Schumer Pretends to Care for Refugees While Failing to Defend Americans in NYC

Chuck Schumer is really showing how he is just an actor and a political hack who does not defend the people or their civil rights in New York City where federal judges routinely commit felonies and everyone turns a blind eye.

Even a federal judge in New York has come out and written a book “Why Innocent People Plead Guilty.” Chuck does absolutely nothing about the exploitation of American citizens in his district which is UN-AMERICAN. I helped a black kid who was visibly retarded and wrote a brief for him. I instructed him to go to trial, for the police planted a gun on him. There were witnesses that the police had to pat him down three times before they took him to their van and then miraculously found a gun in his pants pocket. I insisted he go to trial instead of using fake court-appointed lawyers who manage to lose more than 98% of all cases in New York. When the kid was found innocent, a court-appointed lawyer had the audacity to say to me, “How does it feel knowing you helped a guilty person back on the street?” I said the jury found him innocent. He said, “No. They only found not enough evidence.”

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that the judges in Chuck’s district routinely alter transcripts to make sure people are found guilty. It is a felony to alter a court record, yet the Court of Appeals claimed it did not have the power to tell the judges to obey the law. So where is Chuck when it comes to protecting AMERICAN CITIZENS? Where are his tears then?

See US Zichettello Page 97

The problem in the instant case has led lawyers on both sides to highlight a problematic practice in the Southern District of New York and has prompted one of them to ask this court to order that the practice be eliminated. See Leiwant Decl. at 2. According to lawyers for both the government and defense, as well as Bologna, the “standard practice” in the Southern District is for a court reporter to submit the transcript of jury instructions to the district court before releasing it to the parties. See id.; Pomerantz Affirm. ¶ 11; Bologna 4/99499 Aff. ¶ 3. The district court is free to alter the transcript, and any changes are incorporated in the “official” transcript without disclosing such changes to the parties. See Bologna 4/99499 Aff. ¶ 3. According to counsel, the Southern District is somewhat unique in this practice. See Leiwant Decl. at 2.

Courts do not have power to alter transcripts in camera and to conceal the alterations from the parties.¹¹  Given the issues that arose in this case as a direct result of this practice, there appears to be little justification for continuing the practice in its present form. To be sure, a procedure that corrects obvious mistakes in transmission is useful, and the parties have little interest in closely monitoring such a procedure so long as the alterations are cosmetic. Monitoring by the parties, however, provides some assurance that only cosmetic changes will be made or, if not, that changes will correctly reflect what transpired in the particular proceeding. Moreover, there is little cost in informing the parties of cosmetic changes or at least of directing court reporters to give parties access to the original transcript when they request it.

Nevertheless, whether we have the power to order a change in such a practice is unclear.  We review judgments, and our review of the convictions and sentences here may not be an appropriate vehicle for the fine tuning of this practice. However, we invite the judges of the Southern District to consider revision.