Leaderboard 728 X 90

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Federal Judge William M. Acker Jr. Says Up Front That He's Going to Cheat Me--And Then He Does It

Judge William M. Acker Jr. (right)
with Stanford professor Jack Rakove

You have to admire U.S. District Judge William M. Acker Jr.--in a macabre kind of way. From personal experience, I know that judicial corruption is not unusual in the American justice system; in some parts of the country, I would say it's the norm.

But Acker, an 84-year-old Reagan appointee in the Northern District of Alabama, applies an unusual twist to the crooked game: He tells you up front, in open court, that he's going to screw you--and then he does it.

How do I know? He did it to me, in the lawsuit I filed over my unlawful termination at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). And I have an official court transcript to prove it.

Not content to state publicly that he was going to unlawfully rule against me at every turn, Acker also admitted that he'd had communications with someone connected to the opposing party. That's in the transcript, too.

Don't you just love that kind of brazenness? When you are 84 years old, with a lifetime appointment and pretty much no oversight over what you do, I guess that's how you behave.

A transcript of the hearing in which Acker makes his intentions clear is available at the end of this post. The judge's words are likely to shock any reader with a functioning conscience. But let's compare Acker to some of his brethren on the federal bench--say Mark Fuller, from the Middle District of Alabama, and Henry Wingate, from the Southern District of Mississippi.

If you have followed the story of Bush-era political prosecutions, you will recognize the names of Fuller and Wingate. They presided over the Don Siegelman and Paul Minor cases, respectively. Our research indicates that Fuller and Wingate acted with consistent righteousness in public, while knowingly sending innocent men to federal prison. By comparison, I think I prefer Acker. He makes no pretense about being fair, objective, or obedient to the law. He tells you to your face, "I'm going to screw you over and over, so deal with it and learn to enjoy it." In the "through the looking glass" world of American courts, that kind of brutal honesty is oddly refreshing.

Not that I'm going to bend over and take it. I filed a complaint against Acker with the Judicial Conference of the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C., 351-364. That's how I wound up with a copy of the hearing transcript, which I intend to share with the world. Also, the transcript is part of the record in my appeal before the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

How did Acker make good on his vow to cheat me? As I reported in a recent post, he granted summary judgment without giving the opposing party (me) an opportunity to conduct discovery. That simply cannot be done--under clear and simple procedural, statutory, and case law. If the law still means anything in the U.S.--and that's a big if--the Eleventh Circuit will have no choice but to overturn on appeal. But Acker's words will remain a glaring example of how badly our judicial train has gone off the tracks.

The hearing in question took place in Acker's court on December 10, 2010. It's clear from the transcript that Acker is going to convert motions to dismiss to motions for summary judgment--and there had been no discovery in the case. And yet, he granted summary judgment on January 28, 2011, without even a discovery meeting having been held between the parties.

Courtroom crookedness doesn't get much more outrageous than that. But it came as no surprise, given Acker's statements in open court on December 10. One issue on that date was a motion to dismiss from the City of Birmingham, which I had named as a party in my complaint. The record shows that the city attached an affidavit to its motion, and the transcript makes clear that Acker did not exclude it. When a defendant attaches "matters outside the pleadings" to a motion to dismiss and the court does not exclude them, the motion must be converted to a motion for summary judgment and handled according to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)--and that means discovery must be conducted. This process is outlined in Rule 12(d) FRCP, which ends with this sentence: "All parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion." Law doesn't get much more clear cut than that.

I pointed out the requirements of Rule 12(d) to Acker, but he wasn't going to hear it. The give-and-take on this issue can be read in pages 10-15 of the transcript below. But Acker's dark intentions become clear on page 14:

MR. SHULER: Well, I just want to be on record that --

THE COURT: You have your record.

MR. SHULER: -- it has to be converted, and I think we all here know that.

THE COURT: I suppose with all the work you have done on this and other cases that you know what a petition for a writ of mandamus is. Have you run into one of those yet?

MR SHULER: That shouldn't be needed.

THE COURT: That would be the way to get an immediate review of my disagreement with you. You better look that up. . . .

MR. SHULER: Isn't that a waste of judicial resources when everybody here --

THE COURT: You know, I give pro se parties slack because they are due it. You are about halfway between a pro se party and a represented party. You are still pro se, so I have got to cut you some slack, but I don't have to give you free legal advice, some of which I have already given you. So I think I'm stopping there on that for the question of the City of Birmingham. They are going to be out, one way or the other. . . .

So there you have a federal judge admitting that he's not going to follow the law. But Acker does not stop there. Near the end of the hearing, on page 27 in the transcript, he returns to the issue of a writ of mandamus:

THE COURT: . . . But if you file something before I do it, I will read it, and it will be in the file, and the record will be made. But as of now, we are just making the record for today. And don't forget to look up the mandamus rule. Look that up.

To fully grasp what Acker is doing here, you have to understand the purpose of a writ of mandamus. The filing of a petition for such a writ is governed by Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP). It is a form of appeal while the case still is in the trial court. That's why it is called an "extraordinary writ"; the process is designed to address close questions of law or fact, not to serve as a pinch hitter for a trial judge who is too crooked to rule correctly on simple procedural issues.

The transcript, read in full, shows there was no legitimate reason for Acker to warn me twice that I would need to learn about the mandamus process. But Acker knew two things about mandamus petitions: (1) They are time consuming; and (2) They are expensive, with an appellate docketing fee of $450 every time you file one.

In so many words, Acker was telling me: "I'm going to screw you on every little detail of this case, and you are going to have to spend months of your time and thousands of your dollars just to make the simplest step forward in your case. I will drain you of your resources simply because I can--and no one can stop me."

Why would a federal judge act in such a flagrantly corrupt and vicious fashion toward a party he does not know? Acker provides the answer on page 28 of the transcript, after I ask him how much time I have to file a reply to an opposing party's motion:

THE COURT: I think I'm going to give you until after Christmas so I can wish you a happy Christmas by giving you the time for Christmas. I know that UAB and the people over there are anxious about this, and I want to accommodate them, too, but I think I'm going to eliminate the anxiety for me between now and Christmas by giving (you) at least that much time.

How could Acker know that UAB is anxious about the case? It could only be because someone connected to the university told him--and this is the kind of prejudicial communication that is strictly prohibited by judicial ethics rules.

How about this? Acker references "the anxiety for me" regarding this issue. Was someone pushing so hard about UAB's anxiety that it was causing anxiety for the judge? I see no way to reach any other conclusion.

And that points to any number of federal crimes, including obstruction of justice.

I already can hear apologists in the legal community claiming there are other explanations for Acker's comments. But the truth is this: Acker told me up front that he was going to cheat me--and it was due to unlawful pressure from someone associated with the opposing party. It's right there in black and white.

I've seen a lot of courtroom shenanigans, but even I was shocked that a judge would be so lazy, arrogant, and stupid to make these statements in open court.

UAB Acker Transcript

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Time to stop these lifetime appointments. Maybe each 10 - 15 years there ought to be a review of their performance. With lifetime, it's like a terminal disease cast upon the people until these crappy judges die off or resign.

Danny Mullen
Phenix City

choggs said...

Im sorry Roger. Your not alone on this

David said...

Is Judge Acker related to Daniel M. Acker Jr.?

Anonymous said...

Reminds me of the Louisiana politician who campaigned on the promise that he was a crook: "...Gov. Edwin Edwards, a populist charmer who served four terms over the period of 1972 to 1996. The dapper womanizer beat two dozen corruption investigations and once said the only way he could lose a race was by being found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy. Edwards produced campaign bumper stickers proclaiming, ELECT A CROOK. Voters did. In 2000, the good times stopped rolling; Edwards received a 10-year federal prison sentence for extorting money from casino boat owners seeking licenses."

legalschnauzer said...

David:

That's a good question about Dan Acker Jr. If there is a family relationship, I don't think it's real close. My understanding is that Judge Acker has two sons. One of them is Marsh Acker, a local lawyer. The other one might be a lawyer, too, I'm not sure. Perhaps others can fill us in on that.

legalschnauzer said...

Anon at 10:01 a.m.--

I appreciate your sentiments. This really is an insult to everyone who helps pay Judge Acker's salary, expenses, etc. It's an insult to all taxpayers who support our federal courts because judges can't police themselves and punish frauds like Acker. God only knows how many people get cheated like this and don't understand that it's happening. I'm fortunate to have a blog, an audience, and a copy of the document I posted.

legalschnauzer said...

Danny:

You are right. Acker is the poster child for the need to end lifetime appointments for federal judges. He also is the poster child for the need to end judicial immunity, which keeps judges from being sued in almost all instances.

legalschnauzer said...

choggs:

I apologize for calling you "anonymous" in my comment above. Your sentiments definitely are appreciated. I ought to look up Acker's salary to see how much we are paying him to NOT do his job. His suggestion that I continually file writs of mandamus is one of the most outrageous things I've ever heard, and it shows he has zero respect for taxpayer resources--and yet he is a Reagan appointee and staunch conservative.

David said...

Could Judge Acker be an uncle or a brother or a cousin to Dan Acker Jr.?

I read aboout half the trancript before I dozed off. My impression is that it exhibits dementia. Also that Roger, a non lawyer, was as well versed as the judge and the other lawyers on civil procedure.

legalschnauzer said...

I would encourage folks to read the entire transcript. It's an eye-opening example of how a judge actually speaks in open court. And it does appear to portray a mind that isn't all there or never was very sharp to being with.

jeffrey spruill said...

You are about halfway between a pro se party and a represented party.

*

What does that even mean?

legalschnauzer said...

Jeff:

I think it means that I know more about the law than many of the lawyers that come before him. In fact, he says that somewhere in the transcript. I've got news for Acker: I also know more about the law than he does--although I suspect he knows the law; he just doesn't want to apply it correctly. I would take this as a compliment if it didn't come from such a corrupt judge.

jeffrey spruill said...

I have played as a lawyer and as a judge,I guess,too,some technical hardball from time to time, but I think that this is picky.

**

It is my opinion Mr. Schnauzer was led down the primrose path to technicality-- by criminals -- so as to avoid the larger Constitutional/civil rights questions surrounding his case with UAB.

legalschnauzer said...

Acker, of course, conveniently ignores the fact that you can't lawfully file both an answer and a motion to dismiss. If the defendant files an answer, it acknowledges that the complaint is sufficient on its face to survive a motion to dismiss. One pretty much excludes the other; it's not just a matter of what time you filed one and what time you filed the other. UAB should be able to hire a lawyer who knows that you aren't supposed to file both. And I, of course, did not create the technicality. That's what the law says.

jeffrey spruill said...

To me -- it's starting to look more & more like a conspiracy.