IN DEFENSE OF CLERK KIRY J. GRAY AND THADDEUS J. CULPEPPER : JUDGE CORMAC J. CARNEY STEPPED DOWN AS CHIEF JUDGE ; HE SHOULD ALSO STEP DOWN AS DISTRICT JUDGE. IT’S BEYOND RACIAL INSENSITIVITY.

Los Angeles, California

December  22,   2022

(Today’s  Date)

August  19,  2020

(Original  Date) 

*Denotes a change in the original blog, either addition or deletion

**UPDATE (Denotes  NEW information or  material added after publishing of the original blog)

This blog is submitted  and contributed as part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California  (and the United States)

In June ,  District Judge Cormac J. Carney stepped down as  Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.  But, he decided to stay on as a district judge.

I believe he should step down as a district judge as well.

Basically, judge Carney, who is white,  made a presentation at a “webinar“, and during the presentation,  he made a certain comment about the Black female  Clerk and Executive  of the Central District  Court,   Kiry  J. Gray, that was deemed to be  “racially insensitive”.  More specifically, he stated, “Fortunately for me, we have just a fabulous clerk of the court in Kiry Gray.  She’s so street- smart and really knows her job.”  Apparently, it was the reaction of others, rather than Gray herself, that set off a reaction to the comment and an interpretation of the comment as being “racially insensitive”.  “Several who heard the  ‘street-smart’ comment or learned of the remarks afterward interpreted the  compliment as having a derogatory and racially insensitive layer, and Carney acknowledged that judges, court staff  and attorneys were upset.”  L.A. Times,  Chief judge steps down over racial insensitivity”,  June 29, 2020.

If the controversy was about the street-smart comment alone, Gray , even if she was offended,  likely would have let it go and moved on.  Incidentally, Gray did not attend the webinar, so her knowledge about the street-smart comment had to come from others, including  Carney himself.  In fact, Carney engaged in a conversation with Gray, where he informed her about the street-smart comment and the fact that “the people criticizing  me were equating my well-intended use of the term ‘street-smart’  with the reprehensible conduct of a police officer putting his knee on a person’s neck.” Id. 

Moreover, Carney apparently contacted Gray again, and this time he stated, “I did not have to even mention your name during the webinar”, and “it was not like I was the police officer standing on your neck.”  Id., “Clerk faces backlash over run-in with chief judge”,  July 7, 2020.  Apparently, Carney was somehow attributing  the criticisms of others to Gray.  That is, as if Gray had listened to a recording of the webinar and gone out and complained to others about the “street-smart” comment, which, in turn, prompted the others to criticize Carney for making the comment.  But, again, Gray did not attend the webinar (and there is no indication that she heard a recording of the webinar), so the comment had to be relayed to her by others.  Or, it could be interpreted that even if the comment was first relayed to Gray, she, thereafter,  complained about the comment to others.  In any event, Carney apparently believed that Gray was in someway responsible for the criticisms, thus, “I did not have to even mention your name.”

It was these last two comments , as opposed to the street-smart comment, that ultimately upset Gray, and that she would ultimately consider racially-motivated or racist.  “She believed that if she were a white clerk of courts, none of this would have come into play.   ‘All he saw to me  was my skin color,’ Gray said.”  Id.   And, as it turned out, not only were these comments “racially insensitive” to Gray, but they were also emotionally harmful to her.   “Gray said the comment was a double punch. It made her mind race toward an image of her adult son lying in the street, crying out.” Id.  She said “she was agonized by the judge’s comment alluding to the the death of Floyd.  She had difficulty sleeping, and when she recounted what he had said on the call, she’d start crying.” Id.

But,  Gray apparently was attacked by some people for what they perceived as Gray’s overreacting to the “street smart” comment.  One of those was  Earl Omari Hutchinson, president of the Los Angeles Urban Policy  Roundtable, who “called for Carney to reconsider stepping down , saying it was ‘absurd’ to label ‘street-smart’  as offensive.” Id.  I disagree with Hutchinson, and not only do I agree with Carney’s decision to step down as Chief Judge , but, I also believe that he should step down from the district judge position as well.

JUDGE CARNEY CONCEDED THAT  RACIAL INSENSITIVITY WAS SUFFICIENT  FOR HIM TO STEP DOWN AS CHIEF JUDGE

Even though judge Carney stated that he believed the term “street-smart” was , and was intended to be ,  a  “point of praise”, he conceded that it was sufficient for him to step down as chief judge, in view of the assortment of people who had interpreted the term as being negative with racial connotations.  And , even if the comment regarding street-smart was not sufficient by itself, when the street-smart comment was combined with a comparison to a white policeman placing his knee on a Black man’s neck (i.e., the George Floyd murder) by some of the public, the sufficiency was cemented.

But, should judge Carney have stepped down from the district judge position as well ?     Yes.

Why ?

THE COMBINATION OF CLERK  GRAY’S EXPERIENCE  AND MY EXPERIENCE WITH JUDGE CARNEY REVEAL THAT WHEN THE VEILS ARE PIERCED, JUDGE CARNEY’S OVERALL CONDUCT IS BEYOND RACIAL INSENSITIVITY.

Clerk Gray’s experience with judge Carney regarding the street-smart comment and the “knee on the neck” comment, together with Gray’s perception of  Carney’s treatment of her,  was enough , in itself,  to demonstrate that the overall behavior or conduct of judge Carney went beyond racial insensitivity.   So, my experience merely demonstrates that beyond racial insensitivity can be illustrated  in a different form.

CLERK GRAY’S EXPERIENCE WITH JUDGE CARNEY, ALONE, SHOWS  THAT CARNEY’S CONDUCT WENT BEYOND RACIAL INSENSITIVITY TO  :  RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

If  judge Carney had stopped at the street smart comment, the matter could have been chalked up to racial insensitivity, which had been the perception of others , including court staff, attorneys, and other judges. ).  In fact, Gray herself, apparently, was not offended by the street smart comment, when others relayed to her that Carney had made the comment.  It was the comments that came after the street smart comment that moved  Carney’s conduct (in making the various comments to Gray) from racial insensitivity to  racial discrimination, that is,  treating Gray , as Clerk of the Court, differently than he would a  white clerk of the court.

For instance, Carney told Gray  “I did not have to even  mention your name during the webinar”, and “it was not like I was the police officer standing on your neck” (referring to the George Floyd murder). Would Carney have made the “standing on your neck“ comment to a white clerk?  Indeed, Gray “believed that if she were a white clerk of courts, none of this would have come into play.” L.A. Times, Clerk faces backlash, supra.  “ ‘All he saw to me was my skin color,’ Gray said.”  Id.  And the discrimination affected Gray.  “(S)he was  agonized by the judge’s comment alluding to the death of Floyd. She had difficulty sleeping, and when she recounted what he had said on the call, she started crying.”  Id. “It made her mind race toward an image of her  adult son lying in the street crying out.” Id.  Therefore, Carney’s conduct after the street smart comment moved the entire matter beyond racial insensitivity to racial discrimination.

MY EXPERIENCE WITH JUDGE CARNEY, UNLIKE GRAY’S ,  WAS BASED ON  “ACTION” RATHER THAN WORDS, THAT IS,  “ACTION SPEAKS  LOUDER THAN WORDS”.

I had two civil rights cases presided over by judge Carney, where I was  a Black male, pro se Plaintiff, and a lawyer.  I was discriminated against by judge Carney both times, because I was (am) a Black male.

In the first case, Bray  v. Department of Justice, et.al., decided in 2012,  Carney allowed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to remain pending for a whole MONTH  before he ruled, and even then, he only ruled after a petition for a writ of mandamus had been filed with the Ninth Circuit.  Carney  ruled  before the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling on the mandamus petition.  He denied the TRO WITHOUT a hearing.  And,  he denied me a preliminary injunction hearing (which was supposed to be scheduled upon the denial of the TRO), and he dismissed the case “with prejudice”, with no legal basis for doing so, and no other basis of ANY kind other than racial discrimination. This was a clear violation of my constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law.
There were  no magic words used, like “street smart”  or any racial slurs, but the action “spoke louder than any words could have (with the possible exception of the word “nigger”—and this word or term was not used) ”, and it did more damage.  I was knowingly denied fundamental rights because I am (was ) a Black male.

THE BOTTOMLINE :  Even if the TRO  should have been denied on the merits, and I don’t believe it should have been, there was absolutely no excuse for Carney denying me a hearing and delaying issuing a ruling on the TRO for over 30 days.  And, the only basis there could be for the outrageous delay was an illegitimate one, and I charge it was racial discrimination.

The second case,  Bray  v. Superior Court, decided  in 2017,  was worse than the  previous case. In the second  case,  Carney  dismissed the case before service of process in violation of Ninth Circuit law.  Again, no hearing on a motion for a TRO,  no scheduling of a preliminary injunction, and no decision on the merits.  Like Gray,  I don’t believe  this would have happened if I were a white male plaintiff.  Again, there were no magic words like “street smart” or “knee on the neck”,   just ACTIONS.  Objectively, there can be no justifications for Carney’s actions.  But for my being a Black male, the actions would not have occurred.

So my experiences with judge Carney seems to support  Gray’s position that if she  “were a white clerk of courts, none of this would have come into play.”  And,  “(A)ll he saw to me was my skin color.” And, the combination of both experiences point to the notion that judge Carney’s comments to Gray and his actions towards me were beyond racial insensitivity, and, in fact, were racial discrimination.  And, if judge Carney stepped down as Chief Judge because of what he perceived was racial insensitivity, then, it is implied that he should have stepped down as District Judge if the comments and conduct went beyond racial insensitivity to racial discrimination.  I believe that they did.  Therefore, I believe that Carney should step down as district judge also.


THADDEUS  J.  CULPEPPER

Thaddeus  J. Culpepper, like myself, is a Black male lawyer.  He is charged with several federal criminal   offenses.   And, the judge presiding over his case is  Carney.   And, Culpepper began his defense as a pro  se litigant , as did I (a pro se plaintiff).  *Culpepper  decided  to accept appointed counsel after the proceedings had moved along for a couple of months after indictment .   Prior thereto, he had limited appointed counsel to handle bail or detention proceedings.

Ordinarily, and at first glance, it might appear to be a coincidence that Carney has been assigned to both my cases and Culpepper’s case, i.e., both cases involve Black male lawyers, initially proceeding pro se.  But, I have reason to believe that Carney was intentionally assigned to Culpepper’s case because  Culpepper is a Black male, a lawyer,  and initially proceeded pro se***.  And, you now know what happened to my cases.  Moreover, Culpepper’s case is a criminal case, involving his freedom.  And, thus far, he has been denied bail by Carney (through a denial of an application for reconsideration of a permanent detention order  of a magistrate judge) without any specific reasons given or provided (according to the pre-trial docket).  Culpepper’s pubic defender lawyer,  Charles Brown,  has not appealed the decision.  So Culpepper has been incarcerated since his arrest, or at least since October, 2018, without bail, and is now scheduled to go to trial next month.  Serving a sentence without a trial.

The Culpepper case is another consideration pointing to judge Carney stepping down as district  judge .

THE FINAL BOTTOMLINE :  If Carney felt obligated to step down as chief judge because of  perceived racial insensitivity, then , he should also feel obligated to step down as district judge, where his conduct has been shown to go  beyond racial insensitivity to racial discrimination, i.e., treating Black people differently because they are Black.  

***Should Mr. Culpepper’s case go to trial before judge Carney,  I will share my reason with the Ninth Circuit and/or Mr. Culpepper or Mr. Culpepper and his counsel only—depending on Mr. Culpepper’s choice.  Even though Culpepper is supposed to be represented by counsel, he has consistently sent letters and/or other documents to the court himself , i.e., to Carney and at least one other district judge.  Carney refused to have any of Culpepper’s letters or other documents filed, stating “No letters to the judge” and/or  “No proof of service attached to documents”.   

UPDATE—September  25,  2022. 

CULPEPPER PLEADS GUILTY :  AFTER 4 YEARS OF INCARCERATION WITHOUT BAIL AND WITHOUT A TRIAL ,  AND , WHILE PROCEEDING PRO SE 

Thaddeus Culpepper , after  being incarcerated for 4 years without a grant of bail , without a trial, and while proceeding pro se,  accepted a plea offer from the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO)  to plead guilty to two counts of fraud in return for the  USAO recommending that he be sentenced to time served.  That’s appropriate because he certainly has served time, without a trial. 

When I discovered the plea agreement between the USAO and Culpepper,  I tried to arrange a meeting with Culpepper, first by approaching the USAO, which was unproductive, and then  through  informal  means via the 9th Circuit because of the short period of time the arrangement had to be made prior to Culpepper’s change of plea hearing, i.e., a few days or so, and because the matter involved Culpepper’s fundamental rights.  But, I discovered I would have to proceed formally, and I concluded that the time (and the multiple procedures and/or filings) it would take to proceed formally by this Black lawyer would not allow me to see Culpepper before his change of plea hearing, so I dispensed with the visitation idea.  One other reason I wanted to visit with him was because recently some inmate from a penal institution had tried to contact me in the past on at least two occasions, and I wanted to find out if it was Culpepper.  

However, the most important reason I wanted to see him was I thought that I had information that he should know about before making his decision to change his (not guilty) plea or not.  

Nevertheless, at this point, I believe Culpepper is desperate to “get out of jail” after 4 years of incarceration (without a trial),  and that he has given the matter some thought, so I will not do or say anything further to interfere with his desire to get out of jail.  His sentencing will be before District Judge Cormac Carney, who denied him bail,  and who scheduled the sentencing for November 14,  2022, one day before the beginning of the scheduled criminal trial of Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas on November 15, 2022 (before a different judge).  Coincidence ?  Only judge Carney knows for sure. 

UPDATE—October  18, 2022 

THE CRIMINAL TRIAL OF MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS :   CONTINUED TO  MARCH  7, 2023 

The federal criminal trial of Mark Ridley-Thomas has now been continued  from November 15th of this year to March 7, 2023.  The continuance was agreed to by both the government and Ridley-Thomas by way of stipulation, *and accepted by the Court, District Judge Dale S. Fischer, who actually ordered the continuance.  The stipulation was filed approximately one week (10-4-2022) after I published the immediately-above blogpost indicating that Judge Cormac Carney had scheduled the sentencing hearing for Thaddeus Culpepper on the day before Ridley-Thomas’s trial was to began (November 15th).  Coincidence ?  Only Ridley-Thomas and his attorneys know for sure.

Now, with the continuance, Ridley-Thomas will at least be less prejudiced by Culpepper’s sentencing hearing than he would have been were the hearing to have been held on the day before his trial was to begin.  

Did my blogpost have anything to do with Ridley-Thomas’s (and his attorneys’) decision to seek a continuance ?  Only Ridley-Thomas and his attorneys know for sure.  But, I believe it did.  However, the official reasons for the continuance per Ridley-Thomas’s camp is the withdrawal of one attorney and the appearance of another attorney in the law firm, and the need for the new attorney to properly prepare for the trial.  And, I do not question this as a legitimate reason for the continuance.  But, could it be both    reasons were relied upon ?  Only Ridley-Thomas’s camp knows for sure.  I know that Ridley-Thomas’s attorney, Galia Z. Amram, submitted a Declaration in support of the stipulation to continue the trial with several items redacted (as to the public, but, not as to the Court)(I’m curious about the redacted information).   But, if the continuance was based on both reasons, should I receive a “thanks” from Ridley-Thomas’s camp ?  

NOTE :  Why haven’t the local broadcast media or the L.A. Times reported the new trial date for Ridley-Thomas’s trial to the public ?  Could it be because the public, especially MY READERS, would put two and two together and draw the connection between my blogpost and the new trial date ?  

UPDATE—December 7,  2022  

CULPEPPER’S SENTENCE :  CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 12, 2022 

Culpepper’s sentencing has been continued from November 14, 2022 until December 12th.  There’ s a disagreement about restitution between Culpepper  and the U.S. Atty’s Office.   Apparently Culpepper’s counsel thought any payment of restitution was waived by the USAO as part of the plea agreement, but, the USAO disagrees.  So, apparently restitution will be a full consideration for the Court as well as everything else at sentencing.  

UPDATE—December 13, 2022 

CULPEPPER IS SENTENCED :  TIME SERVED (NEARLY FOUR YEARS) AND CERTAIN OTHER CONDITIONS. 

Thaddeus J. Culpepper was finally sentenced yesterday by District Judge Cormac J. Carney.  Culpepper was sentenced to time he has already served in jail/prison while awaiting trial,  4 years (officially, the Court stated 37 months, but, in real time of incarceration, it is 47 months or four years) plus certain conditions, such as the government being allowed to periodically perform searches of his home or car, or other facility.   Also, any payment of restitution was waived.

I attended the sentencing hearing and was able to speak with Culpepper upon completion of the hearing.  There were two important pieces of information I was able to obtain from Culpepper : one, he was not the caller who had tried to contact me from a correctional institution on two occasions, and two, part of his imprisonment was in isolation.  Now, I still do not know who the actual caller was or is.  But, I know it wasn’t Culpepper.

In terms of incarceration,  for now anyway, Culpepper is a free man.   I wish him well.

**UPDATE—December  22,  2022 

CULPEPPER IS APPEALING HIS CONVICTION. 

Culpepper has filed a notice of appeal in the 9th Circuit, and the appellate process has begun.  He is being represented by counsel now,  *a white female attorney.  *She is his formerly court-appointed counsel who represented him at sentencing.  I’m interested in what issues Culpepper will raise on appeal.