And it says, supposedly, that
And, since only Congress can make laws in regards to FEDERAL rights, universal for all citizens of the country, no state government can make such laws either.
I did, too.
Having heard that, I also have this:
That means that, since November 13, 2015 I cannot work BECAUSE I exercised by indigent client's due process and 1st Amendment rights, made motions to recuse a biased and corrupt judge, was sanctioned "for frivolous conduct" by that biased and corrupt judge - and was prohibited to work and earn a living, because of it, without a hearing.
And, according to law professor Margaret Tarkington, discipline of attorneys specifically FOR criticizing judges - as professor Tarkington politely put - "enjoys a recent resurgence".
Usually those who criticize judges in this country are immediately dismissed - first, by the courts, then, by the legal establishment whose livelihood depends (literally, through regulation of licenses) on the courts' whims, and then, by the public who blindly follow whatever the legal establishment and courts tells it, "because they know better" - as the so-called "disgruntled litigants".
In the so-called "Rooker-Feldman jurisprudence", a bar unlawfully created by federal courts to block civil rights litigation in federal court because federal issues "could" be raised before biased state courts - courts use an even better, more smacking, more vulgar word than the "legalese-termed" "disgruntled litigants".
"Losers". That's what the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the trailblazer of civil rights, called people who preferred to litigate their federal claims (as the law allows them to do) in federal court:
"The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, we hold today, is confined to cases of the kind from which the doctrine acquired its name: cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments."
So, if you were prosecuted by a corrupt state court, and another corrupt state court denied appeal, and if you want to sue (as the U.S. Congress allowed you) for civil rights violations under the Civil Rights Act in federal court, the federal court will tell you - "'we have no jurisdiction", because you are a - LOSER! Not that courts are allowed to change their jurisdiction. Only the U.S. Congress has such authority, under Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
But courts still do that.
So, "losers" in a biased state court are not entitled to a legal remedy for violation of federal constitutional right provided to them by U.S. Congress.
Because - they criticize state judges.
And, for that reason alone they are - how do those backyard bullies in middle school called it - LOSERS!
So, now we established that those who criticize judges are simply losers.
Even Ruth Ginsburg says so - if you complain about a "state court judgement", you are a loser.
So, why listen to losers? To anything they are saying at all? They are losers, after all, what good can they say?
By the way, when a lawyer surfaced on my blog with criticism of my criticism of judges and refused to reveal his identity and engage in a public online real-time video-debate, he actually claimed that the identity of the individual who makes a statement does not matter, the truth of the statement matters.
While accusing me of "chasing phantoms", "attacking the wrong targets", "getting confused" and "playing fast-and-loose with the law", and claiming, based on those conclusory allegations, without examples, that such alleged behavior on my behalf hurts my credibility, the patronizing male lawyer did not want to reveal who he is.
When I pointed out his patronizing, and conclusory, criticism from the bushes as lacking credibility, he exploded:
So, here a male attorney (or judge) needed the anonymity to be able to say the word "fuck" to a woman he never saw because she - legitimately - accused him of making unsubstantiated conclusory allegations and patronizing her.
The patronizing male lawyer Coyote Waits taught me, the misguided little woman, that his anonymity does not matter, the truth of his statements - whatever they are - is the same:
"Again, however, I will not debate you live and I will not shed my anonymity. As a lawyer, I would think you would recognize that an argument should stand on its own."
So, those who criticize judges are:
- "losers" - as Ruth Ginsburg transparently proclaimed in Exxon Mobil in 2005;
- attackers of the U.S. Constitution - as the President of the American Bar Association claimed in response to President Trump criticizing Judge Robart for his illegal decision;
- bigots - like Donald Trump was in criticizing Judge Curiel, even though he had a perfect right to do so, and did not even reach all problems with Judge Curiel presiding over his case; or
- idiots - as many of the news sources, and public in comments in social media, have branded President Donald Trump was in criticizing Judge Robart for making an unlawful decision, and then the 9th Circuit in making an unlawful decision
Lindquist very obviously has to feed two young children of his own (as confirmed by his Facebook profile and his profile on his law firm's webpage), who is completely dependent on the judiciary, so he, of course, will not commit any missteps.
Yet, he had the audacity to undertake to teach me what litigation means, what documents are created in litigation and who those documents belong to.
And, not to overdo it, he claims on his LinkedIn profile that he "enjoy[s] the human element of practicing law and am motivated by helping people resolve complex and stressful situations". By working first as a prosecutor, and then as a foreclosure attorney. Oh, well.
Something that is being offered in New York, for example, for less than flipping burgers
($50 is the current rate for attorneys appearing in foreclosure proceedings per appearance, for review of documents, judging by proposals that still come to my law office e-mail account despite an automatic reply for 2 years that it is closed - $50 for hours of rush review, note that the offer below is dated March 9, and the appearance is the next day, of a thick file of documents, usually with standing problems, legal research, travel to court, appearance in court, wait time, the wait may be several hours on top of that):
And all of the above, lady and gentlemen, was only a foreword, a preface, a precursor to - TADA! - a big change in the industry.
Today, on March the 13th of 2017, the New York Law Journal, a "scholarly", but rather, a media source of the legal establishment, published an article in which two authors say that Trump's criticism of a judge is actually:
- democratic, and that
- judges need to EARN public trust - not demand and presume it, as they do now.
- she will leave to New Zealand if Trump is elected (she is still here, so that was a fake statement, she would never voluntarily shed her money and power and disappear away from the limelight), and, recently, that
- "we are not experiencing the best of times" in the U.S., not to mention
- her recent Hawaiian trip during work time in order, likely, to fix a court case against Donald Trump - a trip to the Hawaii State University School of Law employing as professors law clerks of one of the judges who, as part of the 9th Circuit panel, was deciding the case against Trump, while his chambers were "coincidentally" located within 7 miles from where Ginsburg was hosted - and the Hawaii Law School is currently stalling my Freedom of Information request asking for records as to who paid her bills and how much those bills amounted to, that would be a separate blog).
Sotomayor views judges as having an expertise, a long-range vantage point, and a detachment that qualify them to wield extraordinary powers. By exploiting the law's inevitable uncertainties, judges in the Sotomayor camp have fashioned dubious "constitutional" rights to drive policy in their preferred directions."
The worst of her "offhand remark" in 2005 was that it was made to law students - people who she was teaching by her laughing comments as to what law and justice in the U.S. really is - NOTHING. What matters is only the law that judges make, illegally, she knows, she knows, but they still do. And the law students, and their professors, and attorneys who came to listen to her, there is no doubt that they were in that audience, too, "knowingly laughed" - and that her "offhand remark" in 2005 did not prevent her from becoming a U.S. Supreme Court justice.