American Bar Association By Debra Cassens Weiss April 30, 2019
A former pro se litigant had some high-powered help when he asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider what kind of explanation courts must provide to unrepresented people.
Among those representing litigant William Bond were former Circuit Judge Richard Posner and Boies Schiller Flexner chair David Boies. The U.S. Supreme Court nonetheless denied cert Monday.
Bond had accused three federal judges of conspiring to throw a case. A federal judge had tossed Bond’s lawsuit and denied two motions seeking to amend it. After Posner took up the case, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at in Richmond, Virginia, ruled that the federal court did not abuse its discretion by denying the second motion.
The cert petition identifies the issue as whether a district court must provide a reason when denying a pro se litigant leave to amend a complaint when the reason can be gleaned from the litigation record. The district court order denying Bond’s second motion to amend had said it was based on reasons stated in an initial dismissal of the suit.
The cert petition had argued that the order didn’t provide an adequate explanation. "Absent notice of their pleading deficiencies," the cert petition said, "very few pro se litigants can parse the record and identify how to successfully amend their complaints."
Posner had abruptly retired from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Chicago in 2017, citing boredom with judging and rebuffed efforts to aid pro se litigants. He went on to form a nationwide pro bono group to help pro se litigants. Read more
American Bar Association By Debra Cassens Weiss Posted May 16, 2018, 7:13 am CDT
Former appeals judge Richard Posner is criticizing a judge who copied and pasted from a government motion in an order that dismissed a pro se litigant’s First Amendment complaint.
Posner presented his argument in a reply brief filed on behalf of his client, William Bond, who was representing himself before Posner entered the case. Posner was formerly a judge on the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Bond contends three federal judges conspired to throw a federal case and misused federal agents in an attempt to subvert his planned demonstrations in August 2013 at the federal courthouse in Baltimore. The case is before the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Posner says the federal judge exhibited "laziness" by copying and pasting, and then failed to explain why Bond’s amended complaints fell short. Posner illustrated with a side-by-side comparison of the government motion and the judge’s opinion. There were minor differences.
"The district court’s laziness leaves a pro se litigant with the perception that the judge did not independently analyze Bond’s complaint," Posner wrote. "The district court’s actions create the impression of plagiarism and an abdication of its independent judicial duties.
"Article III district courts have the resources to produce more than a copy-and-paste job, followed by two unexplained orders and unsupported accusations of wasting judicial resources. This response to a pro se litigant only feeds into an unhealthy distrust of the judicial system—especially as access to justice becomes more limited, as fewer cases reach a jury, and as more cases are shunted to arbitration.
"Litigants, particularly pro se litigants such as Bond, must not have the courthouse doors closed to them without a reasoned explanation."
Bond is seeking to reopen the case and file a second amended complaint. A statement of the case filed by the government begins with a description of Bond. According to the government, he is "well-known in the Baltimore area for his protests against certain members of the federal judiciary, whom he has dubbed the ‘White Guerilla Family.’ "
According to the government, federal agents had questioned Bond due to concern about the safety of judges and federal officials, leading Bond to file a complaint alleging the questioning was aimed at chilling his First Amendment rights. He protested anyway, leading the court to dismiss the complaint, according to the government.
Posner counters that Bond’s second amended complaint described "extraordinary circumstances" in which federal judges displayed "judicial antagonism" toward Bond in discussions with third parties and Bond himself. The worry and distraction caused by the questioning and learning he was under surveillance caused Bond to curb the robustness of his protests, Bond had asserted.
Among the defendants sued by Bond was then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, who is currently the deputy attorney general overseeing the special counsel investigation of Russian influence in the 2016 election. Bond had claimed Rosenstein was told to ignore or cover up the conspiracy against Bond. Read more
Representing herself in federal court without the help of a lawyer, a Colorado homeowner has won a rare ruling staying the auction sale of her home after she lost a state-court mortgage foreclosure case.
U.S. District Judge William Martinez on Monday issued an order temporarily staying the sale of Lisa Kay Brumfiel's home in Arapahoe County, which had been set to go to auction on Wednesday, reports the Denver Post.
Brumfiel, 43, who works as a part-time saleswoman, is now scheduled to argue on May 15 why Colorado's mortgage-foreclosure law violates the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. She is up against not only U.S. Bank but Larry Castle, a powerful state foreclosure lawyer.
At issue in Brumfiel's federal case, the newspaper explains, is whether the foreclosure plaintiff has shown in the state-court case that the mortgage and note for her Aurora home were validly transferred to U.S. Bank. She originally took out her loan from First Franklin Mortgage.
"Colorado is the only state in the country that allows an unsworn statement by an attorney for a foreclosing party—without any penalty—to say, 'Trust me, judge, these guys are the qualified holder for this deed of trust,' " Martinez said, giving a glimpse of his thinking so far. "Is there another state that has lowered the bar for a foreclosure any lower?" Read more
Justice Thomas granted my Rule 13.5 Application to extend time to file a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in C.A.11 cases 12-11028 and 12-11213. On September 13, 2012, Application 12A215 was granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until December 10, 2012. Link to the decision.
Two years ago I launched The Justice Network with the domain name YouSue.org. This name was chosen in the spirit of YouTube, the video-sharing website that empowered ordinary people to produce and share video.
The Justice Network is engaged in advocacy, education, news gathering & dissemination, and helping people fight injustice. This site is also part of my therapy as a survivor of legal injustice.
Over two hundred thousand people visited YouSue.org, and I have met people from all over the country. Some of their stories are profiled on The Justice Network website. Many have reached the conclusion that America’s justice system is broken.
The official Internet address of The Justice Network is now NoSue.org. This reflects the sad truth that for most Americans the justice system is broken, just a parody of justice. My advice is to avoid American courts. Your life, health and wealth is at risk. But don’t just take my word, listen to the experts profiled on The Justice Network at NoSue.org
