Pro Se and the US Courts

Strong Case Weak Defense

The University of Rochester – Strong Memorial Hospital’s Attack Against the Rochester African American Community

It is not just the legislative and executive branches of government that no longer work for the people. The judicial branch also does not work for the people. I found this to be in a case I filed as Pro Se against the University of Rochester - Strong Memorial Hospital (UR). It was the pursuit of this case where it became evident that only those with money receive justice. Recent times make it where the rich, corporations, employers and companies the ones to afforded justice.

Exclusion of the People

This is simply done by the making rules often that are unnecessary and that are similar to the Jim Crow Rules and the emptiness of the rules of derivatives. It was evident that only attorneys, judges, law clerks should only be taken seriously, respected and have the intelligence to present a case in their courts. There is a strong sense that it is their court. This is against the idea of a country of, for and by the people. To accommodate this idea the legal system includes the right of self representation as a Pro Se. As with the old Jim Crow laws and practices, the members of the judicial branch carryout practices that prevent rights of the people. In this case, the right of legal representation in lieu of funds for an attorney. These members include the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the New York State Division of Human Rights, the defendant’s paid legal representation and the member of the courts.

In pursuing justice in this case, I relied on much support from my brother. One of his often spoken quotes captures exclusion of the people in this country’s judicial system, “they have co-opted a system unto themselves.” I did not find justice in the court system they have created for themselves, which leaves the justice of the people, the pen.

I will over time reveal the details of my case against the University of Rochester Strong Memorial Hospital; the irregularities between the University and the New York State Division of Human Rights representative Malik Muttalib, the irregularities between these two and the defense attorneys at Nixon Peabody; and the neglect of the United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit and the United States District Courts in treatment of pro se representatives. This is the beginning and first posting. I will continue to add to this posting until the entire case is presented.

History of the University of Rochester – Strong Memorial Hospital and the African American community in Rochester, New York

The University of Rochester – Strong Memorial Hospital has had a long contentious relationship with the African American community in Rochester, New York. This is particularly true with the neighboring African American community separated by the Genesee River. The most recent is the blocking of access to Genesee Park. It is a park that for years been frequented by the African American community. It was the closet escape from city living to nature. There is also a public swimming pool and baseball field to which our children could easily walk. That is all ended thanks to the University of Rochester – Strong Memorial Hospital.

The University of Rochester – Strong Memorial Hospital has moved across the Genesee River and constructed barriers between the African American community and Genesee Park. With the health and weight issues of inner city and minority children to bar them from the only park in the area adds to their health issues. Lack of exercise is aided by the barrier created by the defendant is this case.


In the late 1990’s I began to see something new at the University of Rochester’s Strong Hospital. Having been a patient for many years including my birth, I saw few and at times no minorities in positions other than maintenance, dietary and housekeeping. I began to see a few African Americans in clerical positions in the clinics. Usually this means there has been a recent discriminatory case filed and won by the plaintiff. I inquired how to best apply and was told to apply to their Temporary Services for a position.

Discrimination Received as a Patient

As a long-time patient of Strong Memorial Hospital, I have experienced many acts of discrimination by the medical staff. If discrimination is permitted against the employees by other employees, then it is a given that these same employees will discriminate against patients. This discrimination will affect their medical care as it has mine. I ask that you post your own experiences of discrimination as a patient at the medical center or one of their satellite health centers like the Anthony Jordan Health Center. I will post some of my experiences here.

The mere fact that there are satellite health centers is a continuation of the divisiveness the construction by the university that blocks its neighboring African American community from access to Genesee Valley Park. These health centers in the African American neighborhood also serve to keep the African American community on their side of the river and away from Strong Memorial Hospital as a patient.

History of the case
Evidence on Discovery

Irregularities of the parties in the case

During the case, I questioned given the relationship irregularities of the other parties to this case if justice could be obtained. After a recent viewing of Bill Moyer on PBS and his airing of “Justice for Sale” I question with more fervor that given these relationships if I could have received justice. There are too many similarities in his program and the irregularities in my case.

1. New York State Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR) and the defendant – University of Rochester Strong Memorial Hospital

The Division found for the defendant after a hearing overseen by one of their hearing examiners, Malik Muttalib. Mr. Muttalib refused to record the hearing stating he could remember the entire hearing. Shortly after finding for the defendant UR, Mr. Muttalib was named chairman of one of the defendant’s Health Centers. The defendant has more than one health center in the African American neighborhoods. This helps to facilitate the African American community staying within their own neighborhoods and away from the defendant’s Strong Memorial Hospital when seeking medical treatment.

2. New York State Division of Human Rights director and my sister

The decision on my case was made by the director of the Rochester, New York office of the New York State Division of Human Rights, Forrest Cummins. Mr. Cummins had a turbulent relationship with my sister that ended badly and the ill feelings remain. Mr. Cummins was well aware that we are sisters.

3. Nixon Peabody and its client the defendant UR

In the beginning of the case, the defendant had their own in house attorney who had tried during NYSDHR the reconciliation hearing to get the defendant’s Temporary Services to offer a financial settlement. Sylvia Seely and Dina Henchen were the staff members present from the Temporary Services. Offering of settlement was refused by the Temporary Services. The in house attorney continued working on the case.

There were several outside attorney firms involved. The last was Nixon Peabody. The Nixon Peabody attorneys changed often. The final was Elizabeth Moscarelli. After proving that a statement Ms. Moscarelli made to the judge was not true, the defendant’s in house attorney was replaced with Ms. Moscarelli. Ms. Moscarelli continued as a staff member of Nixon Peabody but, now was also the in house attorney for the defendant. With this immediate replacement, I wonder if the defendant ever found out that their legal representative had made a false statement to the judge regarding this case.

G. Robert Witmer Jr. Former Chair, Management Committee of Nixon Peabody was recipient of the UR 2008 Charles Force Hutchison & Marjorie Smith Hutchison Medal Recipient. He is also an alumnus of the defendant.

The defendant holds Alumni Networking at their Career Center. Nixon Peabody and Judge Michael A. Telesca former law clerks are among the alumni featured.

4. Federal Judge, Michael Telesca and the defendant UR

The United States District Court judge assigned to this case is the Judge Michael Telesca. He is a Regan appointee. Judge Telesca’s alma mater is the defendant, The University of Rochester – Strong Memorial Hospital. In previous cases before Judge Telesca based on race, he decided against the plaintiff when the defendant was his alma mater, the University of Rochester – Strong Memorial Hospital. The decisions on these cases were overturned by the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Judge Telesca decision was made in the same manner in these cases as mine. The evidence found by the plaintiff during discovery was overlooked and his ruling was the same findings written in the defendant’s legal representative agreement.

5. Federal Judge, Michael Telesca and Nixon Peabody the defendant’s legal representative

Judge Michael Telesca a native of Rochester has a history with the legal firm hired by the defendant, Nixon Peabody. Nixon Peabody has hired several of Judge Telesca’s law clerks as attorneys. The Honorable Judge Michael A. Telesca Center for Justice located in Rochester, New York is named to honor Judge Telesca. Nixon Peabody’s David H. Tennant was a Board of Director’s member of the Center. Jill K. Schultz while a partner with Nixon Peabody was sworn in by Judge Telesca as president of the Monroe County Bar Association. Rochester, New York is the major city in Monroe County. Jill Schulz has also helped in the fundraising for the Center for Justice. Judge Telesca is also an alumnus of the University of Buffalo (UB). Nixon Peabody is a supporter UB Law Alumni Association which has honored Judge Michael Telesca.

Nixon Peabody’s Senior Counsel, G. Robert Witmer, Jr. is an alumnus of the defendant and chairman of the University of Rochester’s Board of Trustees (see #3 above). He is also a past president of the Monroe County Bar Association in the Honorable Judge Michael A. Telesca Center for Justice.

6. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Lessons Learned

There were many lessons learned. That was the fear. If the people get involved they will learn. We need to be educated to the legal process as well as the political process. To the legal system, I was too small to succeed. I had to be quieted and used for an example.

Although the decision on my case in the Second Circuit United States Court of Appeals is an unpublished by the Court of Appeals, the legal site LexuxNexus for attorneys published my case. There is no precedence. It is a three quarter page decision. All points in the decision make it of no use to any attorneys. LexusNexus internet listing does not go to the heart of the case including that it is now with the United States Supreme Court.