Since assuming the position of Chief Judge of the Eighth Judicial District Court in July 2022, the current chief judge has presided over a judicial climate where serious procedural abuses have become normalized — particularly in cases involving self-represented litigants challenging powerful corporate defendants.

These actions suggest not isolated errors, but systemic judicial misconduct. As a Middle Eastern Muslim transgender woman representing herself, I have experienced not only legal obstruction but treatment that reflects bias and discrimination at multiple levels of the court.

The judges involved — all of whom are of Jewish background — have consistently ruled against me in chambers without hearings, ignored my filings, and advanced the interests of powerful corporate defendants. The pattern strongly suggests discriminatory animus, and the Chief Judge, as administrative head of the court, bears responsibility for fostering and permitting this environment.

Targeted Prejudice Leveraged by Opposing Counsel

In addition to judicial misconduct and systemic bias, this case has exposed another deeply disturbing pattern: opposing attorneys have deliberately researched my prior litigation history in an apparent effort to weaponize personal information against me. These attorneys have combed through past filings, mischaracterized irrelevant or resolved matters, and even unearthed materials laced with anti-Muslim and anti-transgender rhetoric, which they have exploited to subtly — and sometimes overtly — inflame prejudice against me in the courtroom.

Rather than engage with the legal issues on their merits, these attorneys have resorted to identity-based tactics designed to invoke or exacerbate bias among judges, painting me not as a party seeking justice but as someone to be distrusted, dismissed, or silenced. Tragically, this tactic appears to be effective: each time this inflammatory material is injected into the record, judicial behavior toward me shifts — rulings become more hostile, opportunities to be heard diminish, and procedural fairness deteriorates.

This isn't litigation — it's character assassination by proxy. And it is working not because the law supports their arguments, but because the court system is letting them get away with using who I am as a tool to defeat what I am saying.

These acts of identity-based legal manipulation are now being included in my civil rights complaint and in forthcoming referrals to oversight bodies and bar associations. Discrimination — even in a courtroom — is still discrimination. And the system must be held accountable for allowing it.

Judges Acting on Defendants' Provocations

I have been subjected to a disturbing pattern of judicial misconduct across multiple departments. What occurred under Judge Gloria Sturman — including ignored ex parte motions, secret scheduling of dismissal hearings, and a recusal timed to shield herself from disqualification — is not an isolated incident.

The exact same misconduct occurred under Judges Ronald Israel and Joanna Kishner. In each instance, the presiding judge made adverse rulings against me from chambers without a hearing, often in clear alignment with high-powered defense counsel and with no legal basis. In each case, the outcome benefitted wealthy corporate defendants and trampled on my procedural and constitutional rights as a self-represented litigant.

When I attempted to disqualify Judge Ronald Israel on the basis that he was deliberately refusing to approve my fee waiver, he struck my challenge claiming I was “lying” and that he had already approved the waiver — a claim contradicted by court records showing he did not approve it until four days after that ruling.

When I called this out as perjury, Judge Israel responded not by correcting the record, but by falsely accusing me of making a terroristic threat and referring me to the anti-terrorism unit, alleging I had sent an email threatening to attack the court — a claim that is completely fabricated and part of an ongoing pattern of retaliation and defamation.

These actions suggest not isolated errors, but systemic judicial misconduct.

Chief Judge Wiese Condoning and Continuing the Pattern

The Chief Judge, as administrative head of the court, bears responsibility for this climate of bias and impunity. However, teh judge has only added to the fuel of discrimiantion against me.

After Judge Nancy Allf Sturman recused herself from my case amid serious allegations of bias and misconduct, the matter was referred to Judge Wiese for reassignment. Instead of taking swift and responsible action to reassign the case and restore due process, Judge Wiese has unreasonably delayed any forward movement.

Despite the urgency of the issues involved — including the unlawful takedown of my income-generating website and the chilling of my First Amendment rights — Judge Wiese failed to reassign the case or take substantive action for months. When I filed a motion asking the court to address an Ex Parte TRO originally submitted on March 28, 2025, he responded not by calendaring it promptly, but by scheduling a hearing five months later — on August 26, 2025.

This delay is not just bureaucratic negligence — it is a continuation of the pattern of obstruction and indifference that I have experienced at every stage of this litigation. At a time when immediate injunctive relief was both necessary and justified, the court has chosen silence, allowing further harm to accumulate. This conduct is now part of the broader record being presented to federal and state oversight bodies.

Seeking Justice Elsewhere

Formal complaints and documentation are being submitted to oversight bodies and will continue to be published here for public awareness and legal accountability.

FOR DETAILS CLICK HERE