Moors alleging wrongful firing by Giuliani still seeking justice
[Op-Ed]
On December 12, 1997, one hundred current and former NYC Correction Officers were arrested for allegedly violating Federal Income Tax Laws.
Approximately eighteen of those Correction Officers, who identified themselves as Moorish Americans, were not arrested but were summarily suspended without pay during this sweeping purge of the rank and file, and subsequently wrongfully terminated from employment with the New York City Department of Corrections for alleged Income Tax Evasion in December 1998 through 2001.
The reason why the termination for alleged Income Tax Evasion of these Officers was wrongful is because those Correction Officers were never arrested and criminally charged with Income Tax Evasion by the IRS, and the NYC Department of Correction does not have lawful authority to make a legal determination of what constitutes Income Tax Evasion, and then bring departmental charges against Officers in their ranks using alleged violations of Income Tax laws in order to terminate them from employment.
The following years after that wrongful termination, the Moors, now former Correction Officers, filed several Federal Lawsuits for violations of their Rights pursuant to the U.S. Constitution on several different grounds within each Complaint, arguing among other things, that the City of New York, under Mayor Giuliani’s Administration, denied the Moorish Americans Due Process of Law and discriminated against them. All department heads were ordered by Mayor Rudolf Giuliani in a “star chamber” closed door meeting “…that these people are going to be fired…referred to as the Moors”. That closed door meeting included Bernard Kerik, who was the Corrections Commissioner at the time, John Piciano, Kerik’s Chief of Staff, William Fraser, who was Chief of Security at the time and Terrance J. Skinner, who was a Deputy Warden and Executive Officer to the Chief of Security.
This closed door star chamber conspiracy initiated by Giuliani was revealed by Terrence J. Skinner in his testimony at the Wat Bey trial on December 10, 2012 in front of Judge Nathan. Considering the fact that this conspiracy to perpetrate fraud upon the Court against the Moors could not have reasonably been discovered by Mr. Jawan Akil Bey or Mr. Shekhem El Bey with due diligence prior to that testimony in open court. There is no way that Mr. Jawan Akil Bey or Mr. Shekhem El Bey with reasonable due diligence could have possibly known or brought these issues up in their prior cases that were summarily and flagrantly dismissed. This new evidence, among other things, that was revealed in open court should have given merit and grounds for new action.
Mayor Giuliani wanted the Moorish Officers out of their jobs at any cost. The use of Income Tax law allegations against the Moorish Officers was just a smoke screen for facilitating that process. Initially, most of those Moors litigated their lawful claims against the City of New York by seeking redress and remedy of their grievances on their own as Pro Se Plaintiffs, because for the most part, their Religious beliefs and ideology forbore the use and employment of Attorneys, and they did not trust or believe that an Attorney would or could vigorously pursue their claims in seeking the justice which they believed was warranted from the adverse employment actions perpetrated against them by the Agents and Officials of the City of New York.
However, as grace and providence would have it, Ms. Irene Donna Thomas, Esq., an Attorney of impeccable talent and integrity would take up the ominous and daunting challenge of obtaining justice on behalf of the Moors in their case against the City of New York, and champion that cause to a favorable jury verdict on December 18, 2012 in the Federal Court for the Southern District of New York; in a Civil Case identified as Oba Hassan Wat Bey, et. al. v. The City of New York, et. al. 99 Civ. 3873 (AJN)(RLE) & 01 Civ. 9406 (AJN)(RLE).
That fortuitous and unquestionable victory which Attorney Thomas won, not only garnered relief and remedy for the violations of those Moorish American Correction Officer’s Rights, but also conferred upon them a sense of validation and respect equivalent to any other Citizens of these United States. Attorney Irene Donna Thomas fought this case for over 10 years, which is in itself not only a testament of her dedication and resolve, but a travesty of justice in comparison to the usual time it takes for a civil lawsuit to run its course.
Yet, in spite of all the pitfalls, obstacles and hurdles Attorney Thomas had to overcome over that period of time, through her indomitable efforts she was able to procure a victory for the Moorish Correction Officers named in the Wat Bey civil suit that established for the public record the incontrovertible fact that an injustice was perpetrated against these Moors by Mayor Giuliani and Agents of his Administration to wrongfully terminate them from their job.
Optimistically, in light of that victory Thomas procured in the Wat Bey case, the other Moorish Officers that are similarly situated believed there was a possibility that a door had been opened for those who were denied an opportunity to be heard as Pro Se litigants in prior cases that were summarily dismissed by federalist (“activist”) judges who did not allow full and fair opportunity for their claims as stipulated in the Wat Bey case. Especially when it was disclosed in the testimony of that civil Trial that Giuliani implemented a municipal policy of concealment to hide the true causes of the City’s departmental disciplinary action that led to the Moorish Officers termination from employment.
The other cases brought Pro Se by Moorish American Officers were summarily dismissed by District Court Judges who, for all intents and purposes, ratified Mayor Giuliani’s violations of their Rights by granting the City’s motions to dismiss without affording those former Correction Officers a full and fair adjudication of their lawful claims. And it can justifiably be inferred that the Moorish American Officers claims were lawful because the Jury Verdict in the Wat Bey civil case confirmed the validity of the very same causes of action that those former Officers were attempting to pursue if given a fair and full opportunity to be heard.
Given the jury verdict vindication of the claims the former Moorish American Officers made in the Wat Bey civil trial, the Moors who were denied an equal opportunity to make their claims as Pro Se litigants believed the Federal District Court would be more amenable to their pursuit of their grievances against the City of New York.
Two former Moorish American Officers, Yashua Amen Shekhem El Bey and Jawan Akil Bey have recently filed new Civil Complaints to seek redress of their grievances and a remedy for the violations of their Rights by the Giuliani Administration. Unfortunately, the stiff-necked indifference of the judges on the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York towards the Moorish American Officers lawful claims persist to this day and have been an ever present overbearing obstacle that has plagued those former Officers determinate efforts in their pursuit of justice concerning the Rudolph Giuliani and Bernard Kerik’s violation of their Rights pursuant to the U.S. Constitution since the very beginning. And once again those judges have summarily dismissed the most recent Complaints without full and fair adjudication by subterfuge and chicanery through prior summary judgment orders that were procured by fraud.
Over the course of the entire litigation of cases filed by the Moorish American Officers in the Federal District Court in the Southern District of New York, the judges have shown themselves to be bias and preferential to the City Attorneys evasive tactics and subversive actions. A case in point is the case of Yashua Amen Shekhem El Bey v. City of New York, et. al. 2000 Civ. 9260 (JES), which the late Judge John Emilio Sprizzo dismissed on March 7, 2006, in favor of a procedural “knee jerk” affirmative defense by the City’s Attorneys under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP).
Then in November 13, 2006 when Mr. Shekhem El Bey filed a new Complaint based on newly discovered information and evidence that should have been given a new Docket Number reflecting the year 2006, Judge Sprizzo hijacked Mr. Shekhem El Bey’s complaint and instructed the Pro Se Court Clerk to file his then new Complaint on the already dismissed old docket number under 00 Civ. 9260 case as a 60 (b) Motion without informing or providing notice to Mr. Shekhem El Bey. Then Judge Sprizzo initiated subsequent orders to conceal the fraud following Mr. Shekhem El Bey’s letter of protest when Mr. Shekhem El Bey discovered this fraud 5 months after the filing of his new complaint.
Later these fraudulent orders would be used to block any future filings made by Mr. Shekhem El Bey. The federal procedures requires that any new complaints are supposed to be processed with a civil docket number reflecting the year it was filed and then the opportunity for the petitioner to serve papers onto the respondent. Then within a set time, normally 20 days, an answer or dispositive motion would follow. Then the Petitioner would have the opportunity to obtain discovery or oppose a dispositive motion. Judges cannot file motions in it’s own court since that would be practicing law in its own court in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 454 (practicing law by Justice or Judges). In this case, the federal procedures was circumvented by fraud. This would also include violation of 28 U.S.C. § 453 (Oath of Justice and Judges).
The indisputable fact that Judge Sprizzo changed the filing of Mr. Shekhem El Bey’s Complaint by Docketing it as a 60 (b) Motion without Mr. Shekhem El Bey’s knowledge or consent and then further concealing this fraud through the procuring of Orders constitutes criminal fraud, fraud on the Court and misprision of felony because “whoever having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a Court of the United States, and conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States shall be fined under Title”, 18 U.S.C. § 4.
Without Mr. Shekhem El Bey’s knowledge and consent, Judge Sprizzo directed the Pro Se Clerk to “Please docket this as a 60 (b) motion in 00 Civ. 9260 (JES). This is at the direction of Judge Sprizzo.” When Judge Sprizzo directed the Pro Se Clerk to misfile Mr. Shekhem El Bey’s complaint, that act can be construed as fraud and prosecuted as a felony under Title 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) where it specifies that: “Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever in any matter within the jurisdiction of the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches of the government of the United States, knowingly and willfully, (1) falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme or device a material fact; representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing, or document, knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this Title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years…”.
Also, according to 18 U.S.C. § 2071 it specifies that: “(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.” This was obviously a collaborative effort to the advantage and benefit of the City of New York.
It is unquestionable that the surreptitious Docketing of Mr. Shekhem El Bey’s Complaint as a Rule 60(b) Motion without his knowledge and consent is fraud and to conceal or cover up the fraud by initiating subsequent orders culminating in a summary order filed September 30, 2008 is further fraud, but to add insult to injury, Judge Alison J. Nathan, Judge Thomas Griesa and Chief Judge Loretta A. Preska compounded Judge Sprizzo’s fraud by denying Mr. Shekhem El Bey’s motion for relief from the very summary Order, dated September 30, 2008 that Judge Sprizzo had procured to cover up his fraud. Judge Sprizzo’s machinations to control and direct the course of Mr. Shekhem El Bey’s pleadings by trickery, fraud and subterfuge can be confusing, to say the least, and that could very well have been his intention given Mr. Shekhem El Bey’s inexperience and lack of expertise in the Law as a Pro Se litigant at that time.
Judge Nathan in case 13 Civ. 8927 (AJN)(RLE) perfected the fraud by denying Plaintiff’s motion for relief from Judge Sprizzo’s summary order that was used to dismiss Plaintiff new action. Judge Griesa also perfected Judge Sprizzo’s fraud by denying Plaintiff motion for relief from Judge Sprizzo’s summary order under docket 05 Civ. 7270 (TPG), and finally Chief Judge Preska perfected the fraud of Judge Sprizzo’s summary order by denying Mr. Shekhem El Bey’s motion for relief from Judge Sprizzo’s summary order under docket 00 Civ. 9260 (LAP), the very same docket in which Mr. Shekhem El Bey’s 2006 complaint was filed as a 60 (b) motion under document # 44, which. The civil docket history report sheet would only indicate that the document filed is a motion and not a complaint.
In December 2013, well within the statute of limitations of causes of actions accruing out of the Wat Bey jury verdict and testimony of Terrence Skinner, Mr. Shekhem El Bey and another former Moorish American Officer, Jawan Akil Bey, separately filed new civil lawsuits elucidating the conspiracy and fraud Giuliani instigated against them through a municipal policy of concealment. The judge who was assigned to those two new cases is the same Judge Allison J. Nathan, an Obama appointee, that sat on the trial of the Wat Bey jury verdict.
You would think that she would be considerate of the injustice which Mr. Shekhem El Bey and Jawan Akil Bey endured at the hands of the Giuliani Administration, because she personally witness the testimony which established the fact that the Moorish Officers rights were violated, but instead recognizing the fact that Mr. Shekhem El Bey and Jawan Akil Bey were similarly situated to those Moors in the Wat Bey trial, she also summarily dismissed those two new Complaints. Both Mr. Shekhem El Bey and Jawan Akil Bey have submitted Rule 60(b)(4) Motions for relief from any prior orders that may be brought up by the City to Judge Nathan together with a Notice of Appeal upon anticipation of Judge Nathan denying their Motions for relief from orders that were procured by fraud.
It appears Judge Nathan is acting only to the benefit and advantage of the City of New York by towing the line to begrudgingly prohibit these former Moorish American Officers their just compensation for the injustice they have suffered through. In her Summary Judgment Order, Judge Nathan did not address the lawful claims for fraud and conspiracy to commit a policy of concealment that justify the validity of their lawful claims, and she accepted the unjustifiable claims the City’s Attorneys made for Time Bar and Res Judicata preclusions. In fact, in the Memorandum of Law detailing the explanation for her ruling she cited a case law that specified the only exception for not admitting Time Bar and Res Judicata provisions is fraud, and both Mr. Shekhem El Bey and Jawan Akil Bey specified fraud as causes of action in their Complaints.
Presently, both Mr. Shekhem El Bey and Jawan Akil Bey have appealed to the Second Circuit Court, which is currently stayed pending Judge Nathan’s ruling on their Motions for relief from their order under Rule 60 (b)(4) FRCP, among other things.
Because of the obvious inclination Judge Nathan has exhibited already towards the City of New York, neither Mr. Shekhem El Bey or Jawan Akil Bey expect her to change her position, especially when she has made an admonition to both men that she would not take an Appeal “in good faith” from either one favorably and denied them opportunity to file an Appeal as an in forma pauperis status.
