If nothing else, this self-proclaimed exposé of mine provides an occasion to recall the tremendous power that America’s judiciary undoubtedly wields. Moreover, “(t)hrough their formulations of legal doctrines, judges provide rules for distributing power” per David Barnhizer, a renowned legal scholar. It would accordingly seem logical and far from subversive to closely monitor the operation of America’s third branch of government. How tragic for those who do, and responsibly ― in the eyes of multiple lawyers and indisputable community leaders ― propose the judicial system is intolerably flawed, to subsequently find themselves personas non grata before one court after another.
I was too young for kindergarten at Bethune Elementary School across the street from my family’s home on the east side of Gary, Indiana when the late George Wallace declared as Governor of Alabama, my father’s native state, "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever". How ironic that as an African-American and since 1998, a full-time grassroots legal reform advocate, I detect a different, but analogous posture among multiple judges this Black History Month 2013 ― only months before the 50th anniversary of Governor Wallace physically blocking the door of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama to resist the school’s enrollment of two black students.
Rather than my race, it seems this February 2013 that my national advocacy for fundamental reforms of America’s legal system prompts disturbing responses to lawsuits that I occasionally file; tactics reminiscent of Wallace purporting to block racial integration with his body.
Governor George Wallace before Foster Auditorium at University of Alabama, June 1963
In late 2004 I began advocating for federal judicial whistleblower protection and combating abuses of America’s legal system through an organization that I co-founded,
National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc. (NJCDLP). The nonprofit proposed whistleblower protection that might have averted the earlier suspension of my Indiana law license for publicly contending that a judge’s sanctioning of me perpetuated an apparent local court bias against minority attorneys prosecuting potentially lucrative, relatively complex personal injury cases. A loose coalition of state politicians, business, religious, and civic leaders, lawyers, and private citizens joined me at a press conference to air this and related grievances and rally for corresponding government investigations.
Our U.S. Constitution condemns any and all forms of bias that deprives litigants, including criminal defendants, of fair and impartial court proceedings. A law review article of mine was recently published by the Alabama-based (more irony) American Journal of Trial Advocacy, chronicling questionable difficulties that judges have created in proving unlawful judicial bias. The article suggests that some of these court rulings, practices, and policies became and remain an insurmountable obstacle to reviving my legal career. Yet none are as primitive or rudimentary as those preempting my personal lawsuits of late.
Obviously vindication through court proceedings is a challenge for me, so I try to avoid them. Even as a plaintiffs’ trial lawyer I pressed to both maximize my clients’ recoveries and minimize related court intervention. But once in 2010, 2011, and 2012, I was constrained to file pro se, meaning as my own lawyer, a new lawsuit for a total of three separate lawsuits. The 2010 case was filed in Abilene, Texas and advanced to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans, Louisiana. The 2011 case began and ended before a Lake Superior Court sitting in northwest Indiana. My 2012 lawsuit promptly stagnated before the Circuit Court of Howard County, Maryland.
As explained in my book Exploring the Vitality of Stare Decisis in America, I help administer groups with members and constituents seeing “. . . a lack of predictability and efficiency in our encounters with America’s legal system when stability, predictability, efficiency, and welfare-enhancement should be the byproduct of stare decisis”, a/k/a the doctrine of precedent. Of course pronouncing via blog what my comrades and I consider to be fair and impartial court resolutions is unlikely to tip any scales of justice. Hence I cordially skip that exercise with regard to my 2010-2012 lawsuits. Allow me, instead, to chart an emerging trend they arguably reflect, tantamount to blocking my access to the proverbial courthouse door.
Unfortunately in recounting my recent litigation, I am admittedly an unsuccessful litigant, a status often equated with sore losers and unfair critics. With that caveat I report that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas at Abilene, Texas, disparaged and dismissed what I submit was a gross mischaracterization of my 2010 public interest claims, Cause Number 1-10CV-132 C against the Abilene, Texas Police Department. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals at New Orleans, Louisiana ruled against me based on what is fairly considered a “conjured” set of facts, given it only includes about five key words from my actual trial record.
Interestingly, the Lake Superior Court at East Chicago, Indiana did not hypothecate facts in my 2011, Cause Number 45 D02-0911-PL-00172 against the Town of Schererville, Indiana. Rather, the Court handily dismissed the federal rights case without parsing my account of longstanding precedent that seemingly supported an exact opposite outcome. Even shorter shrift may be made of my business dispute pending as Cause Number 13-C-12-089772 OT before the Circuit Court of Howard County, Maryland. Aided by the court clerk’s apparent propensity to misplace critical documents, one or more defendants in that case may simply dodge service of process, a prerequisite for the Court’s jurisdiction to entertain my claims against them.
Perhaps the ghost of Alabama’s late Governor Wallace does not block me at various courthouses throughout America. In fact, it is my understanding that the late governor came to regret his ill-fated stance at the University of Alabama in June of 1963. And ill-fated it was as Wallace eventually stepped aside, confronted by National Guardsmen enforcing of all things, a court order confirming the right of Vivian Malone and James Hood to become University of Alabama students.
If nothing else, this self-proclaimed exposé of mine provides an occasion to recall the tremendous power that America’s judiciary undoubtedly wields. Moreover, “(t)hrough their formulations of legal doctrines, judges provide rules for distributing power” per David Barnhizer, a renowned legal scholar. It would accordingly seem logical and far from subversive to closely monitor the operation of America’s third branch of government. How tragic for those who do, and responsibly ― in the eyes of multiple lawyers and indisputable community leaders ― propose the judicial system is intolerably flawed, to subsequently find themselves personas non grata before one court after another.
Lest I seem naïve, let me acknowledge that I have been a full-time legal system critic since 1998. NJCDLP was created to combat judicial collusion and now advocates for major U.S. judicial system reforms through various groups and programs. Ironic that in America, “land of the free”, almost any form of these activities is widely perceived as fodder for government retaliation.
Underlying my good government advocacy is a global view that the rule of law is best preserved in America through optimal participation by Americans in lawyer disciplinary matters, state judicial ethics enforcement, and the general oversight of federal judges. This solution-orientated approach avoids premising the need for major reform on the reality or prospect of rampant misconduct among lawyers and judges. Rather than fixate on one-sided attempts to “expose” unethical conduct or prove its pervasiveness, the groups I help administer focus on restoring the balance of power between America’s judiciary and its sovereign citizens; a balance lost when judges essentially control all government processes for evaluating their conduct and exclusively regulate lawyer free-speech rights.
Now imagine the privilege of being on the losing end of a somewhat thoughtful, but poorly reasoned court decision. I count the predicament among privileges given my increasing difficulty mustering even that much regard among judges. Scarier than being accordingly deprived of equal protection is the new-age ease in which such an assault on liberty could spread. It may eventually be a major milestone when court clerks accept filing fees and thereby commence litigation for “my kind”.
If only it were the ghost of the late Governor George Wallace that I had to fear.