Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Court To Repeal Indigent Litigation?




Court To Repeal Indigent Litigation?

Luis Ángel Pérez,
Writing4light
Educator & Advocate  
July 26, 2017

The term “Pro Se” is Latin, meaning “on one’s own behalf.” In the Department of Justice, Pro Se individuals are those who are representing themselves in Court. Humans usually represent themselves in Court because they cannot afford to pay for all of the Court fees & for legal representation.

Snapshot Chronology
United States Court of Appeals’ Handling of Employment Discrimination & Abuse of Power Complaints
Filed Against
The United Federation of Teachers / New York State United Teachers (UFT/NYSUT) Union


Tuesday, September 08, 2015, Employment Discrimination & Abuse of Power Complaints against the Department of Education & the United Federation of Teachers / New York State United Teachers (UFT/NYSUT) Union were submitted into the United States District Court Southern District of New York.


Monday, February 01, 2016, [approximately one-hundred- fifty (150) days later], I received a District Court Order to Amend Complaints filed against Union,


Court Order Signed by Judge: Wednesday, January 27, 2016,
Postmarked: one (1) day later – Thursday, January 28, 2016,
 &
Received via “Snail-Mail” or Slow Regular Mail:
four (4) days later – Monday, February 01, 2016.

Total Days from Issuance to Complainant: five (5) days.


Thursday, March 24, 2016, [approximately sixty (60) days later], Amended Complaints were mailed to the District Court.


Thursday, October 06, 2016, [approximately one-hundred-eighty (180) days later], District Court issued an “Order to Dismiss” this Complaint, alleging – “failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted”. Such Court Order was made despite the fact that such “… claim…” was indeed included in the amended complaint filed; specifically on the last section of said complaint, specifically titled, “Relief”.


Court Order Signed by Judge: Friday, September 30, 2016,
Postmarked: three (3) days later – Monday, October 03, 2016,
&
Received via “Snail-Mail” or Slow Regular Mail:
three (3) days later – Thursday, October 06, 2016.
   
Total Days from Issuance to Complainant: six (6) days.


Thursday, October 20, 2016, [approximately fourteen (14) days later], a letter titled, “Request To Re-Open Case, Request For The Court To Raise The Strongest Claim Suggested In This Pro-Se Complaint”, was mailed to the District Court.

Here, among other things, I indicated where exactly the “Relief” section can be found within the amended complaint and even provided the District Court with an extra copy of this particular section of the amended complaint.


Saturday, December 17, 2016, [approximately sixty (60) days later], I received a reply to my request to re-open the case. The District Court issued a more firm order to dismiss the complaint against the Union despite the fact that –

(A) The District Court never officially ordered the UFT/NYSUT Union (Defendant)
       to respond to the complaint filed against them, &

(B) Despite the fact that the District Court never actually order their United States Marshalls Service,
       (or anyone else for that matter), to officially serve said complaint upon
        the UFT/NYSUT Union (Defendant).

This particular Court Order also included the following intimidating threat: “The Court certifies … that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal.”; (“in forma pauperis” meaning – free of court fees because of poverty).

This particular Court Order also included the following instructions: “The Clerk of Court is further directed not to accept any further submissions from Plaintiff in this action, with the exception of documents that are directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.”


Signed by Judge: Monday, December 12, 2016,
Postmarked: three (3) days later – Thursday, December 15, 2016,
&
Received via “Snail-Mail” or Slow Regular Mail:
two (2) days later – Saturday, December 17, 2016.

Total Days from Issuance to Complainant: five (5) days.


Monday, January 02, 2017, [approximately sixteen (16) days later], as instructed, a letter titled, “Notice Of Appeal To The U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit”, was mailed to the District Court but not to the Court of Appeals.

Said letter was mailed to the District Court and not directly to the Court of Appeals because the District Court informed me that in order to start the appeals process in the United States Court of Appeals, I would have to file a “Notice of Appeal” through the District Court but said notice must be addressed to the Court of Appeals.






Thursday, January 12, 2017, [approximately ten (10) days later], I received from the U.S. Court of Appeals For The Second Circuit the following:

(A) A letter,
(B) A packet of many forms to fill out,
(C) A new docket number (17-55),
(D) A docket sheet with inaccurate contact information of both parties, (Defendant & Plaintiff), &
(E) The name of the Appellate Judge assigned to the case.   


Letter & Packet Dated: Monday, January 09, 2017,
Postmarked: on the same day – Monday, January 09, 2017,
&
Received via “Snail-Mail” or slow regular mail:
three (3) days later – Thursday, January 12, 2017.

Total Days from Issuance to Complainant: three (3) days.


Tuesday, January 17, 2017, [approximately five (5) days later], a packet & letter titled, “Court Fees, Docket Sheet Errors & Corrections, Notice of Appearance & D-P Forms, & Mere Plea for Justice For All”, were mailed to the Court of Appeals.   

Here, among other things,

(A) I informed the Court of Appeals of the contact information discrepancies depicted
      on their Court Docket,

(B) I provided the Court of Appeals with the accurate contact information, &

(C) I requested, once again, for legal council assistance.


Saturday, February 04, 2017, [approximately nineteen (19) days later], I received a packet from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit containing redundant forms. The content in this packet indicated that some of the forms & paperwork which I mailed to them were improperly filed; “Missing Information Statement (T-1080 Local Rule 27.1)”, & “Missing Proof of Service”. The Appellate Court also threatened to dismiss the complaint effective February 17, if not corrected.


Letter & Packet Dated: Friday, January 27, 2017,
Postmarked: on the same day – Friday, January 27, 2017,
&
Received via “Snail-Mail” or Slow Regular Mail:
eight (8) days later – Saturday, February 04, 2017.

Total Days from Issuance to Complainant: eight (8) days.







Wednesday, February 08, 2017, [approximately four (4) days later], a packet & letter titled, “Form D-P, Proof of Service, Motion Information Statement Form, & Two Other Pieces Mentioned Below”, were mailed to the Court of Appeals.

Here, among other things, I provided to the Court of Appeals the following:

(A) All the forms & information which they had requested,

(B) Proof of service, via United States Postal Service (USPS) Priority Mail Express,
       of the amended complaints & relevant documents to the Union, (served on February 07, 2017),

(C) Additional important evidence, &

(D) A copy of the letter which the previous Court House, (the District Court), had instructed me to
       mail specifically to them – as a starting point to appeal their decision in the
       United States Court of Appeals For The Second Circuit.  


Thursday, February 16, 2017, [approximately eight (8) days later], I received a packet from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. This packet contained redundant forms (again) for me to fill out. This correspondence also indicated that a T-1080 Form was missing & that I provided, “improper proof of service”. The Court of Appeals alleged “improper proof of service” despite the fact that as proof of service I had sent them a copy of the United States Postal Service (USPS) Priority Mail Express & Tracking Information. As mentioned above, the Union was served on Tuesday, February 07, 2017.   


Letter & Packet Dated: Monday, February, 13, 2017,
Postmarked: on the same day – Monday, February 13, 2017,
&
Received via “Snail-Mail” or Slow Regular Mail:
three (3) days later – Thursday, February 16, 2017

Total Days from Issuance to Complainant: three (3) days.


Friday, February 17, 2017, [one (1) day later], I phone the Court of Appeals and was essentially instructed to do the packet all over again – including re-serving the amended complaint & information to the Defendant (Union). It was not made clear to me why I had to re-do the packet.

Additionally, I informed the Court of Appeals that I had already sent them proof of service via USPS Priority Express Mail receipts but the Court argued that because I have to re-do all of the forms, I have to also re-serve the Defendant.

I informed the Court of Appeals that the contact information in their Docket Sheet remained inaccurate for both parties (Defendant & Plaintiff) despite the fact that I had previously sent them the corrections. I was informed that the contact information will be corrected once I provide the court with the forms which they were requesting.

                                                    
Tuesday, February 21, 2017, [approximately four (4) days later], I phoned the Court of Appeals for clarification and this time the Court of Appeals informed me that I do not have to do the whole packet over again, as previously instructed. Instead, there were just minor changes to be made. I was also informed that I do not have to re-serve the complaints and related documents to the Defendant (Union), as previously instructed.

Turned out that all I needed to do was –

(A) Fill out an “Acknowledgement And Notice of Appearance” form,

(B) Fill out a “Certificate of Service” form for the “Acknowledgement And Notice of Appearance” form, &

(C) Mail these two (2) to both Defendant (Union) & the Court of Appeals.


Wednesday, February 22, 2017, [one (1) days later], the above requested information was completed & mailed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit & to the Defendant (Union).


Tuesday, February 28, 2017, [approximately six (6) days later], I received a suspicious & intimidating letter from an entity proclaiming to be an administrator for the, “Pro Se Appeals Support Group (PSASG)”, soliciting their services for financial gain.


Letter Dated: Wednesday, February 22, 2017,
Postmarked: three (3) days later – Saturday, February 25, 2017,
&
Received via “Snail-Mail” or Slow Regular Mail:
three (3) days later – Tuesday, February 28, 2017.

Total Days from Issuance to Complainant: six (6) days.


Friday, March 03, 2017, [approximately three (3) days later], I received a letter titled, “Notice Of Appearance For Substitute, Additional, Or Amicus Counsel”, from an entity proclaiming to be the Union’s Attorney; Stuart Lichten, Lichten & Bright, PC, 373 Park Avenue South, 9th Floor, New York, New York 10016.

This particular letter indicated that said firm is making an appearance for, “Defendant-Appellee United Federation of Teachers”. This particular letter also indicated, “Substitute counsel (replacing lead counsel: pro se)”. On this particular letter, the term “pro se” was typed on the line designated for & labeled “(name/firm)”.


Letter Signed: Wednesday, January 04, 2017,
Postmarked Both: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 & Wednesday, March 01, 2017,
fifty-five & fifty-six days later, respectively,
 &
Received via “Snail-Mail” or Slow Regular Mail: Friday, March 03, 2017.

Total Days from Issuance to Complainant: fifty-nine (59) days.




Friday, March 03, 2017, [also approximately three (3) days later], I also received a separate letter titled, “Notice Of Appearance For Substitute, Additional, Or Amicus Counsel”, from an entity proclaiming to be the Union’s Attorney; Stuart Lichten, Lichten & Bright, PC, 373 Park Avenue South, 9th Floor, New York, New York 10016.

However, in contrast to the first one, (referenced above), this particular letter indicated that they are making an appearance for, “United Federation of Teachers”. Also, in contrast to the first one, this particular letter indicated, “Additional counsel (co-counsel with: pro se)”. On this particular letter, the term “pro se” was typed on the line designated for & labeled “(name/firm)”.


This Letter Was Also Signed: Wednesday, January 04, 2017,
However, In Contrast To The First One, This Particular Letter Was
Postmarked Both: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 & Another Date Not So Legible –
fifty-six days later
&
Received via “Snail-Mail” or Slow Regular Mail: Friday, March 03, 2017.

Total Days from Issuance to Complainant: fifty-nine (59) days.


Tuesday, May 02, 2017, [approximately sixty (60) days later], a letter titled, “More Critical Evidence, Humanize Mere Case Number & Request For Current Status”, was mailed to the United Sates Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit since I had not receive any correspondence or feedback from the Court for a long time,
[see letter, three (3) pages, attached].









Friday, May 05, 2017, [approximately three (3) days later], I received a letter from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In a mere one-page-four-sentence-paragraph, the United States Court of Appeals argued the denial of my motions & completely dismissed the case against the Union (Defendant).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit never even required the Union to officially respond to the complaints filed against them.


Letter Signed: Wednesday, May 03, 2017,
Postmarked: one (1) day later – Thursday, May 04, 2017,
&
Received via “Snail-Mail” or Slow Regular Mail: one (1) day later – Friday, May 05, 2017.

Total Days from Issuance to Complainant: two (2) days – The Fastest Response of All. .


Tuesday, May 09, 2017, [approximately four (4) days later], a letter titled, “Suppression of Indigent Litigation, Rational Basis In Law & Fact, & Appeal Information Request”, was mailed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Among other things, in this letter I requested, from the United States Court of Appeals, guidance on how to go about appealing their decision,
[see letter, two (2) pages, attached].



Tuesday, May 30, 2017, [approximately twenty-one (21) days later], I phoned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Court of Appeals denied ever receiving my May 09, 2017 letter titled, “Suppression of Indigent Litigation, Rational Basis In Law & Fact, & Appeal Information Request”.

I was also informed, among other things, by the Court of Appeals that the Court –

(A) Does not provide any forms to file a motion for reconsideration,

(B) Does not provide information on how to appeal a decision to the Supreme Court
       besides merely providing the Supreme Court’s telephone number, &

(C) That the Court of Appeals no longer has a Pro Se Department. 


Monday, June 05, 2017, [approximately five (5) days later], a letter titled, “The Tuesday, May Ninth Correspondence Your Court Claims Never Received” was mailed to the United States Court of Appeals. Attached to said letter I included a copy of the May 09, 2017 letter titled, “Suppression of Indigent Litigation, Rational Basis In Law & Fact, & Appeal Information Request”. The Court of Appeals confirmed that they received this one and informed me that they had mailed me a letter replying to my inquiries on this letter. To date I have not yet receive such a letter.
[see letter, two (2) pages, attached]. 





        When you superimpose some of the back and forth dynamics concerning only the Employment Discrimination & Abuse of Power Complaints against the UFT/NYSUT Union, (referenced above), along with the back and forth dynamics concerning the Employment Discrimination & Abuse of Power Complaints against the Department of Education, (which is still silently pending in the District Court) – all becomes even more difficult to follow. Perhaps such is the intended goal; to repeal indigent litigation & reserve Justice just for a selected few.
  


We Can & Must Do Better For The Entire Human Race.

Such Paradigm Shift Begins Within Education.

Thank you. Best Always To All.


Special Thanks To All of the Truly Incredible & Honorable
Judges & Court House Employees
Whom Genuinely & Consistently Strive To
Help Make This World a Better Place For All.




Let’s End Abuse of Power In Our Schools

Awareness Is Power So Please Continue To Follow

Luis Ángel Pérez,
Degrees in Psychology & Education,
Mental Health, Social Service, 
Public School Science & Mathematics,
Dual Language Middle School Seventh & Eighth Grades,
Elementary School First & Fourth Grades,
Educator & Advocate.

Yahoo Tumblr
Google Blogger
Youtube Writing4light

Email