Los Angeles, California
September 10, 2014
(Today's date)
September 10, 2014
(Original date)
*Denotes a change made in the original blog
**UPDATE-Denotes NEW information added to the blog after the original blog was published.
A simple analogy to the jury selection process clearly demonstrates why prosecutor Robert McCulloch must recuse himself, and if he doesn't, why the Brown's should go to court, state or federal, to force McCulloch to step down from the Michael Brown-Darren Wilson case.
From my understanding, McCulloch's father was killed by a Black man during a kidnapping. That is, "The prosecutor's father, Paul McCulloch, was a St. Louis police officer when he was gunned down July 2, 1964, at age 37 while trying to arrest a kidnapper. He had answered a call by an officer in need of assistance at a housing complex and died in a shootout. One of the shooters was wounded and was later convicted of murder." Kindy, Kimberly, Washington Post. If true, this is sufficient evidence for McCulloch to be required to step down, not the optional "should" step down.
If Darren Wilson was actually tried for murder, as he should be, and the jury selection process was underway, any ordinary white citizen (like McCulloch) with the same facts as those surrounding the killing of McCulloch's father by a Black man, regardless of the white citizen's profession or occupation, who was a part of the initial jury pool, after revealing those facts to a judge, would be stricken for "cause" (probable bias in favor of the white police officer, Wilson). And, for the same reason, McCulloch must be recused (he, apparently, is not stepping down on his own accord).
The Brown family should bring a civil rights-due process claim in federal court and seek a TRO and preliminary and permanent injunction requiring McCulloch to be removed from prosecution of the case, and to be replaced by an independent prosecutor selected by a federal judge. While this process would create extra litigation for the Browns, it would be worth it for achieving justice for Michael Brown. Since the Browns are purportedly being represented by counsel already, then the federal litigation should be part of that representation.
To the Brown family : Good luck!
Saturday, August 30, 2014
THE MURDER OF MICHAEL BROWN AND PROSECUTOR ROBERT McCULLOCH: IF THE AVAILABLE FACTS ARE CORRECT, McCULLOCH MUST RECUSE HIMSELF; IF NOT, THE BROWN FAMILY SHOULD SEEK HIS RECUSAL IN FEDERAL COURT BY WAY OF AN INJUNCTION. A JURY SELECTION ANALOGY SHOWS WHY McCULLOCH MUST BE RECUSED IN FAVOR OF AN INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR.
Thursday, August 21, 2014
THE BLACK CITIZENS (ESPECIALLY THE YOUNG ONES) OF FERGUSON, MISSOURI : "I'M SO PROUD".
Los Angeles, California
August 22, 2014
(Today's Date)
August 21, 2014
(Original Date)
*Denotes a change made in the original blog (either adding or deleting)
**UPDATE-Denotes NEW information added to the blog after publication of the original blog
This will be one of my shorter blogs. I simply want to express my enormous pride, as a Black man and a Black lawyer in America, in the Black citizens of Ferguson, Mo., especially the young ones. It so reminds me of the early civil rights movement, when young people had courage, i.e., the lunch counter sit-ins and other protests involving police dogs and water hoses. *It also reminds me of the 1963 Watts (CA) riots, which I witnessed firsthand. Today's young Black people (as well as adults), on the whole, lack courage. We are, for the most part, cowards. We don't do anything. We don't say anything. And, we don't support one another. It's sad that it has taken the loss of a young Black life to bring out the courage of the few Black young people (yes, there are adults also, and I am proud of them also, but the biggest brunt is borne by young people) of Ferguson who have persisted in exercising their civil rights in the face of tear gas, rifles, *tank-like and other war machinery. They have persisted over a period of ten days, even though other so-called Black officials, along with some white officials, have encouraged them to revise *or alterate their protest, e.g., stop protesting at or by sun down. They continued their protest well beyond sun down.
It's sad that the young people must proceed ahead in their fight for justice for Michael Brown without any legal support from the legal community, especially the Black *legal community. For instance, the police told the Ferguson protesters that they had to continuously march rather than stand still and protest. Where, in the Constitution, does it say that the freedom to assemble means "continuous marching". Clearly, this was nothing but a ploy on behalf of Ferguson officials, which probably worked to some extent, to lead to the marchers getting tired of walking around in circles and eventually giving up. Where was the ACLU? More importantly, where were the Black lawyers? Clearly, the National Bar Association was present. Why didn't they provide the marchers with representation? They should have confronted the police with the First Amendment and informed them that the protesters had a right to stop and protest on the sidewalk, especially if it would not cause any serious safety problems (and it wouldn't) or other interference with public safety (and inconvenience would not be enough). And, if the police did not accept their advice, they should have proceeded to federal court to seek an injunction. The protesters were denied their first amendment right to assemble (by causing some to leave when ordinarily they would not have). This is just one observation that I have. I think it was cowardice on behalf of Black lawyers. I think they (Black lawyers) knew the order to keep marching was an infringement on the protesters' right to assemble, but simply did not want to challenge the police. I don't believe the non-lawyer protestors knew this and just went along with the police commands.
*Black lawyers should also have informed the protestors of the legal standard for an arrest, i.e., probable cause, so that the protestors could understand that they had a valid legal basis for calling for the arrest of Darren Wilson for the murder of Mike Brown, which may have motivated them to persist in their protest activities. The protestors, especially the young ones, got no encouragement or support from the legal community in their protests, which likely resulted in their early stoppage.
Again, I'm so proud of the (especially) young protestors (but, the adults as well). And, I urge them to keep up the good fight, even if its only a few (but there should be many). This is their (our) opportunity to let the world know about the racism in Ferguson, Mo., as well as the United States (because the same thing happens all over the country where the characteristics of Ferguson, Mo. exists). And, it's clear the police hasn't learn anything from the murder of Michael Brown. See the other murder of the other Black man in St. Louis County (a one Mr. Powell). And, yes, that was murder as well. And, both cases and killings were the result of racial discrimination or racism, *that is, both killings were racially-motivated murders. Neither man would have been shot and killed if he were white.
August 22, 2014
(Today's Date)
August 21, 2014
(Original Date)
*Denotes a change made in the original blog (either adding or deleting)
**UPDATE-Denotes NEW information added to the blog after publication of the original blog
This will be one of my shorter blogs. I simply want to express my enormous pride, as a Black man and a Black lawyer in America, in the Black citizens of Ferguson, Mo., especially the young ones. It so reminds me of the early civil rights movement, when young people had courage, i.e., the lunch counter sit-ins and other protests involving police dogs and water hoses. *It also reminds me of the 1963 Watts (CA) riots, which I witnessed firsthand. Today's young Black people (as well as adults), on the whole, lack courage. We are, for the most part, cowards. We don't do anything. We don't say anything. And, we don't support one another. It's sad that it has taken the loss of a young Black life to bring out the courage of the few Black young people (yes, there are adults also, and I am proud of them also, but the biggest brunt is borne by young people) of Ferguson who have persisted in exercising their civil rights in the face of tear gas, rifles, *tank-like and other war machinery. They have persisted over a period of ten days, even though other so-called Black officials, along with some white officials, have encouraged them to revise *or alterate their protest, e.g., stop protesting at or by sun down. They continued their protest well beyond sun down.
It's sad that the young people must proceed ahead in their fight for justice for Michael Brown without any legal support from the legal community, especially the Black *legal community. For instance, the police told the Ferguson protesters that they had to continuously march rather than stand still and protest. Where, in the Constitution, does it say that the freedom to assemble means "continuous marching". Clearly, this was nothing but a ploy on behalf of Ferguson officials, which probably worked to some extent, to lead to the marchers getting tired of walking around in circles and eventually giving up. Where was the ACLU? More importantly, where were the Black lawyers? Clearly, the National Bar Association was present. Why didn't they provide the marchers with representation? They should have confronted the police with the First Amendment and informed them that the protesters had a right to stop and protest on the sidewalk, especially if it would not cause any serious safety problems (and it wouldn't) or other interference with public safety (and inconvenience would not be enough). And, if the police did not accept their advice, they should have proceeded to federal court to seek an injunction. The protesters were denied their first amendment right to assemble (by causing some to leave when ordinarily they would not have). This is just one observation that I have. I think it was cowardice on behalf of Black lawyers. I think they (Black lawyers) knew the order to keep marching was an infringement on the protesters' right to assemble, but simply did not want to challenge the police. I don't believe the non-lawyer protestors knew this and just went along with the police commands.
*Black lawyers should also have informed the protestors of the legal standard for an arrest, i.e., probable cause, so that the protestors could understand that they had a valid legal basis for calling for the arrest of Darren Wilson for the murder of Mike Brown, which may have motivated them to persist in their protest activities. The protestors, especially the young ones, got no encouragement or support from the legal community in their protests, which likely resulted in their early stoppage.
Again, I'm so proud of the (especially) young protestors (but, the adults as well). And, I urge them to keep up the good fight, even if its only a few (but there should be many). This is their (our) opportunity to let the world know about the racism in Ferguson, Mo., as well as the United States (because the same thing happens all over the country where the characteristics of Ferguson, Mo. exists). And, it's clear the police hasn't learn anything from the murder of Michael Brown. See the other murder of the other Black man in St. Louis County (a one Mr. Powell). And, yes, that was murder as well. And, both cases and killings were the result of racial discrimination or racism, *that is, both killings were racially-motivated murders. Neither man would have been shot and killed if he were white.
Monday, July 14, 2014
THE 1st ANNUAL LIST OF RACIST JUDGES AND OTHER PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN CALIFORNIA@ 2014
Los Angeles, California
LAURACK D. BRAY, M.S., M.P.A., J.D.
September 3, 2014
(Today's Date)
June 20, 2014
(Original Date)
@-This symbol before an individual's name on the list means that public "official" includes an employee, and/or that the individual named is not out of California, and is therefore an exception to the "in California" designation.
*Denotes change made in original blog, either adding or deleting information
**UPDATE (denotes NEW information added after original publication of blog)
***This blog is submitted as a contribution to and part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California (and the United States)
#-This symbol before the name of an individual on the list means that the individual is one of several individuals that the FBI took action against pursuant to my federal criminal Complaints filed in the U.S. Attorney's Office in 2007. While the U.S. Attorney's Office has refused to prosecute any of the individuals on the List, the FBI, through its own powers, took certain actions, e.g., causing retirements or resignations, against certain individuals named in the 2007 Complaint.
##-This symbol before the name of judge Dickran Tevrizian means that Tevrizian underwent a forced retirement, made to appear as a voluntary retirement. Tevrizian was faced with a Judicial Misconduct Complaint filed against him, and rather than requiring Tevrizian to undergo the misconduct proceedings, 9th Cir. judge Harry Pregerson, through criminal misconduct, allowed Tevrizian to retire rather than face misconduct proceedings.
This is the beginning and first installment of what will be an annual listing of racist judges and other public officials in California. One of the purposes, among others, for the list is transparency and exposure of "action" conduct or action racism by those judges and public officials in California (whom I become aware of) who exercise racial discrimination and/or racism against other persons of another race or color. Usually when judges exercise their racial discrimination or racism, it is done "privately", in terms of public exposure (aided by the mainstream press's refusal to report "action" racism, in contrast to "speech" racism, i.e., racist words or statements, unless the action involves bodily harm, e.g., murder, or sometimes the press reports about written graffiti), although "publicly", as a matter of technical classification, i.e., open to the public. That is, while the discrimination takes place in a public proceeding, e.g., a courtroom or court chambers, or a hearing, regarding written opinions or decisions, because the actions aren't analyzed, designated, and reported by the mass news media, and I believe purposely, the actions are not made public. This blog is intended to change that (at least as to the indviduals on the List). And, at least as to the limited public that the blog may reach.
Again, the major thrust of this list will be "action" racial discrimination or racism and not "speech" racism, e.g., Donald Sterling(racist statements) and Paula Deen(racist words). And, as noted by the titles of the individuals selected for listing, this list will only cover "judges" and other "public" officials, and usually, it will only cover those judges and other public officials who have had formal, and usually federal, civil rights complaints filed against them charging racial discrimination or the violation of statutory or constitutional rights under color of law and based on race or color. But as usually is the case, there may be exceptions to the rule.
"Action" racism or racial discrimination is that discrimination or racism which is performed or implemented by or through acts or action by the discriminating person or persons against another person or persons of another race or color, based on that person's race or color. The acts are usually physical in some way, even if the physicality is limited, e.g., writing and/or issuing an order which results in causing harm to someone. But, sometimes the acts may be oral, such as an oral order to do something which results in causing harm to someone. But, if one views the movement of the mouth as physical, then even the oral act is physical. And, the acts are intended to, and usually do, cause harm of some kind, even if the harm is mental or emotional or results in mere hurt feelings or disappointment. The action racism performed by the individuals on this list, thusfar, are not accompanied by any associated racial words or terms, just the actions which results in harm. It is the action racism which is the worse kind of racism, because it causes the greatest harm. The most obvious type is the physical murder cases, e.g., James Byrd, dragged to death by a racist driving a truck. But, the most prevalent action cases are probably the type perpetrated by the individuals on this list, that is, utilizing written or oral orders or other writings, e.g., lying, to cause harm to another, e.g., deprivation of income,property, and the pursuit of happiness.
In most cases, the racism perpetrated by the individuals on this list will be evidenced by and through single acts. But, a single act is all that is needed, especially when that single act causes devastating results, e.g., the loss and continued deprivation of one's home, one's profession in a major way, including income and the ability to earn income, and one's ability to start and raise a family. Donald Sterling's designation as a racist was based on one act, i.e, racist statements made at one time and captured on audiotape, and that one act has caused Sterling devastating consequences, a fine of $2.5 million dollars, a lifetime ban from the NBA, and eventually, loss of ownership of the team. And, of course, Byrd and Matthew Sheppard, both of whom suffered a loss of life through a single act of racism. However, several of the individuals on this list committed multiple acts of discriminatory and/or criminal misconduct.
Although I had intended to publish this list at sometime in the near future, I was prompted to expedite publishing based on the recent Donald Sterling racism case. After Sterling was exposed on audiotape making racist statements, i.e., that he didn't want to be around Black people, generally, or, more specifically, that he didn't want an acquaintance or friend, V. Stiviano, bringing Black people to Clipper games or taking pictures with Black people, he was sanctioned or punished by the NBA, through the Commissioner. He was fined $2.5 million dollars, banned from the NBA for life, and was subjected to a process towards the goal of removing the L.A. Clippers team from his ownership.
In response to the punishment, Sterling asserted his beliefs that he was being treated differently or unfairly compared to other owners, and that he knew other people, be they owners or others associated with the NBA, who had exercised some form of discrimination against people of other races or of a different sexual orientation. And so Sterling set out to prove his beliefs by hiring investigators to "dig up dirt" on other owners and/or individuals associated with the NBA.
I, as a Black man and Black lawyer in California, support Sterling's efforts at uncovering other racists. I believe as many as possible should be exposed. Thus, this list is my contribution to Sterling's efforts.
I realize that calling or designating someone a "racist" is a very serious matter, and calling or labeling a judge a racist is even more serious; but, discriminating against someone racially, based on that person's race or color is just as serious, especially when devastating harm or damages result from the discrimination. And, if someone, including a judge (who is a public servant, who is put in place to determine whether others discriminate, and who is held to the highest standard of the land regarding ethical and professional conduct), decides to exercise racial discrimination against another, based on that person's race or color, then the judge should be prepared to suffer the consequences of that behavior, including being identified as a racist, which he or she is.
In my view, there are three (3)types of racists generally: (1) Type 1, the superiority racist--this is the most common type. This racist simply believes his race is superior to all other races, and conversely, all other races are inferior to him and should be subservient to him and should be poorer and less respected than him; he may or may not act on his beliefs; the superiority racist may not necessarily believe that he or she is superior to another race, but, he will believe that somehow he is better than or different from another race to the extent that he is repugnant to other races in certain circumstances. For example, although he may integrate or interrelate with other races, he may not want his children dating members of other races, or he may not approve of it; (2) Type 2, the oppressive racist--the oppressive racist is antagonistic towards members of a different race, and, whether he believes he is superior or not (he might not believe that he is superior), he, through whatever means or power he has available to him, takes steps or "action" to assure that members of other races or color remain below him or do not achieve what he or his people (or race) achieves, or obtain what he or his race has obtained, i.e., the "American dream" and beyond, or certain professions, e.g., lawyers, doctors, etc., or monetary levels of professions,i.e, persons of a *certain race can make this amount of money in an occupation or profession, but when they attempt to make a significantly higher amount, the oppressive racist takes steps or action to prevent it. For example, white plantation-owners to slaves (here, I am not including the brutality of slavery, simply the oppression in making sure that slaves remain slaves, rather than allowing slaves to become plantation-owners--many white plantation owners treated their slaves decently, and not brutal, but they would make sure, and take steps to assure, a slave remained a slave); some examples of the "action" taken by oppressive racists are lying, ignoring or disregarding rules, policies, or the law, falsifying legal documents, issuing illegal orders, issuing legal but false orders, and issuing legal but wrong orders (based on a biased interpretation of the law), all for the purpose of denying persons of another race or color from achieving success that might rise to the racist's level of success, or to a level that the racist believes the person (of another race) should not reach; and (3) the hateful racist--the hateful racist not only believes that he is superior to other races, but he hates or despises other races, and if the opportunity arises, he would cause physical harm or destruction to persons or property of other races simply because of his dislike for their race or sexual orientation, e.g., Byrd and Shepard, as the victims of hateful racists.
Every individual on this List is at least a Type 1 or Type 2 racist. Most of the individuals on the List are Type 2 racists. Some may be a combination of Type 1 and 2, and a few may be Type 3, but, I have no evidence of that at this point. But, whatever the classification, every individual on this List is a racist. See below.
Anyone who exercises invidious racial discrimination against another, based on that person's race or color, is, to some degree (however minute), a racist. But, this list is not based on this proposition alone. The individuals on the list are racists for the following other reasons as well:
1. The definition of "racism" and "racist". While there are various definitions provided for both racism and racist, I am relying on the following definitions for identifying the racists on this list: "Racism"--poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race, Merriam-Webster.com, Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 21 June 2014, and "racial prejudice or discrimination", Id., and "Discrimination or prejudice based on race", The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright 2000 by Houghton Miffiln Company, Updated in 2009; "Racist"--a person who believes in racism, Dictionary.com Unabridged, Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2014, and "discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion", Thesaurus, Free Online Dictionary. According to these definitions, the individuals on this List are racists.
2. The United Nations' definition of racial discrimination: "The term 'racial discrimination' shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life." All of the individuals on this List exercised racial discrimination according to and based on the U.N.'s definition of racial discrimination.
3. The Federal Criminal Complaints--all the individuals on this List were charged, through federal criminal complaints, with racial discrimination pursuant to a federal statute which criminalizes racial discrimination, or were charged with another crime evolving from racial discrimination. All the Complaints are still pending. And, until the Defendants are brought within the confines of the criminal justice process and system, e.g., an arrest, and are cloaked with a "presumption of innocent until proven guilty", they remain "criminals", because they violated federal criminal law, and they remain "racists", because they have exercised racism and/or racial discrimination against a person of another race or color.
4. The (Donald Sterling) Principle and Presumption of Racism**** : "Where there's smoke, there's fire". The "smoke" is the production of some evidence demonstrating racial discrimination by one person or persons against another person of a different race or color. Using the Donald Sterling case as an example, the smoke would be the settled racial discrimination lawsuits and/or the lawsuit brought by Elgin Baylor alleging racial discrimination (I ignore the outcome of Baylor's case, because his case was mishandled--his race discrimination claim should never have been withdrawn). In law, this would represent circumstantial evidence of racial discrimination by Donald Sterling. The "fire" would be the audiotape conversations, statements, and evidence that Donald Sterling generally does not want to be around Black people, and more specifically, that Sterling does not want Black people to attend Clippers' games (at least not with his friend, Stiviano), nor to appear in pictures with Stiviano. In law, this would be direct evidence of racial prejudice and/or racial discrimination.
The (Sterling) Principle of Racism holds as follows : whenever there has been sufficient or some evidence (i.e., circumstantial evidence) produced that an individual has racially discriminated against another person, based on the person's race or color, it is very likely that greater or conclusive evidence of racial discrimination or racism will follow. "Where there's smoke, there's usually fire".
The (Sterling) Presumption of racism holds that : whenever there is sufficient or some evidence produced demonstrating the exercise of racial discrimination or racism by a person of one race against a person of another race or color, it will be presumed that greater or conclusive evidence of racial discrimination by the same person will follow or be produced. "Where there's smoke, there's fire".
(Donald Sterling) Principle #2 states : Whenever a white person is charged with exercising racial discrimination or racism against a black person, and the black person has produced sufficient or some evidence of racial discrimination or racism by the white person, and the white person is thereafter identified as a "racist" because of the discriminatory conduct, the fact that the charged white person has demonstrated some benefit or advantage to black people or the black community, e.g., the homeless or criminal defendants, does not mean that the white person is not a racist.
****NOTE : I created the (Donald Sterling) Principle and Presumption of Racism specifically for this List and blog. But, it is highly likely that I will rely on the principle and presumption regarding some future matters as well. Moreover, I believe the Principle and Presumption should be used in law for all criminal racial discrimination cases. It would serve to solidify circumstantial evidence cases.
All of the discriminatory actions by the individuals on this List are directed at black males. In most of the cases, but not all, I am the Black male, either as a plaintiff, or as a lawyer, or as both combined.
The titles or professions provided for the individuals are the titles that they maintained at the time the Federal Complaints against them were filed. Therefore, even if some of the individuals have retired or resigned or have obtained other positions or titles, they will be listed here according to the title that they maintained at the time of the filing of the Complaint. Primarily, they are assigned that title because that's the position (or title) they were in when they committed the racial discrimination or other criminal acts (and some on the list committed other acts besides the racial discrimination, e.g., lying and obstruction of justice) that they are charged with.
Each name on the List will be followed by the person's title and, in parenthesis, a brief description of the basic racially-motivated conduct giving rise to the individual being placed on the list (for more descriptive information, see my "ICR" blog, and for even more descriptive information, contact the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles for the criminal complaints filed against the individuals).*****
With the above in mind, the First Annual List of Racist Judges or Other Public Officials in California (and the United States) is as follows:
1. # Steven Hintz, Judge, Superior Court of California, Ventura County (intentionally caused the eviction of a Black man from his home-law office, causing the loss of the same).
2. # Barry Klopfer, Judge, Superior Court of California, Ventura County (conspired to deny a Black man his constitutional rights under color of law, and lied to do so).
3. David Long, Judge, Superior Court of California, Ventura County (conspired to deny a Black man his constitutional rights under color of law, and lied to do so).
4. Ken Riley, Judge, Superior Court of California, Ventura County (conspired to deny a Black man his constitutional rights under color of law, and lied to do so).
5. ## Dickran Tevrizian, Judge, United States District Court for the Central District of California (denied a Black man his constitutional rights under color of law, and conspired to do so). Tevrizian committed multiple acts of misconduct directed at a Black man.
6. William Schwarzer, Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (denied social security relief to the white client of a Black lawyer because the lawyer was black; and otherwise denied the constitutional rights of both client and Black lawyer under color of law).
7. Harry Pregerson, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (denied the constitutional rights of clients of a Black lawyer because the clients' lawyer was black)), and other violations based on the race or color of the Black lawyer. Pregerson was involved in two separate matters on two separate panels denying rights or involving violations of criminal law with judge Margaret McKeown.
8. Richard Tallman, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (intentionally denied a Black man a preliminary injunction, because of the race or color of the Black man).
9. N.Randy Smith, Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (denied a default judgment to the white client of a Black lawyer because the lawyer was black). Smith was involved in at least two cases involving the Black lawyer where federal criminal violations were committed.
10. M. Margaret McKeown, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (denied a default judgment to the white client of a Black lawyer because the lawyer was black). McKeown was involved in two separate matters on two separate appellate panels denying rights or involving violations of criminal law with judge Harry Pregerson.
11. Ronald Gould, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (denied a white Social Security disability appellant relief on appeal because the appellant's lawyer was Black, and because the Black lawyer refused to accept a white lawyer, offered by the court, as counsel in the case).
12. Richard Paez, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (in a case where two petitioners, one white and one black, relied on the same premise for relief, and sought the same relief from the Court, Paez granted relief to the white petitioner, but denied relief to the black petitioner, for no legitimate reason; and no reason was given).
13. Michael Pastor, Judge, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (suspended the medical license of a black male doctor without due process of law and under color of law, and conspired to do so).
14. Robert J. Perry, Judge, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles (denied a deceased black man and the deceased black man's family due process of law, and under color of law, based on the deceased black man's race or color and the race or color of the living white man who murdered the black man (but was convicted of manslaughter).
15. Christina A. Snyder, Judge, United States District Court for the Central District of California (denied a black man his constitutional rights under color of law, in two separate cases). Snyder was assigned to two separate cases for the specific purpose of denying a Black male his constitutional rights.
16. Jay S. Bybee, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (denied a Black man his constitutional rights under color of law, and conspired to do so, and by lying).
17. ******Richard Clifton, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (denied a Black man his constituional rights under color of law, and conspired to do so, and lied to do so), plus other acts in prior actions.
******I brought a prior criminal complaint against Clifton, but I withdrew it, based on a matter unrelated to the merits of the criminal complaint itself. But, based on Clifton's recent actions which have required me to file another and separate criminal complaint against him, the prior complaint is now re-instated.
18. William A. Fletcher, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (denied a Black man his constitutional rights under color of law, and conspired to do so, and lied to do so).
19. @William K. Suter, Clerk, U.S. Supreme Court (denied a Black man his constitutional rights under color of law, and conspired to do so).
20. @Jeffrey Atkins, Deputy Clerk, U.S. Supreme Court (acted to deny a Black male petitioner his constitutional rights under color of law, and conspired to do so).
21. @Jacob Travers, Deputy Clerk, U.S. Supreme Court (denied a Black man his constitutional rights under color of law, and conspired to do so).
22. Cormac J. Carney, Judge, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (denied a Black man his constitutional rights under color of law, in part by refusing to rule on a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and in part by issuing two illegal orders).
23. # Cathy Catterson, Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (denied a Black man his constitutional rights under color of law, and committed fraud in doing so).
24. Molly C. Dwyer,(current) Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (denied a Black man his constitutional rights under color of law, and attempted to do so on another occasion; and committed fraud).
25. Mary Schroeder, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (denied a white female disability discrimination appellant due process in her appellate proceedings, and a white male social security benefit applicant due process in his appellate proceedings because their lawyer on appeal was a Black male). Supported and participated in other discriminatory and fraudulent acts directed at discriminating against the Black male lawyer but affecting his clients.
NOTE : Schroeder is also named in another blog of mine, published concurrently with this blog, associated with major league baseball player Barry Bonds regarding Bonds appeal of his obstruction of justice conviction. Schroeder wrote the opinion in the Bonds' appellate decision, but Schroeder herself had also been charged with obstruction of justice by me in a federal criminal Complaint, but the Justice Department refused to prosecute the Complaint. See the blog at laurackdbray.blogspot.com.
*****In all cases where it is alleged that the named individual denied a black man constitutional rights under color of law, it also means that the individual denied the black man his constitutional rights "based on the black man's race or color".
HOW TO GET OFF OF THE LIST
There are ways for individuals to get off of the racist List. Here are some of the ways:
1. Be found not guilty of racial discrimination (or other federal crimes charged in the federal criminal complaints that I filed with the U.S. Attorney's Office in L.A.) by a federal jury after submitting to prosecution by the U.S. Justice Department.
2. Plead guilty to a charge of racial discrimination or other charges in the respective federal criminal Complaint filed against the respective individual and PAY RESTITUTION (except for judge Pastor, see below) to the Black male victim (or other, e.g., see Judge Perry below), and others, where applicable, after submitting to prosectution by the Justice Department.
3. Without pleading guilty to racial discrimination or other charges identified in respective federal criminal Complaints, PAY RESTITUTION to the Black male victim, and others, where applicable, pursuant to a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), after submitting to prosecution by the Justice Department.
4. Without pleading guilty to racial discrimination or other charges identified in the respective federal criminal Complaints, PAY RESTITUTION to the Black male victim, and others, where applicable, pursuant to a non-prosecution agreement (NPA), after submitting to prosecution by the Justice Department.
5. Without pleading guilty to racial discrimination or other charges identified in the respective federal criminal Complaint, and WITHOUT submitting to prosecution by the Justice Department, PAY RESTITUTION DIRECTLY TO ME for the criminal acts identified in the federal Complaints, whereby the individual's name will be removed from this List and the respective criminal Complaint will be withdrawn.
6. For judge Pastor, he merely would need to make a public apology for his racial discrimination against Conrad Murray or any other Black males whom he has discriminated against in the past.
7. For judge Perry, he would need to pay reasonable RESTITUTION to the father of Oscar Grant, the deceased young man, in my opinion, murdered by BART officer Johannes Mehserle. The restitution paid would not be for Oscar's death, but for Perry's actions only.
Unless and until an individual's name is removed from the List based on one of the above or other reasons, his or her name will remain on the List for each annual publication. The new annual listing will be published in January of each year.
**UPDATE--August 4, 2014
DISTRICT JUDGE CORMAC J. CARNEY IS STILL A RACIST AND HIS RECENT DEATH PENALTY DECISION DOES NOT CHANGE THAT. NOT ONE BIT.
Recently, judge Carney has ruled that the death penalty is unconstitutional, as violative of the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. How convenient! That ruling follows this blog's publication identifying the list of racists, which includes Carney. Carney's death penalty ruling is nothing more than an attempt to clean up his image after this blog's publication. Why didn't he make the ruling before the blog? I don't know for sure at this time, but it is most probable that the inmate the ruling was made for is Black. So, for an explicit reason why Carney's ruling does not change anything regarding his racism, see the Sterling Principle #2 above, which states "Whenever a white person is charged with exercising racial discrimination or racism against a black person, and the black person has produced sufficient or some evidence of racial discrimination or racism by the white person, and the white person is thereafter identified as a "racist" because of the discriminatory conduct, the fact that the charged white person has demonstrated some benefit or advantage to black people or the black community, e.g., the homeless or criminal defendants, does not mean that the white person is not a racist." Here, Carney has helped a presumed Black criminal death penalty defendant. So, it does not mean that Carney is not a racist. And, in fact, he is.
LAURACK D. BRAY, M.S., M.P.A., J.D.
September 3, 2014
(Today's Date)
June 20, 2014
(Original Date)
@-This symbol before an individual's name on the list means that public "official" includes an employee, and/or that the individual named is not out of California, and is therefore an exception to the "in California" designation.
*Denotes change made in original blog, either adding or deleting information
**UPDATE (denotes NEW information added after original publication of blog)
***This blog is submitted as a contribution to and part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California (and the United States)
#-This symbol before the name of an individual on the list means that the individual is one of several individuals that the FBI took action against pursuant to my federal criminal Complaints filed in the U.S. Attorney's Office in 2007. While the U.S. Attorney's Office has refused to prosecute any of the individuals on the List, the FBI, through its own powers, took certain actions, e.g., causing retirements or resignations, against certain individuals named in the 2007 Complaint.
##-This symbol before the name of judge Dickran Tevrizian means that Tevrizian underwent a forced retirement, made to appear as a voluntary retirement. Tevrizian was faced with a Judicial Misconduct Complaint filed against him, and rather than requiring Tevrizian to undergo the misconduct proceedings, 9th Cir. judge Harry Pregerson, through criminal misconduct, allowed Tevrizian to retire rather than face misconduct proceedings.
This is the beginning and first installment of what will be an annual listing of racist judges and other public officials in California. One of the purposes, among others, for the list is transparency and exposure of "action" conduct or action racism by those judges and public officials in California (whom I become aware of) who exercise racial discrimination and/or racism against other persons of another race or color. Usually when judges exercise their racial discrimination or racism, it is done "privately", in terms of public exposure (aided by the mainstream press's refusal to report "action" racism, in contrast to "speech" racism, i.e., racist words or statements, unless the action involves bodily harm, e.g., murder, or sometimes the press reports about written graffiti), although "publicly", as a matter of technical classification, i.e., open to the public. That is, while the discrimination takes place in a public proceeding, e.g., a courtroom or court chambers, or a hearing, regarding written opinions or decisions, because the actions aren't analyzed, designated, and reported by the mass news media, and I believe purposely, the actions are not made public. This blog is intended to change that (at least as to the indviduals on the List). And, at least as to the limited public that the blog may reach.
Again, the major thrust of this list will be "action" racial discrimination or racism and not "speech" racism, e.g., Donald Sterling(racist statements) and Paula Deen(racist words). And, as noted by the titles of the individuals selected for listing, this list will only cover "judges" and other "public" officials, and usually, it will only cover those judges and other public officials who have had formal, and usually federal, civil rights complaints filed against them charging racial discrimination or the violation of statutory or constitutional rights under color of law and based on race or color. But as usually is the case, there may be exceptions to the rule.
"Action" racism or racial discrimination is that discrimination or racism which is performed or implemented by or through acts or action by the discriminating person or persons against another person or persons of another race or color, based on that person's race or color. The acts are usually physical in some way, even if the physicality is limited, e.g., writing and/or issuing an order which results in causing harm to someone. But, sometimes the acts may be oral, such as an oral order to do something which results in causing harm to someone. But, if one views the movement of the mouth as physical, then even the oral act is physical. And, the acts are intended to, and usually do, cause harm of some kind, even if the harm is mental or emotional or results in mere hurt feelings or disappointment. The action racism performed by the individuals on this list, thusfar, are not accompanied by any associated racial words or terms, just the actions which results in harm. It is the action racism which is the worse kind of racism, because it causes the greatest harm. The most obvious type is the physical murder cases, e.g., James Byrd, dragged to death by a racist driving a truck. But, the most prevalent action cases are probably the type perpetrated by the individuals on this list, that is, utilizing written or oral orders or other writings, e.g., lying, to cause harm to another, e.g., deprivation of income,property, and the pursuit of happiness.
In most cases, the racism perpetrated by the individuals on this list will be evidenced by and through single acts. But, a single act is all that is needed, especially when that single act causes devastating results, e.g., the loss and continued deprivation of one's home, one's profession in a major way, including income and the ability to earn income, and one's ability to start and raise a family. Donald Sterling's designation as a racist was based on one act, i.e, racist statements made at one time and captured on audiotape, and that one act has caused Sterling devastating consequences, a fine of $2.5 million dollars, a lifetime ban from the NBA, and eventually, loss of ownership of the team. And, of course, Byrd and Matthew Sheppard, both of whom suffered a loss of life through a single act of racism. However, several of the individuals on this list committed multiple acts of discriminatory and/or criminal misconduct.
Although I had intended to publish this list at sometime in the near future, I was prompted to expedite publishing based on the recent Donald Sterling racism case. After Sterling was exposed on audiotape making racist statements, i.e., that he didn't want to be around Black people, generally, or, more specifically, that he didn't want an acquaintance or friend, V. Stiviano, bringing Black people to Clipper games or taking pictures with Black people, he was sanctioned or punished by the NBA, through the Commissioner. He was fined $2.5 million dollars, banned from the NBA for life, and was subjected to a process towards the goal of removing the L.A. Clippers team from his ownership.
In response to the punishment, Sterling asserted his beliefs that he was being treated differently or unfairly compared to other owners, and that he knew other people, be they owners or others associated with the NBA, who had exercised some form of discrimination against people of other races or of a different sexual orientation. And so Sterling set out to prove his beliefs by hiring investigators to "dig up dirt" on other owners and/or individuals associated with the NBA.
I, as a Black man and Black lawyer in California, support Sterling's efforts at uncovering other racists. I believe as many as possible should be exposed. Thus, this list is my contribution to Sterling's efforts.
I realize that calling or designating someone a "racist" is a very serious matter, and calling or labeling a judge a racist is even more serious; but, discriminating against someone racially, based on that person's race or color is just as serious, especially when devastating harm or damages result from the discrimination. And, if someone, including a judge (who is a public servant, who is put in place to determine whether others discriminate, and who is held to the highest standard of the land regarding ethical and professional conduct), decides to exercise racial discrimination against another, based on that person's race or color, then the judge should be prepared to suffer the consequences of that behavior, including being identified as a racist, which he or she is.
In my view, there are three (3)types of racists generally: (1) Type 1, the superiority racist--this is the most common type. This racist simply believes his race is superior to all other races, and conversely, all other races are inferior to him and should be subservient to him and should be poorer and less respected than him; he may or may not act on his beliefs; the superiority racist may not necessarily believe that he or she is superior to another race, but, he will believe that somehow he is better than or different from another race to the extent that he is repugnant to other races in certain circumstances. For example, although he may integrate or interrelate with other races, he may not want his children dating members of other races, or he may not approve of it; (2) Type 2, the oppressive racist--the oppressive racist is antagonistic towards members of a different race, and, whether he believes he is superior or not (he might not believe that he is superior), he, through whatever means or power he has available to him, takes steps or "action" to assure that members of other races or color remain below him or do not achieve what he or his people (or race) achieves, or obtain what he or his race has obtained, i.e., the "American dream" and beyond, or certain professions, e.g., lawyers, doctors, etc., or monetary levels of professions,i.e, persons of a *certain race can make this amount of money in an occupation or profession, but when they attempt to make a significantly higher amount, the oppressive racist takes steps or action to prevent it. For example, white plantation-owners to slaves (here, I am not including the brutality of slavery, simply the oppression in making sure that slaves remain slaves, rather than allowing slaves to become plantation-owners--many white plantation owners treated their slaves decently, and not brutal, but they would make sure, and take steps to assure, a slave remained a slave); some examples of the "action" taken by oppressive racists are lying, ignoring or disregarding rules, policies, or the law, falsifying legal documents, issuing illegal orders, issuing legal but false orders, and issuing legal but wrong orders (based on a biased interpretation of the law), all for the purpose of denying persons of another race or color from achieving success that might rise to the racist's level of success, or to a level that the racist believes the person (of another race) should not reach; and (3) the hateful racist--the hateful racist not only believes that he is superior to other races, but he hates or despises other races, and if the opportunity arises, he would cause physical harm or destruction to persons or property of other races simply because of his dislike for their race or sexual orientation, e.g., Byrd and Shepard, as the victims of hateful racists.
Every individual on this List is at least a Type 1 or Type 2 racist. Most of the individuals on the List are Type 2 racists. Some may be a combination of Type 1 and 2, and a few may be Type 3, but, I have no evidence of that at this point. But, whatever the classification, every individual on this List is a racist. See below.
Anyone who exercises invidious racial discrimination against another, based on that person's race or color, is, to some degree (however minute), a racist. But, this list is not based on this proposition alone. The individuals on the list are racists for the following other reasons as well:
1. The definition of "racism" and "racist". While there are various definitions provided for both racism and racist, I am relying on the following definitions for identifying the racists on this list: "Racism"--poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race, Merriam-Webster.com, Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 21 June 2014, and "racial prejudice or discrimination", Id., and "Discrimination or prejudice based on race", The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright 2000 by Houghton Miffiln Company, Updated in 2009; "Racist"--a person who believes in racism, Dictionary.com Unabridged, Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2014, and "discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion", Thesaurus, Free Online Dictionary. According to these definitions, the individuals on this List are racists.
2. The United Nations' definition of racial discrimination: "The term 'racial discrimination' shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life." All of the individuals on this List exercised racial discrimination according to and based on the U.N.'s definition of racial discrimination.
3. The Federal Criminal Complaints--all the individuals on this List were charged, through federal criminal complaints, with racial discrimination pursuant to a federal statute which criminalizes racial discrimination, or were charged with another crime evolving from racial discrimination. All the Complaints are still pending. And, until the Defendants are brought within the confines of the criminal justice process and system, e.g., an arrest, and are cloaked with a "presumption of innocent until proven guilty", they remain "criminals", because they violated federal criminal law, and they remain "racists", because they have exercised racism and/or racial discrimination against a person of another race or color.
4. The (Donald Sterling) Principle and Presumption of Racism**** : "Where there's smoke, there's fire". The "smoke" is the production of some evidence demonstrating racial discrimination by one person or persons against another person of a different race or color. Using the Donald Sterling case as an example, the smoke would be the settled racial discrimination lawsuits and/or the lawsuit brought by Elgin Baylor alleging racial discrimination (I ignore the outcome of Baylor's case, because his case was mishandled--his race discrimination claim should never have been withdrawn). In law, this would represent circumstantial evidence of racial discrimination by Donald Sterling. The "fire" would be the audiotape conversations, statements, and evidence that Donald Sterling generally does not want to be around Black people, and more specifically, that Sterling does not want Black people to attend Clippers' games (at least not with his friend, Stiviano), nor to appear in pictures with Stiviano. In law, this would be direct evidence of racial prejudice and/or racial discrimination.
The (Sterling) Principle of Racism holds as follows : whenever there has been sufficient or some evidence (i.e., circumstantial evidence) produced that an individual has racially discriminated against another person, based on the person's race or color, it is very likely that greater or conclusive evidence of racial discrimination or racism will follow. "Where there's smoke, there's usually fire".
The (Sterling) Presumption of racism holds that : whenever there is sufficient or some evidence produced demonstrating the exercise of racial discrimination or racism by a person of one race against a person of another race or color, it will be presumed that greater or conclusive evidence of racial discrimination by the same person will follow or be produced. "Where there's smoke, there's fire".
(Donald Sterling) Principle #2 states : Whenever a white person is charged with exercising racial discrimination or racism against a black person, and the black person has produced sufficient or some evidence of racial discrimination or racism by the white person, and the white person is thereafter identified as a "racist" because of the discriminatory conduct, the fact that the charged white person has demonstrated some benefit or advantage to black people or the black community, e.g., the homeless or criminal defendants, does not mean that the white person is not a racist.
****NOTE : I created the (Donald Sterling) Principle and Presumption of Racism specifically for this List and blog. But, it is highly likely that I will rely on the principle and presumption regarding some future matters as well. Moreover, I believe the Principle and Presumption should be used in law for all criminal racial discrimination cases. It would serve to solidify circumstantial evidence cases.
All of the discriminatory actions by the individuals on this List are directed at black males. In most of the cases, but not all, I am the Black male, either as a plaintiff, or as a lawyer, or as both combined.
The titles or professions provided for the individuals are the titles that they maintained at the time the Federal Complaints against them were filed. Therefore, even if some of the individuals have retired or resigned or have obtained other positions or titles, they will be listed here according to the title that they maintained at the time of the filing of the Complaint. Primarily, they are assigned that title because that's the position (or title) they were in when they committed the racial discrimination or other criminal acts (and some on the list committed other acts besides the racial discrimination, e.g., lying and obstruction of justice) that they are charged with.
Each name on the List will be followed by the person's title and, in parenthesis, a brief description of the basic racially-motivated conduct giving rise to the individual being placed on the list (for more descriptive information, see my "ICR" blog, and for even more descriptive information, contact the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles for the criminal complaints filed against the individuals).*****
With the above in mind, the First Annual List of Racist Judges or Other Public Officials in California (and the United States) is as follows:
1. # Steven Hintz, Judge, Superior Court of California, Ventura County (intentionally caused the eviction of a Black man from his home-law office, causing the loss of the same).
2. # Barry Klopfer, Judge, Superior Court of California, Ventura County (conspired to deny a Black man his constitutional rights under color of law, and lied to do so).
3. David Long, Judge, Superior Court of California, Ventura County (conspired to deny a Black man his constitutional rights under color of law, and lied to do so).
4. Ken Riley, Judge, Superior Court of California, Ventura County (conspired to deny a Black man his constitutional rights under color of law, and lied to do so).
5. ## Dickran Tevrizian, Judge, United States District Court for the Central District of California (denied a Black man his constitutional rights under color of law, and conspired to do so). Tevrizian committed multiple acts of misconduct directed at a Black man.
6. William Schwarzer, Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (denied social security relief to the white client of a Black lawyer because the lawyer was black; and otherwise denied the constitutional rights of both client and Black lawyer under color of law).
7. Harry Pregerson, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (denied the constitutional rights of clients of a Black lawyer because the clients' lawyer was black)), and other violations based on the race or color of the Black lawyer. Pregerson was involved in two separate matters on two separate panels denying rights or involving violations of criminal law with judge Margaret McKeown.
8. Richard Tallman, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (intentionally denied a Black man a preliminary injunction, because of the race or color of the Black man).
9. N.Randy Smith, Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (denied a default judgment to the white client of a Black lawyer because the lawyer was black). Smith was involved in at least two cases involving the Black lawyer where federal criminal violations were committed.
10. M. Margaret McKeown, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (denied a default judgment to the white client of a Black lawyer because the lawyer was black). McKeown was involved in two separate matters on two separate appellate panels denying rights or involving violations of criminal law with judge Harry Pregerson.
11. Ronald Gould, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (denied a white Social Security disability appellant relief on appeal because the appellant's lawyer was Black, and because the Black lawyer refused to accept a white lawyer, offered by the court, as counsel in the case).
12. Richard Paez, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (in a case where two petitioners, one white and one black, relied on the same premise for relief, and sought the same relief from the Court, Paez granted relief to the white petitioner, but denied relief to the black petitioner, for no legitimate reason; and no reason was given).
13. Michael Pastor, Judge, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (suspended the medical license of a black male doctor without due process of law and under color of law, and conspired to do so).
14. Robert J. Perry, Judge, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles (denied a deceased black man and the deceased black man's family due process of law, and under color of law, based on the deceased black man's race or color and the race or color of the living white man who murdered the black man (but was convicted of manslaughter).
15. Christina A. Snyder, Judge, United States District Court for the Central District of California (denied a black man his constitutional rights under color of law, in two separate cases). Snyder was assigned to two separate cases for the specific purpose of denying a Black male his constitutional rights.
16. Jay S. Bybee, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (denied a Black man his constitutional rights under color of law, and conspired to do so, and by lying).
17. ******Richard Clifton, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (denied a Black man his constituional rights under color of law, and conspired to do so, and lied to do so), plus other acts in prior actions.
******I brought a prior criminal complaint against Clifton, but I withdrew it, based on a matter unrelated to the merits of the criminal complaint itself. But, based on Clifton's recent actions which have required me to file another and separate criminal complaint against him, the prior complaint is now re-instated.
18. William A. Fletcher, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (denied a Black man his constitutional rights under color of law, and conspired to do so, and lied to do so).
19. @William K. Suter, Clerk, U.S. Supreme Court (denied a Black man his constitutional rights under color of law, and conspired to do so).
20. @Jeffrey Atkins, Deputy Clerk, U.S. Supreme Court (acted to deny a Black male petitioner his constitutional rights under color of law, and conspired to do so).
21. @Jacob Travers, Deputy Clerk, U.S. Supreme Court (denied a Black man his constitutional rights under color of law, and conspired to do so).
22. Cormac J. Carney, Judge, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (denied a Black man his constitutional rights under color of law, in part by refusing to rule on a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and in part by issuing two illegal orders).
23. # Cathy Catterson, Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (denied a Black man his constitutional rights under color of law, and committed fraud in doing so).
24. Molly C. Dwyer,(current) Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (denied a Black man his constitutional rights under color of law, and attempted to do so on another occasion; and committed fraud).
25. Mary Schroeder, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (denied a white female disability discrimination appellant due process in her appellate proceedings, and a white male social security benefit applicant due process in his appellate proceedings because their lawyer on appeal was a Black male). Supported and participated in other discriminatory and fraudulent acts directed at discriminating against the Black male lawyer but affecting his clients.
NOTE : Schroeder is also named in another blog of mine, published concurrently with this blog, associated with major league baseball player Barry Bonds regarding Bonds appeal of his obstruction of justice conviction. Schroeder wrote the opinion in the Bonds' appellate decision, but Schroeder herself had also been charged with obstruction of justice by me in a federal criminal Complaint, but the Justice Department refused to prosecute the Complaint. See the blog at laurackdbray.blogspot.com.
*****In all cases where it is alleged that the named individual denied a black man constitutional rights under color of law, it also means that the individual denied the black man his constitutional rights "based on the black man's race or color".
HOW TO GET OFF OF THE LIST
There are ways for individuals to get off of the racist List. Here are some of the ways:
1. Be found not guilty of racial discrimination (or other federal crimes charged in the federal criminal complaints that I filed with the U.S. Attorney's Office in L.A.) by a federal jury after submitting to prosecution by the U.S. Justice Department.
2. Plead guilty to a charge of racial discrimination or other charges in the respective federal criminal Complaint filed against the respective individual and PAY RESTITUTION (except for judge Pastor, see below) to the Black male victim (or other, e.g., see Judge Perry below), and others, where applicable, after submitting to prosectution by the Justice Department.
3. Without pleading guilty to racial discrimination or other charges identified in respective federal criminal Complaints, PAY RESTITUTION to the Black male victim, and others, where applicable, pursuant to a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), after submitting to prosecution by the Justice Department.
4. Without pleading guilty to racial discrimination or other charges identified in the respective federal criminal Complaints, PAY RESTITUTION to the Black male victim, and others, where applicable, pursuant to a non-prosecution agreement (NPA), after submitting to prosecution by the Justice Department.
5. Without pleading guilty to racial discrimination or other charges identified in the respective federal criminal Complaint, and WITHOUT submitting to prosecution by the Justice Department, PAY RESTITUTION DIRECTLY TO ME for the criminal acts identified in the federal Complaints, whereby the individual's name will be removed from this List and the respective criminal Complaint will be withdrawn.
6. For judge Pastor, he merely would need to make a public apology for his racial discrimination against Conrad Murray or any other Black males whom he has discriminated against in the past.
7. For judge Perry, he would need to pay reasonable RESTITUTION to the father of Oscar Grant, the deceased young man, in my opinion, murdered by BART officer Johannes Mehserle. The restitution paid would not be for Oscar's death, but for Perry's actions only.
Unless and until an individual's name is removed from the List based on one of the above or other reasons, his or her name will remain on the List for each annual publication. The new annual listing will be published in January of each year.
**UPDATE--August 4, 2014
DISTRICT JUDGE CORMAC J. CARNEY IS STILL A RACIST AND HIS RECENT DEATH PENALTY DECISION DOES NOT CHANGE THAT. NOT ONE BIT.
Recently, judge Carney has ruled that the death penalty is unconstitutional, as violative of the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. How convenient! That ruling follows this blog's publication identifying the list of racists, which includes Carney. Carney's death penalty ruling is nothing more than an attempt to clean up his image after this blog's publication. Why didn't he make the ruling before the blog? I don't know for sure at this time, but it is most probable that the inmate the ruling was made for is Black. So, for an explicit reason why Carney's ruling does not change anything regarding his racism, see the Sterling Principle #2 above, which states "Whenever a white person is charged with exercising racial discrimination or racism against a black person, and the black person has produced sufficient or some evidence of racial discrimination or racism by the white person, and the white person is thereafter identified as a "racist" because of the discriminatory conduct, the fact that the charged white person has demonstrated some benefit or advantage to black people or the black community, e.g., the homeless or criminal defendants, does not mean that the white person is not a racist." Here, Carney has helped a presumed Black criminal death penalty defendant. So, it does not mean that Carney is not a racist. And, in fact, he is.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
THE DONALD STERLING SAGA, NO. 3 : WHILE STERLING CLEARLY IS A WHITE RACIST, UNLIKE OTHER WHITE RACISTS WHO DISASSOCIATE FROM BLACK PEOPLE ALTOGETHER, STERLING CONTRIBUTED TO THE BLACK COMMUNITY, AND THAT HAS TO COUNT FOR SOMETHING. STERLING'S STRATEGY SHOULD BE DIRECTED TOWARDS THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS, NOT THE COURTS. THE GOVERNORS STILL MUST APPROVE THE DEAL AND CAN REQUIRE THE REDUCTION OF SANCTIONS AS A CONDITION FOR APPROVAL.
Los Angeles, California
June 19, 2014
(Today's Date)
June 12, 2014
(Original Date)
*Denotes a change made in the original blog (either adding or deleting information)
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added to the blog after original publication)
***This blog is submitted as part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California
Donald Sterling has now decided to continue to pursue his previously filed lawsuit againgst the NBA in order to protect his rights to "due process". I believe he's wasting his time. I think the court will decide his court matter on a contractual basis and find that he agreed to and with the terms of the contract with the NBA, which included a forced sale of the team and other sanctions.
However, NBA league owners still must approve the purchase of the team by former Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer, and the owners can require that the sanctions be reduced in order to obtain their approval. Therefore, Sterling should make his appeal to the Board of Governors, rather than the courts, for reduction of sanctions, i.e., the $2.5 million dollar fine and the lifetime ban from the NBA. Sterling should concede the sale of the team. Under the circumstances, Commissioner Adam Silver was (is) absolutely correct in ordering the sale of the team, and the team should be owned by somebody other than the Sterlings, based on Sterling's racism and racist remarks and the direct relationship between the racism and the predominantly African American team and other African American team personnel or employees.
However, according to the L.A. Times, Sterling has now stated, "The NBA is a band of hypocrites and bullies. They will not stop until someone stands up. They have taken the liberty to desecrate my privacy rights and my right to own property. We have to fight these despicable monsters." June 11, 2014, "More drama for Sterlings." These statements certainly doesn't help Sterling's case with the other owners. But I still believe that Sterling's only chance at getting his sanctions reduced is an appeal to the owners or governors. Perhaps they will keep in mind that these statements are being made by an angry and deflated white man, who is losing a team that he has owned for decades, at a time when the team is finally achieving great success.
Sterling's arguments to the Board of Governors for reduction of the sanctions should be twofold : (1) That the sanctions are unfair under the circumstances, and (2)that, despite his racism, he (Sterling) has made significant contributions to the Black community that simply cannot be discounted in a decision to properly sanction him for his racism.
FAIRNESS OF THE SANCTIONS
As I have stated before, and as I state here, Donald Sterling is a white racist, and I am thankful to V. Stiviano and TMZ for revealing the "real" (and racist) Donald Sterling to me and the Black public, and the L.A. Black community, and the remaining communities, for without the audiotapes obtained by Stiviano and played by TMZ, we would not have known the "real" Donald Sterling, although others, such as Elgin Baylor, did.
NOTE: I, personally, had already concluded that Sterling was a racist, based on the Elgin Baylor case. I had relied on my knowledge of Elgin Baylor's history and accomplishments, and his character, and his assertion that Sterling had maintained a "plantation" type mentality and operation of the team. I had declared to some of my acquaintances that Sterling was a racist.
But, all white racists are not the same. And Sterling should be treated and sanctioned according to the type of white racist that he is. Although Sterling exhibited and exercised racist tendencies in the past, e.g., regarding the discrimination against Black people in his housing properties which resulted in settlements and firing Elgin Baylor based on race or color, his sanctions (and other actions) by the NBA were based on his "speech" racism, not any "action or conduct" racism, which is the worst kind of racism. Incidentally, in my opinion, white America and the white mass media's widespread coverage of "speech" racism, e.g., Paula Deen, is nothing more than producing a scapegoat for the real racism, i.e., action racism, which is covered up. And the gullable ones fall for this. The exceptional case is the action murder case, i.e., James Byrd, dragged to death by white racists. But all the action non-murder cases, which are most of the action racist or racism cases, are generally covered up by the white mass media.
Sterling was punished by the NBA with the maximum or near maximum punishment that the NBA could dish out, i.e, the lifetime ban from the NBA. But, if Sterling is given the maximum punishment by the NBA for what would otherwise be protected free speech, what punishment do you give to the white owner that kills a black NBA player because the player is Black? ANS : A lifetime ban, because that's the maximum ban that can be given. So why should Sterling be given the maximum punishment when his racism did not reach a maximum level of harm? Shouldn't the punishment match the crime? (And clearly some "action" racism is a crime). ANS: Yes. Why? Fairness. Even racists deserve some modicum of fairness, when there are degrees of racism; and, there are. In fairness, a hate-filled white racist owner who murders a Black basketball player because of the black player's race or color should receive the maximum punishment of a ban for life from the NBA, while the white owner who merely, in comparison, utters offensive (but not hateful, i.e., "nigger") speech should not. It's simple as that. Sterling absolutely should be punished by the NBA, he must be, but the punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the behavior. I place a high degree of value on the fact that Sterling, raw, when the public was not present, referred to Black people as "Black people" and not "niggers", when he made his statements. That difference cannot be discounted. That difference, for me, makes all the difference in the world.
STERLING'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE BLACK COMMUNITY
Sterling should argue to the owners that, notwithstanding his racism and racist statements directed at or towards Black people, he, unlike a lot other racists, have contributed to the Black community in significant ways, and that should count for something.
Only Sterling know of all of his contributions, but I know that he hired Elgin Baylor as a general manager when it wasn't "customary" to do so (or when there weren't widespread hiring of black players as general managers--but, I still believe he fired Baylor because Baylor was Black, which was an act of racism). I know that he hired Doc Rivers, a Black man, as head coach of the Clippers. And, although there are several other Black head coaches at this time, it still cannot be said that it is "common" or widespread for white owners to hire Black coaches (and that includes the recent hiring of Derek Fisher by Phil Jackson and the New York Knicks). According to Sterling, he also has contributed to the United Negro College Fund, and I know that he has contributed to the NAACP. There are many Black people who have not contributed to these organizations, even though they could have or had the financial ability to do so.
And, I'm sure many black college students attending historically black colleges and universities benefitted from these contributions. I attended law school at a historically black university (Howard University) and I'm sure UNCF was an integral part of support for Howard when I attended. These contributions by Sterling has to count for something.
In sum, this blog is not meant to defend Donald Sterling, nor his racism, nor his racist statements, or his racist attitudes. This blog is written merely to try and place Sterling's racism in proper perspective. Sterling is a white racist, who uttered racist and offensive statements which revealed the real Donald Sterling, and the NBA and Commissioner Adam Silver were correct in sanctioning and/or punishing Sterling for his statements and supportive attitude. However, I don't believe all racists should be lumped together and treated the same in meting out punishment. And, under the circumstances here, I don't believe that Sterling deserve the maximum punishment that the NBA can give; and that's what has happened here. Personally, in view of Sterling's age, I think the ban should be no more than 3-5 years. I would recommend 3. years. The fine should be $1 million dollars.
Sterling is a racist, but he's a "schizophrenic" racist, his racial behavior patterns diverge, sometimes in a positive way.
NOTE : Sterling could have saved his team and himself if he had only apologized immediately after the tapes were made public; instead of waiting until after the league determined that it was actually and factually his voice on the tapes. I believe the league and the Clippers, and the public would have accepted his apology (the same apology that he made on CNN--without the derogatory statements about Magic Johnson of course). Even if the NBA would have found that some type of sanction was nonetheless necessary, I do not believe the sanction would have been a lifetime ban or a sale of the team, especially if Sterling would have been given an opportunity to present his side of the case to the owners. I don't think the NBA would have gotten two-thirds of the owners to agree to take Sterling's team from him at that time. But, now, it's too late.
As I stated above, I believe Sterling's best bet is to appeal to the owners-governors for reduction of his sanctions. I believe he is wasting his time and money in pursuing a lawsuit, where there certainly will be defenses to his constitutional "due process" claims. He should save his time and money (and face) and dismiss his lawsuit against the NBA regarding the sanctions (the feud between he and his wife is another matter and I have no comment on that). When the NBA was moving towards taking the team from Sterling, there was a process set up for Sterling to present his side of the case. Sterling should rely on that aspect of the process to make his arguments to the governors for reduction of sanctions and for the governors to utilize their authority or power to deny approval of the sale to Ballmer unless, in fairness, the sanctions are reduced.
**UPDATE--June 14, 2014
NOW THAT DONALD STERLING HAS CHANGED COURSE IN HIS THEORY OF DEPRIVATION AND HIS COURSE OF ACTION, I WITHDRAW MY OPINION THAT HE IS WASTING HIS TIME WITH THE LEGAL PROCESS OR THE COURTS.
Originally, above, I stated my opinion that Sterling was wasting his time pursuing a legal action in court. But, that was based on the fact that Sterling had claimed that the NBA deprived him of "due process", which I perceived as constitutional due process; and on that basis, I believed that he would not prevail on that claim in court, because I believe that the court would not even reach a constitutional question, and even if it did, there would be a defense to the court hearing the matter.
However, now that Sterling is apparently pursuing a course of discrimination, or that the NBA is unjustly treating him differently or unfairly, I believe that he might very well have at least a colorable claim in court; at least, if he pursues relief under the California discrimination statute, i.e., the Unruh Civil Rights Act. But, regardless as to how he proceeds, he does have a more colorable claim in pursuance of the discrimination aspect of his accusations than the due process claim.
But, his new direction also closes the door on my suggestion above. There is no way (I think) the owners will now entertain an appeal made directly to them when Sterling has now not only made disparaging statements about them, but he has also now made public that he is investigating them and/or others for "dirt" (or discrimnatory actions) that he can use in defense of his accusations that he is being treated differently and unfairly.
So, now, Sterling has thrown his punishment and/or sanctions into an ALL OR NONE situation. He no longer has (or wants, I suppose) the option of obtaining a reduction in his punishment. He will now (I believe Sterling believes) either get the entire punishment set aside, including the forced sale of the team, or be subjected to or liable for the entire punishment. However, I believe that even if Sterling is successful with his discrimination claims (and I think that he can be--although, I don't know if he will be), a court still will require him to sell the team under the circumstances. It is my understanding that Sterling has already found some "dirt" on some individuals that might be affected by his accusations. I'm not surprised. Not at all. There are many racists or racial discriminators outside of the NBA, so why wouldn't there be inside the NBA?
I certainly support Sterling exposing as many racists as he can. The more the merrier. The more racists who are exposed, the better it will be for the country. Although, in many cases, nothing is done even with the exposure (because the racists influence other racists or some non-racists to do nothing). But, if anything is to be done about racism in the country, it will start will exposure. And, that's what happened to Sterling. And, that's what Sterling is attempting to do regarding others.
In the near future, I will do my part.
June 19, 2014
(Today's Date)
June 12, 2014
(Original Date)
*Denotes a change made in the original blog (either adding or deleting information)
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added to the blog after original publication)
***This blog is submitted as part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California
Donald Sterling has now decided to continue to pursue his previously filed lawsuit againgst the NBA in order to protect his rights to "due process". I believe he's wasting his time. I think the court will decide his court matter on a contractual basis and find that he agreed to and with the terms of the contract with the NBA, which included a forced sale of the team and other sanctions.
However, NBA league owners still must approve the purchase of the team by former Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer, and the owners can require that the sanctions be reduced in order to obtain their approval. Therefore, Sterling should make his appeal to the Board of Governors, rather than the courts, for reduction of sanctions, i.e., the $2.5 million dollar fine and the lifetime ban from the NBA. Sterling should concede the sale of the team. Under the circumstances, Commissioner Adam Silver was (is) absolutely correct in ordering the sale of the team, and the team should be owned by somebody other than the Sterlings, based on Sterling's racism and racist remarks and the direct relationship between the racism and the predominantly African American team and other African American team personnel or employees.
However, according to the L.A. Times, Sterling has now stated, "The NBA is a band of hypocrites and bullies. They will not stop until someone stands up. They have taken the liberty to desecrate my privacy rights and my right to own property. We have to fight these despicable monsters." June 11, 2014, "More drama for Sterlings." These statements certainly doesn't help Sterling's case with the other owners. But I still believe that Sterling's only chance at getting his sanctions reduced is an appeal to the owners or governors. Perhaps they will keep in mind that these statements are being made by an angry and deflated white man, who is losing a team that he has owned for decades, at a time when the team is finally achieving great success.
Sterling's arguments to the Board of Governors for reduction of the sanctions should be twofold : (1) That the sanctions are unfair under the circumstances, and (2)that, despite his racism, he (Sterling) has made significant contributions to the Black community that simply cannot be discounted in a decision to properly sanction him for his racism.
FAIRNESS OF THE SANCTIONS
As I have stated before, and as I state here, Donald Sterling is a white racist, and I am thankful to V. Stiviano and TMZ for revealing the "real" (and racist) Donald Sterling to me and the Black public, and the L.A. Black community, and the remaining communities, for without the audiotapes obtained by Stiviano and played by TMZ, we would not have known the "real" Donald Sterling, although others, such as Elgin Baylor, did.
NOTE: I, personally, had already concluded that Sterling was a racist, based on the Elgin Baylor case. I had relied on my knowledge of Elgin Baylor's history and accomplishments, and his character, and his assertion that Sterling had maintained a "plantation" type mentality and operation of the team. I had declared to some of my acquaintances that Sterling was a racist.
But, all white racists are not the same. And Sterling should be treated and sanctioned according to the type of white racist that he is. Although Sterling exhibited and exercised racist tendencies in the past, e.g., regarding the discrimination against Black people in his housing properties which resulted in settlements and firing Elgin Baylor based on race or color, his sanctions (and other actions) by the NBA were based on his "speech" racism, not any "action or conduct" racism, which is the worst kind of racism. Incidentally, in my opinion, white America and the white mass media's widespread coverage of "speech" racism, e.g., Paula Deen, is nothing more than producing a scapegoat for the real racism, i.e., action racism, which is covered up. And the gullable ones fall for this. The exceptional case is the action murder case, i.e., James Byrd, dragged to death by white racists. But all the action non-murder cases, which are most of the action racist or racism cases, are generally covered up by the white mass media.
Sterling was punished by the NBA with the maximum or near maximum punishment that the NBA could dish out, i.e, the lifetime ban from the NBA. But, if Sterling is given the maximum punishment by the NBA for what would otherwise be protected free speech, what punishment do you give to the white owner that kills a black NBA player because the player is Black? ANS : A lifetime ban, because that's the maximum ban that can be given. So why should Sterling be given the maximum punishment when his racism did not reach a maximum level of harm? Shouldn't the punishment match the crime? (And clearly some "action" racism is a crime). ANS: Yes. Why? Fairness. Even racists deserve some modicum of fairness, when there are degrees of racism; and, there are. In fairness, a hate-filled white racist owner who murders a Black basketball player because of the black player's race or color should receive the maximum punishment of a ban for life from the NBA, while the white owner who merely, in comparison, utters offensive (but not hateful, i.e., "nigger") speech should not. It's simple as that. Sterling absolutely should be punished by the NBA, he must be, but the punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the behavior. I place a high degree of value on the fact that Sterling, raw, when the public was not present, referred to Black people as "Black people" and not "niggers", when he made his statements. That difference cannot be discounted. That difference, for me, makes all the difference in the world.
STERLING'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE BLACK COMMUNITY
Sterling should argue to the owners that, notwithstanding his racism and racist statements directed at or towards Black people, he, unlike a lot other racists, have contributed to the Black community in significant ways, and that should count for something.
Only Sterling know of all of his contributions, but I know that he hired Elgin Baylor as a general manager when it wasn't "customary" to do so (or when there weren't widespread hiring of black players as general managers--but, I still believe he fired Baylor because Baylor was Black, which was an act of racism). I know that he hired Doc Rivers, a Black man, as head coach of the Clippers. And, although there are several other Black head coaches at this time, it still cannot be said that it is "common" or widespread for white owners to hire Black coaches (and that includes the recent hiring of Derek Fisher by Phil Jackson and the New York Knicks). According to Sterling, he also has contributed to the United Negro College Fund, and I know that he has contributed to the NAACP. There are many Black people who have not contributed to these organizations, even though they could have or had the financial ability to do so.
And, I'm sure many black college students attending historically black colleges and universities benefitted from these contributions. I attended law school at a historically black university (Howard University) and I'm sure UNCF was an integral part of support for Howard when I attended. These contributions by Sterling has to count for something.
In sum, this blog is not meant to defend Donald Sterling, nor his racism, nor his racist statements, or his racist attitudes. This blog is written merely to try and place Sterling's racism in proper perspective. Sterling is a white racist, who uttered racist and offensive statements which revealed the real Donald Sterling, and the NBA and Commissioner Adam Silver were correct in sanctioning and/or punishing Sterling for his statements and supportive attitude. However, I don't believe all racists should be lumped together and treated the same in meting out punishment. And, under the circumstances here, I don't believe that Sterling deserve the maximum punishment that the NBA can give; and that's what has happened here. Personally, in view of Sterling's age, I think the ban should be no more than 3-5 years. I would recommend 3. years. The fine should be $1 million dollars.
Sterling is a racist, but he's a "schizophrenic" racist, his racial behavior patterns diverge, sometimes in a positive way.
NOTE : Sterling could have saved his team and himself if he had only apologized immediately after the tapes were made public; instead of waiting until after the league determined that it was actually and factually his voice on the tapes. I believe the league and the Clippers, and the public would have accepted his apology (the same apology that he made on CNN--without the derogatory statements about Magic Johnson of course). Even if the NBA would have found that some type of sanction was nonetheless necessary, I do not believe the sanction would have been a lifetime ban or a sale of the team, especially if Sterling would have been given an opportunity to present his side of the case to the owners. I don't think the NBA would have gotten two-thirds of the owners to agree to take Sterling's team from him at that time. But, now, it's too late.
As I stated above, I believe Sterling's best bet is to appeal to the owners-governors for reduction of his sanctions. I believe he is wasting his time and money in pursuing a lawsuit, where there certainly will be defenses to his constitutional "due process" claims. He should save his time and money (and face) and dismiss his lawsuit against the NBA regarding the sanctions (the feud between he and his wife is another matter and I have no comment on that). When the NBA was moving towards taking the team from Sterling, there was a process set up for Sterling to present his side of the case. Sterling should rely on that aspect of the process to make his arguments to the governors for reduction of sanctions and for the governors to utilize their authority or power to deny approval of the sale to Ballmer unless, in fairness, the sanctions are reduced.
**UPDATE--June 14, 2014
NOW THAT DONALD STERLING HAS CHANGED COURSE IN HIS THEORY OF DEPRIVATION AND HIS COURSE OF ACTION, I WITHDRAW MY OPINION THAT HE IS WASTING HIS TIME WITH THE LEGAL PROCESS OR THE COURTS.
Originally, above, I stated my opinion that Sterling was wasting his time pursuing a legal action in court. But, that was based on the fact that Sterling had claimed that the NBA deprived him of "due process", which I perceived as constitutional due process; and on that basis, I believed that he would not prevail on that claim in court, because I believe that the court would not even reach a constitutional question, and even if it did, there would be a defense to the court hearing the matter.
However, now that Sterling is apparently pursuing a course of discrimination, or that the NBA is unjustly treating him differently or unfairly, I believe that he might very well have at least a colorable claim in court; at least, if he pursues relief under the California discrimination statute, i.e., the Unruh Civil Rights Act. But, regardless as to how he proceeds, he does have a more colorable claim in pursuance of the discrimination aspect of his accusations than the due process claim.
But, his new direction also closes the door on my suggestion above. There is no way (I think) the owners will now entertain an appeal made directly to them when Sterling has now not only made disparaging statements about them, but he has also now made public that he is investigating them and/or others for "dirt" (or discrimnatory actions) that he can use in defense of his accusations that he is being treated differently and unfairly.
So, now, Sterling has thrown his punishment and/or sanctions into an ALL OR NONE situation. He no longer has (or wants, I suppose) the option of obtaining a reduction in his punishment. He will now (I believe Sterling believes) either get the entire punishment set aside, including the forced sale of the team, or be subjected to or liable for the entire punishment. However, I believe that even if Sterling is successful with his discrimination claims (and I think that he can be--although, I don't know if he will be), a court still will require him to sell the team under the circumstances. It is my understanding that Sterling has already found some "dirt" on some individuals that might be affected by his accusations. I'm not surprised. Not at all. There are many racists or racial discriminators outside of the NBA, so why wouldn't there be inside the NBA?
I certainly support Sterling exposing as many racists as he can. The more the merrier. The more racists who are exposed, the better it will be for the country. Although, in many cases, nothing is done even with the exposure (because the racists influence other racists or some non-racists to do nothing). But, if anything is to be done about racism in the country, it will start will exposure. And, that's what happened to Sterling. And, that's what Sterling is attempting to do regarding others.
In the near future, I will do my part.
Monday, May 19, 2014
THE DONALD STERLING SAGA , NO. 2 : A VIEW OF STERLING'S RACISM PLACED IN PROPER CONTEXT; AS A BLACK MAN IN CALIFORNIA, I AM OFFENDED BY DONALD STERLING'S RACISM (I.E., RACIST STATEMENTS), BUT AS A BLACK LAWYER IN CALIFORNIA, I AM MUCH MORE OFFENDED BY THE RACISM OF 9TH CIRCUIT JUDGES JAY BYBEE, WILLIAM FLETCHER, AND RICHARD CLIFTON. WHY ? BECAUSE "ACTION SPEAKS LOUDER THAN WORDS".
Los Angeles, California
May 19, 2014
(Today's Date)
May 19, 2014
(Original Date)
*Denotes a change in the original blog, either addition or subtraction, after initial publication.
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW material or information added to the blog after the initial publication.
***This article is submitted as part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California.
This is the second article or blog posted regarding the Donald Sterling situation. I won't go into any detail about the Sterling controversy here, because it has been fully discussed and recounted in the press and briefly mentioned in my earlier blog, other than to say it is about the racist statements made by (L.A. Clippers' owner) Sterling that were recorded and played out in the media.
Again, while, as a Black man in California, I am offended by the statements made by Sterling(e.g., he didn't want a friend to bring Black men to Clippers games or to be seen in pictures with Black men), I am not that "hurt" by them. There's absolutely no impact or change in my life because of the statements. So my simple response to Sterling would be "likewise", or, as to him (and other racists with the same views as Sterling), the feelings "are mutual". And, I move on. (But, for Elgin Baylor, who was fired by Sterling because of his(Baylor's) race or color, it is different. Baylor was likely offended by both the statements and actions of Sterling, thereby expriencing the "action speaks louder than words" type of racism (discussed henceforth) from Sterling (without any broad local or national reaction to the "action" racism, in contrast to the widespread local and national reaction obtained by Sterling's taped statements)) as well.
On the other hand, as a Black lawyer in California, the racism of judges Jay S. Bybee, William Fletcher, and Richard Clifton ("Bybee"), offends me much, much more than the racism of Donald Sterling, because "action speaks louder than words". Bybee's "action" caused me the continued loss of my home-law office in Ventura, California, and it has impacted and changed both my personal and professional life in immeasurable ways. Briefly, the Bybee action was lying (in order to deny me relief) and making a ruling, through a Ninth Circuit appellate Order, against me as a Black man and Black lawyer, in violation of federal criminal law. And, the result of this criminal action was to cause me the continued denial of my home-law office; where a truthful and constitutional Order would have resulted in my re-possession of it. It is this type of racism, i.e., racial discrimination racism or action racism, that most offends me, because it has the greatest impact on the life of the person being discriminated against. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Nevertheless, if someone was to secretly tape private conversations of Bybee, Fletcher, and Clifton, in the same way or manner that Sterling was taped, would the taped conversations reveal similar comments as those of Donald Sterling? Based on the Sterling-Baylor scenario, i.e., circumstantial evidence (Baylor's firing by Sterling based on Baylor's race or color) to direct evidence (Sterling's racist statements) or "where there's smoke, there's fire", probably.
In any event:
"Action speaks louder than words".
May 19, 2014
(Today's Date)
May 19, 2014
(Original Date)
*Denotes a change in the original blog, either addition or subtraction, after initial publication.
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW material or information added to the blog after the initial publication.
***This article is submitted as part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California.
This is the second article or blog posted regarding the Donald Sterling situation. I won't go into any detail about the Sterling controversy here, because it has been fully discussed and recounted in the press and briefly mentioned in my earlier blog, other than to say it is about the racist statements made by (L.A. Clippers' owner) Sterling that were recorded and played out in the media.
Again, while, as a Black man in California, I am offended by the statements made by Sterling(e.g., he didn't want a friend to bring Black men to Clippers games or to be seen in pictures with Black men), I am not that "hurt" by them. There's absolutely no impact or change in my life because of the statements. So my simple response to Sterling would be "likewise", or, as to him (and other racists with the same views as Sterling), the feelings "are mutual". And, I move on. (But, for Elgin Baylor, who was fired by Sterling because of his(Baylor's) race or color, it is different. Baylor was likely offended by both the statements and actions of Sterling, thereby expriencing the "action speaks louder than words" type of racism (discussed henceforth) from Sterling (without any broad local or national reaction to the "action" racism, in contrast to the widespread local and national reaction obtained by Sterling's taped statements)) as well.
On the other hand, as a Black lawyer in California, the racism of judges Jay S. Bybee, William Fletcher, and Richard Clifton ("Bybee"), offends me much, much more than the racism of Donald Sterling, because "action speaks louder than words". Bybee's "action" caused me the continued loss of my home-law office in Ventura, California, and it has impacted and changed both my personal and professional life in immeasurable ways. Briefly, the Bybee action was lying (in order to deny me relief) and making a ruling, through a Ninth Circuit appellate Order, against me as a Black man and Black lawyer, in violation of federal criminal law. And, the result of this criminal action was to cause me the continued denial of my home-law office; where a truthful and constitutional Order would have resulted in my re-possession of it. It is this type of racism, i.e., racial discrimination racism or action racism, that most offends me, because it has the greatest impact on the life of the person being discriminated against. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Nevertheless, if someone was to secretly tape private conversations of Bybee, Fletcher, and Clifton, in the same way or manner that Sterling was taped, would the taped conversations reveal similar comments as those of Donald Sterling? Based on the Sterling-Baylor scenario, i.e., circumstantial evidence (Baylor's firing by Sterling based on Baylor's race or color) to direct evidence (Sterling's racist statements) or "where there's smoke, there's fire", probably.
In any event:
"Action speaks louder than words".
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
THE DONALD STERLING SAGA*** : WHILE I APPLAUD THE SWIFT AND STERN ACTIONS OF THE NEW NBA COMMISSIONER, AND I BELIEVE THE ACTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM NOT AT ALL IMPRESSED WITH THE ACTIONS OF THE NBA AND THE PLAYERS' ASSOCIATION; ORDINARILY(BUT NOT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE), WHILE CLEARLY OFFENSIVE AND INSULTING, STERLING'S STATEMENTS WOULD BE PROTECTED FREE SPEECH, WHICH DON'T EVEN RISE TO THE LEVEL OF HATE SPEECH . AS A BLACK MAN IN CALIFORNIA, I WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE IMPRESSED WITH THE NBA AND THE PLAYERS' ASSOCIATION IF THEY WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE SAME STEPS THEY TOOK (AGAINST STERLINGS' STATEMENTS) IN DEFENSE OF ELGIN BAYLOR IN BAYLOR'S RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACCUSATIONS AGAINST STERLING; BUT THEN, THOSE ACTIONS WOULD HAVE INVOLVED MORE RISK-TAKING AND REQUIRED MORE COURAGE. BAYLOR WAS THE ONLY REAL BASKETBALL VICTIM OF STERLING'S RACISM AND HE RECEIVED NO HELP FROM THE NBA , THE PLAYERS, OR THE PLAYERS' ASSOCIATION . I ALSO WOULD BE IMPRESSED WITH THE PLAYERS' ASSOCIATION IF THEY PROVIDED BAYLOR WITH A LEGAL DEFENSE FUND TO PURSUE TWO LEGAL REMEDIES THAT BAYLOR STILL HAS AVAILABLE TO HIM, SHOULD HE DESIRE TO PURSUE THEM (AND, IF HE HAS ANY INTEGRITY, HE SHOULD). CALL ME, ELGIN.
Los Angeles, California
March 24, 2021
(Today's Date)
May 13, 2014
(Original Date)
*Denotes a change (either an addition or substraction) in the original blog after initial publication
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added to original blog after initial publication)
***This will be the first in a series of four "short" articles dealing with the Donald Sterling situation.
****This article is submitted as part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California
It is generally known now that pro basketball owner Donald Sterling of the L.A. Clippers was caught on audiotape making offensive and insulting statements concerning Black people. More specifically, he stated, on tape, that he didn't want his female acquaintance, V. Stiviano, to bring any Black people to the Clippers games or to be seen with any Black people, e.g., having pictures taken with them (one instance was a picture taken with Magic Johnson).
Clearly, the statements were not only offensive, insulting, and racist to Black people in particular and in general (and likely to many other non-black people as well), they were also specifically and especially offensive and insulting to Black Clippers' players and personnel, who must deal with Sterling (either directly or indirectly) on a daily basis, i.e., special circumstances; which is why NBA Commisssioner Adam Silver appropriately took immediate and stern action.
Ordinarily, if Sterling was not a NBA owner and the owner of the Clippers in particular, and he had made the same statements, his statements would be constitutionally protected "free" speech; and because he did not use any inflammatory words or language in his statements, i.e., "niggers" instead of Black people, the statements would not rise to the level of "hate" speech. Consequently, if Sterling had made the same statements under different circumstances, i.e., not a NBA owner and not the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, he would not be open to legal consequences for his statements; although social consequences would be a different thing.
I am not impressed with the action taken by the NBA or the Players' Association (suggesting a boycott of NBA games) because they did nothing more than "piggyback" on the gossip media TMZ's reported information (but, Black Clippers' players and personnel and former Clippers' general manager Elgin Baylor, in particular, should be thankful to TMZ, for otherwise they would never have known the real Donald Sterling--although Baylor did know). It was "safe" at that time and now to speak out about Donald Sterling's racism and how they (NBA and Players' Association) are so against racism and Sterling's statements. It didn't and doesn't involve any "risks" to take a stand after production of the taped statements, because "everybody" was and is against this type of racism. So we'll (NBA and Players' Association) join the rest of the offended people and demand that some type of action be taken, and demand that some action be taken against Sterling (the NBA) and threaten a boycott (the Players' Association).
So, why didn't the NBA and the Players' Association take the same steps when Elgin Baylor complained about Donald Sterling's racial discrimination, before he (Baylor) finally took legal action? ANS: Because it invoved more risks and required more courage. Moreover, the NBA displayed its own form of racism against Baylor by not acting on his complaints against Sterling. That is, because the NBA viewed Baylor as just another black man complaining about racism and racial discrimination against a white man (and in this instance, a white owner of a major sports team), it decided not to give Baylor's complaints any credence or credibility, notwithstanding Baylor being a legend or legendary basketball player who is highly respected in the professional basketball community (i.e.,the NBA's position should have been, "if Elgin Baylor is complaining about and charging racial discrimination, in view of what we know about him and his character, then it must be true; Baylor wouldn't charge it if it wasn't true" or, at least we should investigate the circumstances of the discrimination charges very closely, and lean to the side of believing Baylor in the first instance). The NBA's refusal and failure to back Baylor in his complaints against Sterling was the product of racism on the part of the NBA (which is why Baylor sued the NBA as well as Sterling in his lawsuit).
Further, it would have been risky for the NBA and the Players' Association to take Baylor's side regarding Baylor's complaints of racism and racial discrimination, because if Baylor was wrong, how would white players, personnel, and owners, and the white world view the NBA, and how would white players view the Players' Association? They (the NBA and the Players' Association) would look bad if Baylor was wrong, but, on the other hand, they would look good if Baylor was right. But, it would be a risk. The NBA and the Players' Association chose not to take the risk. Now, they see the risk would have been well taken. Baylor was right.
Moreover, it required courage for the NBA and the Players' Association to support Baylor and his complaints; courage that they did not have. They would have had to support a Black man and Black Executive against a white major sports team owner, with money, power, and prestige; and more importantly, they would have had to believe Baylor (and, contrastly, not believe Sterling or not believe that Sterling was innocent of discriminating) without the support of direct evidence of racism, i,e., the TMZ tapes. It took courage (from both the NBA and the Players' Association), and they didn't have it, so Baylor had to go it alone. Baylor was the only real and actual basketball victim of Sterling's racism and discrimination, and the only victim to suffer real damages, i.e., losing his job as general manager, and he received no help from either the NBA (who could have initiated its own actions on behalf of Baylor independent of any legal actions Baylor might take, e.g., like they are doing with Sterling now; the difference being : instead of taking action on behalf of the NBA, as is the case now, it (NBA) would have been action taken on behalf of Baylor) or the Player's Association (whose members either individually or collectively could have supported Baylor)(they simply "punked out").
Now, with the production of the TMZ tapes, they (NBA and Players' Association) want to assert to the world that they are against racism. If they are against racism after production of the tapes, they likely were also against racism without the tapes; they simply didn't have the courage to say so without the tapes. So, I'm not impressed with the NBA's and Players' Association's post-statements actions. They should have taken the actions sooner, i.e., for Baylor.
If the Players' Association want to be impressive, they should take steps to provide Baylor with a legal defense fund to pursue two legal remedies that he still has available to him, notwithstanding his losing his case at trial. One remedy would involve Baylor's discrimination case being re-opened, after setting aside the judgment, and the other remedy would involve an entirely new and independent claim arising from events occurring during pretrial or trial proceedings of the discrimination trial.
After the jury verdict in Baylor's trial, without a decision regarding the racial discrimination charge, I was moved, as a Black man, a Black lawyer, and a blogger, to discover why Baylor had withdrawn his racial discrimination charge against Sterling, especially since that appeared to be his primary charge, from the press reports. Upon examination of a portion of the trial record, I, as a civil rights and civil lawyer, am convinced that Baylor has two colorable civil remedies or claims arising from his discrimination case that should provide him with monetary relief against Sterling and others. Baylor was duped. I am not going into any details here about his claims. I must speak with Baylor first, to decide if he wishes to pursue his claims. If so, I will not publish any further information in blogs until such time as Baylor and myself believes it might be appropriate. If Baylor decides that he does not wish to pursue his remedies, I will then sometime thereafter post a blog about what the remedies are and their bases, if Baylor had decided to pursue them.
I will await a call from Baylor first. It appears to me that if Baylor has any integrity and dignity, and he truly believes that he was discriminated against, and I believe that he was, he would want to pursue the remedies that I have mentioned here. Baylor is not a lawyer, and only a lawyer would know of the bases for and the availability of the remedies that I have mentioned here.
Call me, Elgin. Business no. : (805) 901-2693. Or, if anyone who has read this blog knows Elgin, have him give me a call.
March 24, 2021
(Today's Date)
May 13, 2014
(Original Date)
*Denotes a change (either an addition or substraction) in the original blog after initial publication
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added to original blog after initial publication)
***This will be the first in a series of four "short" articles dealing with the Donald Sterling situation.
****This article is submitted as part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California
It is generally known now that pro basketball owner Donald Sterling of the L.A. Clippers was caught on audiotape making offensive and insulting statements concerning Black people. More specifically, he stated, on tape, that he didn't want his female acquaintance, V. Stiviano, to bring any Black people to the Clippers games or to be seen with any Black people, e.g., having pictures taken with them (one instance was a picture taken with Magic Johnson).
Clearly, the statements were not only offensive, insulting, and racist to Black people in particular and in general (and likely to many other non-black people as well), they were also specifically and especially offensive and insulting to Black Clippers' players and personnel, who must deal with Sterling (either directly or indirectly) on a daily basis, i.e., special circumstances; which is why NBA Commisssioner Adam Silver appropriately took immediate and stern action.
Ordinarily, if Sterling was not a NBA owner and the owner of the Clippers in particular, and he had made the same statements, his statements would be constitutionally protected "free" speech; and because he did not use any inflammatory words or language in his statements, i.e., "niggers" instead of Black people, the statements would not rise to the level of "hate" speech. Consequently, if Sterling had made the same statements under different circumstances, i.e., not a NBA owner and not the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, he would not be open to legal consequences for his statements; although social consequences would be a different thing.
I am not impressed with the action taken by the NBA or the Players' Association (suggesting a boycott of NBA games) because they did nothing more than "piggyback" on the gossip media TMZ's reported information (but, Black Clippers' players and personnel and former Clippers' general manager Elgin Baylor, in particular, should be thankful to TMZ, for otherwise they would never have known the real Donald Sterling--although Baylor did know). It was "safe" at that time and now to speak out about Donald Sterling's racism and how they (NBA and Players' Association) are so against racism and Sterling's statements. It didn't and doesn't involve any "risks" to take a stand after production of the taped statements, because "everybody" was and is against this type of racism. So we'll (NBA and Players' Association) join the rest of the offended people and demand that some type of action be taken, and demand that some action be taken against Sterling (the NBA) and threaten a boycott (the Players' Association).
So, why didn't the NBA and the Players' Association take the same steps when Elgin Baylor complained about Donald Sterling's racial discrimination, before he (Baylor) finally took legal action? ANS: Because it invoved more risks and required more courage. Moreover, the NBA displayed its own form of racism against Baylor by not acting on his complaints against Sterling. That is, because the NBA viewed Baylor as just another black man complaining about racism and racial discrimination against a white man (and in this instance, a white owner of a major sports team), it decided not to give Baylor's complaints any credence or credibility, notwithstanding Baylor being a legend or legendary basketball player who is highly respected in the professional basketball community (i.e.,the NBA's position should have been, "if Elgin Baylor is complaining about and charging racial discrimination, in view of what we know about him and his character, then it must be true; Baylor wouldn't charge it if it wasn't true" or, at least we should investigate the circumstances of the discrimination charges very closely, and lean to the side of believing Baylor in the first instance). The NBA's refusal and failure to back Baylor in his complaints against Sterling was the product of racism on the part of the NBA (which is why Baylor sued the NBA as well as Sterling in his lawsuit).
Further, it would have been risky for the NBA and the Players' Association to take Baylor's side regarding Baylor's complaints of racism and racial discrimination, because if Baylor was wrong, how would white players, personnel, and owners, and the white world view the NBA, and how would white players view the Players' Association? They (the NBA and the Players' Association) would look bad if Baylor was wrong, but, on the other hand, they would look good if Baylor was right. But, it would be a risk. The NBA and the Players' Association chose not to take the risk. Now, they see the risk would have been well taken. Baylor was right.
Moreover, it required courage for the NBA and the Players' Association to support Baylor and his complaints; courage that they did not have. They would have had to support a Black man and Black Executive against a white major sports team owner, with money, power, and prestige; and more importantly, they would have had to believe Baylor (and, contrastly, not believe Sterling or not believe that Sterling was innocent of discriminating) without the support of direct evidence of racism, i,e., the TMZ tapes. It took courage (from both the NBA and the Players' Association), and they didn't have it, so Baylor had to go it alone. Baylor was the only real and actual basketball victim of Sterling's racism and discrimination, and the only victim to suffer real damages, i.e., losing his job as general manager, and he received no help from either the NBA (who could have initiated its own actions on behalf of Baylor independent of any legal actions Baylor might take, e.g., like they are doing with Sterling now; the difference being : instead of taking action on behalf of the NBA, as is the case now, it (NBA) would have been action taken on behalf of Baylor) or the Player's Association (whose members either individually or collectively could have supported Baylor)(they simply "punked out").
Now, with the production of the TMZ tapes, they (NBA and Players' Association) want to assert to the world that they are against racism. If they are against racism after production of the tapes, they likely were also against racism without the tapes; they simply didn't have the courage to say so without the tapes. So, I'm not impressed with the NBA's and Players' Association's post-statements actions. They should have taken the actions sooner, i.e., for Baylor.
If the Players' Association want to be impressive, they should take steps to provide Baylor with a legal defense fund to pursue two legal remedies that he still has available to him, notwithstanding his losing his case at trial. One remedy would involve Baylor's discrimination case being re-opened, after setting aside the judgment, and the other remedy would involve an entirely new and independent claim arising from events occurring during pretrial or trial proceedings of the discrimination trial.
After the jury verdict in Baylor's trial, without a decision regarding the racial discrimination charge, I was moved, as a Black man, a Black lawyer, and a blogger, to discover why Baylor had withdrawn his racial discrimination charge against Sterling, especially since that appeared to be his primary charge, from the press reports. Upon examination of a portion of the trial record, I, as a civil rights and civil lawyer, am convinced that Baylor has two colorable civil remedies or claims arising from his discrimination case that should provide him with monetary relief against Sterling and others. Baylor was duped. I am not going into any details here about his claims. I must speak with Baylor first, to decide if he wishes to pursue his claims. If so, I will not publish any further information in blogs until such time as Baylor and myself believes it might be appropriate. If Baylor decides that he does not wish to pursue his remedies, I will then sometime thereafter post a blog about what the remedies are and their bases, if Baylor had decided to pursue them.
I will await a call from Baylor first. It appears to me that if Baylor has any integrity and dignity, and he truly believes that he was discriminated against, and I believe that he was, he would want to pursue the remedies that I have mentioned here. Baylor is not a lawyer, and only a lawyer would know of the bases for and the availability of the remedies that I have mentioned here.
Call me, Elgin. Business no. : (805) 901-2693. Or, if anyone who has read this blog knows Elgin, have him give me a call.
**UPDATE—March 24, 2021
REST IN PEACE, ELGIN : HISTORY WILL REMEMBER YOU AND YOUR FIGHT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS : YOUR RACE DISCRIMINATION CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN
Elgin Baylor, the former L.A. Laker basketball great and former L.A. Clipper general manager, has now passed away this week, at the age of 86. I will always regret not meeting Baylor and not having an opportunity to counsel Baylor regarding his race discrimination claim brought against Donald Sterling and the NBA. I believe he had a good case. He just had the wrong lawyers, and one of them was Black, Carl Douglas. Baylor turned to Douglas as a friend and a lawyer. And, I believe Douglas initiated prosecution of the civil rights claims in good faith. However, along the way , Douglas and the other lawyers who became involved in the case should have recognized that they were not properly skilled in that area of law, and they should have turned to other, more skilled lawyers.
Baylor’s race discrimination claim should not have been withdrawn. His lawyers dropped the ball. And, it is so clear to me that the race discrimination claim should not have been withdrawn, that it causes me to wonder why the ball was dropped. Baylor was up against Donald Sterling, the Clippers, the NBA, and the Players Association (in the sense that it would not support him), so he needed strong lawyers who would remain entirely on his side. There is serious question as to whether he received that.
Rest in peace , my brother, you have made your mark.
Friday, April 25, 2014
U.S. ATTORNEY(L.A.) ANDRE BIROTTE SHOULD NOT BE CONFIRMED TO BE A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE : HE IS DISHONEST; HE LACKS GOOD CHARACTER; HE IS LEGALLY A CRIMINAL HIMSELF (FOR VIOLATING PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW) ; HE SELECTIVELY PROSECUTES CASES TO THE DETRIMENT OF ACTUAL VICTIMS; AND, FROM ALL INDICATIONS, HE WOULD NOT BE A FAIR DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Los Angeles, California
August 1, 2014
(Today's Date)
April 25, 2104
(Original Date)
Recently, U.S. Attorney (Los Angeles) Andre Birotte was nominated to be a U.S. District Court judge in Los Angeles. Regrettably, especially because he is black and a minority candidate (and there are few of those nominated and sitting on the federal bench in California), I, as a Black lawyer, must oppose the nomination and state, based on my personal knowledge, that he would not be a good federal judge and should not be confirmed and seated on the federal bench.
Among the reasons why he should not be seated are : (1) he is dishonest; (2) he lacks good character; (3) he is legally a criminal himself for violating federal criminal law; (3) he selectively prosecutes cases favoring victimless crimes over crimes with a victim; and (4) he has been an unfair federal prosecutor, so he will probably be an unfair federal judge.
DISHONESTY
On at least two occasions, when I have filed federal criminal Complaints, Birotte, through his office, has provided false and dishonest reasons for not investigating and prosecuting the Complaints. On both occasions, Birotte, through his office has stated that his office, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, does not perform investigations (criminal or civil). This is clearly not true. Even the Attorney General himself, Eric Holder, stated, and admitted, at a recent Congressional hearing, that the Justice Department conducted investigations for another entity. So, the statements by Birotte's office that his office does not perform investigations were simply false. They were also a source of dishonesty for Birotte and his office because the reason for submitting the false statements were to avoid investigating the Complaints, which Birotte knew were meritorious, but, which he did not wish to prosecute. Rather than simply admitting that the Complaints had merit, but that he chose not to prosecute them, which would only raise a charge of abuse of discretion (which would nonetheless be sustained and still be a violation of the law on constitutional grounds), Birotte, through his office, chose to lie to a member of the public and to a victim seeking relief, which was dishonest.
Another level of dishonesty evolving from the false statements mentioned above is based on the processing of the criminal complaints filed with the U.S. Attorney's Office. Ordinarily, when complaints are submitted to the U.S. Attorney's Office, they are distributed to one of the other investigative arms of the Justice Department, e.g., the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), etc., for investigation. Only after the case has been submitted to the investigative agency and thereafter turned over to the U.S. Attorney, does the U.S. Attorney perform its own investigation if it chooses to. So, when a complaint is initially submitted to the U.S. Attorney's Office, the Complainant is actually requesting the U.S. Attorney to submit the Complaint to an investigative agency, usually the FBI, for investigation. But, the Complaint is simply submitted to the U.S. Attorney's Office for convenience and ratification. Indeed, the Complaint form, which is produced by the U.S. Attorney's Office, informs the Complainant that he or she may submit the Complaint to the U.S. Attorney's Office (for investigation by the proper investigative agency). Therefore, it is dishonest for the U.S. Attorney's Office to respond to a Complainant as if the Complaint was submitted to the U.S. Attorney's Office for investigation, while knowing that the Complaint was actually submitted to an independent investigative agency for investigation; and, thereafter, to falsely state to the Complainant that the U.S. Attorney's Office does not perform investigations (as if the Complainant intended that the Complaint be submitted to the U.S. Attorney, rather than the FBI or other agency). When any Complainant submits a Complaint, it is with the intention that the Complaint be investigated by the proper official, and the U.S. Attorney knows this. Therefore, this was another level of dishonesty (and fraud) associated with the U.S. Attorney's false statement.
Finally, in at least one letter, the U.S. Attorney's Office, knowing that I charged the Defendants in the Complaint with violating federal criminal law, and that I am an attorney, referred me to the State District Attorney's Office for resolution of my charges against the named individuals. Birotte and the U.S. Attorney's Office knew when they referred me to the District Attorney's Office that the D.A.'s Office did not have jurisdiction over my federal charges, and therefore, could not provide me with any relief. Nevertheless, they, in bad faith, made the referral to me anyway (which is probably what they do to many other lay people or citizens who have no knowledge or understanding about jurisdiction). This was dishonest as well.
CRIMINALITY
Not only were the above-mentioned statements regarding the U.S. Attorney's Office not performing investigations false, but they were also a violation of federal criminal law. The statements by the U.S. Attorney's Office claiming that it does not conduct investigations were materially false, because, it, in fact, does conduct investigations, both criminal and civil. And, since the false statements were intended to and did deny the Complainant-victim any relief (i.e.,a proper investigation and prosecution, and any monetary or injunctive relief, i.e., restitution) for his Complaints (by indirectly considering the case closed), the statements were material. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1001, "whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive. . . branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully (2) makes any materially false,. . . or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3)makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false. . . , or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title (and/or) imprisoned not more than 5 years. . . ."
Birotte, through his Office, knowingly and willfully sent letters to me containing materially false or fraudulent statements (stating that the U.S. Attorney's Office does not conduct investigations). One letter contained no signature, therefore, it had to be assigned to Birotte himself. Further, because the letter was sent to me by mail through the U.S. Postal Service, the action was a version of mail fraud. See 18 U.S.C. sec. 1341 ("Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme. . . to defraud.. . . for the purpose of executing such scheme. . .or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service,. . . or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both." A criminal Complaint was filed against Birotte for his actions as to one letter at least. And, until Birotte is brought within the criminal justice system, by arrest or otherwise, and is cloaked with a presumption of "innocent until proven guilty", he is and remains a criminal. And, a present and active criminal should not be a district court judge.
NOTE : I will forward a copy of this blog to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and UPON REQUEST, I will forward a copy of certain letters to that Committee.
CHARACTER
Even if Birotte is not convicted of a crime, the conduct of a U.S. Attorney submitting false statements to a citizen of the United States attempting to file a criminal Complaint, when that U.S. Attorney is obligated to investigate and enforce the law, speaks volumes about the character of the U.S. Attorney, especially as it relates to being confirmed and assigned to a district court judge position. Should a U.S. Attorney who has demonstrated a pattern of lying to avoid investigating and prosecuting meritorious complaints be assigned to a U.S. District Court judge position? I think not.
SELECTIVE PROSECUTION : VICTIMLESS CRIMES V. CRIMES WITH A VICTIM
Birotte has demonstrated that he will selectively utilize prosecutorial resources to prosecute victimless crimes ahead of crimes with actual victims who have suffered actual, immediate, and specific harm, which is entirely prejudicial to actual victims.
While I have not scanned the entire prosecutorial case record to determine the number of victimless crimes prosecuted ahead of a crime with a victim, and I need not do so in order to prove my point (because no victimless crime should be prosecuted ahead of a crime with a real and actual victim who has suffered real and actual damage--either physical, mental, or property), I will cite to two recent victimless crime cases and my own "crime with a victim" case for comparison.
In 2007, I filed a formal criminal Complaint in and with the U.S. Attorney's Office (and have filed several since surrounding different scenarios and individuals; all meritorious) charging several individuals, state judges, with causing and maintaining my eviction from my home-law office located in Ventura, CA, through unlawful and racially-motivated and discriminatory means. The premises, a storefront business office with living facilities, were both my home and law office. At the time of my eviction, I had lived in the premises about 4 years, and I was still strugggling to make my law practice a success monetarily (as far as benefits to my few clients and the community, I had already been a success, see infra). Also, at the time of my eviction, I was the only Black lawyer practicing in the city of Ventura, and the only Black lawyer with a private practice emphasizing federal law in the County of Ventura, CA (the county where the Rodney King police officers were found not guilty for the beating of King), both the city and county had about a 2% Black population and a 70% white population (i.e., predominantly white), with the remaining percentages spread among the remaining minorities (with Hispanics having the largest percentage).
I had black, white, and brown clients, but my major successes were on behalf of black clients, see, e.g., In the Matter of Robin Juraine Crammond, 23 I & N Dec. 9 (BIA 2001)(en banc) (in this case, it was the parents of Robin, a citizen of Belize, who retained me after Robin had been ordered deported after immigration hearings (Robin was represented by another lawyer for the hearings--I entered the case after the hearings were complete, and basically filed an appeal with the BIA). I moved to re-open the case, was successful, and the deportation order was reversed. However, Robin left the country without proper authorization while the motion was pending, so the reversal was vacated; and Jackson v. Guirbino, 364 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004)(again, I was retained by Jackson's parents during Jackson's incarceration. When I entered the case, Jackson, who is Black, had already filed his own appeal, pro se, and had also filed his Opening Brief on appeal (and raised multiple issues). So, I had to file a Supplemental Brief. And, it was the Miranda issue that I raised in my Supplemental Brief that caused the reversal of Jackson's murder conviction. A reading of the Court's opinion, however, makes it appear that only one brief was filed with a multitude of immaterial issues. That was not the case). Also, I successfully settled a sexual harrassment case on behalf of a Black woman against the U.S. Navy. So, I, and my law office, clearly was an asset to the community, and especially, the Black community. That is, my services were specifically needed in Ventura County. So when my law office was shutdown, it was not only harm to me, but also to the black community of Ventura County.
However, at the time of my eviction, in 2003, in terms of assets or monies, I simply had enough to maintain myself (but, I had never missed a rent payment throughout my four years of residence and practice, and my manager testified to that fact at a negligence trial--consequently, this is one reason or type of proof which points to my eviction being unlawfully and intentionally obtained), while awaiting for some cases to mature.
I had to move to Los Angeles, where I had family, and I was never able to obtain another home or law office thereafter, to this day. I never recovered from the unlawful eviction, and, if anything, my circumstance deteriorated or got worse.
So, when I filed the federal criminal Complaint in 2007, I specifically sought restitution, including monetary and injunctive relief (i.e., the return of my home-law office). But, other than fraudulent letters, I never received any substantial response from the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding my Complaint, either from the George W. Bush administration or the Obama administration that followed.
However, it is clear that U.S. Attorney Birotte's reasons for not prosecuting the case was not based on the merits of the Complaint, because the Bush administration FBI took some action on the Complaint (based on my submitted evidence alone), i.e., causing two Defendant judges to step down from the bench (but not providing me with any relief), which demonstrated that the Complaint was meritorious. Indeed, the actions of the Bush's FBI was, in reality and unofficially, an NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement), whereby the Justice Department agrees not to prosecute an individual (upon sufficient probable cause proof that the individual has committed a federal offense) in exchange for the person paying restitution (to the victim of the individual's crime, where there is a definite victim). But, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office, in my case, refused to make the Defendants pay restitution. So, while the U.S. Attorney's Office allowed the NPA Defendants to retire, and escape prosecution, it refused to provide me with any relief for the discrimination. U.S. Attorney Birotte could have and should have enforced the agreement himself once he took office (by requiring the Defendants to pay restitution), but, he has not.
There were other victims as well, including two white clients of mine, who were part of the 2007 Complaint, and who also were ignored. One was Jeanette Andrews, who sought relief regarding discriminatory treatment of her disability discrimination case against the Navy, and Harold Griffith, who sought relief for discriminatory treatment of his Social Security disability case (they both were named Complainants in the 2007 Complaint).
Moreover, there were further victims based on further Complaints filed after the 2007 Complaints, and no action were taken by the U.S. Attorney's Office or Birotte regarding any of the Complaints. All of the Complaints are still pending in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles. All of the individuals named in the Complaints (except two from the 2007 Complaint, which were withdrawn) remain pending.
On the other hand, I know of at least two recent personal gain and victimless crimes cases which were prosecuted by the Los Angeles' U.S. Attorney's Office and U.S. Attorney Birotte. Namely, U.S. v. Toby G. Scammell, No. CR 13-0733, a securities case, whereby a former investment fund employee was indicted in October, 2013 on federal charges for insider trading in stock prior to a deal involving the acquisition of one company by another, in which Scammell is said to have "reaped illegal profits of over $192,000"; and the recent indictment of California State Senator Ronald Calderon for bribery and other charges, whereby Calderon is said to have received over $100,000 from bribery schemes. Both of these cases are personal gain cases without an actual victim, other than secondarily the public in some way. But primarily, these are crimes committed for the enrichment of the individual criminal, while the crimes with a victim are intended to and usually do cause specific and individual harm to a specific individual (but, sometimes that harm can be remedied by prosecution and the payment of restitution). Such is the case with my case (as outlined above). Meanwhile, as Scammell and Calderon were being indicted and prosecuted, the Defendants in my Complaints, who have caused actual harm to real victims, were and are being ignored.
My case and the other cases with victims mentioned above were pending at the time the U.S. Attorney's Office prosecuted the Scammell and Calderon cases.
It is prejudicial and nearly a complete abuse of discretion for a U.S. Attorney, any U.S. Attorney, to give priority to victimless cases over cases with actual crime victims, because of the nature of the different circumstances. Very rarely should any victimless crime case be prosecuted before a case with an actual crime victim, especially where a victim is in need of immediate attention to remedy the harm done. Since Birotte has been U.S. Attorney, in my view, he has placed victimless crimes ahead of crimes with actual victims, which evidences poor judgment. And if he displays poor judgment as a U.S. Attorney, he will display poor judgment as an United States District Judge.
FAIRNESS
In my view, the most significant attribute or trait a judge, any judge (state or federal), must possess is the ability to be fair. It is not always easily achieved and much of it must come from within. Most times it requires a high level of strength. It is not easy for some to be fair in America (with the multitude of races, cultures, languages, customs, etc.), but it is achievable. Many times it may conflict with your own values, or with your own personal beliefs as to what is right or wrong. But, one can achieve fairness. For some, like myself, it comes easily and naturally. However, I do not think that U.S. Attorney Birotte has achieved it, and there's no indication that he will achieve it as a district court judge. From my knowledge, experience, and belief, Birotte treats different criminals differently when they should be treated alike, and he treats different crimes alike when they should be treated differently. That is, he favors some high level criminals, e.g., chief executives and/or CEO's of corporations and banks and judges, over low level criminals, which is not only unfair, but also can be unconstitutional and illegal. And, he favors prosecuting victimless crimes over crimes with victims, when it should be the other way around, which is unfair, both to the victims and the public, who likely would not want their resources used in this manner.
U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte should not be confirmed to be a U.S. District Court judge in Los Angeles.
**UPDATE--August 1, 2014
According to the L.A. Times, Birotte has now been confirmed by the Senate. So, he will now be a sitting District Court Judge. He will not be a good one. If he lied as a U.S. Attorney, he will lie as a U.S. District Judge. The Senate confirmation process is a sham and a shame. Qualifications alone is no indication that one will be a good judge. Birotte is proof of that.
August 1, 2014
(Today's Date)
April 25, 2104
(Original Date)
Recently, U.S. Attorney (Los Angeles) Andre Birotte was nominated to be a U.S. District Court judge in Los Angeles. Regrettably, especially because he is black and a minority candidate (and there are few of those nominated and sitting on the federal bench in California), I, as a Black lawyer, must oppose the nomination and state, based on my personal knowledge, that he would not be a good federal judge and should not be confirmed and seated on the federal bench.
Among the reasons why he should not be seated are : (1) he is dishonest; (2) he lacks good character; (3) he is legally a criminal himself for violating federal criminal law; (3) he selectively prosecutes cases favoring victimless crimes over crimes with a victim; and (4) he has been an unfair federal prosecutor, so he will probably be an unfair federal judge.
DISHONESTY
On at least two occasions, when I have filed federal criminal Complaints, Birotte, through his office, has provided false and dishonest reasons for not investigating and prosecuting the Complaints. On both occasions, Birotte, through his office has stated that his office, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, does not perform investigations (criminal or civil). This is clearly not true. Even the Attorney General himself, Eric Holder, stated, and admitted, at a recent Congressional hearing, that the Justice Department conducted investigations for another entity. So, the statements by Birotte's office that his office does not perform investigations were simply false. They were also a source of dishonesty for Birotte and his office because the reason for submitting the false statements were to avoid investigating the Complaints, which Birotte knew were meritorious, but, which he did not wish to prosecute. Rather than simply admitting that the Complaints had merit, but that he chose not to prosecute them, which would only raise a charge of abuse of discretion (which would nonetheless be sustained and still be a violation of the law on constitutional grounds), Birotte, through his office, chose to lie to a member of the public and to a victim seeking relief, which was dishonest.
Another level of dishonesty evolving from the false statements mentioned above is based on the processing of the criminal complaints filed with the U.S. Attorney's Office. Ordinarily, when complaints are submitted to the U.S. Attorney's Office, they are distributed to one of the other investigative arms of the Justice Department, e.g., the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), etc., for investigation. Only after the case has been submitted to the investigative agency and thereafter turned over to the U.S. Attorney, does the U.S. Attorney perform its own investigation if it chooses to. So, when a complaint is initially submitted to the U.S. Attorney's Office, the Complainant is actually requesting the U.S. Attorney to submit the Complaint to an investigative agency, usually the FBI, for investigation. But, the Complaint is simply submitted to the U.S. Attorney's Office for convenience and ratification. Indeed, the Complaint form, which is produced by the U.S. Attorney's Office, informs the Complainant that he or she may submit the Complaint to the U.S. Attorney's Office (for investigation by the proper investigative agency). Therefore, it is dishonest for the U.S. Attorney's Office to respond to a Complainant as if the Complaint was submitted to the U.S. Attorney's Office for investigation, while knowing that the Complaint was actually submitted to an independent investigative agency for investigation; and, thereafter, to falsely state to the Complainant that the U.S. Attorney's Office does not perform investigations (as if the Complainant intended that the Complaint be submitted to the U.S. Attorney, rather than the FBI or other agency). When any Complainant submits a Complaint, it is with the intention that the Complaint be investigated by the proper official, and the U.S. Attorney knows this. Therefore, this was another level of dishonesty (and fraud) associated with the U.S. Attorney's false statement.
Finally, in at least one letter, the U.S. Attorney's Office, knowing that I charged the Defendants in the Complaint with violating federal criminal law, and that I am an attorney, referred me to the State District Attorney's Office for resolution of my charges against the named individuals. Birotte and the U.S. Attorney's Office knew when they referred me to the District Attorney's Office that the D.A.'s Office did not have jurisdiction over my federal charges, and therefore, could not provide me with any relief. Nevertheless, they, in bad faith, made the referral to me anyway (which is probably what they do to many other lay people or citizens who have no knowledge or understanding about jurisdiction). This was dishonest as well.
CRIMINALITY
Not only were the above-mentioned statements regarding the U.S. Attorney's Office not performing investigations false, but they were also a violation of federal criminal law. The statements by the U.S. Attorney's Office claiming that it does not conduct investigations were materially false, because, it, in fact, does conduct investigations, both criminal and civil. And, since the false statements were intended to and did deny the Complainant-victim any relief (i.e.,a proper investigation and prosecution, and any monetary or injunctive relief, i.e., restitution) for his Complaints (by indirectly considering the case closed), the statements were material. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1001, "whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive. . . branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully (2) makes any materially false,. . . or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3)makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false. . . , or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title (and/or) imprisoned not more than 5 years. . . ."
Birotte, through his Office, knowingly and willfully sent letters to me containing materially false or fraudulent statements (stating that the U.S. Attorney's Office does not conduct investigations). One letter contained no signature, therefore, it had to be assigned to Birotte himself. Further, because the letter was sent to me by mail through the U.S. Postal Service, the action was a version of mail fraud. See 18 U.S.C. sec. 1341 ("Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme. . . to defraud.. . . for the purpose of executing such scheme. . .or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service,. . . or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both." A criminal Complaint was filed against Birotte for his actions as to one letter at least. And, until Birotte is brought within the criminal justice system, by arrest or otherwise, and is cloaked with a presumption of "innocent until proven guilty", he is and remains a criminal. And, a present and active criminal should not be a district court judge.
NOTE : I will forward a copy of this blog to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and UPON REQUEST, I will forward a copy of certain letters to that Committee.
CHARACTER
Even if Birotte is not convicted of a crime, the conduct of a U.S. Attorney submitting false statements to a citizen of the United States attempting to file a criminal Complaint, when that U.S. Attorney is obligated to investigate and enforce the law, speaks volumes about the character of the U.S. Attorney, especially as it relates to being confirmed and assigned to a district court judge position. Should a U.S. Attorney who has demonstrated a pattern of lying to avoid investigating and prosecuting meritorious complaints be assigned to a U.S. District Court judge position? I think not.
SELECTIVE PROSECUTION : VICTIMLESS CRIMES V. CRIMES WITH A VICTIM
Birotte has demonstrated that he will selectively utilize prosecutorial resources to prosecute victimless crimes ahead of crimes with actual victims who have suffered actual, immediate, and specific harm, which is entirely prejudicial to actual victims.
While I have not scanned the entire prosecutorial case record to determine the number of victimless crimes prosecuted ahead of a crime with a victim, and I need not do so in order to prove my point (because no victimless crime should be prosecuted ahead of a crime with a real and actual victim who has suffered real and actual damage--either physical, mental, or property), I will cite to two recent victimless crime cases and my own "crime with a victim" case for comparison.
In 2007, I filed a formal criminal Complaint in and with the U.S. Attorney's Office (and have filed several since surrounding different scenarios and individuals; all meritorious) charging several individuals, state judges, with causing and maintaining my eviction from my home-law office located in Ventura, CA, through unlawful and racially-motivated and discriminatory means. The premises, a storefront business office with living facilities, were both my home and law office. At the time of my eviction, I had lived in the premises about 4 years, and I was still strugggling to make my law practice a success monetarily (as far as benefits to my few clients and the community, I had already been a success, see infra). Also, at the time of my eviction, I was the only Black lawyer practicing in the city of Ventura, and the only Black lawyer with a private practice emphasizing federal law in the County of Ventura, CA (the county where the Rodney King police officers were found not guilty for the beating of King), both the city and county had about a 2% Black population and a 70% white population (i.e., predominantly white), with the remaining percentages spread among the remaining minorities (with Hispanics having the largest percentage).
I had black, white, and brown clients, but my major successes were on behalf of black clients, see, e.g., In the Matter of Robin Juraine Crammond, 23 I & N Dec. 9 (BIA 2001)(en banc) (in this case, it was the parents of Robin, a citizen of Belize, who retained me after Robin had been ordered deported after immigration hearings (Robin was represented by another lawyer for the hearings--I entered the case after the hearings were complete, and basically filed an appeal with the BIA). I moved to re-open the case, was successful, and the deportation order was reversed. However, Robin left the country without proper authorization while the motion was pending, so the reversal was vacated; and Jackson v. Guirbino, 364 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004)(again, I was retained by Jackson's parents during Jackson's incarceration. When I entered the case, Jackson, who is Black, had already filed his own appeal, pro se, and had also filed his Opening Brief on appeal (and raised multiple issues). So, I had to file a Supplemental Brief. And, it was the Miranda issue that I raised in my Supplemental Brief that caused the reversal of Jackson's murder conviction. A reading of the Court's opinion, however, makes it appear that only one brief was filed with a multitude of immaterial issues. That was not the case). Also, I successfully settled a sexual harrassment case on behalf of a Black woman against the U.S. Navy. So, I, and my law office, clearly was an asset to the community, and especially, the Black community. That is, my services were specifically needed in Ventura County. So when my law office was shutdown, it was not only harm to me, but also to the black community of Ventura County.
However, at the time of my eviction, in 2003, in terms of assets or monies, I simply had enough to maintain myself (but, I had never missed a rent payment throughout my four years of residence and practice, and my manager testified to that fact at a negligence trial--consequently, this is one reason or type of proof which points to my eviction being unlawfully and intentionally obtained), while awaiting for some cases to mature.
I had to move to Los Angeles, where I had family, and I was never able to obtain another home or law office thereafter, to this day. I never recovered from the unlawful eviction, and, if anything, my circumstance deteriorated or got worse.
So, when I filed the federal criminal Complaint in 2007, I specifically sought restitution, including monetary and injunctive relief (i.e., the return of my home-law office). But, other than fraudulent letters, I never received any substantial response from the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding my Complaint, either from the George W. Bush administration or the Obama administration that followed.
However, it is clear that U.S. Attorney Birotte's reasons for not prosecuting the case was not based on the merits of the Complaint, because the Bush administration FBI took some action on the Complaint (based on my submitted evidence alone), i.e., causing two Defendant judges to step down from the bench (but not providing me with any relief), which demonstrated that the Complaint was meritorious. Indeed, the actions of the Bush's FBI was, in reality and unofficially, an NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement), whereby the Justice Department agrees not to prosecute an individual (upon sufficient probable cause proof that the individual has committed a federal offense) in exchange for the person paying restitution (to the victim of the individual's crime, where there is a definite victim). But, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office, in my case, refused to make the Defendants pay restitution. So, while the U.S. Attorney's Office allowed the NPA Defendants to retire, and escape prosecution, it refused to provide me with any relief for the discrimination. U.S. Attorney Birotte could have and should have enforced the agreement himself once he took office (by requiring the Defendants to pay restitution), but, he has not.
There were other victims as well, including two white clients of mine, who were part of the 2007 Complaint, and who also were ignored. One was Jeanette Andrews, who sought relief regarding discriminatory treatment of her disability discrimination case against the Navy, and Harold Griffith, who sought relief for discriminatory treatment of his Social Security disability case (they both were named Complainants in the 2007 Complaint).
Moreover, there were further victims based on further Complaints filed after the 2007 Complaints, and no action were taken by the U.S. Attorney's Office or Birotte regarding any of the Complaints. All of the Complaints are still pending in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles. All of the individuals named in the Complaints (except two from the 2007 Complaint, which were withdrawn) remain pending.
On the other hand, I know of at least two recent personal gain and victimless crimes cases which were prosecuted by the Los Angeles' U.S. Attorney's Office and U.S. Attorney Birotte. Namely, U.S. v. Toby G. Scammell, No. CR 13-0733, a securities case, whereby a former investment fund employee was indicted in October, 2013 on federal charges for insider trading in stock prior to a deal involving the acquisition of one company by another, in which Scammell is said to have "reaped illegal profits of over $192,000"; and the recent indictment of California State Senator Ronald Calderon for bribery and other charges, whereby Calderon is said to have received over $100,000 from bribery schemes. Both of these cases are personal gain cases without an actual victim, other than secondarily the public in some way. But primarily, these are crimes committed for the enrichment of the individual criminal, while the crimes with a victim are intended to and usually do cause specific and individual harm to a specific individual (but, sometimes that harm can be remedied by prosecution and the payment of restitution). Such is the case with my case (as outlined above). Meanwhile, as Scammell and Calderon were being indicted and prosecuted, the Defendants in my Complaints, who have caused actual harm to real victims, were and are being ignored.
My case and the other cases with victims mentioned above were pending at the time the U.S. Attorney's Office prosecuted the Scammell and Calderon cases.
It is prejudicial and nearly a complete abuse of discretion for a U.S. Attorney, any U.S. Attorney, to give priority to victimless cases over cases with actual crime victims, because of the nature of the different circumstances. Very rarely should any victimless crime case be prosecuted before a case with an actual crime victim, especially where a victim is in need of immediate attention to remedy the harm done. Since Birotte has been U.S. Attorney, in my view, he has placed victimless crimes ahead of crimes with actual victims, which evidences poor judgment. And if he displays poor judgment as a U.S. Attorney, he will display poor judgment as an United States District Judge.
FAIRNESS
In my view, the most significant attribute or trait a judge, any judge (state or federal), must possess is the ability to be fair. It is not always easily achieved and much of it must come from within. Most times it requires a high level of strength. It is not easy for some to be fair in America (with the multitude of races, cultures, languages, customs, etc.), but it is achievable. Many times it may conflict with your own values, or with your own personal beliefs as to what is right or wrong. But, one can achieve fairness. For some, like myself, it comes easily and naturally. However, I do not think that U.S. Attorney Birotte has achieved it, and there's no indication that he will achieve it as a district court judge. From my knowledge, experience, and belief, Birotte treats different criminals differently when they should be treated alike, and he treats different crimes alike when they should be treated differently. That is, he favors some high level criminals, e.g., chief executives and/or CEO's of corporations and banks and judges, over low level criminals, which is not only unfair, but also can be unconstitutional and illegal. And, he favors prosecuting victimless crimes over crimes with victims, when it should be the other way around, which is unfair, both to the victims and the public, who likely would not want their resources used in this manner.
U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte should not be confirmed to be a U.S. District Court judge in Los Angeles.
**UPDATE--August 1, 2014
According to the L.A. Times, Birotte has now been confirmed by the Senate. So, he will now be a sitting District Court Judge. He will not be a good one. If he lied as a U.S. Attorney, he will lie as a U.S. District Judge. The Senate confirmation process is a sham and a shame. Qualifications alone is no indication that one will be a good judge. Birotte is proof of that.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
CALIFORNIA STATE SENATORS RONALD S. CALDERON AND LELAND YEE V. CALIFORNIA STATE JUDGES STEVEN HINTZ, BARRY KLOPFER, DAVID LONG, AND KEN RILEY***, MICHAEL PASTOR, AND ROBERT PERRY : WHY WERE INDICTMENTS SOUGHT AND OBTAINED BY THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICES ( LOS ANGELES AND SAN FRANCISCO) FOR SENATORS RONALD CALDERON AND LELAND YEE, BUT NOT FOR STATE JUDGES HINTZ, KLOPFER, LONG, RILEY, PASTOR, AND PERRY , WHEN BOTH GROUPS OF STATE OFFICIALS (SENATORS AND JUDGES) WERE ACCUSED OF VIOLATING FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW? AND, WHY WERE SENATORS CALDERON AND YEE INDICTED, WHILE JUDGES HINTZ AND KLOPFER WERE ALLOWED TO RETIRE RATHER THAN FACE INDICTMENT? ANOTHER CASE OF SELECTIVE PROSECUTION BY U.S. ATTORNEY ANDRE BIROTTE (AND HIS SAN FRANCISCO COUNTERPART) AND THE U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. WILL SENATORS CALDERON AND YEE (UNLIKE SEN. RODERICK WRIGHT, CONVICTED ON 8 COUNTS) ASSERT AND RAISE THEIR PRE-TRIAL DEFENSE?
Los Angeles, California
May 5, 2014
(Today's Date)
April 16, 2014
(Original Date)
*Denotes change made in original blog after initial publishing
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added to blog after original publishing)
***It is my understanding and belief that all four of these judges have retired; but, that fact does not prohibit or prevent their indictment and prosecution. They could have and should have been indicted before the Calderon-Yee indictments. And, they can be indicted now.
****This blog is being submitted as part of the War on Racial Dsicrimination(WRD) in California and the United States of America.
On one hand, in the past few months, two minority state senators, Ronald S. Calderon and Leland Yee, have been indicted by grand juries for violating federal criminal law. Those indictments were secured by the U.S. Attorney's Offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco, respectively, and, more specifically, for Senator Calderon, by U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte in Los Angeles. On the other hand, six white state judges (in the Central District of California) have been accused of violating federal criminal law, and the U.S. Attorney's Office and Birotte have not sought grand jury indictments against them (or charge them in any other way). So, the question is : why the difference in treatment?
NOTE: Although Senator Yee was indicted out of San Francisco,CA, through the San Francisco U.S. Attorney's Office(Northern District), he can nonetheless allege a difference in treatment as to the Central District judges (because it's the U.S. Justice Department that purportedly is treating him differently, regardless of which U.S. Attorney's Office actually sought the indictment), although I could identify several Northern District federal judges and other officials that Yee could point to in terms of different treatment. But, here, I will rely on the Central District judges, because they are state judges and they provide a more exacting and clearer picture of the difference in treatment between comparative groups, i.e., State Senators and State Judges.
Briefly, in 2007, I filed a federal criminal Complaint in and with the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, whereby I charged four of the above-named state judges, among others, with conspiracy to deny constitutional rights under color of law, based on race or color (or racial discrimination), denial of constitutional rights under color of law based on race or color (racial discrimination), and, except Hintz, making and filing false statements during a judicial proceeding(based on Long, Klopfer, and Riley acting as appellate judges). Clearly, the Complaint had merit, because based on my information, understanding, and belief, the FBI took some action on the Complaint, e.g., causing the retirement of Hintz and Klopfer; but, the U.S. Attorney's office refused to seek indictments or otherwise prosecute the judges. However, that 2007 Complaint is still pending, and it was pending at the time that Calderon and Yee were indicted by the respective grand juries. So, U.S. Atorney Birotte, in Los Angeles, chose to seek an indictment of Calderon, but not of Hintz, Klopfer,Long, or Riley.
When the 2007 Complaint was filed, all of the said state judges were members of the Superior Court of California, Ventura County. The charges in the Complaint evolved from the judges' treatment of an unlawful detainer case, whereby I was unlawfully evicted from my home-law office in Ventura, California, *through the acts of the trial judge, Steven Hintz. At the time, I was the only Black lawyer practicing in the predominantly white city of Ventura, CA. And, it is clear that my services were needed, particularly by minorities. See, e.g., In the matter of Robin Juraine Crammond, 23 I & N Dec.9 (BIA 2001)(en banc), and Jackson v. Guirbino, 364 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004).
In 2011, two additional federal criminal Complaints were separately filed against judges Pastor and Perry of the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, on behalf of Dr. Conrad Murray (convicted of the manslaughter of Michael Jackson)(Pastor) and Oscar Grant(deceased black man murdered by a BART police officer in San Francisco)(Perry). Pastor was charged with conspiracy to deny constitutional rights under color of law and Perry was charged with deprivation of rights under color of law and conspiracy against rights. The Complaints are still pending, notwithstanding the U.S. Attorney's Office's refusal to investigate the Complaints; and the Complaints were pending at the time that Calderon and Yee were indicted. So, Birotte chose to seek an indictment of Calderon, but not Pastor and Perry.
With the above in mind, the essential question is :
WHY DID THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICES IN LOS ANGELES AND SAN FRANCISCO, AND U.S. ATTORNEY ANDRE BIROTTE SPECIFICALLY (FOR CALDERON), SEEK AND OBTAIN INDICTMENTS OF STATE SENATORS CALDERON AND YEE, BUT DID NOT SEEK INDICTMENTS OF STATE JUDGES HINTZ, LONG, RILEY, KLOPFER, PASTOR, AND PERRY, WHEN BOTH GROUPS OF STATE OFFICIALS (SENATORS AND JUDGES) WERE ACCUSED OF VIOLATING PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW?
Could it be because of the time difference in the actions being brought to the attention of the Justice Department? No, it couldn't be that. The Complaints against the state judges have been pending since 2007, so if the Justice Department intended to seek indictments of the judges it could have and should have been done prior to the Calderon-Yee indictments. Therefore, the time period is current for both the senators and the judges. When the respective U.S. Attorneys presented Calderon's and Yee's cases to the respective grand juries, they could have presented the judges' cases as well.
Could it be because of the nature of the charges? Perhaps. But, it would be an illegitimate basis for not prosecuting the judges. That is, the Calderon and Yee charges are generally personal gain charges, e.g., bribery, money laundering, fraud, filing false tax returns, etc., while the judges' charges are generally directed at causing personal harm to citizens. So that if the nature of the charges was the determinant factor in deciding whether to prosecute or not prosecute the senators or the judges, it would appear that the judges should have been indicted instead of the senators. Certainly, most citizens would be more concerned with protecting themselves from, and would want protection from, state officials causing them personal harm than those officials acting for personal gain, but not causing personal harm to citizens.
Could it be because of the seriousness of the charges? Or, because the personal gain charges were more serious than racial discrimination charges? No, I think not. While the personal gain conduct reflects on the Defendant's character and provides the Defendant with monetary gain, it does not cause direct harm to individual citizens and deprive those citizens of their constitutional rights (but, I'm sure it will be argued that citizens were harmed in some indirect way--like murder is considered a crime against the state or the people, even though, the only direct harm is done to the murder victim ). On the other hand, racial discrimination causes direct and individual harm to the person being discriminated against; if no other type of harm, it causes emotional harm to the person it is directed against. I would love to see the government argue before a court that it thought Calderon or Yee's conduct, e.g., bribery and money laundering, was more serious than racial discrimination, and that's why it decided to prosecute Calderon and Yee and not prosecute the judges.
Could it be because Calderon and Yee are senators and the Hintz and Pastor Defendants are judges? Perhaps, but it would, nonetheless, be an illegitimate and unconstitutional basis for treating the two groups differently, where both groups are state officers, and where both branches of government, legislative and judicial, are equal. Both Calderon and Yee, as well as the judges are high level state officials, and neither group has immunity from prosecution.
Could it be because of gender? No, both the legislators and the judges are males.
Could it be because of race or color? Yes, nearly to a certainty. Both Calderon and Yee are minorities, Hispanic-Latino and Asian; while all the judge Defendants are white (and white males). Considering the factors that I have described and discussed above, the only reasonable and logical reason for the difference in treatment between the State legislators and the State judges is race or color. Calderon and Yee were targeted for indictment and prosecution because they are minority senators. That is, the undertaking of the investigation in the first instance was done because they were minorities, even if there would not have been sufficient evidence at the end to seek an indictment. To the contrary, regarding the white judges, even when there was sufficient evidence at the outset (supplied by the victim)(without further and official investigation) to submit to a grand jury for indictment, the U.S. Attorney, Birotte, refused to seek an indictment. For instance, the FBI acted on the victim's evidence (of racial discrimination) alone in forcing Hintz and Klopfer to step down from the bench or retire. Yet, the U.S. Attorney's Office refuses to seek an indictment of Hintz and Klopfer, because they are white.
Consequently, I conclude that even if there were other factors contributing to the government's decision to indict Calderon and Yee, such as probable cause evidence, the greatest factor was Calderon's and Yee's race or color. The U.S. Attorney's Offices in Los Angeles(and U.S. Attorney Birotte) and San Francisco sought indictments of Calderon and Yee because they were minority senators, which is a denial of equal protection of the law.
SELECTIVE PROSECUTION
State Senators Calderon and Yee were obviously selectively prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Offices in Los Angeles (and U.S. Attorney Birotte) and San Francisco. This is especially so when viewed from the perspective or context of the comparative individuals of State Judges Hintz, Klopfer, Long, Riley, Pastor, and Perry. These individuals are sufficient for Calderon and Yee to establish a prima facie case of selective prosecution, and to prove their case.
To prove their prima facie case, Calderon and Yee must only show that: (1) others similarly situated have not been prosecuted, and (2) the prosecution is based on an impermissible motive. Based on the State Judge individuals identified herein, Calderon and Yee have demonstrated both elements.
Here are some of the reasons why State Senators Calderon and Yee are similarly-situated to the State Judge Defendants:
1. Both the Legislative (Calderon and Yee) and Judicial (Hintz,Long, Klopfer, Riley, Pastor, and Perry) Defendants are California State officials and employees.
2. Both the Legislative and Judicial Defendants are high level state officials.
3. Both the Legislative and Judicial Defendants are accused of violating federal criminal law.
4. Both the Legislative and Judicial Defendants are accused of committing federal felonies.
5. Both the Legislative and Judicial Defendants are members of a major Branch of State government, and both Branches are equal to each other.
6. Both the Legislative and Judicial Defendants committed crimes that did not involve direct physical harm to a victim, e.g., murder or mayhem.
7. Both the Legislative and Judicial Defendants are accused of being involved in conpiracies.
The impermissible motives are discriminatory purpose and intent based on race or color, or racial discrimination. If Calderon and Yee were white males, they would not have been indicted. If they were white male Senators, they likely would not have even been investigated by the U.S. Attorney's Office or the U.S. Justice Department. *On what basis did the Justice Department decide to investigate Calderon and Yee? I take no position regarding other high level State positions at this time.
CALDERON'S POSSIBLE VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION CLAIM
In addition to the selective prosecution defense, it appears that Calderon may also have a vindictive prosecution claim based on his refusal to wear a wire for the government, if that is true. I will be the first to admit that I have insufficient verified factual information to make any credible determination of the claim. I am here simply suggesting that the scenario, if true, might provide Calderon with a vindictive prosecution claim in support of his selective prosecution claim. Would the government have sought the indictment against Calderon if he had agreed to wear the wire?
State Senator Roderick Wright, who is Black, also had a selective prosecution defense in his state criminal trial (regarding a different matter--i.e., voting fraud--than the matter herein) but he chose not to raise it. He was convicted on 8 Counts and awaits his sentence, after never having raised the defense. And, he was aware of it.
Will Senators Calderon and Yee also refuse to raise the pretrial defense, and give the government a free ride (by not having to prove that they treated Calderon and Yee differently or did not discriminate against Calderon and Yee, based on their race)? Or, will they step up to the plate and take their at bat? We'll see.
MINORITY MEMBERS OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE
It appears to me that most, if not all, remaining minority members of the California State Senate would strongly urge Senators Calderon and Yee to assert and raise their pre-trial selective prosecution defense, in order to try and prevent any future discriminatory and/or unconstitutional indictments and prosecutions of other minority members of the Senate. I know there may be some, at first blush, that will acclaim, "that's not going to happen to me, because I'm not going to engage in that type of conduct or do those type of things." However, that 's not the point. The point is: minority State Senators should not have to go through or be susceptible to closer scrutiny, e.g., preliminary or "hunch" investigations and search warrants, than their white counterparts. For example, take the case of Sen. Wright again. It is clear from the commentary surrounding Sen. Wright's case, and from Senator Wright himself, that other, white, State senators probably have lived at or used illegal addresses regarding the submission of their proper addresses for voting and representation of their respective districts. It is equally clear that the government did not pursue those white senators for criminal violations regarding residency.
Senator Wright was pursued or targeted because he is Black. More importantly, he was likely scrutinized in the first instance because he is a minority. So, the question for the remaining minority senators is not whether they will likely engage in the conduct similar to Calderon and Yee, but rather, are they likely to continue to be scrutinized for criminal conduct by the government (state and federal) closer than their white State counterparts (be they senators, judges, or Executive Branch officials)? I believe the answer is "yes". Therefore, if that's the case, that should be the motivation for the minority State Senators to urge Calderon and Yee to assert and raise their pretrial defense of selective prosecution. Not to protect them from future indictments (because they shouldn't worry about indictments if they will not engage in any illegal conduct), but to protect them from discriminatory and/or unconstitutional government scrutiny of them because they are minorities (while refusing to implement the same type of scrutiny over or regarding white senators and judges), *and to protect them from future discriminatory and unconstitutional indictments.
A FINAL NOTE: If Calderon and Yee decide to exercise their right and assert their pre-trial selective prosecution defense, were it to be denied, they would have a right to an immediate direct appeal because a determination of the matter would affect their right not to have to undergo a trial altogether and it is separate from the merits of the indictment charges themselves.
May 5, 2014
(Today's Date)
April 16, 2014
(Original Date)
*Denotes change made in original blog after initial publishing
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added to blog after original publishing)
***It is my understanding and belief that all four of these judges have retired; but, that fact does not prohibit or prevent their indictment and prosecution. They could have and should have been indicted before the Calderon-Yee indictments. And, they can be indicted now.
****This blog is being submitted as part of the War on Racial Dsicrimination(WRD) in California and the United States of America.
On one hand, in the past few months, two minority state senators, Ronald S. Calderon and Leland Yee, have been indicted by grand juries for violating federal criminal law. Those indictments were secured by the U.S. Attorney's Offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco, respectively, and, more specifically, for Senator Calderon, by U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte in Los Angeles. On the other hand, six white state judges (in the Central District of California) have been accused of violating federal criminal law, and the U.S. Attorney's Office and Birotte have not sought grand jury indictments against them (or charge them in any other way). So, the question is : why the difference in treatment?
NOTE: Although Senator Yee was indicted out of San Francisco,CA, through the San Francisco U.S. Attorney's Office(Northern District), he can nonetheless allege a difference in treatment as to the Central District judges (because it's the U.S. Justice Department that purportedly is treating him differently, regardless of which U.S. Attorney's Office actually sought the indictment), although I could identify several Northern District federal judges and other officials that Yee could point to in terms of different treatment. But, here, I will rely on the Central District judges, because they are state judges and they provide a more exacting and clearer picture of the difference in treatment between comparative groups, i.e., State Senators and State Judges.
Briefly, in 2007, I filed a federal criminal Complaint in and with the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, whereby I charged four of the above-named state judges, among others, with conspiracy to deny constitutional rights under color of law, based on race or color (or racial discrimination), denial of constitutional rights under color of law based on race or color (racial discrimination), and, except Hintz, making and filing false statements during a judicial proceeding(based on Long, Klopfer, and Riley acting as appellate judges). Clearly, the Complaint had merit, because based on my information, understanding, and belief, the FBI took some action on the Complaint, e.g., causing the retirement of Hintz and Klopfer; but, the U.S. Attorney's office refused to seek indictments or otherwise prosecute the judges. However, that 2007 Complaint is still pending, and it was pending at the time that Calderon and Yee were indicted by the respective grand juries. So, U.S. Atorney Birotte, in Los Angeles, chose to seek an indictment of Calderon, but not of Hintz, Klopfer,Long, or Riley.
When the 2007 Complaint was filed, all of the said state judges were members of the Superior Court of California, Ventura County. The charges in the Complaint evolved from the judges' treatment of an unlawful detainer case, whereby I was unlawfully evicted from my home-law office in Ventura, California, *through the acts of the trial judge, Steven Hintz. At the time, I was the only Black lawyer practicing in the predominantly white city of Ventura, CA. And, it is clear that my services were needed, particularly by minorities. See, e.g., In the matter of Robin Juraine Crammond, 23 I & N Dec.9 (BIA 2001)(en banc), and Jackson v. Guirbino, 364 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004).
In 2011, two additional federal criminal Complaints were separately filed against judges Pastor and Perry of the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, on behalf of Dr. Conrad Murray (convicted of the manslaughter of Michael Jackson)(Pastor) and Oscar Grant(deceased black man murdered by a BART police officer in San Francisco)(Perry). Pastor was charged with conspiracy to deny constitutional rights under color of law and Perry was charged with deprivation of rights under color of law and conspiracy against rights. The Complaints are still pending, notwithstanding the U.S. Attorney's Office's refusal to investigate the Complaints; and the Complaints were pending at the time that Calderon and Yee were indicted. So, Birotte chose to seek an indictment of Calderon, but not Pastor and Perry.
With the above in mind, the essential question is :
WHY DID THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICES IN LOS ANGELES AND SAN FRANCISCO, AND U.S. ATTORNEY ANDRE BIROTTE SPECIFICALLY (FOR CALDERON), SEEK AND OBTAIN INDICTMENTS OF STATE SENATORS CALDERON AND YEE, BUT DID NOT SEEK INDICTMENTS OF STATE JUDGES HINTZ, LONG, RILEY, KLOPFER, PASTOR, AND PERRY, WHEN BOTH GROUPS OF STATE OFFICIALS (SENATORS AND JUDGES) WERE ACCUSED OF VIOLATING PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW?
Could it be because of the time difference in the actions being brought to the attention of the Justice Department? No, it couldn't be that. The Complaints against the state judges have been pending since 2007, so if the Justice Department intended to seek indictments of the judges it could have and should have been done prior to the Calderon-Yee indictments. Therefore, the time period is current for both the senators and the judges. When the respective U.S. Attorneys presented Calderon's and Yee's cases to the respective grand juries, they could have presented the judges' cases as well.
Could it be because of the nature of the charges? Perhaps. But, it would be an illegitimate basis for not prosecuting the judges. That is, the Calderon and Yee charges are generally personal gain charges, e.g., bribery, money laundering, fraud, filing false tax returns, etc., while the judges' charges are generally directed at causing personal harm to citizens. So that if the nature of the charges was the determinant factor in deciding whether to prosecute or not prosecute the senators or the judges, it would appear that the judges should have been indicted instead of the senators. Certainly, most citizens would be more concerned with protecting themselves from, and would want protection from, state officials causing them personal harm than those officials acting for personal gain, but not causing personal harm to citizens.
Could it be because of the seriousness of the charges? Or, because the personal gain charges were more serious than racial discrimination charges? No, I think not. While the personal gain conduct reflects on the Defendant's character and provides the Defendant with monetary gain, it does not cause direct harm to individual citizens and deprive those citizens of their constitutional rights (but, I'm sure it will be argued that citizens were harmed in some indirect way--like murder is considered a crime against the state or the people, even though, the only direct harm is done to the murder victim ). On the other hand, racial discrimination causes direct and individual harm to the person being discriminated against; if no other type of harm, it causes emotional harm to the person it is directed against. I would love to see the government argue before a court that it thought Calderon or Yee's conduct, e.g., bribery and money laundering, was more serious than racial discrimination, and that's why it decided to prosecute Calderon and Yee and not prosecute the judges.
Could it be because Calderon and Yee are senators and the Hintz and Pastor Defendants are judges? Perhaps, but it would, nonetheless, be an illegitimate and unconstitutional basis for treating the two groups differently, where both groups are state officers, and where both branches of government, legislative and judicial, are equal. Both Calderon and Yee, as well as the judges are high level state officials, and neither group has immunity from prosecution.
Could it be because of gender? No, both the legislators and the judges are males.
Could it be because of race or color? Yes, nearly to a certainty. Both Calderon and Yee are minorities, Hispanic-Latino and Asian; while all the judge Defendants are white (and white males). Considering the factors that I have described and discussed above, the only reasonable and logical reason for the difference in treatment between the State legislators and the State judges is race or color. Calderon and Yee were targeted for indictment and prosecution because they are minority senators. That is, the undertaking of the investigation in the first instance was done because they were minorities, even if there would not have been sufficient evidence at the end to seek an indictment. To the contrary, regarding the white judges, even when there was sufficient evidence at the outset (supplied by the victim)(without further and official investigation) to submit to a grand jury for indictment, the U.S. Attorney, Birotte, refused to seek an indictment. For instance, the FBI acted on the victim's evidence (of racial discrimination) alone in forcing Hintz and Klopfer to step down from the bench or retire. Yet, the U.S. Attorney's Office refuses to seek an indictment of Hintz and Klopfer, because they are white.
Consequently, I conclude that even if there were other factors contributing to the government's decision to indict Calderon and Yee, such as probable cause evidence, the greatest factor was Calderon's and Yee's race or color. The U.S. Attorney's Offices in Los Angeles(and U.S. Attorney Birotte) and San Francisco sought indictments of Calderon and Yee because they were minority senators, which is a denial of equal protection of the law.
SELECTIVE PROSECUTION
State Senators Calderon and Yee were obviously selectively prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Offices in Los Angeles (and U.S. Attorney Birotte) and San Francisco. This is especially so when viewed from the perspective or context of the comparative individuals of State Judges Hintz, Klopfer, Long, Riley, Pastor, and Perry. These individuals are sufficient for Calderon and Yee to establish a prima facie case of selective prosecution, and to prove their case.
To prove their prima facie case, Calderon and Yee must only show that: (1) others similarly situated have not been prosecuted, and (2) the prosecution is based on an impermissible motive. Based on the State Judge individuals identified herein, Calderon and Yee have demonstrated both elements.
Here are some of the reasons why State Senators Calderon and Yee are similarly-situated to the State Judge Defendants:
1. Both the Legislative (Calderon and Yee) and Judicial (Hintz,Long, Klopfer, Riley, Pastor, and Perry) Defendants are California State officials and employees.
2. Both the Legislative and Judicial Defendants are high level state officials.
3. Both the Legislative and Judicial Defendants are accused of violating federal criminal law.
4. Both the Legislative and Judicial Defendants are accused of committing federal felonies.
5. Both the Legislative and Judicial Defendants are members of a major Branch of State government, and both Branches are equal to each other.
6. Both the Legislative and Judicial Defendants committed crimes that did not involve direct physical harm to a victim, e.g., murder or mayhem.
7. Both the Legislative and Judicial Defendants are accused of being involved in conpiracies.
The impermissible motives are discriminatory purpose and intent based on race or color, or racial discrimination. If Calderon and Yee were white males, they would not have been indicted. If they were white male Senators, they likely would not have even been investigated by the U.S. Attorney's Office or the U.S. Justice Department. *On what basis did the Justice Department decide to investigate Calderon and Yee? I take no position regarding other high level State positions at this time.
CALDERON'S POSSIBLE VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION CLAIM
In addition to the selective prosecution defense, it appears that Calderon may also have a vindictive prosecution claim based on his refusal to wear a wire for the government, if that is true. I will be the first to admit that I have insufficient verified factual information to make any credible determination of the claim. I am here simply suggesting that the scenario, if true, might provide Calderon with a vindictive prosecution claim in support of his selective prosecution claim. Would the government have sought the indictment against Calderon if he had agreed to wear the wire?
State Senator Roderick Wright, who is Black, also had a selective prosecution defense in his state criminal trial (regarding a different matter--i.e., voting fraud--than the matter herein) but he chose not to raise it. He was convicted on 8 Counts and awaits his sentence, after never having raised the defense. And, he was aware of it.
Will Senators Calderon and Yee also refuse to raise the pretrial defense, and give the government a free ride (by not having to prove that they treated Calderon and Yee differently or did not discriminate against Calderon and Yee, based on their race)? Or, will they step up to the plate and take their at bat? We'll see.
MINORITY MEMBERS OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE
It appears to me that most, if not all, remaining minority members of the California State Senate would strongly urge Senators Calderon and Yee to assert and raise their pre-trial selective prosecution defense, in order to try and prevent any future discriminatory and/or unconstitutional indictments and prosecutions of other minority members of the Senate. I know there may be some, at first blush, that will acclaim, "that's not going to happen to me, because I'm not going to engage in that type of conduct or do those type of things." However, that 's not the point. The point is: minority State Senators should not have to go through or be susceptible to closer scrutiny, e.g., preliminary or "hunch" investigations and search warrants, than their white counterparts. For example, take the case of Sen. Wright again. It is clear from the commentary surrounding Sen. Wright's case, and from Senator Wright himself, that other, white, State senators probably have lived at or used illegal addresses regarding the submission of their proper addresses for voting and representation of their respective districts. It is equally clear that the government did not pursue those white senators for criminal violations regarding residency.
Senator Wright was pursued or targeted because he is Black. More importantly, he was likely scrutinized in the first instance because he is a minority. So, the question for the remaining minority senators is not whether they will likely engage in the conduct similar to Calderon and Yee, but rather, are they likely to continue to be scrutinized for criminal conduct by the government (state and federal) closer than their white State counterparts (be they senators, judges, or Executive Branch officials)? I believe the answer is "yes". Therefore, if that's the case, that should be the motivation for the minority State Senators to urge Calderon and Yee to assert and raise their pretrial defense of selective prosecution. Not to protect them from future indictments (because they shouldn't worry about indictments if they will not engage in any illegal conduct), but to protect them from discriminatory and/or unconstitutional government scrutiny of them because they are minorities (while refusing to implement the same type of scrutiny over or regarding white senators and judges), *and to protect them from future discriminatory and unconstitutional indictments.
A FINAL NOTE: If Calderon and Yee decide to exercise their right and assert their pre-trial selective prosecution defense, were it to be denied, they would have a right to an immediate direct appeal because a determination of the matter would affect their right not to have to undergo a trial altogether and it is separate from the merits of the indictment charges themselves.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)