EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY:

"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).


“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.


"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.


This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of
not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for
admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has
many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney
candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of
the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with
the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cos
t.
It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law.
… The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is
not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become
a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is
to humiliate and degrade it.”


In Re Anastaplo,

18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366
U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.







Saturday, July 15, 2017

Lawyers under siege trying to represent a client. A growing problem in America

Ok, so a lawyer has a client.

That is called a "fiduciary relationship", a relationship of trust.

And, the lawyer has a client for 15 years.

Meaning that the relationship of trust is long-standing, and the lawyer is the client's choice of legal representation of many years.

And then somebody comes out of the woodwork and sends, from an anonymous e-mail account, an email to the attorney demanding that the attorney should drop his client of 15 years, or there will be "consequences" to the lawyer, and/or the lawyer's law firm.

What has just happened?

That is qualified under the law as:

1) an attempt at tortious interference with a business relationship - for the lawyer;
2) an unlawful bullying over the internet.

So, what would a lawyer do with such an email?

Of course, the wisest decision when receiving such an e-mail is to put it into the spam folder and to report spam.

But, consider the following factors:

1) the e-mail was received at the end of a very long working day, and for a litigation attorney a very long working day means a very high level of stress;

2) even a litigation attorney has a right to his own private time, and those who are sending e-mails to him at night, while not even knowing the attorney personally, must observe the minimum civility as to timing of their messages;

3) the person who contacted the attorney was not his client, nor was he representative of a court notifying of changes in a schedule of a court case, it was a completely personal e-mail, unrelated to litigation, and was completely inappropriate - demanding the attorney to abandon a long-time client, and threatening consequences to him and his law firm if he doesn't.

So, what did the attorney do with the letter from an anonymous bully?

He responded.  In several reply messages.  With profanity.  Promising to verify the bully's identity.

Did the attorney have a right to verify identity of a person who threatened consequences to himself and his law firm if the attorney does not drop a long-time client?

Absolutely he did have such a right.

Did he have a right to be upset because of such pressure?

Absolutely he had a right to be upset.

Is the use of profanity illegal in this country in private settings?  Not at all.  It may be "distasteful", but it is not at all illegal.

Is the use of profanity prohibited to attorneys in private settings?  Not at all.  The bully was not the attorney's client, and was not a court official sending the attorney an e-mail on official court business.

So, did anything at all happen which is newsworthy?

In my view, not at all.

A bully tried to apply unlawful pressure upon an attorney to have the attorney drop a longtime client, threatening consequences to the attorney and his law firm.

The attorney told the bully (1) to mind his own business, and (2) that the attorney will verify the identity of the bully and, possibly, will go after him - I am sure, in a legal way, and not with his fists.

What about the attorney's use of profanity in his response e-mails?

Well, while the use of profanities is "distasteful", judges in the State of New York (where the attorney in question is licensed), who are all licensed attorneys, use profanities all the time and escape with no discipline at all, and that profanity happens during court proceedings, not in their private life.

And, judges in New York are regulators of the legal profession, those who set standards for lawyers to behave.

So, with those standards, and those circumstances, what made this piece of no-news a hotly discussed subject?

The identity of the attorney - the attorney for President Trump, #MarcKasowitz.




Marc Kasowitz is not a spring chicken.  Judging by his official registration information, he was admitted to practice law in New York in 1978, usually it takes 18 years to graduate high school, then 4 years of college and 3 years of law school, so Marc Kasowitz is at least 64 years of age at this time.






And, Mark Kasowitz confirms in his official biography on the website of his law firm that he has been representing President Trump for 15 years.





And, Marc Kasowitz was already subject to disciplinary complaints specifically BECAUSE of the identity of his client.

Now, if the President of the United States would be Hillary Clinton, nobody will give a damn what advice her lawyer gave to the staff of the White House - if that even happened.

Not with Donald Trump.

With Donald Trump, everybody is more interested to know the color of his care and the nature of his compliment to the wife of the President of France than what President Trump is actually doing in office.

And the same way with his attorney.

President Trump simply cannot be entitled to such a good litigator as Marc Kasowitz who successfully represented President Trump for 15 years, that simply should not be happening.

So, first, some pressure was put on Marc Kasowitz and his law firm - a successful law firm with many attorneys and rich and powerful clients, mind - to drop President Trump as a client.

And, Marc Kasowitz made some powerful enemies - among them, Preet Bharara, where some media source went so far as reporting that Marc Kasowitz actually was behind firing of Preet Bharara from his position of the U.S. Attorney General for the Southern District of New York.

And here is the original (as ProPublica published, with redactions) of the e-mail sent to attorney Marc Kasowitz:




So, while attorney Kasowitz is suddenly hit left and right by disciplinary complaints simply for representing his client (while nobody touched him with complaints while he represented Donald Trump before his presidency), while he is already under pressure to drop his client, he receives this masterpiece.

Somebody not courageous enough to make his (reportedly, the bully is a man) name, "believes", while pretending that he does not know Marc Kasowitz and Marc Kasowitz does not know the bully, that it is in Marc Kasowitz's interest and in the long-term interest of his firm for Marc Kasowitz "to resign from [his] position advising the President re. pending federal legal matters", and that "[n]o good can come from this".

How can a reasonable person NOT perceive this letter as a direct threat and pressure put on the attorney for the President of the United States that if he sticks to his PROFESSIONAL DUTY to his client, both the attorney and his law firm will suffer "long-time consequences".

What kind of long-time consequences can a 64-year-old attorney suffer professionally?

Disbarment.

That was the threat, sent after a long working day, by an anonymous bully.

You can read the further reported exchange between Marc Kasowitz and the bully here.

Of course, the bully had the audacity to get "offended" with profanity and forward Marc Kasowitz's emails to the FBI.

I believe, the President of the United States have every right in the world to actually task the FBI with investigating the author of the e-mail as to who is behind him in applying pressure on the counsel to the President to deprive the President of competent legal representation by a lawyer who the President has been represented by for 15 years.

Because, this case is political.

Instead, ProPublica turned it into a cheap hysterical row on social media.

There are a lot of comments following the slanted publication about the "incident", accusing Marc Kasowitz only of impropriety and demanding his head on a silver platter - disbarment.








The message is very clear: if he does not want to abandon his client "voluntarily", he will have to do it if he is disbarred.

Disbarred over what?

Over using profanity in a private email against an anonymous author of an unsolicited politically motivated Internet threat against the lawyer and his law firm?


The coward who has sent the e-mail message to the President's attorney still remains unidentified - as he asked ProPublica to do.


Yet, without knowing the identity of the coward, the public will not know how real was the threat of "consequences" to Marc Kasowitz and his law firm to assess whether his impassioned response at the end of a long working day was reasonable.

Of course, Marc Kasowitz, knowing what the disciplinary Nazi in New York can do to him, apologized to the bully to diffuse the situation.

There were enough people asking for his disbarment without even knowing the identity of the cowardly bully, and without knowing how many more threats like that were aimed at Marc Kasowitz and his law firm before this one.

Marc Kasowitz's spokesman was, no doubt, very restrained when he stated this in response to the "situation with the e-mails":



So, Kasowitz has been a "rainmaker" for the law firm - before one of his long-time clients became the President of the United States and continued to retain Kasowitz.

Then, those who do not like the CLIENT, turned on the attorney and his law firm and put the law firm under siege.


Adorable.


The new rule of the "honorable" legal profession is - represent somebody we don't like - get disbarred, no matter how, but you are on the radar, and we will get you no matter what.


That is not how independent counsel can operate.


But, while the public is foaming at the mouth as to how inappropriate PRIVATE conduct of the President's attorney in response to bullying and political pressure allegedly was, I have a question to this same public, and commentator seeking Marc Kasowitz's head: what about you?


What about your own personal legal representation if a disaster strikes you or your loved ones?

What if you, or your loved one in need of representation, for some reason yet unknown, will suddenly become a "persona non grata" to some powerful political figure, or lobbying group?

If the President of the United States has no chance for independent legal representation, if his counsel is under pressure to "choose" whether to abandon the client, or to lose his license and livelihood while committing neither an act of incompetence, or an act of dishonesty to his client or the courts - which is the ONLY thing that matters from the point of view of attorney licensing (that exists ONLY to protect interests of consumers of legal services) - and if a powerful attorney finds it easier to apologize for being a victim of bullying rather than lose his head and livelihood - WHAT CHANCES DO YOU HAVE, what chances does a mere mortal has for independent legal representation?

Read Marc Kasowitz's lips while apologizing to the anonymous bully.

None.





Laughter is not sufficient for disruption of Congress - while laughing at some public officials, but not others

A judge threw out a conviction of a woman for laughing at the confirmation of Jeff Sessions, because, in the judge's view, laughter was not enough to support a conviction for disruption of Congress.

Additionally, the defendant argued that she laughed involuntarily when Jeff Sessions announced that he treats all Americans equally.

So, it's official, folks - laughter at the stupidity of your public officials, right in their faces, may be deemed involuntary (like, you cannot control your natural spontaneous reactions) - cannot be the basis for a criminal conviction.

Who would think that reason will take the upper hand?

Or, did reason take the upper hand only because of the identity of the much disliked public official in question?

And the result would have been different if the disruption of Congress would have been at the confirmation of a judge - like it happened to #ElenaSassower, who simply asked a question if she may testify (which she asked, without an answer, in writing prior to the confirmation hearing, too) in opposition to confirmation of federal judge Richard Wesley to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and got 6 months in federal prison for her efforts, and especially for refusing to apologize for doing nothing wrong.

So, it is official, but still fuzzy, who you can laugh at.

The nominee for the U.S. Attorney General for the President kicked by the "liberal" press - oh, yes, of course, you can laugh at all you want.

As to a judge - nope, you cannot even ask a question at a pre-arranged spectacle of a confirmation hearing.



Tuesday, July 4, 2017

South Carolinans in need of new glasses or contact lenses - South Carolina new law, sponsored by optometrists, "protects" you - from new technology

New technology making goods and services cheaper and better is good.

Right?

Maybe not in South Carolina.

Not for people in need of new glasses or contact lenses, anyway.

Because there exists a new technology - in the form of a smartphone app, affordable to a wide range of consumers - that can read your retina, access your need for a lense and bypass an optometrist.

Would an optometrist do a better job than a smartphone app in assessing your needs for a new contact lense or glasses?

It is debatable.

First, a smart app does not cost much or long to develop, and is cheap.

On the contrary, medical equipment in an optometrist's office is expensive, as well as an optometrist's services - and is necessary built into the price of your lenses.

Moreover, an optometrist most definitely cannot afford to replace his medical equipment with newer one every year while retina reading and assessing smartphone app can be enhanced daily.

And, isn't it the consumer's final choice whether he or she wants or does not want an optometrist to advise him (presumably, with a higher level of precision), what kind of glasses/contact lenses he needs rather than a retina-reading smartphone app?

Not so, asserts the South Carolina optometrist association that lobbied a legislature that:

  1. passed South Carolina House and Senate;
  2. was vetoed last year by the then-governor Nikki Haley; and
  3. the veto was overridden by South Carolina Senate.
So, now we have the law that prohibits the sale of eye lenses and glasses in South Carolina without an optometrists' prescription.

And the law, of course, is called Eye Care Consumer Protection Act.

The company that was selling online eye tests - OpterNative (out of Chicago, IL), has moved out of South Carolina after the Governor's veto was overridden.

Now, are South Carolinan patients in need of new glasses or a contact lense better off now?

The shameless optometrist-lobbied legislation did not protect consumers - it only prevented consumers from saving money on eye tests, and stripped them of their choices of providers of services.

Which brings me to a million-dollar-question as to any and all occupational licensing - if it exists for protection of consumers, why not allow consumers to OPT OUT of it?  And choose providers according to their own volition instead of from lists pre-approved by the government?

After all, if the government pre-approval/licensing of any professionals exists to just HELP consumers in their marketing and choice of providers, can't we, the consumers of any licensed services, tell the government - thank you for your help, but no, thank you?

And if not, why not?

Why the government thinks it can treat their own boss, their sovereign, the People (who are also consumers of various services of providers licensed by the government) as mentally incompetent in need of being forced to accept high-priced services we may not want - or need?

Do you want to pay less for your glasses?

Like $60 for glasses AND online vision test - as Opternative offers?

I certainly do.

But now, South Carolinans cannot get that order fulfilled in their own state.  They will have to go to another state to do that - which, in terms of costs, defeats the purpose of saving.

Great job, South Carolina Optometrist Association.

You won, we lost.  For now.

Yet, your temporary victory may turn out Pyrrhic.  Like Luddites in the 19th century, weavers destroying weaving equipment, you will not be able to stop technology from progressing.

Imagine that we would be forced, nowadays, in the 21st century, to buy weaved fabrics from individual weavers and not from factory manufacturers, because, under the guild-lobbied legislation, that was supposed to be "better for us".

The Optometrists Association's fight with technology - instead of embracing it - appears as bad.

Of course, nobody wants to see their income derived from costly training and licensing, disappear because of technology.

But, that's life, and, the concept of consumer PROTECTION should not be put on its head in order to shield service providers from doom brought on by technology - which HURTS consumers.

And, your efforts to stop technology (which hurts consumers, and you know it) only shows that occupational licensing, "even" of doctors, is nothing but a sham where a cheaper technology is available.

Consumers must be given a choice of buying what they need from whoever they need, approved by the government or not.

It is that simple.


Why cap taxi medallions?

Yet another piece on how occupational licensing makes no sense and injures consumers instead of protecting them - which is what occupational licensing is declared to be doing to justify its existence.

It is reported that the cost of a taxi medallion in New York City (a right to operate a taxi business, one car) has dropped over the latest 4 years from the whopping $1.3 million per medallion to "just" $241,000 in March this year.

I wonder, of course, whether the drop in the cost was because of the Trump administration's efforts to corral illegal immigrants - who were most likely used as drivers by the wealthy owners of such medallions.

But, the question is - WHY, given that the declared purpose of occupational licensing (including taxi licensing) is PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS, would New York City CAP the number of taxi permits (medallions) in a multi-million city of residents, with more millions of people coming every day as tourists and to do business in New York City - to the meager 13,587?

It does not seem like protection of consumers, does it?

It seems like restricting competition to the existing taxi owners from potentially incoming competitors in order to keep supply of taxi services low and prices high.

Right?

Of course, everybody knows that the actual taxi drivers are often new immigrants (legal and illegal) whose command of the English language is limited and for whom driving a taxi may be the only way to earn a living.

These people most definitely cannot pay either $1.3 or $241,000 per "taxi medallion", so they have to work for richer people who do not driver that car, but who exploit these immigrants.

New York City, the self-proclaimed "sanctuary city", is supposed to be friendly to immigrants.  Right?

Then, how come that it not only allows, but promotes and establishes cruel exploitation of immigrants by taxi barons?

Why not reduce of taxi licensing to checkup on the car and checkup on the driver (background check and knowledge of the city)?

After all, that's all that is needed to establish safety and quality of service for consumers?

And why not cancel any caps on taxi medallions?

When a plumber is given authority to tell you whether you can sue a plumber - why do we need courts?

Occupational licensing is not a front-line topic these days.

Yet, it should be.

Now and again, across the U.S., rich and powerful professional guilds, under the guise of protection of our interests as consumers, gain privileges from state and federal legislatures to continue their cozy and lucrative monopolies, at our financial expense and at the expense of injuries to customers.

The last resort of any consumer is the court.  

Court proceedings are costly and cumbersome - but still, for injured people sometimes such proceedings do bring remedies.

And that was, apparently, a big problem in the blessed state of Kentucky.

The state of Kentucky has snuck in a law that puts an additional hurdle for people injured by medical professionals to overcome before they can sue - "screening panels".

Apparently, in Kentucky, the legislature does not trust courts with their preliminary procedures, such as motions to dismiss, and juries to screen lawsuits.  Or, courts and juries were in fact awarding something to injured consumers of medical services which doctors were not happy about.

The principal sponsor of the new legislation, reportedly, was a Senator who is a licensed physician - which is an irreconcilable conflict of interest, but apparently, State Senator Ralph Alvorado does not care about that.

Moreover, the "screening panels" that are put, by new law, in the position to precede and substitute for courts and juries, must consist of 3 doctors




- which is an even bigger conflict of interest. 

How can an unelected panel of three licensed doctors be allowed to usurp the role of the courts to resolve conflicts regarding mistakes of their own colleagues?

And how does that protect consumers?

Does Senator Dr Alvorado care that the declared purpose of occupational licensing (including licensing of any medical professional, which means his own medical license) is protection of CONSUMERS, not doctors?

This legislation very obviously has as a purpose protection of doctors from injured consumers, blocking injured consumers from ever having any remedy.

The flurry of court filings before the legislation kicked in indicates how much patients and their lawyers trust in doctors in these panels "judging" and screening medical malpractice cases fairly.

Contrary to popular belief, it is not that easy for a medical malpractice lawsuit to survive.  The main hurdle is to prove causation - that the particular actions of a particular physician have caused injury and damages to the plaintiff.  Proof in such cases require expert evidence and testimony.

If it pertains to surgery, when the injured patient was under general anesthesia or sedation, proof can be manipulated by the defendant physicians and their personnel, by manipulating records about the surgery to protect themselves from liability.

If it pertains to any other procedure when the patient was conscious, there are informed consent forms which may be signed without necessary information provided to the patient to form that informed consent - but still can be used against the patient.

And, in general, it is difficult to find a doctor who would be willing to testify against his colleague in court - for fear of being blackballed, disciplined and stripped of his own license and livelihood by his own profession.

Now, when debates about the fate of Obamacare are raging in the federal government, mainstream and social media, such "minor issues" as blocking access to court of victims of medical mistakes fall by the wayside as not so important.

Yet, with any coverage, even a perfect medical insurance coverage, our hope to quality medical care will remain illusory if doctors are going to be allowed to block our access to court to address their mistakes that cause injuries.

It is for people of the state of Kentucky to demand repeal of this shameful legislation.

For people in other states, where similar legislation can be pushed by the medical guild - beware.

And, here is a cautionary tale - of a person who has brought about a $500,000 cap on recovery in medical malpractice lawsuits - only to be later injured through a medical mistake, with damages from the injury amounting to millions of dollars, but capped, by his "own" legislature, at $500,000.

The sponsor of the shameful "doctor panel" legislation in Kentucky, the State Kentucky Senator Dr Ralph Alvorado is young and arrogant, 





he occupies all the key positions that conflict with his role as a lawmaker without any scruples, such as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Kentucky Medical Association, American College of Physicians, Kentucky "One Health Med Group", "BD Vice Chair Wealth MD".



Of course, while doing a quite self-interested and un-Godly thing, Senator Alvorado does not forget to rub in his religiosity by putting into his official biography that he is a deacon of Grace Baptist Church.

Senator Dr Alvorado apparently presumes he himself or his loved ones will never be victims of medical mistakes, as it happened to Frank Cornelius in the State of Indiana - or that he can through his weight about at all times to manipulate those doctors in medical panels to pave a path to court that he blocked to everyone else?

Power and authority, and high elective positions come and go. 

People are mortal, they retire and die, leaving vulnerable their own family - and everybody else who was hurt by such "laws" created to satisfy self-interested greed of a professional guild at a particular moment.

Nobody can guarantee that Senator Dr Alvorado and his loved ones will not fall victim to the very legislature he crafted and pushed through, for himself and his colleagues.

But of course, who thinks about karma when abusing his power to satisfy his own greed...

What is really bad is that the Kentucky legislation only started on the slippery slope of blocking access to courts for consumers injured by various service providers.

If doctors can screen access to court of consumers injured by other doctors - why can't other providers be allowed to do just the same?

Just imagine - if a contractor screwed construction of your house, you cannot sue him directly, but must first have your case "screened" by a panel of three - gasp! - contractors, who will decide whether you can sue their colleague or not.

Or, if a plumber screwed up your toilet, flooding half of your house with fecal matter, you cannot sue the plumber unless a panel of his 3 colleagues allows you to do that.

Which brings us to a million dollar question - why do we need courts at all in consumer injury cases?

We can just have service providers, in each consumer injury case to gather into TROIKA panels and tell consumers what such TROIKA panels will most definitely tell injured patients in Kentucky - BUZZ OFF.

And abolish all courts.



Wednesday, June 28, 2017

New York judges fixing cases for sex, and the brave New York State Attorney General

A New York town justice Paul Lamson was sentenced to jail after accepting sexual favors from reportedly TEN female litigants in exchange for favorable rulings.

TEN.

How could that possible happen?

Why wasn't the guy caught after the first such ruling?  Were people who knew afraid to report it?  Were people afraid to investigate or prosecute the judge until the number of victims grew so much that they could not longer ignore it?

And this is the second judge from the same locality who was convicted for the same crime?

The interesting part of it is not even that the judges were charged and convicted - that's a rarity in New York.

The interesting part is that both judges are "town justices" and not attorneys - so their conviction will not result in an automatic disbarment for either one of them.

Yet, no judge in New York for many years was convicted of a felony, saving them from disbarments, and even the judge who was convicted (in a federal court sitting in New Jersey), Sol Wachtler, was given his attorney license back.

I will not believe for one second that judges above the level of town justices do not commit crimes.

Yet, judges above the level of town justices, judges who are attorneys, are regulators of the NYS AG's and county prosecutors' own law licenses.

And, for that reason, their criminal prosecution, no matter how bad their crimes, will not result in a felony conviction and disbarment.

No matter how the NYS AG pounds his chest in claiming that he is the defender of human rights.

He is a coward.

On Masterpiece Cakeshop, discretionary enforcement of the U.S. Constitution and the right of every individual to have their constitutional rights enforced

I wrote today about two U.S. Supreme Court cases, which the court chose out of 8,000 petitions, 99% of which the court tosses (it decides about 70 cases out of over 8,000 filed each year).

One of the cases chosen by the U.S. Supreme Court was decided in favor of debt collectors.

There, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it has no power to amend an Act of Congress.

The other case was against the Trump administration where the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review jurisdictional threshold issues and instead amended (without authority) another Act of Congress, after its justices received multiple benefits over the years from one of Trump's opponents, the State of Hawaii University School of Law, and after Justice Ginsburg has actually made a trip while one of the related cases was being decided by the lower appellate courts and had "meetings with faculty" of that state law school (part of the party in litigation in front of her), while the "faculty" included 3 law clerks of the judge of the federal appellate court deciding the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled in June on LGBT rights of same-sex couples, continuing the line of cases started by its decision in 2015 in Obergefell v Hodges, just one precedent so far on the issue of gay rights.

The issue in Pavan v Smith decided on June 26, 2017 was that a male spouse is considered by default a parent and is included on the child's birth certificate, whether the child is or is not the male spouse's biological child, but a female same-sex spouse is not so included on the birth certificate of the child by default.

Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has announced that, out of the 8,000 petitions filed, it has chosen yet another gay-rights case, verifying whether a cake-shop owner had a right to refuse to decorate a cake for a same-sex wedding.

Yet, the same U.S. Supreme Court, while paying lip service to prohibiting the government to regulate speech based on its content, stubbornly refuses to take up any whistleblower cases against the government - and thus refuses to uphold a long string of its own precedents.


There are PLENTY of U.S. Supreme Court precedents indicating that the government cannot regulate speech based on its content - yet, this year, the U.S. Supreme Court chose to apply this principle not to whistleblower/retaliation cases, but to cases of credit card companies charging extra fees, and, lately, the right to trademark derogatory names.

It comes to the point that many people in the whistleblower community who have suffered retaliation from the government for criticism of misconduct of government officials expressed (even though discreetly) in their communications that, unless you are gay or transgender, nowadays it is impossible to get a review from the U.S. Supreme Court.

And such a resentment is understandable.

Nobody - nobody - should be given a free right to choose whose constitutional rights are to be enforced, and whose to be ignored.

Yet, that is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court is doing, based on the 1925 Judiciary Act.

Choosing cases favoring debt collectors, credit card companies, "Wonder Doodles", birth certificates for gay rights, have much less impact on society than establishing, once and for all, access to justice for all by prohibiting the government to yank occupational licenses of attorneys who criticize judges IN MOTIONS TO RECUSE - yet, that is happening left and right, such attorneys are left without jobs, without money, without opportunities of employment, while the public is left without independent representation, because attorneys that remain license are intimidated that the same will happen to them if they do their job properly.

And, of course, ruling in favor of attorneys - or other whistleblowers against the government - will require honest, integrity, courage, and neutrality, while the U.S. Supreme Court, very apparently, lacks all of the above.

People, including same sex couples, will continue to get into situations where judicial bias and corruption will require to file a motion to recuse.

Yet, people will continue to run into reluctance of attorneys to do that because judges are both regulators of their livelihoods and decision-makers in court cases, which creates an untenable situation where attorneys cannot dare do their jobs and ensure for their clients their constitutional right to impartial judicial review, for fear of losing their own livelihoods.

That is a countrywide human rights problem, which the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to address.

Instead, it addresses issues whether it is constitutional when an artist is being punished for refusing to create a piece of art on a certain topic - a clear case of politically-correct compulsion of artistic expression.

It may be a violation of the artists' 1st Amendment rights.  And, it is an obviously frivolous lawsuit.

An artist may refuse to create a work of art for you for any reason, including lack of inspiration, which cannot be commanded.

Think about it.  Will you sue an artist for lack of inspiration regarding you?

With the  current amount of political unrest in our society, it will be for everyone's benefit to abolish the 1925 Judiciary Act and make ALL petitions for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court mandatory, so that people would not feel resentment that a gay couple - yet again - is given review while a whistleblower against the government - yet again - is denied review of glaring violations of constitutional rights.

Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court, whose judges are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, should not be given a free reign as to which constitutional violation to address and which to ignore.

Not to mention that if the Court wants any kind of respect for upholding its own precedents, it should actually do that in all cases.

Not only for those who can afford to pay (taxpayer money) for the judges' vacations, for those represented by the judges' former law clerks, or for those whose cases will get the most publicity for the judges, and thus more opportunities for judges' paid speeches and readership for their books.

Let us make the U.S. Supreme Court actually work.



New York partially upholds its right to underfund public schools - while suing the federal government to fund those same public schools. 10th Amendment, full speed

After Donald Trump became President of the U.S., the so-called "resistance" swamped federal courts with various lawsuits against him - not because the President was doing something wrong (the "wrongs" alleged were the same "wrongs" that the Obama administration was doing all along), but because the backers of the "resistance" did not get to the trough - oops, the wheel. 

One of the type of lawsuits currently litigated across the country against Donald Trump, is for denying discretionary federal funds to states, including for public education that must be financed by states, not by the federal government.

Amazingly, these frivolous lawsuits are asserted under the 10th Amendment - which actually gives the state the right to act on their own in deciding issues of care and safety of their residents, and with the right comes an obligation to financially provide for such care.

But, anyway, the states are suing the feds under the 10th Amendment claiming that denial of discretionary federal funds will cripple state efforts to fund public education.

Great.

The interesting wrinkle on this argument in New York though is that recently some parents in New York City sued New York State, under the State Constitution, for failing to properly fund public schools.

The case reached all the way to the top court of the state, the New York Court of Appeals, which heard it and, while having dismissed two causes of action, remanded (allowed to proceed) a cause of action challenging "the adequacy of defendant State's education funding accountability mechanisms”.

That's the "education funding accountability mechanisms" of the same State that claims, like a leech, an entitlement to get federal funds to put into the same hole.

Will New York now lose its federal lawsuit regarding its alleged "entitlement" to put more federal money down that same hole without trying to device "education funding accountability mechanisms"? 

Oneida County Judge Louis Gigliotti denied a civilly committed individual a right to pro se representation and to a change of counsel

An attorney is supposedly in a "fiduciary" relationship (relationship of trust) with a client.

And, if a client wants to get rid of an attorney because the attorney does not respond to his phone calls and letters, in other words, the client no longer trusts his own attorney to represent his interests in court, the client has an absolute right to get rid of that attorney.

And, in any case, a client must have an absolute right to self-representation.

Right?

Wrong.

Not in the blessed State of New York.

There, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office, while "not opposing" a motion of a civilly committed man to either change his assigned counsel because he did not file a petition on his behalf and did not respond to his letters and phone calls, still asked the court to "search the record and case law" in order to respond to the man's request.

And boy did the judge do that.

After doing that, the judge came up with these two "rules":



So, the government at the same time:

  • ordered a man civilly committed (locked up without a criminal sentence);
  • assigns to that obviously indigent man an attorney that the man claims does not do his job - by the interesting name of Coffin, no offense;
  • and now denies the man the right to replace or straight-out get rid of government-assigned representation and to represent himself.

Convenient case law.

Good job, the supporter of civil rights (who represents the government in fighting civil rights lawsuits in court) NYS AG Schneiderman.

Good job, New York.

Good job, Judge Gigliotti of Oneida County.



The heavenly state of Hawaii bribed the shameless Ginsburg, and other judges of the U.S. Supreme Court to change the Immigration and Nationality Act - a call for reform of the U.S. Supreme Court and impeachment of its judges

Back in February, 2017, I wrote about the interesting trip of SCOTUS judge Ruth Ginsburg to the State University of Hawaii - complete with speeches, dances, dining on the ocean, and even a mural painted by the time of her arrival by the university's art students on a fence concealing the blight of construction on campus, not to offend Ginsburg's tender sensibilities.

I wrote that Ginsburg's trip was during her work time in her busy court, was at the expense of the State of Hawaii School of Law, was one of Ginsubrg's and other SCOTUS judges (and their families') routine vacation all-expenses-paid trips to this resort destination over the years, that the State University School of Law of Hawaii employed as professors THREE law clerks of a federal appellate judge who was deciding a request of the Trump administration to stay an injunction imposed upon the President's immigration executive order.

It is no secret that Ginsburg made public statements indicating her dislike of President Trump, to the point of promising at one point that she will emigrate if he is elected.

He was elected.

Instead of emigrating to New Zealand, as she promised, Ginsburg is skipping work to fly to vacation spots, all expenses paid by the President's opponents in litigation, in order to fix court cases for them.

In February, 2017, Ginsburg flew to Hawaii to have "meetings with faculty" of its school of law employing 3 law clerks of a judge of a federal appellate court (located within 7 minutes drive from the law school) who was deciding the motion of the Trump administration to stay the injunction on the Executive Order's temporary restriction on immigration right at that time.

That is called corruption, ladies and gentlemen, pure and simple.

And, such corruption calls for impeachment of Justice Ginsburg.

But - how can anybody touch a U.S. Supreme Court justice?

By the way - the University of Hawaii School of Law stalled my Freedom of Information request for records of who paid expenses of Ginsburg, her husband (before his death) and for other judges and members of their families on their trips to the school over the years, by claiming that it is too difficult to provide the records for me unless I pay over $10,000 for their excruciating search work.

Voila - now, Ginsburg and other SCOTUS judges who accept speaking, teaching and other engagements from state universities all over the country, and specifically from the State University School of Law of Hawaii - rule in favor of the State of Hawaii, upholding the illegal injunction on the President's immigration executive order.

No recusal because of her multiple statements spewing hatred against President Trump, before and dafter his elections.

No recusal because of her interesting, Hawaii State-paid trip to the State University of Hawaii School of Law, to meet in private with the "faculty" that included 3 law clerks of a judge who was deciding a case in favor of state universities benefiting from higher tuition from enrolled foreign students.

Instead, a ruling hailed as positive by the press, which was obviously corrupt and bought by YEARS of free wining-and-dining all expenses paid trips to the resorts of Hawaii, by nearly ALL judges of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now, the unanimous ruling of the corrupt court did throw a bone to the president, by allowing him to do his job under the Immigration and Nationality Act in all cases where people whose travel to the U.S. the President restricts do not have a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity with the United States".  And continued the injunction in favor of those individuals where there is such a "bona fide relationship".

Consider this - the case that the U.S. Supreme Court chose "in its discretion" to hear has as a party - coincidentally, of course - the State of Hawaii that has been paying, out of taxpayer pockets, for all-expenses-paid trips to Hawaii and vacationing on the ocean in grand style of all U.S. Supreme Court justices, for decades. 




And, consider this - that this same court, as of June 12, 2017, has ruled unanimously that it has no authority to amend an Act of Congress - remember the "revolutionary" decision of Judge Gorsuch in favor of debt collectors?

Now, follow their hands in how they actually DO amend the Act of Congress in favor of those who pay them "in kind" bribes - as well as direct monetary bribes, such as universities across the country regularly paying US Supreme Court justices money for additional "teaching" or "speaking" jobs.

First, the elephant in the room was STANDING - a jurisdictional issue.

Standing of foreigners outside of the United States to contest not being allowed into the United States.

The Immigration and Nationality Act allows the President an unlimited discretion to exclude people from the U.S. borders based on assessment of their security risk, including a country security risk - same as the U.S. Supreme Court, through an Act of Congress, obtained for itself in 1925 an unlimited discretion to hear or not to hear appeals (in order not to address its entire caseload, but only to use their job to help friends, in exchange for benefits).

According to multiple rulings of the same U.S. Supreme Court, there is no standing of non-citizens located outside of the U.S. to contest a denial of entry into the U.S.

The Immigration and Nationality Act has no exemption for people who have "a bona fide relationship with a person or entity within the U.S."

And, the rule of no standing to foreigners outside of the U.S. cannot be miraculously changed by giving standing to the same people on the basis of their connection to people within the U.S., or by giving standing to people within the U.S. to contest restrictions on entry of foreigners outside of the U.S.

Not that the SCOTUS judges, obviously aspiring for new expenses-paid trips to Hawaii and other places, care about the law.

They had a job to do, the job they were bribed - oops, paid - oops, you understand - to do.

So, they created this interesting rule about the injunction applying not only to petitioners (who themselves had no standing, because they were not foreigners outside of the U.S. seeking entry), but also to all "similarly situated individuals" - even though cases in question were not certified as a class action.

But, again, who cares about the rule of law when you have a job to do to secure future all expenses paid trips, speeches, engagements, free book advertisements, additional teaching jobs, etc.?

You know how the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the threshold, central, focal, fundamental, jurisdictional issue of standing?

Guess.

It didn't address the issue at all, it ignored the issue.

I encourage my readers to word-search the text of the U.S. Supreme Court for the word "standing". 

I did.

The word "standing" is used there twice, in both cases when the U.S. Supreme Court mentions that the government raised the issue of standing.


Once the word standing is used here:




And once here:




That's it.

The court does not even attempt to discuss or resolve that threshold issue - like it does not exist.

Because, had it addressed the issue of standing, it would have had to dismiss the case, with sanctions against attorneys who brought it, for frivolous conduct.

The Immigration and Nationality Act gives no standing to states to contest denial of entry to foreign nationals - whether they are state universities' prospective students, employees or relatives of state residents.

Neither does the Immigration and Nationality Act give such standing to individuals within the country to contest denial of visas to competent foreign relatives outside the country.

As an example, try doing something on behalf of your relative in court - on behalf of a mother-in-law (as the U.S. Supreme Court allowed to Dr. Elshikh):




There is no such thing in the U.S. jurisprudence as a standing to sue on behalf of an in-law - when the in-law in question does not a standing of her own.

In fact, representation of a relative in court without a power of attorney (and there is no indication that Dr Elshikh sued on behalf of his mother in law on any kind of a power of attorney, not to mention that suing on the basis of a POA can be done only when the person on whose behalf you are suing has her own standing to sue) is considered a crime of unlawful practice of law. PRACTICING LAW.

So, did Dr Elshikh and "similarly situated individuals" engage, under the current laws of all jurisdictions in the U.S., in the crime of unauthorized practice of law when they sue on behalf of their relatives?

Apparently, yes.

And, apparently, the U.S. Supreme Court, the top regulator of the practice of law in the country, does not care.

Because, when your palm is well greased and you have an unlimited power, you will invent the law that the greasers needed.  Right?

And that's what was done.

Now Dr Elshikh and "similarly situated individuals" now, according to the ruling of the corrupt U.S. Supreme Court, in exchange for all-expenses-paid trips to the Hawaii Oceanside by justices and their families, now has a right to sue on behalf of their relatives, no matter how such a "right" violates the existing law.

So, the court gave third parties without standing to sue on behalf of foreigners outside of the U.S., who also do not have standing, the right to contest authority of the President of the U.S. clearly delineated by an Act of Congress, in order to secure its own freebies from state universities and colleges.

And that was done without ANY discussion and without ANY resolution of the issue of standing.

So, standing was invented where no standing existed, without discussion of standing.

And, an exemption as to "bona fide relationship with an individual or entity within the U.S." - an extremely vague and overbroad concept - was created by the court as an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act exactly 2 weeks after the court, in a previous case, acknowledged that it has no authority to amend an act of Congress (and that is true, according to the Article I and III of the U.S. Constitution that EVERY SINGLE U.S. Supreme Court "justice" is sworn to uphold).

A unanimous decision that the press is drooling over.

It is apparent that the U.S. Supreme Court, the way it exists today, in its "discretionary" capacity, is a corrupt and useless/harmful organization that needs to be dissolved and re-instituted with a mandatory caseload, enough judges to handle it, and strict prohibitions on corrupting such judges into making decisions that make no sense - but favor those who greased the judges' palms.











The discretionary US Supreme Court - via Gorsuch - announced that its job (as the US Constitution, Article III requires) is not to change statutory law, but only to apply it. What a fresh idea!

The new SCOTUS judge Neil Gorsuch is lauded by the press for authoring the unanimous opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court claiming, among other things, that it is not the job of that court to change statutory law, but only to apply it.

While that is exactly what the U.S. Constitution, Article III and Article I say - Article I giving exclusive authority to legislate (create and amend federal laws) only to the U.S. Congress, Article III not giving similar authority to federal courts, including to the U.S. Supreme Court - the U.S. Supreme Court justices usually never follow what they were sworn and are paid to do.

First, the choice of cases.

You may not be aware that the "discretionary right" of the U.S. Supreme Court to take only cases they deem "worthy" for their pre-eminent review did not always exist.

It was given to the U.S. Supreme Court by the U.S. Congress only in 1925, on the request of the U.S. Supreme Court complaining that they have too many cases to review - too hard a job to do.

Instead of expanding the court to be able to handle all cases that come their way, or impeach justices who, in response to a growing caseload, asked to allow them NOT to give people an opportunity to be heard, the U.S. Congress condoned the justices claim for their right to be lazy and gave them the right for "discretionary" picking and choosing which cases they want or not want to hear on a final appeal.

And do they pick since then.

Imagine a completely discretionary job.

On the one hand, all SCOTUS judges are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution - which, by the way, does not include in it Supremacy Clause precedents of that same SCOTUS. 

On the other hand, by the Supreme Court Act of 1925, SCOTUS judges are at liberty not to do their job - not to take any required number of cases per year.

The 9 of them occupy a huge marble palace, are paid royal upkeep and are given a royal crowd of servants, but are not required to do a damned thing.  Literally.

All of their job is discretionary.

They can pick to hear one case per year if they want to - or not to find any one case worthy of their review in any given year at all.

They routinely toss meritorious cases, citing multiple violations of the U.S. Constitution by civil rights plaintiffs, and especially by pro se plaintiffs.

Yet, they routinely take cases of corporations - and I wonder how many of those fund their wining and dining, their and their families' trips, "scholarships", speaking engagements and careers.

So, let's look at the very "principled" decision of Justice Gorsuch.

The case the "discretionary court" has picked is of an auto debt collector.

You must agree that the non-payment of loans to people who lend money for consumers to buy cars is the most important constitutional problem in this country to tackle.

So, out of 8000 of petitions, most of which (99%) are not given any review, this one was picked, reviewed and decided, in favor of the debt collectors.

And in this case, Justice Gorsuch, getting in the high horse of the "rule of law", has stated that, once again,
  • it is not for the Court to amend statutory law enacted by the U.S. Congress, and
  • if the U.S. Congress wanted to include or exempt certain entities from the reach of a statute, it would have done it.

Great job.

But - wait a second, didn't the same U.S. Supreme Court find judicial, prosecutorial, "official", "sovereign", "qualified" and a zillion other types of "immunities" which the U.S. Congress DID NOT include into the Civil Rights Act.

Doesn't the same principle apply?

If the U.S. Congress wanted to include something into the statute, it would have?

No, for their own benefit, to give THEMSELVES, and other members of the government a free walk out of a liability under an act of Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court found that it is impossible to even thing that the U.S. Congress could have forgotten to give out such immunities, so, if it didn't give such immunities in the text of the Civil Rights Act, it means a completely different thing in the immunity context than what Gorsuch said as applying to any other Act of Congress.

So, if it is an Act of Congress dealing with debt collectors - if the U.S. Congress did not include something into the statute, it is not court's business or authority to change that act of Congress.

Yet, if the Act of Congress did not include something that the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court (or other members of the government) crave for themselves, such as being above the law and immune from the reach of the same U.S. Constitution judges are allegedly protecting - then, the rule is completely different: the U.S. Supreme Court will insert, through interpretation, that the U.S. Congress could not possibly NOT imply what it clearly did not include into the text of the statute.

There is no reason to treat with adoration or awe the "discretionary" U.S. Supreme Court and its decisions - decisions that follow the law only when, in their "discretion", the Court "chooses" to help corporation against individuals.

In the absolute majority of cases the U.S. Supreme Court either refuses to deal with enforcement of the U.S. Constitution, tossing 99% of constitutional violations coming its way, or "sets the law for the whole country", openly usurping the exclusive right of the U.S. Congress to legislate under the U.S. Constitution.

And, in June of 2017, after SCOTUS announced, in a unanimous opinion issued on June 12, 2017 (in favor of debt collectors) that it has no authority to amend an Act of Congress, it did just that - and did it after judges of the court were vulgarly paid off to rule the way they did.

How it was done, I will describe in my next blog.

Stay tuned.