As a Cornell professor, i wish you success in your lawsuit. I also hope that your lasuit has a positive influence on us so that we will accept people based on merit. Only then will people truly understand what a Cornell degree means.
Considering the antisemitism and explicit support for terrorists at Cornell by the at best spineless administration, and the lack of giving a damn about that by faculty, it will be a cold day in hell when a Cornell degree is seen as meaning what you think it will.
Our last president, President Pollack, was a disaster. We have a new president, President Kotlikoff. He has already spoken forcefully about the difference between free speech and illegal conduct, and has acted on it by arresting those who committed illegal conduct. He also met with John Ondrasik when he gave a concert/talk to fight antisemitism. I have real hope that President Kotlikoff will turn things a round and turn Cornell into a leader in both fighting antisemitism and in free speech.
I was a faculty member at UC Berkeley from 1999 to 2015 and I sat on many committees to hire new faculty and to admit graduate students and postdoctoral fellows.
The policies for hiring were influenced by DEI and the Title IX offices. The annual budget for DEI Programs at UC Berkeley was $25 Million. The funds came mostly from "overhead" on Federal grants. The DEI Website: https:/diversity.berkeley.edu/programs-services
UC Berkeley enforced many DEI programs that favor students and faculty based on the color of their skin or their gender. DEI at Berkeley strongly influences policies, admissions, hiring, course content, and disciplinary actions, resulting in favoritism and discrimination toward certain groups based on race and gender.
Humanities courses at Berkeley are especially infused with these biases, emphasizing the oppression by whites, males, and the U.S.. After taking such courses, white male undergraduates reported feeling pressured to identify, spuriously, as "gender fluid" during class discussions to soften the presumption that they are oppressors, privileged, toxic, and colonizers, due to their white skin and male gender. Claiming to be gender fluid conferred them with a modicum of victimhood.
Between 2020 and 2025, Applications for faculty positions at UC Berkeley, and for faculty promotions, were required to include a "DEI Statement". Faculty candidates who stated they were "against racism" or that they would "treat everyone equally" were rejected as failing to pass the DEI filter. Instead, applicants must have claimed they are actively "anti-racist”. This means actively giving higher grades to students having dark skin and giving extra help to females. The Biology Department at UC Berkeley led this policy.
Faculty hiring at UC Berkeley was covertly biased toward hiring women and people of color between 2000 to 2025. The faculty hiring bias was always hidden. To avoid obviously violating both the U.S. Civil Rights Act and California Laws, a dean or Vice Chancellor at Berkeley would enter the room where the faculty hiring committee was meeting. After closing the door, the dean or vice chancellor would privately tell the faculty committee members that the successful applicant must be a "person of color" or a female. Some admonitions were conditional. The dean would state that if the top-ranked candidate were male or white, we could hire them only if a female or person of color were also hired as a second faculty member.
As a faculty member at Berkeley, I participated in many hiring committees where such secret illegal demands were made by a dean or Vice Chancellor. I complied, breaking the law. Most tenured faculty eventually sit on faculty hiring committees at UC Berkeley. We all committed this crime, violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Every year, the hidden machinery of Berkeley DEI and Title IX Offices damaged lives after a complaint was filed, with no due process allowed nor the American judicial system.
Overwhelmingly, White and male students were the ones punished or expelled. But those numbers remain hidden, so the bias in punishment against whites, asians, and males is not recorded.
I do not doubt that there is anti-Asian discrimination present in this, and many other, instances. I would, however, urge caution in how you make that argument. Asians also benefit in many ways from affirmative action/racial preferences under the category of being "people of color". You need to be prepared to call that out and demand such considerations also be removed. Further, if you make your case solely about Asian-Americans not being given their fair share of opportunities based on merit, many people will be disinclined to support you when the far largest group being harmed by such racial biases was and remains white Americans. You need to make the case about getting rid of all racial preferences if you want wide spread support. Otherwise, you come across as just another ethnic special interest group peddling your own narrow interest. Hope this helps and you succeed.
Of course! I see Nan's proposal as getting rid of all racial based preferences in college admission, didn't see he argued for AA for Asian. It's just that current bias toward Asian is the most obvious and outrageous case.
The problem is that the case was made about under representation of Asian-Americans...not all the demographic groups that are under-represented. It is like feminists who argue for women's rights but only when those rights expand for women...not everyone in the same situation...example: Creating rights for domestic abuse survivors...but limiting those rights/programs to women only!
It sounds like the universities did you and the rest of us a favor. $20/month for on demand AI legal services? Stellar!
A PhD position with Google without needing to pay for college? Awesome!
However, while there is most likely racial discrimination happening, it has been happening for decades for and against different races. Good luck with the lawsuit!
If it's a diploma you still need at the end of the day, maybe one of these universities or another will give you one after the trial. Based on what you're doing, that's PhD level work already, hence qualifying for an honorary doctorate.
Brilliant! It's about time racial preferences in the universities get eliminated and I admire the way you're going about it. Best of luck to you in your pursuits.
I absolutely love this approach. Everyone knows there is active discrimination against Asians and others of merit. So, let's bring back merit. It is crucial for our future, to efficiently utilize our rare human capital in this way.
I might suggest using more than one AI in your legal advice. They are not all equivalent.
There are also products like Box AI that let you train on restricted datasets, like your own writings etc, that might be useful to keep track of the legal process. From my own legal battles, I can tell you that one of the worst aspects is your adversaries burying you with documents. So having automated methods to circumvent or reduce this burden is critical.
I know you are doing this pro-se, but you are still going to have legal expenses, possibly even extensive legal expenses like travel, etc. Set up some crowd sourcing methods that people can help fund your legal fight. I would gladly contribute.
I frequently come across assorted information regarding this kind of explicit bias against Asians and others of merit constantly as I write essays on related topics. Anything and everything that I run across that might be of benefit I will be glad to pass on.
Good luck. We need more people like you willing to really bring the fight to these abusive institutions and their ridiculous illegal policies.
Exactly the same discrimination is victimizing straight white males and Jews, both categories designated as "white oppressors" by social justice DEI dogma. Members of both categories are vanishingly small at most universities, but especially Ivy League universities, which appear to be elite only in bigotry.
One never complains about a false, irrational or absurd judgment. That is the lawyer's or client's on the other side's judgment. You appeal those to the appropriate Court of Appeal. You only complain about bad conduct by a Judge or Justice. If they argue with you, then that is bad conduct. Do not ARGUE back. You can say, Yes, Your Honour. But we may continue this debate before your Chief Judge, if that pleases you. The guy or gal will know what you are talking about (a complaint may be forthcoming), even if nobody else at Court notices.
Ok. That's obvious. I presume that you found hallucinations then?
Then there is argument. I am not sure what courts you are filed in. San Francisco ruled against every motion from my side, whether it was written and argued by an attorney or not. Their pro-tem system was farcical for argument.
For a pro se litigant it is difficult to argue when an opposition attorney throws law at you that you cannot check in that moment. Doubly so when the pro-tem judge ignores what your side says and gives all advantage to a defense attorney.
I think I heard NLP methods used quite effectively as well.
I am curious how you handle argument. But perhaps you are dealing with in-house counsels at the universities who aren't good at argument.
To handle our lawsuit, the University of California has retained WilmerHale, a top notch firm that defended Harvard in SFFA v. Harvard. I can't disclose what we are doing in this regard in order to avoid giving the defense attorneys advantages.
For anything disclosed in the post, I wouldn't mind giving it to the defense attorneys. They shouldn't be surprised that we are suing multiple universities in order to get to the Supreme Court. The WilmerHale partner handling the case already pulled a trick on us. Fortunately, AI instantly flagged it for us and provided an effective counter argument. Yes, our case against the University of California was filed in Sacramento. We demanded a jury trial because 60% of the voters in the area voted against Prop 16 in 2020.
I understand that you made MOTIONS and lost almost every one. But I asked you about how many written pleadings you had engaged in BEFORE those 8 or 10 motions went before a judge.
The PLEADINGS are STATEMENT OF CLAIM (Nan's side), DEFENCE TO A STATEMENT OF CLAIM (and maybe counter-claim as well by some University in his case), REPLY TO THE DEFENCE TO A STATEMENT OF CLAIM (Nan's side), JOINDER OF ISSUE (either side; both sides), DISCOVERY, DEMANDS FOR PARTICULARS etc.
They are written PLEADINGS back and forth before anyone goes anywhere near a Court Judge with a MOTION or any other "viva voce" (live voice) INTERLOCUTORY (speaking back and forth; so the written pleadings are also "interlocutory") proceeding. And when you are in front of a judge, the lawyers will bring up all of Statutes, Rules of Court and even Precedents about which you may know nothing. That was why you were concerned about arguing before a judge.
BUT you didn't answer my question as to what had happened before those Motions in Court. Could it be that your lawyer, who almost died, did those WRITTEN PLEADINGS routinely without explaining them to you, given that you were not presenting your own case?
The defendant dodged service and appears to have lied to his attorney until he got a new pair of attorneys who accepted service. That was 3 months.
Then there was a year of pleadings leading to 3 revisions. I read every document.
As with every attorney I have dealt with, except 1 of 15, the 1st attorney barely discussed what he actually did with me and presented documents and strategy different than discussed. This began with him unilaterally deciding to sue a different defendant personally rather than the corporation we talked about. This blindsided me. He brushed me off saying it was obviously the soft target.
The court proceedings were prima facie corrupt on their face. Every attorney said the case was strong.
Yes I know the difference between a pleading and a motion. 8 of 10 were written well by attorneys. Those that reqd mine said they were fine. All of the attorneys were astonished at the rulings.
So. What exactly are you trying to say? You sound like you might be an attorney or law student. Are you?
Nan! Why didn't you tell us about this Order from your Cornell suit? I told you that you were probably "in over your head". Quote
March 26, 2025
TEXT ORDER: Plaintiff SWORD (Students Who Oppose Racial Discrimination) appears to be an Unincorporated Entity and therefore is not permitted to appear pro se in this litigation. Plaintiff SWORD must be represented by a licensed attorney in this matter. No later than 4/9/2025, a licensed attorney representing Plaintiff SWORD shall file a notice of appearance on the docket. Pro se Plaintiffs Nan Zhong and Stanley Zhong may only represent themselves individually in a pro se manner or each may be represented by a New York licensed attorney who is also admitted to practice law in the Northern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.); United States ex rel. v. Mergent Servs. v. Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89, 92 (2d Cir. 2008) (Because [§1654] permits parties only to plead and conduct their own cases personally, we have held that an individual who is not licensed as an attorney may not appear on another persons behalf in the others cause. Therefore, Pro se Plaintiff Nan Zhong is not permitted to represent Stanley Zhong or SWORD, and Stanley Zhong is not permitted to represent Nan Zhong or SWORD. SO ORDERED by U.S. Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric on 3/26/2025. (copy served on Plaintiffs via regular mail) (jdc ) (Entered: 03/26/2025)
Has any licenced attorney filed a notice of appearance on the docket "no later than April 9th, 2025" (per the order above) on behalf of SWORD?
In law cases it is not what you know that helps you. It is what the other guy does not know which enables you to win law cases against him. That is why AI is "artificially intelligent". It knows all sorts of things that others know. But it doesn't know all the things that people keep to themselves --- such as who can and cannot plead law cases on whose behalf. AI ought to have told you that you cannot represent either your own son or SWORD.
NAN ZHONG: "When the lawyer of one of the universities objected to the scope of our litigation hold notice, our AI-drafted response compelled them to back down and fully comply with our document retention request."
I briefly read one of your suits. You have way too many allegations of fact on the initial pleading. You are giving your whole case away. The pleadings are the argument basics. Facts are placed upon Affidavits, in support of various pleadings. Have you reviewed the rules of Court, where they give you the pleadings, such as Statement of Claim, Defence to a Statement of Claim and/or Counter-Claim. Reply. Joinder of Issue etc. Your statement above implies that a lawyer objected to all the irrelevant (to him) facts you had provided in your Claim. Is that what you mean by the lawyer "object(ed)(ing) to the SCOPE of our litigation."?
What does the expression "hold notice" mean? Does it mean that you replied to his "notice", with a "document retention request" --- meaning that you "think" that some Judge or Justice will actually read all 291 pages (was it?) of which your Claim consisted? I can guarantee you that no judge will read that much irrelevant (to a pleading) information. When I did my very first law case, my legal secretary wife laughingly assured me that no judge was going to read any of my Affidavits. I replied that THAT WAS GREAT, Honey! Then they won't KNOW that I am on your side in your divorce case DEAR! I've told you Sweetheart that you CANNOT LOSE this divorce case of yours with me being ON YOUR SIDE. I just didn't tell her that she couldn't legally win the law case with me being on her side. Philosophers do not argue adversarially. So the only way for a philosopher to do any Court case is to be on the side of the opposed litigant, but against the argument/s of her or his lawyer. The tactic confuses the hell out of everybody at Court.
So when judges do not read PLEADINGS OF EXCESSIVE length and they do not READ AFFIDAVITS, then you are in "big trouble" with all that verbiage. When you get to DISCOVERY, after the pleadings are closed --- given JOINDER OF ISSUE, which closes the pleadings --- the lawyers for these Universities are going to have 291 pages of STUFF which you have filed upon which to grill you and to cross-examine you. You better have a really good memory under cross examination. And lawyers can be brutal with all that information you've given away to them unnecessarily. It is those discovery examinations and cross examinations, recorded by legal stenographers or court reporters, which lawyers actually present at Court that Judges actually read, when lawyers bring them to a Court's attention at trial or upon Notice of Motion.
More details please. To me, it looks like you are getting yourself in a bit "over your head". Your opponent's lawyers bill at enormous rates for litigation. If you lose, you pay their costs. So what stage of the Rules of Court are you at??? Since you filed in January and its April, are people "discovering you" yet?
A "litigation hold notice" is a document retention request to the defendant. We wrote the 291-page complaint with the general public and the media as part of the audience. As mentioned in the post, ultimately, our goal is to win in not only the court of law but also the court of public opinion.
Great. You asked that the employees of the people you've sued preserve all of their documents relevant to your case against them. That is fine. It is standard.
But the "general public" doesn't have the "attention span" to read your 291 page complaint anymore than a "lawyer-on-a-bench" will read it. The public is only interested if you win or if they see some university "don" say something "sound bite stupid", like the 3 University "leaders" did on national T.V. awhile back, resulting in 3 resignations. Somebody named Gay if I recall correctly.
BUT I asked you about what stage of the Rules of Court are you at. Have you gotten their WRITTEN DEFENCES yet???
Usually they have 15 days to provide a DEFENCE to a Claim. But they may have (you are not telling us) asked for more time given the length of your CLAIM. Thus, again, WHAT STAGE OF WRITTEN PLEADINGS are you at???
We are serving the summons to the defendants. Some universities have agreed to our request of waiver of service. So they have 60 days to answer the complaint.
I don't know why there would be a "summons" in a civil proceeding. But, again, I'm Canadian. We get "summons" from police bodies when we break traffic laws and are required to go to Court. But when people sue us, a process server, proves that we've been served and we have so many days to respond with an Answer to a Petition, or a Defence to a Statement of Claim or some sort of Reply to an Originating Notice of Motion. Very good. What you have proved is that you are still at the proof of service stage and it will be around 2 months before you get "defences".
However, I read that the Court in which you sued Cornell has told you that you cannot present SWORD's, or your son's case, and that both of them are going to require lawyers in that Cornell suit. Has any lawyer made that deadline in that case against Cornell on behalf of SWORD? Your Son (?) although he can present his own case, which must be independent of your case. You better be extraordinarily careful here. You can't legally do each other's law cases for each other. Interesting.
Good for you Nan. But you are not "representing yourself", even though every lawyer and judge describes you as a "self-represented/representing" litigant. That expression only demonstrates their biases as lawyers. e.g. "The litigant who represents himself in his own court case has a fool for a client." [Hoh Hoh Ho!) But you are actually PRESENTING YOUR OWN CASE OF LAW, while legal Chat GPT is your apparent A/I "representative".
If you could not "present your own case of law", then you could hire some moron with a law degree, who is both legally and functionally literate, to REPRESENT your case of law for you. Cases of law consist of questions of law and matters/questions of fact. Thus there are 2 factors in any and every law case. And given that it is an adversarial system there are a minimum of 2 sides to each and every law case. So if you know your arithmetic or Gregor Mendel's pea garden, then you know that there are 4 possible judgments for each and every INTERLOCUTORY decision in your matter at Court. Judgements, arguments and allegations are no such things as persons. That is why the law is no respecter of persons. The law respects statutes, arguments, allegations and precedents --- none of which are persons. Granted. Persons make statutes, arguments etc.
With the pea garden example, you have 2 factors which are 1. Shape of the pea and 2. Colour of the pea. There are 2 alternatives for each factor. The 2 alternatives are i) smooth and ii) wrinkled for the 1. Shape factor. And for the 2. Colour factor the alternatives are i. green and ii yellow. Thus as Randy Wayne, the biologist, will tell you, there are 4 kinds of peas in Mendel's garden. They are 1. Smooth and green, 2. Wrinkled and green, 3. Smooth and Yellow and 4. Wrinkled and yellow kinds of peas. Of course, legal decisions do not come in coloured or shaped varieties. They come in just and unjust varieties. There are, of course, more unjust than just varieties, given 4 kinds of judgments [2 factors X 2 alternatives] in any given interlocutory or case at Court.
The question of law factor is determined by the lawyer's arguments which are either 1) in accordance with the law or precedent, 2) contrary to the law or precedent, or 3. lacking any grounding in either law or precedent (that is 3 alternatives; but "contrary" or "lacking" can be taken as the same sort of alternative; i.e. the wrong alternative). The matter/s of fact come in 2 more simple alternatives, which are TRUE statements vs. FALSE statements.
Thus the 4 kinds of judgments presented to any judge or justice are (1) A rational argument backed up by a Statute or precedent, INTEGRATED with a true and corroborated (or at least corroborable) witness statement. That integration produces the (1) JUST logical judgment. The contrary logically opposed judgment is (2) An irrational argument without any Statute or Precedent as "back up" INTEGRATED with a false witness statement. That produces the doubly false or (2) ABSURD legal "judgment" for any Court Judge or Justice's "consideration".
The final 2 alternatives are (3) the rational legal argument (with a back up in a statute or precedent) INTEGRATED with a false statement resulting in a (3) FALSE judgment and (4) The irrational legal argument (no backup) INTEGRATED with a true, but irrelevant, witness statement. Thus the 4 kinds of legal judgments are 1) Just, 2. False, 3. Irrational and 4. Absurd.
That is why a lot of people falsely claim that "the system is broken", for when lawyers provide Courts with absurd vs. false judgments or irrational vs. absurd judgments or false vs. irrational judgments, then the "system" certainly appears to be "broken". But it is not the "system". It is the lawyers and their clients who are clogging the system with their irrationality and perfidy.
The fact that there are 4 possible sorts of judgment in a standard win vs. lose OR guilty vs. not-guilty, 2 JUDGMENT adversarial system is why there are appellate courts for when the just judgment loses out to the (usually) false or irrational judgment. Even dumb lawyers can "get" that the absurd judgment is absurd. But Appellate Courts often also get stuck with trying to decide between false vs. absurd or false vs. irrational sorts of judgments.
Make sure that you give us each interlocutory decision and what you pleaded along with whatever the lawyers or judges said. I have noticed that quite a few American judges actually argue law cases from the Bench against this or that party. If/when they do that, they are breaking the law. So find out the name of the American disciplinary body for judges who have "gone off the rails". In Canada, where I am located, that disciplinary body is The Canadian Judicial Council. I have no idea what or if there is an American equivalent. But there should be. Find out what it is. The only thing that any Judge or Justice ought to be is a living pair of ears with a living law book stuck between those ears --- giving fair HEARINGS (rather than stupid lectures, arguments or advisements). Remember! No judge has the legal authority to argue against any litigant from the bench. They don't even have the right or authority to advise you. That is the job of lawyers.
Dear Nan,
As a Cornell professor, i wish you success in your lawsuit. I also hope that your lasuit has a positive influence on us so that we will accept people based on merit. Only then will people truly understand what a Cornell degree means.
Thanks for writing this.
Randy
Considering the antisemitism and explicit support for terrorists at Cornell by the at best spineless administration, and the lack of giving a damn about that by faculty, it will be a cold day in hell when a Cornell degree is seen as meaning what you think it will.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/cornell-professor-who-praised-oct-7-massacre-allowed-to-resume-teaching/
https://ithacavoice.org/2025/03/cornell-under-federal-investigation-for-handling-of-gaza-war-protests/
The rot is profound. Time to stand up boyo.
Dear Spartacus,
Our last president, President Pollack, was a disaster. We have a new president, President Kotlikoff. He has already spoken forcefully about the difference between free speech and illegal conduct, and has acted on it by arresting those who committed illegal conduct. He also met with John Ondrasik when he gave a concert/talk to fight antisemitism. I have real hope that President Kotlikoff will turn things a round and turn Cornell into a leader in both fighting antisemitism and in free speech.
Thanks,
randy
🎯
I was a faculty member at UC Berkeley from 1999 to 2015 and I sat on many committees to hire new faculty and to admit graduate students and postdoctoral fellows.
The policies for hiring were influenced by DEI and the Title IX offices. The annual budget for DEI Programs at UC Berkeley was $25 Million. The funds came mostly from "overhead" on Federal grants. The DEI Website: https:/diversity.berkeley.edu/programs-services
UC Berkeley enforced many DEI programs that favor students and faculty based on the color of their skin or their gender. DEI at Berkeley strongly influences policies, admissions, hiring, course content, and disciplinary actions, resulting in favoritism and discrimination toward certain groups based on race and gender.
Humanities courses at Berkeley are especially infused with these biases, emphasizing the oppression by whites, males, and the U.S.. After taking such courses, white male undergraduates reported feeling pressured to identify, spuriously, as "gender fluid" during class discussions to soften the presumption that they are oppressors, privileged, toxic, and colonizers, due to their white skin and male gender. Claiming to be gender fluid conferred them with a modicum of victimhood.
Between 2020 and 2025, Applications for faculty positions at UC Berkeley, and for faculty promotions, were required to include a "DEI Statement". Faculty candidates who stated they were "against racism" or that they would "treat everyone equally" were rejected as failing to pass the DEI filter. Instead, applicants must have claimed they are actively "anti-racist”. This means actively giving higher grades to students having dark skin and giving extra help to females. The Biology Department at UC Berkeley led this policy.
Faculty hiring at UC Berkeley was covertly biased toward hiring women and people of color between 2000 to 2025. The faculty hiring bias was always hidden. To avoid obviously violating both the U.S. Civil Rights Act and California Laws, a dean or Vice Chancellor at Berkeley would enter the room where the faculty hiring committee was meeting. After closing the door, the dean or vice chancellor would privately tell the faculty committee members that the successful applicant must be a "person of color" or a female. Some admonitions were conditional. The dean would state that if the top-ranked candidate were male or white, we could hire them only if a female or person of color were also hired as a second faculty member.
As a faculty member at Berkeley, I participated in many hiring committees where such secret illegal demands were made by a dean or Vice Chancellor. I complied, breaking the law. Most tenured faculty eventually sit on faculty hiring committees at UC Berkeley. We all committed this crime, violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Every year, the hidden machinery of Berkeley DEI and Title IX Offices damaged lives after a complaint was filed, with no due process allowed nor the American judicial system.
Overwhelmingly, White and male students were the ones punished or expelled. But those numbers remain hidden, so the bias in punishment against whites, asians, and males is not recorded.
Hi Geoff, can we chat? My email is nanzhong1@gmail.com
I do not doubt that there is anti-Asian discrimination present in this, and many other, instances. I would, however, urge caution in how you make that argument. Asians also benefit in many ways from affirmative action/racial preferences under the category of being "people of color". You need to be prepared to call that out and demand such considerations also be removed. Further, if you make your case solely about Asian-Americans not being given their fair share of opportunities based on merit, many people will be disinclined to support you when the far largest group being harmed by such racial biases was and remains white Americans. You need to make the case about getting rid of all racial preferences if you want wide spread support. Otherwise, you come across as just another ethnic special interest group peddling your own narrow interest. Hope this helps and you succeed.
Of course! I see Nan's proposal as getting rid of all racial based preferences in college admission, didn't see he argued for AA for Asian. It's just that current bias toward Asian is the most obvious and outrageous case.
For the record, I think income-based preference is totally acceptable alternative, however this is not considered good enough because it does guarantee a "desired" racial mix some people liked: https://www.epi.org/blog/the-supreme-courts-ban-on-affirmative-action-means-colleges-will-struggle-to-meet-goals-of-diversity-and-equal-opportunity/
The problem is that the case was made about under representation of Asian-Americans...not all the demographic groups that are under-represented. It is like feminists who argue for women's rights but only when those rights expand for women...not everyone in the same situation...example: Creating rights for domestic abuse survivors...but limiting those rights/programs to women only!
We aim to enforce the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
It sounds like the universities did you and the rest of us a favor. $20/month for on demand AI legal services? Stellar!
A PhD position with Google without needing to pay for college? Awesome!
However, while there is most likely racial discrimination happening, it has been happening for decades for and against different races. Good luck with the lawsuit!
If it's a diploma you still need at the end of the day, maybe one of these universities or another will give you one after the trial. Based on what you're doing, that's PhD level work already, hence qualifying for an honorary doctorate.
I am impressed! Congrats! You have truth and intelligence on your side. Wishing you luck!
Excellent!
Brilliant! It's about time racial preferences in the universities get eliminated and I admire the way you're going about it. Best of luck to you in your pursuits.
I absolutely love this approach. Everyone knows there is active discrimination against Asians and others of merit. So, let's bring back merit. It is crucial for our future, to efficiently utilize our rare human capital in this way.
I might suggest using more than one AI in your legal advice. They are not all equivalent.
There are also products like Box AI that let you train on restricted datasets, like your own writings etc, that might be useful to keep track of the legal process. From my own legal battles, I can tell you that one of the worst aspects is your adversaries burying you with documents. So having automated methods to circumvent or reduce this burden is critical.
I know you are doing this pro-se, but you are still going to have legal expenses, possibly even extensive legal expenses like travel, etc. Set up some crowd sourcing methods that people can help fund your legal fight. I would gladly contribute.
I frequently come across assorted information regarding this kind of explicit bias against Asians and others of merit constantly as I write essays on related topics. Anything and everything that I run across that might be of benefit I will be glad to pass on.
Good luck. We need more people like you willing to really bring the fight to these abusive institutions and their ridiculous illegal policies.
Exactly the same discrimination is victimizing straight white males and Jews, both categories designated as "white oppressors" by social justice DEI dogma. Members of both categories are vanishingly small at most universities, but especially Ivy League universities, which appear to be elite only in bigotry.
Amazing! I love the sound of TriaGPT - what a brilliant use of AI.
You have Judicial Councils in America
Begin here: https://www.uscourts.gov/administration-policies/administrative-oversight-and-accountability#:~:text=Under%20the%20Judicial%20Conduct%20and,administration%20of%20the%20business%20of
One never complains about a false, irrational or absurd judgment. That is the lawyer's or client's on the other side's judgment. You appeal those to the appropriate Court of Appeal. You only complain about bad conduct by a Judge or Justice. If they argue with you, then that is bad conduct. Do not ARGUE back. You can say, Yes, Your Honour. But we may continue this debate before your Chief Judge, if that pleases you. The guy or gal will know what you are talking about (a complaint may be forthcoming), even if nobody else at Court notices.
Once again. Good luck.
I have read about problems with hallucinated citations. How do you deal with this?
We double checked all the citations to make sure they exist and are relevant.
Ok. That's obvious. I presume that you found hallucinations then?
Then there is argument. I am not sure what courts you are filed in. San Francisco ruled against every motion from my side, whether it was written and argued by an attorney or not. Their pro-tem system was farcical for argument.
For a pro se litigant it is difficult to argue when an opposition attorney throws law at you that you cannot check in that moment. Doubly so when the pro-tem judge ignores what your side says and gives all advantage to a defense attorney.
I think I heard NLP methods used quite effectively as well.
I am curious how you handle argument. But perhaps you are dealing with in-house counsels at the universities who aren't good at argument.
To handle our lawsuit, the University of California has retained WilmerHale, a top notch firm that defended Harvard in SFFA v. Harvard. I can't disclose what we are doing in this regard in order to avoid giving the defense attorneys advantages.
Ok. I was surprised that you disclosed this much. Did you sue them in Sacramento?
For what it's worth, the large firms tend to not do the really shady stuff. That tends to be sole practices.
For anything disclosed in the post, I wouldn't mind giving it to the defense attorneys. They shouldn't be surprised that we are suing multiple universities in order to get to the Supreme Court. The WilmerHale partner handling the case already pulled a trick on us. Fortunately, AI instantly flagged it for us and provided an effective counter argument. Yes, our case against the University of California was filed in Sacramento. We demanded a jury trial because 60% of the voters in the area voted against Prop 16 in 2020.
Good. Sacramento has a better rep. It's got more scrutiny.
How much/many written pleadings did you engage in before "San Francisco ruled against every motion from my side."???
Kevin
8 out of 10 were written by professional attorneys. I was not interested in being pro se. My first attorney got very ill and nearly died.
I understand that you made MOTIONS and lost almost every one. But I asked you about how many written pleadings you had engaged in BEFORE those 8 or 10 motions went before a judge.
The PLEADINGS are STATEMENT OF CLAIM (Nan's side), DEFENCE TO A STATEMENT OF CLAIM (and maybe counter-claim as well by some University in his case), REPLY TO THE DEFENCE TO A STATEMENT OF CLAIM (Nan's side), JOINDER OF ISSUE (either side; both sides), DISCOVERY, DEMANDS FOR PARTICULARS etc.
They are written PLEADINGS back and forth before anyone goes anywhere near a Court Judge with a MOTION or any other "viva voce" (live voice) INTERLOCUTORY (speaking back and forth; so the written pleadings are also "interlocutory") proceeding. And when you are in front of a judge, the lawyers will bring up all of Statutes, Rules of Court and even Precedents about which you may know nothing. That was why you were concerned about arguing before a judge.
BUT you didn't answer my question as to what had happened before those Motions in Court. Could it be that your lawyer, who almost died, did those WRITTEN PLEADINGS routinely without explaining them to you, given that you were not presenting your own case?
Kevin
The defendant dodged service and appears to have lied to his attorney until he got a new pair of attorneys who accepted service. That was 3 months.
Then there was a year of pleadings leading to 3 revisions. I read every document.
As with every attorney I have dealt with, except 1 of 15, the 1st attorney barely discussed what he actually did with me and presented documents and strategy different than discussed. This began with him unilaterally deciding to sue a different defendant personally rather than the corporation we talked about. This blindsided me. He brushed me off saying it was obviously the soft target.
The court proceedings were prima facie corrupt on their face. Every attorney said the case was strong.
Yes I know the difference between a pleading and a motion. 8 of 10 were written well by attorneys. Those that reqd mine said they were fine. All of the attorneys were astonished at the rulings.
So. What exactly are you trying to say? You sound like you might be an attorney or law student. Are you?
Nan! Why didn't you tell us about this Order from your Cornell suit? I told you that you were probably "in over your head". Quote
March 26, 2025
TEXT ORDER: Plaintiff SWORD (Students Who Oppose Racial Discrimination) appears to be an Unincorporated Entity and therefore is not permitted to appear pro se in this litigation. Plaintiff SWORD must be represented by a licensed attorney in this matter. No later than 4/9/2025, a licensed attorney representing Plaintiff SWORD shall file a notice of appearance on the docket. Pro se Plaintiffs Nan Zhong and Stanley Zhong may only represent themselves individually in a pro se manner or each may be represented by a New York licensed attorney who is also admitted to practice law in the Northern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.); United States ex rel. v. Mergent Servs. v. Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89, 92 (2d Cir. 2008) (Because [§1654] permits parties only to plead and conduct their own cases personally, we have held that an individual who is not licensed as an attorney may not appear on another persons behalf in the others cause. Therefore, Pro se Plaintiff Nan Zhong is not permitted to represent Stanley Zhong or SWORD, and Stanley Zhong is not permitted to represent Nan Zhong or SWORD. SO ORDERED by U.S. Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric on 3/26/2025. (copy served on Plaintiffs via regular mail) (jdc ) (Entered: 03/26/2025)
Has any licenced attorney filed a notice of appearance on the docket "no later than April 9th, 2025" (per the order above) on behalf of SWORD?
In law cases it is not what you know that helps you. It is what the other guy does not know which enables you to win law cases against him. That is why AI is "artificially intelligent". It knows all sorts of things that others know. But it doesn't know all the things that people keep to themselves --- such as who can and cannot plead law cases on whose behalf. AI ought to have told you that you cannot represent either your own son or SWORD.
Kevin
NAN ZHONG: "When the lawyer of one of the universities objected to the scope of our litigation hold notice, our AI-drafted response compelled them to back down and fully comply with our document retention request."
I briefly read one of your suits. You have way too many allegations of fact on the initial pleading. You are giving your whole case away. The pleadings are the argument basics. Facts are placed upon Affidavits, in support of various pleadings. Have you reviewed the rules of Court, where they give you the pleadings, such as Statement of Claim, Defence to a Statement of Claim and/or Counter-Claim. Reply. Joinder of Issue etc. Your statement above implies that a lawyer objected to all the irrelevant (to him) facts you had provided in your Claim. Is that what you mean by the lawyer "object(ed)(ing) to the SCOPE of our litigation."?
What does the expression "hold notice" mean? Does it mean that you replied to his "notice", with a "document retention request" --- meaning that you "think" that some Judge or Justice will actually read all 291 pages (was it?) of which your Claim consisted? I can guarantee you that no judge will read that much irrelevant (to a pleading) information. When I did my very first law case, my legal secretary wife laughingly assured me that no judge was going to read any of my Affidavits. I replied that THAT WAS GREAT, Honey! Then they won't KNOW that I am on your side in your divorce case DEAR! I've told you Sweetheart that you CANNOT LOSE this divorce case of yours with me being ON YOUR SIDE. I just didn't tell her that she couldn't legally win the law case with me being on her side. Philosophers do not argue adversarially. So the only way for a philosopher to do any Court case is to be on the side of the opposed litigant, but against the argument/s of her or his lawyer. The tactic confuses the hell out of everybody at Court.
So when judges do not read PLEADINGS OF EXCESSIVE length and they do not READ AFFIDAVITS, then you are in "big trouble" with all that verbiage. When you get to DISCOVERY, after the pleadings are closed --- given JOINDER OF ISSUE, which closes the pleadings --- the lawyers for these Universities are going to have 291 pages of STUFF which you have filed upon which to grill you and to cross-examine you. You better have a really good memory under cross examination. And lawyers can be brutal with all that information you've given away to them unnecessarily. It is those discovery examinations and cross examinations, recorded by legal stenographers or court reporters, which lawyers actually present at Court that Judges actually read, when lawyers bring them to a Court's attention at trial or upon Notice of Motion.
More details please. To me, it looks like you are getting yourself in a bit "over your head". Your opponent's lawyers bill at enormous rates for litigation. If you lose, you pay their costs. So what stage of the Rules of Court are you at??? Since you filed in January and its April, are people "discovering you" yet?
A "litigation hold notice" is a document retention request to the defendant. We wrote the 291-page complaint with the general public and the media as part of the audience. As mentioned in the post, ultimately, our goal is to win in not only the court of law but also the court of public opinion.
Great. You asked that the employees of the people you've sued preserve all of their documents relevant to your case against them. That is fine. It is standard.
But the "general public" doesn't have the "attention span" to read your 291 page complaint anymore than a "lawyer-on-a-bench" will read it. The public is only interested if you win or if they see some university "don" say something "sound bite stupid", like the 3 University "leaders" did on national T.V. awhile back, resulting in 3 resignations. Somebody named Gay if I recall correctly.
BUT I asked you about what stage of the Rules of Court are you at. Have you gotten their WRITTEN DEFENCES yet???
Usually they have 15 days to provide a DEFENCE to a Claim. But they may have (you are not telling us) asked for more time given the length of your CLAIM. Thus, again, WHAT STAGE OF WRITTEN PLEADINGS are you at???
We are serving the summons to the defendants. Some universities have agreed to our request of waiver of service. So they have 60 days to answer the complaint.
I don't know why there would be a "summons" in a civil proceeding. But, again, I'm Canadian. We get "summons" from police bodies when we break traffic laws and are required to go to Court. But when people sue us, a process server, proves that we've been served and we have so many days to respond with an Answer to a Petition, or a Defence to a Statement of Claim or some sort of Reply to an Originating Notice of Motion. Very good. What you have proved is that you are still at the proof of service stage and it will be around 2 months before you get "defences".
However, I read that the Court in which you sued Cornell has told you that you cannot present SWORD's, or your son's case, and that both of them are going to require lawyers in that Cornell suit. Has any lawyer made that deadline in that case against Cornell on behalf of SWORD? Your Son (?) although he can present his own case, which must be independent of your case. You better be extraordinarily careful here. You can't legally do each other's law cases for each other. Interesting.
Good for you Nan. But you are not "representing yourself", even though every lawyer and judge describes you as a "self-represented/representing" litigant. That expression only demonstrates their biases as lawyers. e.g. "The litigant who represents himself in his own court case has a fool for a client." [Hoh Hoh Ho!) But you are actually PRESENTING YOUR OWN CASE OF LAW, while legal Chat GPT is your apparent A/I "representative".
If you could not "present your own case of law", then you could hire some moron with a law degree, who is both legally and functionally literate, to REPRESENT your case of law for you. Cases of law consist of questions of law and matters/questions of fact. Thus there are 2 factors in any and every law case. And given that it is an adversarial system there are a minimum of 2 sides to each and every law case. So if you know your arithmetic or Gregor Mendel's pea garden, then you know that there are 4 possible judgments for each and every INTERLOCUTORY decision in your matter at Court. Judgements, arguments and allegations are no such things as persons. That is why the law is no respecter of persons. The law respects statutes, arguments, allegations and precedents --- none of which are persons. Granted. Persons make statutes, arguments etc.
With the pea garden example, you have 2 factors which are 1. Shape of the pea and 2. Colour of the pea. There are 2 alternatives for each factor. The 2 alternatives are i) smooth and ii) wrinkled for the 1. Shape factor. And for the 2. Colour factor the alternatives are i. green and ii yellow. Thus as Randy Wayne, the biologist, will tell you, there are 4 kinds of peas in Mendel's garden. They are 1. Smooth and green, 2. Wrinkled and green, 3. Smooth and Yellow and 4. Wrinkled and yellow kinds of peas. Of course, legal decisions do not come in coloured or shaped varieties. They come in just and unjust varieties. There are, of course, more unjust than just varieties, given 4 kinds of judgments [2 factors X 2 alternatives] in any given interlocutory or case at Court.
The question of law factor is determined by the lawyer's arguments which are either 1) in accordance with the law or precedent, 2) contrary to the law or precedent, or 3. lacking any grounding in either law or precedent (that is 3 alternatives; but "contrary" or "lacking" can be taken as the same sort of alternative; i.e. the wrong alternative). The matter/s of fact come in 2 more simple alternatives, which are TRUE statements vs. FALSE statements.
Thus the 4 kinds of judgments presented to any judge or justice are (1) A rational argument backed up by a Statute or precedent, INTEGRATED with a true and corroborated (or at least corroborable) witness statement. That integration produces the (1) JUST logical judgment. The contrary logically opposed judgment is (2) An irrational argument without any Statute or Precedent as "back up" INTEGRATED with a false witness statement. That produces the doubly false or (2) ABSURD legal "judgment" for any Court Judge or Justice's "consideration".
The final 2 alternatives are (3) the rational legal argument (with a back up in a statute or precedent) INTEGRATED with a false statement resulting in a (3) FALSE judgment and (4) The irrational legal argument (no backup) INTEGRATED with a true, but irrelevant, witness statement. Thus the 4 kinds of legal judgments are 1) Just, 2. False, 3. Irrational and 4. Absurd.
That is why a lot of people falsely claim that "the system is broken", for when lawyers provide Courts with absurd vs. false judgments or irrational vs. absurd judgments or false vs. irrational judgments, then the "system" certainly appears to be "broken". But it is not the "system". It is the lawyers and their clients who are clogging the system with their irrationality and perfidy.
The fact that there are 4 possible sorts of judgment in a standard win vs. lose OR guilty vs. not-guilty, 2 JUDGMENT adversarial system is why there are appellate courts for when the just judgment loses out to the (usually) false or irrational judgment. Even dumb lawyers can "get" that the absurd judgment is absurd. But Appellate Courts often also get stuck with trying to decide between false vs. absurd or false vs. irrational sorts of judgments.
Make sure that you give us each interlocutory decision and what you pleaded along with whatever the lawyers or judges said. I have noticed that quite a few American judges actually argue law cases from the Bench against this or that party. If/when they do that, they are breaking the law. So find out the name of the American disciplinary body for judges who have "gone off the rails". In Canada, where I am located, that disciplinary body is The Canadian Judicial Council. I have no idea what or if there is an American equivalent. But there should be. Find out what it is. The only thing that any Judge or Justice ought to be is a living pair of ears with a living law book stuck between those ears --- giving fair HEARINGS (rather than stupid lectures, arguments or advisements). Remember! No judge has the legal authority to argue against any litigant from the bench. They don't even have the right or authority to advise you. That is the job of lawyers.
Kevin James "Joseph" Byrne