Judge's Decisions Are Conspicuously Late

On December 6, 2004 Benjamin Weiser of the New York Times published an article concerning Judge Daniel's judicial conduct entitled "Judge's Decisions Are Conspicuously Late." The link below will take you to a copy of that article on the judicialaccountability website.

http://www.judicialaccountability.org/articles/federalcourtdelay.htm

MJ Hall's Complaint Against Judge Daniels

The Following 2 Posts were taken from www.acsblog.org on June 17, 2005


Written By:MJ Hall On April 18, 2005 01:56 AM

14 February 2005

Clerk
United States Court of Appeals
Judicial Council of the Second Circuit
Thurgood Marshall US Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007

RE: Resubmission of Complaint of Misconduct
Judicial Council of the Second Circuit
Case: Hall v. The New York Presbyterian Hospital, et al
USSD 00 CIV.7858

Dear Clerk:

As a practicing physician, born and trained in the United States of America, and board certified by the American Board of Family Medicine, I am held accountable for my professional actions. As a representative of my chosen profession, I am not only responsible to the patients I treat, but I am expected to adhere to an ideal, one that is called the Hippocratic Oath to ensure my patients receive the best care I possibly can deliver. It is understood that the same ethical and expert standards that apply to the medical profession also apply to the legal profession as well. Therefore, it is only natural that the following complaint be viewed only from the perspective of governance of the federal judiciary and management of federal law.

It is my firm belief that the Honorable Judge George Daniels, civil servant of the United States, agent of the United States federal judiciary, and lifetime member of the United States Southern District Court has violated his professional duties and must be held accountable to the American public. It is the belief of many that he has acted inappropriately and incompetently while presiding over Hall v. The New York Presbyterian Hospital, et al as he has treated these claims with extreme carelessness and negligence amounting to “judicial malpractice”.

It is inconceivable that a federal judge can ignore the official overtures of representing counsel. This has occurred in my case. It is morally unjust to require the filing of a lawsuit to force a ruling by a judge. This has occurred in my case. As well, one cannot comprehend how the federal court system can allow a member the federal judiciary to professionally lapse and allow an American citizen to be placed in an unacceptable and indeterminate state. This has occurred in my case. Moreover, it is unconscionable that this agent of the American government has not been held accountable for his actions. Honorable Judge George Daniels’ behavior is not only unacceptable, but also reprehensible. It must be documented that my civil rights as an American citizen were carelessly abandoned not only by my previous employer, but also by the very federal legal system designed to fairly resolve such disputes. Clearly, my constitutional entitlement to a fair judicial examination was abandoned. This District Court and Honorable Judge George Daniels’ actions have cast a great shadow on the American legal system and triggered a great number of personal, psychological and financial traumas. The Judicial Council of the Second Circuit must address these issues.

Please allow me to indulge the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit for a moment and provide some background for my complaint.

During the summer of 1997, while serving as chief ophthalmic resident and a graduate medical education member at The New York Presbyterian Hospital (“Hospital”), Petitioner witnessed several acts of racial prejudice and medical misconduct committed by senior medical staff against black Americans.

Within days, after verbally informing Petitioner’s chief-of-service, Dr. D. Jackson Coleman, MD, and program director, Kip Dolphin, MD, that an outer-borough black child did not receive timely and compassionate treatment from hospital surgeons for a traumatic penetrating eye injury, Petitioner was presented a fait accompli and asked to resign or face termination. Petitioner had previous been warned that previous comments regarding racial discrimination and medical negligence were not acceptable, and there was displeasure within the hospital staff regarding a written memo, in which Petitioner detailed why black patients did not receive adequate medical care at the hands of white hospital medical staff.

1) On October 17, 1997, unwilling to resign, Petitioner was summarily terminated from Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (“ACGME”) approved ophthalmology residency position.

2) During April 1998 Petitioner brought forward a breach of contract complaint with the New York State Supreme Court based on a contractual obligation the Hospital had failed to obey by disregarding important employment bylaws while terminating Petitioner’s employment and disregarding a contractual obligation to provide adequate staffing and medical training based on ACGME approved guidelines.

3) On June 21, 1999, Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam of the New York State Supreme Court dismissed the claims based a failure to go before the New York State Public Health Council (“PHC”). A state review board comprised of twelve (12) lay and professional New York State residents enacted by New York Public Health Law 2801-b. (NY Sup. Ct. docket no. 6020395/98)

4) After discussions with numerous attorneys, Petitioner was advised that as a member of the Hospital’s “graduate medical education”, or effectively a “medical student”, Petitioner would receive no resolution, as the PHC was purely designed to hear disputes between “credentialed hospital staff members” and hospital administration. Furthermore, the PHC was unable to offer any administrative remedy.

4) On October 14, 1999 Petitioner submitted an Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act claim ("EMTALA"), regarding two points, a) maintenance of physician-on-call lists and information on physicians who refuse or fail to appear to provide timely stabilizing treatment and b) protection for "whistle-blowers" who report a violation of the regulations, as well as a 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim.

5) After initial arguments, a full disclosure revealed that District Court Judge Jed Rakoff had a conflict of interest with the case, as this was officially entered as part of the court record. At the time, the judge was affiliated with Cornell University; Petitioner’s attorney, Ambrose Wotorson, requested that he recuse himself and appoint a new judge, the judge refused.

6) On February 24, 2000, the District Court dismissed, without prejudice, the EMTALA claim for failure to proceed before the PHC. A copy of the opinion is attached as Exhibit A.

7) a) In July 2000, Petitioner provided a written complaint to the PHC and the Hospital provided a response. A copy of the complaint is attached as Exhibit B.
b) Additionally, in July 2000, Petitioner also communicated the same claim to the New York office of the Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of for Civil Rights. A copy of the letters is attached as Exhibit C.

8) On September 22, 2000, Petitioner was provided a full crediting and affirmation of civil rights violations claims by the PHC. A copy of the opinion is attached as Exhibit D.

9) On October 16, 2000, Petitioner attorney filed a suit against defendants alleging violations of 42 U. S. C. § 1981 and various state and local laws. Abruptly, the District Court Judge Jed Rakoff inexplicably recused himself from the case and appointed District Court Judge George Daniels.

10) Between November and December 2000, the Hospital provided false and malicious information regarding medical qualifications and skills to a prospective employer, in total contradiction to the findings of the PHC.

11) On December 13, 2000, the Hospital filed a 12(b)(6) Motion seeking to dismiss the complaint for failure to plead a prima facie case of discrimination and retaliation.

12) On April 6, 2001 Petitioner submitted a formal request to amend the complaint after receipt of a right-to-sue letter from EEOC. In January 2001 the EEOC provided Petitioner with a right-to-sue letter under Title VII civil rights law. A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit E.

13) On July 4, 2001 Petitioner submitted a formal complaint of misconduct to the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit regarding the aberrant actions of Judge Jed Rakoff. (Docket no. 01-8568)

14) On November 18, 2003, a writ of mandamus was served by Petitioner’s attorney to the Second Circuit Appeals Court causing the District Court, by judgment dated December 5, 2003, to dismiss Petitioner’s claim under 42 U. S. C. § 1981 for failure to state a claim.

15) On July 13, 2004, Petitioner’s attorney filed a timely notice of appeal contesting the validity of the district court’s findings. A copy of the appeal is attached as Exhibit F.

16) On November 23, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit entered an order affirming the district court decision. A copy of the opinion is attached as Exhibit G.

17) On December 13, 2004, Petitioner submitted a formal complaint of misconduct to the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit regarding the actions of Judge George Daniels. Please refer to the New York Times article “Judges Decisions Draw Notice, For Being Conspicuously Late”, Dec 6, 2004. A copy of the article is attached as Exhibit H.

It is crystal clear, after mandates from New York State Supreme Court and the United States Southern District Court to seek review by the New York State Public Health Council; my complaints were thoroughly investigated in July 2000. Consequently, my allegations were fully credited and during September 2000 the council established that the New York Presbyterian Hospital and Drs. Dolphin and Coleman on two points:

(1) "Committed an improper practice by terminating Dr. Hall's clinical privileges" and (2) "the council determined the Hospital's actions was not based on principles of patient care, patient welfare, practitioner character or competence, and/or the objectives of the institution." (PHC letter dated September 22, 2000)

After receiving this patent victory against the Hospital, the case was reintroduced into the federal court system, again under the auspices of Judge Jed Rakoff. Abruptly, Judge Rakoff then recused himself without explanation after my attorney again raised the issue of a conflict of interest between his senior position with Cornell School of Law and my previous employer, Cornell Medical University, who was named a defendant in my case. Judge Rakoff unprecedented and aberrant behavior was raised with complaint of misconduct on July 4, 2001 with the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit (Docket No. 01-8568).

Shortly thereafter, Judge George Daniels was appointed to my case. After satisfying Judge Jed Rakoff’s request to seek review before the New York State Public Health Council, and receiving a Title VII right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission, my case was placed in a state of limbo. After almost three years of inaction and stating at oral argument that he would resolve a 12(b)(6) Motion “quickly” the case continue to face total inaction. In fact, my attorney was hamstrung by the Judge Daniels and forced to write “pleas” for discussion with Judge George Daniels and place phone calls that were causally dismissed, ignored and never returned. To our dismay, the District Court eventually required a writ of mandamus to finally issue any statement at all. It is important to note after the writ was filed, within a period of two weeks, Judge Daniels threw out my long-standing claims after years of delay, inaction and abandonment. The case was never allowed to proceed to discovery.

It is obvious that my civil rights claims contained within, Hall v. The New York Presbyterian Hospital, et al., (Southern District Court Index No. 00 CIV. 7858), were treated by the District Court with an absence of ordinary care.

I base this information on several facts and have enclosed documents to support my allegations.

1) Approximately one year ago, the Southern District Court (Honorable Judge George Daniels) granted defendants' motion to dismiss the case against The New York Presbyterian Hospital and Drs. Coleman and Dolphin. In an order dated December 5, 2003, the District Court held that my pleadings were legally deficient, "nowhere in his complaint…does Dr. Hall claim that he…specifically complained of disparate treatment provided to blacks as compared to white, or that the issue of race was ever discussed in connection with is patient’s care or his complaints about their treatment.” Moreover, the District Court held that the complaint made “no factual allegations that the white senior physicians were actually made aware that the patient in question was black, that senior physicians who failed to assist Dr. Hall were aware that the patient in question was black, that a departure from the standard of care occurred because the patient was black.” This issue is critical as we had submitted and affidavit attesting to this fact, yet Judge Daniels disallowed this evidence form becoming part of the legal record.

It is my claim that the District Court failed to appreciate a significant lower court ruling, primarily the New York State Public Health Council crediting my complaint against the New York Presbyterian Hospital in September 2000. It is my belief that this vital information was improperly disregarded by the District Court thwarting my claims. The substance of the complaint, in which I brought against the New York Presbyterian Hospital-Cornell Medical University, regarded the hospital terminating my professional privileges under the 2801-b provision of New York State Public Health Law. It is the New York State Public Health Council’s opinion the hospital, ophthalmology department chairman and program director acted improperly. Specifically stated in my complaint I referenced an African-American immigrant who was not treated timely or compassionately by white staff members after a severe penetrating eye injury, “it is my belief that the hospital internationally disregarded the patient (sic) civil rights and federal rights for treatment in a level one trauma center due to his ethnicity and immigration status.” Additionally, I went on to describe that an African-American child with a severe penetrating eye injury was not seen or examined at all, by any member of registered hospital attending staff after five separate white surgeons were notified personally by me while on call as chief resident. All white surgeons asked pointed questions about the child’s ethnicity and when identified as black were adverse to attend to his emergent medical care, “the incident that transpired in August involving a African-American child transferred explicitly to the hospital from another (local) hospital was entirely racially motivated and reflects an arrogance and superiority I have never witnessed before.” (See the New York State Public Health Council complaint)

Moreover, stated bolding in my the New York State Public Health Council complaint and made exhibit one of my federal complaint, I proclaim “the hospital parties were also well aware of several complaints….in writing and verbally…to hospital superiors…complaints were based on several episodes of medical negligence and racial discrimination.” (See the New York State Public Health Council complaint). Contrary to the defendant’s claims, I immediately made Drs. Coleman and Dolphin aware of my concerns of disparate medical care against black patients by white hospital staff. This is unequivocally supported by the New York State Public Health Council investigation and extensive review of all the evidence. As well, the crediting of the allegations as fact completely contradict the District Court’s affirming the defendants’ outlandish assertions that the claims are “after-the-fact” and are based on “a second bite at the apple” legal theory.

2) Additionally, the District Court denied my motion to amend my complaint by implying it held no new relevant information. In the alternative, I argued that the District Court should have granted me this relevant affidavit, amending my complaint, so that I could have pleased the court with specified details that the court requested, including the substance of the New York State Public Health Council ruling, [which incidentally was already cited in the pending federal complaint] and demanded highly germane by the previous District Court Judge Jed Rakoff in accordance to New York State Health Law. (Southern District Court Index No.99 CIV. 10554)

In that regard, it is unclear from the District Court’s dismissal what additional information would please the court, as it would seem that the court has on one hand demanded [per District Court Judge Jed Rakoff] the New York State Public Health Council judgement, deemed vital to pursue federal action, and on the other, ignored the New York State Public Health Council findings altogether. Based on my first federal ruling, (Southern District Court Index No. 99 CIV. 10554), a nexus was formed and clearly stated my federal claims are not separate and distinct from the New York State Public Health Council’s expert judgement and the affirmation of these allegations, as they are intertwined, provide undeniable, definitive and incorruptible support to my sentinel allegations against the defendants.

Once again, incredulously, at oral argument counsel represented that I had furnished all links to disparate care and the mistreatment of black patient by defendants through my detailed and fully accepted New York State Public Health Council review finalized in September 2000. I had met the legal threshold of both 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e by advocating for a racial minority and then later being discriminated against by my employer for doing so through termination and defamation. Emphatically, this is based on the verbal and written statements attesting to the surgical and medical mistreatment and racial discrimination by the defendants as it related to black patients I was caring for as a federal funded proxy of the defendants.

Clearly, I witnessed and purported black patients with critical eye injuries did indeed suffer and receive disparate care by agents of The New York Presbyterian Hospital. I vociferously expressed these concerns through an internal memo providing them to my immediate superiors and was later fired for doing so. As my claims were presented before the court, they have been boxed neatly by the New York State Public Health Council and avoid any notion of presumption or confusion.

To reiterate, as I have read my claims presented by my attorney, it is ludicrous to determine that I have failed to allege “that he was fired by the hospital because he was advocating the 1981 rights of member of a racial minority,” as per Honorable Judge George Daniels. Plainly stated, the District Court argued this point was never alleged or supported in my federal claim. This is absolutely wrong, as it formed the basis of my New York Hospital Public Health Council complaint and this action was entered into my federal complaint in October 2000 as well as a Title VII right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission a letter provided to the court on April 6, 2001. What exactly does a right to sue letter imply if the District Court can ignore it and is not held accountable to the federal agency that provided it? Again, it is impossible to understand why this claim was not acknowledged or understood, as it was highlighted and on the first page of my federal complaint.

3) District Court Judge George Daniels, as a lifetime member of the federal judiciary and representative of the United States of America legal system, was issued a Writ of Mandamus regarding a unreasonable time delay regarding a 12(b)(6) Motion sought by the defendants. The writ was issued because of a perceived lack of professionalism and ethics, as he was contacted by my attorney via phone and writing multiple times without response over a period of years and failing to render a decision over two and half years. Realizing that the case was in a state of limbo, on June 2, 2003 we wrote the Chief Judge of the Southern District of New York requesting that the case be transferred to another District Court Judge in light of the District Court’s failure to render a decision on a 12(b)(6) Motion for almost three years. This letter was never answered. Only after being issued a Writ of Mandamus on November 18, 2003, the District Court ruled on December 5th, 2003, fifteen days after receiving the summons. It appears that after a period of many years, the Honorable Judge George Daniels was exceptionally willing to work toward resolving the case and dismissing it without delay. The space of time required for him to make this profoundly swift decision raises the question of his motives and raises the question that he breached his professional and ethical judicial duties.

Furthermore, I allege the District Court acted unjustly and prejudicially by the sweeping dismissal of claims, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, [provided by a right-to-sue letter from the New York office of the Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission in January 2001] after the said court was again forced by legal threat to make a decision based on a higher court’s writ of mandamus submitted by my attorney Ambrose Wotorson. Soon after, the District Court ruled with unceremonious alacrity to discharge the claims while boldly demonstrating, through a short opinion, it had no reasonable comprehension of the case and supporting documents. The District Court failed to address serious claims with any modicum of logically bearing and has made irrational statements that indicate it clearly had no understanding of the claims and set out to nullify said claims and thereby actively obstructed my case and hindering due process.

The District Court affirmed the dismissal of all defendants and found with prejudice against Dr. Hall.

4) Recently, the Southern District Federal Court of Manhattan, New York, and its proxy, the Honorable Judge George Daniels has recently come under scrutiny in the press. It is obvious that the United States Southern District Court’s integrity is currently in peril and based on a front page article from The New York Times, dated December 6, 2004, the District Court’s Judge George Daniels has had a series of lapses in jurisprudence. Unparalleled in the history of the United States Southern District, this chaotic situation creates numerous fears, invokes unprecedented suspicions and opprobrium. Most concerning, Judge Daniels’ behavior gives the appearance and impression that the validity of his rulings are potentially flawed. According to The New York Times, the District Court’s Chief Judge, Michael B. Mukasey, Judge George Daniels’ behavior is not isolated and is was recognized as improper and ongoing, “Judge Michael B. Mukasey, chief judge of the Federal District Court, who has received repeated complaints about the delays, said that he thought Judge Daniels had been tackling his backlog, and that the year-old statistics did not offer the clearest picture. ‘Judge Daniels and I have spoken about this," he said, …"As an institutional matter," Judge Mukasey added, "obviously inordinate delay is always a concern."

There are serious questions raised by these statements. Are we to assume that any clearer picture exists? What does ‘institutional matter’ legally define; does it apply only to the bench or also the public? Who exactly is in charge? Why is behavior condoned and this allowed to happen? Can a judge be above the law?

In conclusion, I respectfully ask the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit to initiate and complete a professional review of the Honorable Judge George B. Daniels’ court procedures and a full and unfettered evaluation of his ruling regarding Hall v. The New York Presbyterian Hospital, et al. As you may be aware, I have recently submitted a formal complaint of misconduct against the Honorable Judge George B. Daniels to the Clerk of Court of the Second Circuit Appeals Court, but was required to formally resubmit the matter.

These statements are true under penalty of perjury.

Yours faithfully,

Michael James Hall, MD, MSc

Written By:Christian Williams On June 12, 2005 03:53 PM

RE: Resubmission of Complaint of Misconduct
Judicial Council of the Second Circuit

I too have twice tried to enter a complaint of judicial misconduct on Judge George B. Daniels and twice Ms. Pat Chin-Allen of the U.S.C.A. for the 2nd Circuit has rejected my complaint for reasons I believe to be frivolous. I have asked to meet with Ms. Chin-Allen to go over my complaint of misconduct and put it into a form that will be accepted by the court, but she has refused to meet with me without the Clerk of Court for the 2nd Circuit. The first time she rejected my complaint because my font size was 10 point instead of 12 point or larger, and because it was 6 pages instead of the maximum 5. The second time she rejected my complaint because she objected to the numerous exhibits even though there is no limit on how long or how many exhibits one can submit with a misconduct complaint. I asked Ms. Chin-Allen what the page limit was on Exhibits and she could not or would not tell me. The Clerk has not as of yet stated a willingness to meet with me on this issue. Based on Dr. Hall's posted complaint and my personal experience, it appears that the 2nd Circuit may have a pattern and practice of rejecting misconduct complaints concerning Judge George B. Daniels. I am not a lawyer, but I believe this is a civil rights issue. Is the U.S.C.A. for 2nd Circuit violating our civil rights by rejecting without action our complaints of misconduct? I am at a loss as to how to proceed at this point.

Why Judge George B. Daniels Watch?

With regard to Dr. Michael James Hall's letter to the Clerk of the Second Circuit and his twice rejected complaint of judicial misconduct against Judge George B. Daniels; I too have twice tried to enter a complaint of judicial misconduct on Judge George B. Daniels and twice Ms. Pat Chin-Allen of the U.S.C.A. for the 2nd Circuit has rejected my complaint for reasons I believe to be frivolous. I have asked to meet with Ms. Chin-Allen to go over my complaint of misconduct and put it into a form that will be accepted by the court, but she has refused to meet with me without the Clerk of Court for the 2nd Circuit. The first time she rejected my complaint because my font size was 10 point instead of 12 point or larger, and because it was 6 pages instead of the maximum 5. The second time she rejected my complaint because she objected to the numerous exhibits even though there is no limit on how long or how many exhibits one can submit with a misconduct complaint. I asked Ms. Chin-Allen what the page limit was on Exhibits and she could not or would not tell me. The Clerk has not as of yet stated a willingness to meet with me on this issue. Based on Dr. Hall's posted complaint and my personal experience, it appears that the 2nd Circuit may have a pattern and practice of rejecting misconduct complaints concerning Judge George B. Daniels. I am not a lawyer, but I believe this is a civil rights issue. Is the U.S.C.A. for 2nd Circuit violating our civil rights by rejecting without action our complaints of misconduct against Judge George B. Daniels? I believe they are, as a result I have decided to create this blog entitled JudgeGeorgeBDanielsWatch and I encourage any and all who have complaints against Judge Daniels to make their concerns or complaints about him known. I believe the current complaint process is not working at the U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit.

My case U.S.S.D.N.Y. 02-civ-4250 started out in New York State Supreme Court. It is a gay discrimination, perceived HIV+ discrimination, psychiatric injury (Acute Complex PTSD aka Acute PDSD) caused by the "workplace bullying" of my former manager, liable, and slander lawsuit against my former employer JPMorgan Chase Bank and my former managers. (For information on workplace bullying please go to bullyinginstitute.org and Drs Gary and Ruth Namie.) Defendants removed the case to the U.S.S.D.N.Y. under the diversity of jurisdiction rules because I live in New Jersey and am technically a New Jersey citizen. I was diagnosed by the late Psychiatrist Dr. Henry Victor Beaulieu. To make a long story short, I lost my attorney in September of 2002. She motioned to withdraw as council, I cross-motioned to have her removed for cause and my $15,000 contingency fee returned. Judge Daniels ignored causes of action in both motions and the issues of legal misconduct and legal malpractice by my former attorney. He simply ruled as both plaintiff and attorney have motioned to remove council, council is removed. He made that ruling the same afternoon I entered my cross-motion. The judge, who has been crowned the unchallenged king of delayed decisions, ruled the same day that I entered my cross-motion. I have been Pro Se ever since. He clearly did not give my cross-motion justice. If he didn't want to work on it, he could have and should have appointed a magistrate to deal with the situation. But he did not do so. As a result he irreparably damaged my ability to find and retain a new attorney. I have no lump sum payment to hire a new attorney, and no ruling that at least says I was justified to want my former attorney removed. Every potential attorney I went to wanted to speak to my former attorney, and as a result no new attorney would take my case. As per Dr. Beaulieu I applied for Social Security Disability because of my Acute Complex PTSD. The SSA gave me my disability and I have been on SSA disability ever since. I am well educated and very articulate. However I now have, for lack of a better phrase, a nitro glycerin personality. I'm on Seroquel, Klonopin, and Wellbutrin to manage the situation. My main symptoms are lack of focus on anything unrelated to my case, chronic fatigue, panic attacks. I have severe difficulty focusing on just about everything, except I can symptomatically fight for justice with regard to my case. I am symptomatically obsessed with obtaining justice for my case. I have been Pro Se for nearly three years now. My case is where it is because I got it there without an attorney. I myself did the discovery. I signed up for Westlaw Access and did my own legal research. I amended my own complaint to the U.S.S.D.N.Y. I responded to defendants' motion for summary judgment writing a brief that I believe to be very very good even if I had been a lawyer, and I am certain that I defeated the motion for summary judgment, yet Judge Daniels has not yet ruled on it even though he has had it over a year. My case is easy and straightforward. He either agrees with all, some, or none of my legal arguments. But he has to rule. Throughout my case I have complained to judge Daniels about the way defense council have abused my psychiatric condition and pro se status, Judge Daniels did nothing. I have also regularly complained to him about the way he was managing my case through the judicial process. Again he did nothing. I was awarded my disability from the SSA prior to the defendants even entering their motion for summary judgment. I believe the ruling by the SSA should have legally estopped the motion for summary judgment from being entered; it did not. I believe the motion for summary judgment was purely a malicious act of abuse by defense council and a piece of legal garbage. They were trying to push me over the psychiatric cliff of oblivion and Judge Daniels let them. Subsequent to the NYTimes article by Benjemain Weiser, I wrote to Judge Daniels stating that I needed reassurance from him that he could rule in a timely manner. I got no response from him or his office. I then mandamused Judge Daniels to the U.S.C.A. In my petition for mandamus I also asked the U.S.C.A. to alleviate, investigate, and solve the civil pending decision problem in Judge Daniels courtroom. When they didn't respond after 90 days, I entered a motion to expedite the mandamus stating two of my symptoms are hypervigilence and hypersensitivity and if I don't hear from the U.S.C.A. by June 15, 2005 I will have no choice but to go to the Supreme Court and Mandamus the U.S.C.A. to rule on the Mandamus of Judge Daniels. I pointed out to them that if I had to do that, it would clearly demonstrate that they were not only violating my civil rights, but also likely violating the civil rights of others in Judge Daniels civil pending decision queue that is the longest in the Federal Court System. They responded in a very interesting and political way. They denied my petition for mandamus, but they denied it without prejudice to renew if the U.S.S.D.N.Y. has not acted on the motion for summary judgment within 90 days. In other words they gave him a soft 90 day deadline tied to the U.S.S.D.N.Y. and not to Judge Daniels specifically. If he doesn't rule by August 19, 2005 or hand the case over to another justice, I will renew the mandamus petition. If the U.S.C.A. denies it a second time, I will appeal that decision to the Supreme Court and sue the U.S.C.A. and the U.S.S.D.N.Y. for violating my civil rights. If I have to, I will do it all Pro Se on SSA disability. I believe there needs to be a thorough investigation into Judge Daniels case management procedures as well as why his pending decision queue was permitted to grow so long. I believe Judge Daniels is engaging in a pattern judicial misconduct that needs to be stopped. I ask that all those who have had similiar experiences with Judge Daniels make their complaints known.

Christian Williams