a racial "privilege" or "entitlement" possessed by me as a Black American?

Finally, in the aforementioned article, it was stated that, "Justices from the left and right took turns arguing with one another over whether racism and racial discrimination remain problems". This one is not even close. Clearly, clearly, racism and racial discrimination remain persistent problems in the United States of America, and one only needs to examine the State of California as an example. I could provide multiple examples of racial discrimination and racism in California, from Ventura County to L.A. County to Orange County. But, one only needs to look at my case, the Christopher Dorner case, and a recent case evolving from the Los Angeles Airport Police Department. All of these cases involve "covert" racial discrimination, rather than overt (where the actions are blatant and open, such as using racial language like "nigger" or "spic", or actions such as dragging a black man by a truck), and invariably, most of the racial discrimination in this country continues to be directed at black people. The problem is the white majority in the country purposefully attempts to hide or disguise covert racial discrimination and pretend that it doesn't exist, rather than correcting it, and generally, "goes to sleep" on the matter, until a Christopher Dorner comes along and "wakes" them up. And, even then, the system refuses to take material steps to eradicate the racial discrimination. So, there is no question, not even close, that racism and racial discrimination persist in this country. And, if racial discrimination persist in the rest of the country, it must also persist in the "pre-clearance" states, even if the degrees vary.

UPDATE--March 26, 2013

I contacted Senator Boxer's office on or about March 21, 2013 and inquired as to whether or not the Senator had received my letter. Her office assistant responded that the Senator had not received the letter. I informed the assistant that postal confirmation confirmed that the letter was delivered to the office address during the first week of March. But she stated that because of security checks, the mail is sometimes delayed before actually being delivered to the Senator's office. I know that security checks can delay actual delivery to a Congress person's office, but from my experience, that delay is at most a week. In any event, I will try again at a later time, and at that time, I will assume and presume that the letter was received, even if it wasn't (and I will inform the office of such), and I will notify the office that the letter is on the internet, so that the Senator can read it there if she hasn't received it. And, I will proceed accordingly.

UPDATE--April 15, 2013

Well, I received a one-page letter from Boxer's office, dated April 3, 2013. The letter (besides being utterly non-responsive to my letter and the significant and fundamental issues involved in my letter) was insulting, demeaning, and disrespectful,at least (and at most, racist, notwithstanding Boxer's status as a so-called liberal Democrat). For instance, after I informed Boxer in my letter that I was an experienced attorney (having practiced for over 25 years, with multiple published legal opinions in which I was a counsel of record), Boxer states in her letter "Decisions of the courts can only be reviewed by means provided in the judicial process. Only an appellate court has the authority to overturn a final trial court decision. . . . If you require an attorney to assist you with the appeals process, you may wish to contact the California State Bar Lawyer Referral Service, or your local Legal Aide Society for assistance." She continues, "In addition to seeking the advice of a competent attorney, you may wish to pursue any claim of impropriety regarding your case, first with the presiding trial judge, or if this is not appropriate, within one of the review bodies designed to monitor the activities of the courts and the attorneys who practice in them. I have enclosed a referral list to assist you with this process, if so warranted." Mind you, nowhere in my letter did I request an attorney or legal assistance; and the assistance that I did request was not forthcoming. It is very probable that the letter reflects the thoughts and ideas of Boxer's Director of Constituent Services, Eric Jose' Vizcaino, or the person who actually wrote the letter for Vizcaino (I can't understand his or her signature); but, in any event, since my letter was directed to Boxer and the letter I received is from her office, Boxer has to be credited with the contents of the letter. It clearly appears to be one of the boilerplate letters (using the same or similar language) that is likely sent out to most lay (non-attorney) constituents, who raises any type of legal issue that Boxer chooses not to address, even if that legal issue merely clarifies a legislative issue that is actually being presented to her. But, again, Boxer is credited with authoring the letter, regardless, i.e., its the same as if she wrote the letter herself.

Moreover, because of the letter, and the contents of the letter, and Boxer's total disregard of the the significant and fundamental issues involved in my case, i.e., the racial taking of my home-law office by a state judge, and the violation of fundamental constitutional guarantees, e.g., due process, equal protection of the law and access to the Court (in this case, the Supreme Court of the United States), I no longer have much respect for Boxer, clearly as a senator, but perhaps as a person as well. I stop short of saying I have "no" respect for her only because she did respond (although that response may have been prompted by my blog), and I believe that there are some politicians who don't respond at all to some constituent letters. So out of 100% respect that I had for Boxer before her letter, I've lost all respect except the 1% for the response letter.

I sought assistance from Boxer as my Senator (one of them) from California, and clearly I received no assistance. There are likely very few times during the course of a politician's term of representation that most citizens find a real need to contact a politician personally, either by a face to face meeting or by correspondence; but when he or she does find the need to do so, he or she also discovers, in large part, the actual worth of that politician to her or him, as opposed to an area or group of citizens, e.g., a district or state. In this instance, Boxer was worth nothing to me. It's the same as not having a Senator. Even if she could not provide me with complete relief, or no relief, she absolutely could explain why not (especially where fundamental issues are concerned), and that explanation, in turn, would provide her with some worth. However, when a politician has the capacity to provide a citizen with some relief and pretends that he or she doesn't possess that capacity, because, for whatever personal reason, the politician chooses not to provide the relief or assistance, he or she is worthless or useless. Boxer has been worthless or useless to me. Her letter is useless rubbish, garbage in and garbage out. And, as I will demonstrate through an example below, her statement in her letter that, "it is not permissible for her office to intervene with legal matters" is absolute nonsense and simply false (unless her office is different from other senator offices or unless she is different from other senators).

Recently, in a case reported by the L.A. Times, the parents of an American man found dead in Singapore, China, turned to U.S. Senators to help determine whether the death was a suicide or murder. See "Singapore hanging gets attention of U.S. officials", L.A. Times, March 31, 2013. On the face of the matter, the determination as to whether the man committed suicide or was murdered in China is a legal matter which has to be decided in China by Chinese officials, and therefore does not involve U.S. officials. At most, even if the matter can be considered a legal issue requiring U.S. involvement, it is still a legal issue, for the Executive Branch (i.e., the FBI), not a legislative one. Nevertheless, "Since their son died in June, Mary and Rick Todd have brought their case to Washington, getting Montana's two senators, the FBI, the State Department and the Singapore Embassy involved. . . ." Id . "(Senator Max) Baucus(D.Mont.) and Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) pressured Singapore into agreeing to cooperate with an independent FBI investigation." That statement, if true, directly contradicts Senator Boxer's statement that "it is not permissible for her office to intervene with legal matters", and at the same time, makes her statement false. Moreover, not only did the two Senators (Baucus and Tester) "intervene with legal matters", but, they went further, "They have also introduced legislation to stop U.S. funding to the Institute for Microelectronics, or IME, the Singaporean government research firm where Shane Todd (the person that died) worked for 18 months." Id. But, this family is white and appears to have considerable means. Could those be factors that were considered by Boxer in not providing me with assistance?

More specifically, Boxer herself just recently "intervened" in a legal matter on behalf of homeowners. Apparently, after a "legal" settlement had been reached between banks and state and federal agencies pursuant to "legal" investigations by the respective agencies, i.e., state investigators, and the U.S. Attorney General's Office and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Boxer found that banks were not performing their end of the bargain sufficiently, and on behalf of homeowners, stated, according to the L.A. Times, "Participating banks agreed to ensure certain basic consumer protections in exchange for "legal" relief (emphasis added), and "(W)hile the banks have been relieved of that legal uncertainty, struggling homeowners continue to face a seemingly patchwork system that leaves them at risk of losing their homes." See "Sen. Boxer urges foreclosure probe", L.A. Times, April 13, 2013. So, what is that if it's not a Senator (and here Boxer herself) "intervening in a legal matter"? So Boxer's statement in her letter to me appears to be just a lie. Credibility? *None.

Needless to say, when the next senatorial election rolls around, if I am a California citizen, I will not vote for Boxer, or Senator Dianne Feinstein for that matter (where she received a copy of the letter and did not respond; she could have responded, sua sponte, if she had chosen to).

But, now that my California Senators have chosen not to respond to my letter or to assist me in any way in addressing the violation of my constitutional rights as a black man in America, I will proceed accordingly.

I still have several options open to me in seeking justice, and one of those options is to bring federal criminal complaints (seeking restitution) against all those various officials, including judges, who have violated my constitutional rights under color of law as my civil rights case proceeded in and through the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. Those officials know who they are (and if they don't know now, they will know later), and you the reader will know who they are after I file the Complaint. Since my two Senators apparently will not intervene to try and resolve the matter without Executive intervention, I will see what the Executive Branch will do. And, although I do not have a lot of confidence in Obama's Justice Department, which I believe is "for white people only", its the only Justice Department that I have. So, I will utilize it, notwithstanding my disillusionment. NOTE: George W. Bush's Justice Department provided me with fairer treatment as a black man than Obama's. When I brought several criminal complaints against several public officials, including judges, in 2007, Bush's FBI made several white judges retire from the bench and at least one other white official resign(they also made a black judge take senior status from a regular judgeship). Clearly, the officials should have been prosecuted (by the U.S. Attorney's Office) and made to pay restitution (which would have provided me with some relief--which I didn't get), but at least the FBI did something (and I thank them for it), in protection of a black man's rights as he proceeded through a sometimes racist judicial system. And, its more than I can say for the Obama Administration (either its U.S. Attorney's Office or its FBI--which I charged in my district court complaint with conducting illegal surveillance of me, including wiretaps), which is headed by a "black" President and a "black" Attorney General. It's a sad commentary for black people in America.

So, after I file the criminal Complaint, when the accused look for someone to blame for having the Complaint filed against them, they can start with Boxer and Feinstein.

UPDATE--May 9,2013

Since I wrote the previous updated blog, the LA Times has now attempted to rehabilitate the credibility of Boxer and Feinstein by publishing two articles, one about Boxer and Feinstein (and the years they have worked together)(April 22,2013), and another about Boxer herself; but neither of the articles addresses the issues raised in this blog, therefore, the articles cannot cleanse Boxer's poor credibility with respect to her response to my letter.

I expect to begin working on the federal criminal Complaint next week.

**UPDATE--June 27, 2013

I still haven't started work on the Complaint yet, but its coming.


**UPDATE--September 12, 2013

Well, after working on some matters in support of others, e.g., Christopher Dorner, Trayvon Martin, Oscar Grant, and "Lisa" Tseng, which I gave priority to, LDB must now do something for LDB.

As of today, I am officially beginning work on the Federal criminal complaints against those individuals who violated my civil and constitutional rights under color of law as I processed my civil rights case in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in Los Angeles (Bray v. Department of Justice), and as the case proceeded through the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court.

To be clear, the primary reason that I am exercising this option, among others, is to seek restitution, including injunctive relief (i.e., the return of my home-law office in Ventura, CA), for the betterment of my life (the conduct of the named individuals as well as others before them has resulted in the ruin of a large part of my life, but, hopefully, I still have some productive years remaining). Since the conduct, or misconduct of the named individuals prevented me from prosecuting my civil rights case and obtaining relief, as the law would permit, the named individuals must pay restitution for their misconduct, which in part, will substitute for the relief that I would ordinarily have obtained through the normal and ordinary legal process in prosecuting my aforementioned civil rights case. A secondary reason is to have those individuals who perpetrated the misconduct to answer for their misconduct. And, a third reason is to have the public, as much as possible, become aware of these individuals and what they have done, so as to prevent them from having perpetrated their acts of misconduct in private or in secret. This means that if I owned a major television station, radio station, or newspaper, the processing of my criminal complaints would be announced through those mediums, just as those mediums announce the processing of criminal cases for other common criminals. The public has a right to know in both cases.

Further, I have decided that after I file the complaints and the named individuals are added to the ICR (Indictable Criminal Roster), I will break down the ICR into a specific category of individuals who have violated a specific statute. This will be a new and separate roster with a new and separate name. It will be an annual roster that will be published monthly. I will provide more details after the criminal complaints have been filed and the new names are added to the ICR. There will be an opportunity to be removed from the list (and the details of that opportunity will be presented later as well).


**UPDATE--Febraury 20, 2014

The criminal Complaint has now been filed with the U.S. Attorney's office. See my most recent blog for further information about the Complaint.

*BLAME BOXER AND FEINSTEIN

NOTE : While it wasn't altogether planned this way, it just so happens that the Complaint has been filed during Black History Month. That is altogether fitting and proper. This is for you Martin, and those who supported you in the movement.