Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2002 ruling by the Supremes: Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.

Expand Messages
  • Duboys.One@verizon.net
    Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 122 S.Ct. 992, 534 U.S. 506, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (U.S. 02/26/2002) Over the years I have watched the federal courts abandon their duty
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 20 12:10 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 122 S.Ct. 992, 534 U.S. 506, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (U.S. 
      02/26/2002)
      
      Over the years I have watched the federal courts abandon their duty to protect citizens
      against judicial abuse by the states.  Seems that as they study ways and means to dispose 
      of our cases, our actual time in court grows shorter and shorter.  Example:  Summary 
      judgment required subjecting defendants to discovery.  That was replaced by the use of the
      12(b) motion to dismiss.  That took too long and subjected defendants to too many questions 
      about the propriety of their actions.  With that, came use of the abstention theories, albeit 
      improperly applied in most cases, resulting in dismissals prior to discovery.  But that wasn't 
      good enough.  The latest m.o. is sua-sponte dismissal, depriving us of our right to an adversary 
      system of justice.  The judge does the dirty work, protecting the defendants completely from
      exposure!  Sua-sponte dismissal by a district-court judge is authorized by Congress only in 
      prisoner cases!  That didn't stop my perp from using it against me, a nonprisoner, fee-paid
      civil litigant. The Second Circuit ignored all my arguments, as did the district perp.
      
      Swierkiewicz is a good case, but it's just window dressing.  The Supremes won't even 
      enforce it themselves.  Knowing this, the lower courts have license to "getcha"!
      
      Last year, I received "JUSTICE BY CLERK":  My petition for certiorari was dismissed.  I do not
      for a minute believe that any of the Supremes actually saw my papers!  Roberts was questioned 
      about the practice of the "cert pool."  This was not what the Framers envisioned.
      
      Here are the questions which the Supremes DO NOT WANT TO ADDRESS:
      
      Duboys v. Bomba
      03-10642
      QUESTIONS PRESENTED
      CONSTITUTIONAL:
      (Inherent Authority)
      Whether the use of "inherent authority" or "power" of a district court judge to sua-sponte 
      dismiss an unrepresented Sec. 1983 claimant's action at the pleading stage, thus preventing 
      and avoiding an adversarial proceeding with pretrial proceedings available to other litigants, 
      is constitutionally repugnant and a violation of 1st (access), 5th (due process/equal rights), 
      7th (jury trial) Amendment guarantees, as encompassed in the 14th Amendment?
      
      (Disparate Treatment):
      Whether clearly disparate treatment of lawyered and nonlawyered cases by a Circuit court or 
      judge, such as failure to apply Supreme Court and Circuit precedent uniformly, e.g., de novo 
      and abuse-of-discretion reviews applied in lawyered cases but not in nonlawyered cases, is a 
      deprivation of the constitutional guarantee of due process of law and equal protection of the laws?
      
      SUPERVISORY ENFORCEMENT:
      Whether this Court, in its supervisory capacity, will enforce its own orders on certiorari to 
      a Circuit which fails to obey its clarification of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and requirement 
      for an adversarial disposition of an action on the merits, as opposed to dismissal at the pleading 
      stage?
      
      ===================
      
      NB: As part of their "clean out the courts" m.o., district judges were demanding heightened 
      pleadings, contrary to FRCVP 8's requirement for simplicity and brevity.  
      
      Swierkiewicz was on certiorari to the Second Circuit.  It perked upstairs because the Circuit 
      failed to obey an earlier Supreme Court cert to the 5th Circ., saying pretty much the same thing:
      Leatherman v. Tarrant,  507 U.S. 163 (1993).  Text attached. 
      
      Leatherman was a "clarification" of federal rules, which all courts are required to obey.
      
      I cited Leatherman and Swierkiewicz to the Second Circuit, which they simply ignored.   The 
      litigation was a sick joke!
      
      ===============================
      
      As a result of the failure of the federal system to keep bad state-court judges in 
      line, those perps feel they have a total license to violate.
      
      Ten-plus years ago, a friend who had already been to the Supremes said:  "Legislate; don't
      litigate!"  I argued for litigation, thinking I understood the process.  Little did I know
      then about the farce called "justice."  Following a corrupt guardianship/probate experience, 
      I spent those 10-plus years in every level of state and federal court, wanting to prove to 
      my friend that he was wrong. Well, that wasn't the only reason.  I wanted justice!
      
      Dick - you were right!
      
      So the apparent answer is that we must all turn our attention to the Congress, for it is 
      actually they who are responsible for all our legal problems.  They do have, but won't use, 
      the power to keep the courts in control.  And if we don't, woe unto ye - not the lawyers - 
      but we, the pepole!
      
      Lori D.
      
      
      
      
      

      ==============================================
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.