Research for Parts 3 & 4 of The Evolution of Debt Slavery in Modern Times

Research for Parts 3 and 4 of The Evolution of Debt Slavery In Modern Times   HYPOTHESIS: Federal Judicial Department has consistently favored wealthy and privileged.   Dahlia Lathwick, “This Court Erred: The Supreme Court has almost always sided with the wealthy, the privileged, and the powerful, a new book argues” Slate (September 30, 2014) reviewing 2014 book by Constitutional Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, The Case Against the Supreme Court     Mark Galanter, “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change” Originally printed in Volume 9:1 Law and Sciety Review, 1974. Reprinted (with corrections) in R. Cotterrel (ed.) Law and Society, Altershot, Dartmouth, 1994, pp 165-230   ARTICLE:”Do the “Haves” Come Out Ahead over Time? Applying Galanter’s Framework to Decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 1925-1988”, 33 Law & Soc’y Rev. 811 (1999)   This investigation examines the success of various types of litigants appearing before the U.S. Courts of Appeals from 1925 to 1988. The analysis parallels the earlier studies by Songer and Sheehan (1992) and Wheeler et al. (1987) that applied the core concepts introduced by Galanter’s groundbreaking analysis of why the “haves” come out ahead to study litigant success on the U.S. Courts of Appeals and state courts of last resort. The findings suggest that repeat player litigants with substantial organizational strength (“haves“) are much more likely to win in the federal courts of appeals than one-shot litigants with fewer resources. The “haves” win more frequently in published decisions, … Continue Reading

CFR v Alexander Padilla, the California Secretary of State

      Gary Zerman, Michael Warnken, and I have been working on a First Amended Complaint (FAC) in the case of CFR v Alexander Padilla, the California Secretary of State, US District Court for the Eastern District for California Case No. 2:17-cv-00973-KJM-CMK. It likely is the most interesting (and important) case of my legal career. CFR v Padilla challenges whether California’s practices of refusing to increase the number of its legislators to accommodate its dramatic growth in population since the late 1800s has caused its government to become an oligarchy which fails to constitutionally represent California’s 40,000,000 people. Certainly, this is an interesting topic for 21st America, where 120 people in California claim they can adequately represent the interests of the 40,000,000 people who live in that State. The New York Times mentioned the case in an article written by Thomas Fuller titled “California’s Far North Deplores ‘Tyranny’ of the Urban Majority”, (July 2, 2017). For some reason, the author seemed to think that because some plaintiffs lived in Northern, California this case was about rural Northern Californians attacking the people who lived in urban LA. This seemed a strange analysis. The original complaint clearly sought to increase representation for everybody. CFR’s point was one Senator representing a million people anywhere in California was not adequate representation. Why more representation? Why not have enough Senators and Assembly Members elected to office as is necessary to really represent the diverse peoples and communities of California? Breitbart’s take on the litigation was pretty much the … Continue Reading


BETTER TO HAVE ADA ADVOCATE THAN LAWYER IN STATE COURTS.                                   The Webster-Merriam Dictionary defines the verb “corrupt” to mean: : to cause (someone or something) to become dishonest, immoral, etc.: to change (something) so that it is less pure or valuable: to change (a book, computer file, etc.) from the correct or original form. Blacks Law dictionary defines the term “adversary system” to mean: A procedural system, such as the Anglo-American system, involving active and unhindered parties competing with one another to each put forth a case before a case before an independent decision-maker. Throughout most of America’s history we, as a people, have relied upon the adversary system, trial by jury, and the evolution of the common law, i.e. precedent, as the primary means by which justice can be achieved through our judicial system. These three aspects of America’s legal adversary system worked well enough until mid-twentieth century to make it appear that obtaining justice with regard to fairly resolving the disputes of most people and businesses in the United States was possible. But today the cat is out of the bag. For all practical purposes trial by a jury of one’s peers almost never occurs in the United States any more. Thus, the most basic check on the powers of arbitrary judicial officials is now essentially gone. See syllabus below. The assurance that United States judges will apply the law fairly and … Continue Reading


WHY DO AMERICANS CELEBRATE INDEPENDENCE DAY ON JULY 4th INSTEAD OF JULY 2nd? This particular blog has an interesting evolution that suggests to me a spiritual synchronicity because the research it caused me to do is instructive with regards to several cases which I am currently working on. Let me explain. In late September, 2016 I was contacted by someone from Facebook about doing an interview on Press TV about the Wells Fargo scandal, which ultimately caused its CEO John Stumpf to resign in October, 2016. I am sure many of you remember the scandal. Wells Fargo had instructed many of its employees to fraudulently create new accounts for millions of its customers. Wells Fargo then dinged these customers for fees related to the fraudulent accounts, which came directly out of the money the customers had deposited in their personal accounts with Wells Fargo. Given that most of us live paycheck to paycheck, think about the number of overdraft fees this fraud generated for Wells Fargo and how much it impacted  customers, Like you and me. Although the employees crimes were apparent, prosecutors apparently looked the other way because a bank was paying its employees to break the law. It is pretty obvious by now that this nation’s prosecutors and courts believe banks are above the law. The person who asked me to appear on the show ECONOMIC DIVIDE indicated that she was a student at Azad University, and was doing an internship with Press TV. After checking out the show, … Continue Reading