Complaint #9: Briefing Schedule Manipulation
February 25, 2025
The Commission on Judicial Conduct
61 Broadway, Suite 1200
New York, New York 10006
cjc@cjc.ny.gov
We respectfully submit this complaint concerning Judge Kathleen Waterman Marshall’s alleged manipulation of due process to prejudice unrepresented, i.e., pro se, parties. This complaint details the alleged manipulation of briefing schedules.
In a briefing schedule, a judge provides deadlines for parties to file papers regarding a proposed motion/order to show cause. A briefing schedule has one deadline for answering/opposition papers and another deadline for reply papers. Deadlines for each side ensure due process for both parties. In the example below, August 27th is the deadline for answering papers, and September 11th is the deadline for reply papers:
In some instances, attorneys have submitted proposals without placeholders for a briefing schedule. In the example below, Judge Waterman corrected such an omission with handwritten annotations, setting March 15th as the deadline for opposition papers and April 5th as the deadline for reply papers:
As detailed in the enclosed exhibit, however, Judge Waterman allegedly failed to correct briefing schedules when the omission would prejudice unrepresented litigants. In almost every instance, the alleged manipulation occurred when attorneys for non-monied spouses moved to withdraw. This prevented non-monied spouses from making a record. The absence of a record ensured that there would be no practical grounds to reverse or appeal.
This failure to correct also suggests further misconduct, namely ex parte communications and quid pro quo between Judge Waterman and those attorneys. Only ex parte communications can explain how so many attorneys filed proposed motions/orders with no briefing schedule and how they knew that they would face no consequences for prejudicing the less monied, pro se parties. In some instances, Judge Waterman reportedly assisted the attorney’s omission by making the record that the less monied, pro se party had failed to submit any opposition. This is troubling because not only did Judge Waterman reportedly fail to provide a briefing schedule, but she then allegedly shifted the blame upon the less monied, pro se party.
Some of the alleged manipulation occurred after the NBC News reporting in August 2024. The timing is especially concerning because despite knowing that her conduct was being called into question, Judge Waterman allegedly continued to engage in improper behavior.
The alleged manipulation of briefing schedules is yet another way that non-monied, pro se parties lost under Judge Waterman. We believe that these examples of alleged manipulation to impair and defeat an unrepresented litigant’s rights call into question Judge Waterman’s honesty, integrity and fitness as a judge.
We respectfully request access to the disciplinary process related to this complaint. We reserve all rights, especially those afforded under the First Amendment, regarding this complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
The Litigants of Waterman Watch
cc:
Hon. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, New York State Senator
Hon. Charles Lavine, New York State Assemblymember
I represented myself and Judge Waterman Marshall scheduled court dates without my knowledge. She did everything possible to ensure I wouldn't appear in court. She is a crook and needs to be removed from the bench.