UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Leroy Pletten
Plaintiff(s)
Civil Action No. 85-72998
ANNA DIGGS TAYLOR
FILED '03 OCT 24 P 2:30
v.
The Department of the Army
Defendant(s)
_____________________/
NOTICE OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, FALSIFICATION,
ANTEDATING, AND VIOLATION OF LOCAL COURT RULE
Plaintiff Leroy Pletten provides notice that the sua sponte reassignment order of 26 September 2003 (received 17 October 2003) has prima facie violation of Local Rule 83.11(b)(7)(C).
1. The rule clearly, unequivocally, provides for reassigning a case to the judge with the "earlier number " (here, by Court's own words, prima facie, Docket Number 85-72998).
2. The reassignment Order does exactly the opposite, reassigns the earlier 85-72998 case (while citing prima facie what is in fact) to a later number (Docket No. 88-72254).
3. Had there been testimony by witnesses falsifying which of the two case numbers is "earlier," such antedating type words, such false testimony, could foreseeably be deemed misconduct, perjury.
4. Judges' words must be held to at least the same standard of truthfulness required of witnesses. The literal words of the order show prima facie violation, a "confession against interest."
5. Plaintiff believes the receiving judge is biased, and has so indicated (incorporated here by reference).
-1-
6. In March 2003 this same disregard had occurred, without even the cover, pretext, or pretense of a reassignment order!: meaning, issuing order without even having been "assigned"!
7. Plaintiff has contacted the Judicial Council (Exhibit 1), incorporated here by reference.
8. For the judges involved, this is not a first offense. Note Detroit News article, web version http://www.detnews.com/2003/schools/0303/30/d01-122438.htm (30 March 2003), p 3 (Exhibit 2). (citing manipulation allegations in another case, redressed via a "scathing decision [by Judge Bernard Friedman] striking down their opinion," said decision incorporated here by reference).
9. It is evident that there is no perceived-by-them deterrent by either (a) the letter of the Rule; (b) the possibility of sanction by the Judicial Council; or (c) the words of colleague Friedman.
Wherefore, a minimum of the following remedial action should be taken:
1. the order at issue be revoked;
2. the judges involved confess misconduct to the Judicial Council;
3. same consequences be applied as would happen to lawyer witnesses antedating, falsifying, which of the two numbers is "earlier," such as could foreseeably be deemed perjury.
| | Respectfully,
| | |
| | | /s/Leroy J. Pletten
| Dated: 24 October 2003 | | Leroy J. Pletten | | |
Exhibits:
1. Complaint to Judicial Council (18 October 2003)
2. Detroit News Article (30 March 2003), web version, p 3.
CF: E D Mich Chief Judge Zatkoff
-2-
8401 18 Mile Road #29
Sterling Heights MI 48313-3042
18 October 2003
Judicial Council for the 6th Circuit
503 U.S. Post Office and Courthouse
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Re: Complaint of Judicial Misconduct No. ________
on Court Order Contrary to L.R. 83.11(b)(7)(C)
Dear Judicial Council:
This report of prima facie rule violation is filed pursuant to pertinent laws and rules, e.g., the Rules Governing Complaint of Judicial Misconduct Or Disability. Enclosed are (1) a copy of the Court Order at issue, and (2) the pertinent portion of the Local Rule 83.11.
Note that Local Rule 83.11(b)(7)(C) clearly, unequivocally, provides for reassigning a case to the judge with the "earlier number " (here, by Court's own words, prima facie, Docket Number 85-72998). Note that the reassignment Order does exactly the opposite, reassigns the 85-72998 case while citing prima facie a later number (Docket No. 88-72254). This is a prima facie violation, a "confession against interest" so to speak, no need to belabor the point with pages of arguments!
Moreover, I believe the receiving judge is biased, and have so indicated.
In March 2003 this same disregard had occurred, without even the cover, pretext, or pretense of a reassignment order! I objected then as well. Doing reassignment now, long after case commencement, using the already objected-to later Docket Number, after long time to meditate, shows deliberate, premeditated, willful violation of the Court Local Rule, undermines credibility of judiciary, impairs public confidence, causes distrust in accuracy of decisions—so blatantly the opposite of the letter of the Court's own rule. Were a member of the public to blatantly defy a rule in judge's presence (do the exact opposite of what is told), such behavior could be deemed "contempt of court." Is it any less so, when by judges?
It is vital that judges neither be, nor be perceived to be, above the law. I am a notary public, not only a plaintiff, and I have been a juror and witness as well, so am quadruply concerned with courts' ethical behavior. One purpose of corrective action is to reduce the likelihood that, hereafter, these or any other judges, will blatantly violate the literal letter of the law (rule). Please take appropriate remedial action, cure the damage, address the misconduct, assign a judge of whom there is no doubt of impartiality, and take all needed pro-active deterrent-level reaction.
Sincerely,
/s/Leroy J. Pletten
Leroy J. Pletten
Enclosures:
1. Court Order
2. That Portion of Local Rule 83.11 at Issue
CF: E D Mich Chief Judge Zatkoff
P.S. I was NOT served the Order, and did not receive it until AFTER I discovered a docket entry citing it. I had gone in person to the Clerk of Court office to check on case status, as Clerk had not answered two prior written inquiries about the Docket. The Clerk of Court did NOT have a copy of the Order at issue, so told me to ask the Judge's Courtroom Deputy, who did mail it to me, received 17 Oct 2003. But for my driving miles to check the file in person, due to the non-service, I would still not know of the Order.
Exhibit 1 |
|
Judicial bias alleged in U-M case - 03/30/03 Page 3 of 3
U-M officials declined to comment, saying it would be improper.
It's unknown whether a different panel, and a potentially different decision, would have made a difference. Both sides indicated throughout the process that they would likely appeal any unfavorable ruling to the Supreme Court.
Judicial conduct also arose as an issue at the district-court level. In 1998, two U.S. District Court judges in Detroit unsuccessfully tried to take the Law School case from Judge Bernard Friedman, a Reagan appointee who had been randomly assigned to hear it.
That process started after U-M attorneys filed a motion to consolidate the separate lawsuits against the undergraduate and Law School admissions policies, arguing they dealt with the same issue and it would be more efficient for one judge to hear both.
The court's chief judge, Anna Diggs Taylor, excused herself from hearing the motion because her husband, S. Martin Taylor, is a U-M regent and defendant in the case. Instead, in an unusual move, she picked two judges to hear the motion, Judges John Feikens, a U-M Law School graduate, and Julian Abele Cook Jr. They ruled to combine the cases before Judge Patrick Duggan, also a Reagan appointee, but thought to be more sympathetic.
Friedman, who under court rules had the authority to decide if the cases should be combined, wrote a scathing decision striking down their opinion and keeping the Law School case.
You can reach Jodi S. Cohen at (313) 222-2269 or jcohen@detnews.com
http://www.detnews.com/2003/schools/0303/30/d01-122438.htm
Exhibit 2
|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Leroy Pletten
Plaintiff(s)
Civil Action No. 85-72998
ANNA DIGGS TAYLOR
FILED '03 OCT 24 P 2:30
v.
The Department of the Army
Defendant(s)
_____________________/
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
NOTICE OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, FALSIFICATION,
ANTEDATING, AND VIOLATION OF LOCAL COURT RULE
BRIEF IN SUPPORT
The facts are as stated in the motion. Local Rule 83.11(b)(7)(C) has been violated prima facie. Citing a later case number while invoking rule on "earlier number" is an obvious violation.
When "ante-dated [false dating claims occur] to make them appear as if they were genuine," as in the unprofessional attorney conduct case of In re Ryman, 394 Mich 167, 176 (1975), corrective
action is warranted. Against antedating, the "'legal system [and Plaintiff] is virtually defenseless,'" Matter of Grimes, 414 Mich. 483, 494 (1982). Since the judges are attorneys, please note such
precedents as to consequences to lawyers for antedating. And please note consequences for witness perjury as well.
"An [individual] is unfairly deprived of an opportunity to cross-examine or to present rebuttal evidence and testimony when [he] learns the exact nature of [claims] only after the [decision]," National Realty & C. Co., Inc. v. Occ. S. & H. R. Commission, 160 U.S. App. D.C. 133, 141, 489 F2d 1257, 1265 (1973).
-3-
Government must obey the administrative procedures act, e.g., 5 USC § 706; due process requires the right to be heard at meaningful time, in a meaningful manner; it is unacceptable to not notify of the basis until decision time, here later by sua sponte action, a prima facie depriving party of opportunity to raise the herein issue prior to the decision. Barnhart v U. S. Treasury Dept, 588 F Supp 1432 (D CIT, 1984). The Supreme Court has upheld this concept in employee cases, e.g., Cleveland Bd of Educ v Loudermill, 470 US 532; 105 S Ct 1487; 84 L Ed 2d 494 (1985). Judges should provide at least the same level of due process of law as they require the government to provide! Indeed, judges should be setting a good example to follow, not a bad one to avoid.
It is vital that judges neither be, nor be perceived to be, above the law. Plaintiff is a notary public, not only a plaintiff, and I have been a juror and witness as well, so am quadruply concerned
with courts' ethical behavior. One purpose of corrective action is to reduce the likelihood that, hereafter, these or any other judges, will blatantly violate the literal letter of the law (rule). Corrective
action is needed to prevent further undermining of the credibility of the judiciary, and impaired public confidence, causing distrust of accuracy of decisions, here, one so blatantly obviously the opposite of the letter of the Court's own rule.
Wherefore resolution should be done as cited in the foregoing Notice.
| | Respectfully,
| | |
| | | /s/Leroy J. Pletten
| Dated: 24 October 2003 | | Leroy J. Pletten | | |
-4-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Leroy Pletten
Plaintiff(s)
Civil Action No. 85-72998
ANNA DIGGS TAYLOR
FILED '03 OCT 24 P 2:30
v.
The Department of the Army
Defendant(s)
_____________________/
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this date, I transmitted the Notice of Judicial Misconduct, Falsification, Antedating, and Violation of Local Court Rule, with Brief in Support, to
| Clerk of Court | | Jeffrey G. Collins, U.S. Attorney
| (original and copies) | | Attn: Nancy B. Pridegen, Ass't US Att'y
| Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse | | Eastern District of Michigan
| 231 W Lafayette | | 211 West Fort Street, Suite 2001
| Detroit MI 48226 | | Detroit, MI 48226
| |
| | |
| | | /s/ Leroy J. Pletten
| Date: 24 October 2003 | | Leroy J. Pletten
| | | | | | | |
