"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).

“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 cost.

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.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"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.

“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.

Wednesday, October 2, 2019

Do not ask, for whom the bell tolls when you search for a good, honest, courageous, independent lawyer - if you do nothing to defend lawyers wrongfully suspended for criticizing corrupt courts. It tolls for you.

American lawyers' complete lack of due process in disciplinary proceedings is a big part if the absolute attorney monopoly and why Americans cannot find an independent attorney to take on judicial and prosecutorial corruption - lawyers are afraid to be stripped if their considerable investments into becoming a lawyer, without having any effective legal remedy in the stripping process. 

This disaster for access to justice (since intimidation of a court representative strips all Americans of independent and effective legal representation, especially in cases where the government is their opponent in litigation) is dealt a complete blanket of silence in the press, with the exception of blunt enumeration of the laundry-list - as it has been done in this article - of what were the grounds for dismissal of a lawyer's constitutional challenge to his disciplinary proceedings, without any attempt at honest critical analysis of what is going on.

This is a tabooed topic in the American "noble" legal academia, too.  In my personal experience and in the experience of many attorneys disciplined for criticism of the judiciary who dared to talk to me on the subject, American "constitutional law" professors, including very prominent ones, duck and refuse to support disciplined attorneys in such constitutional challenges - for fear of being booted out of their lucrative, well-paid, ABA-regulated, law school professorships.

But, this topic is a matter of grave public concern and MUST be addressed - since:

  •  disciplinary proceedings against lawyers in this country have long turned into witch-hunts against effective independent solo and small firm attorneys, especially, civil rights, criminal defense, family court and consumer debt attorneys (I was all of the above), 
  • lawyers are denied basic fairness in such license revocation proceedings - fairness afforded in similar license revocation proceedings of all other 1,100 regulated professions in the United States, fairness afforded to other "civil" litigants;
  • with the majority of the nation's more than 1 mln lawyers working for corporation and just a mere speck working for the "ordinary" "unrich" Americans, the chasm, the "justice gap", the inequality of being unable to find legal help and representatives who would be able and not afraid to effectively represent people in court drives people to absolute despair - just read what is going on in judicial forums about court corruption, CPS abductions of children from parents on fabricated charges, wrongful convictions, police and guard brutality.

So, let's address the issue - why do you, my fellow Americans, cannot find an:

  • affordable;
  • competent;
  • effecient;
  • independent;
  • courageous
legal advisor and/or legal representative in court to help you when you are in a dire need of such help?

Here is why.

Here is what is happening to a lawyer in the so-called disciplinary proceedings. 

1. While, say, a doctor's license (and all other types of professional licenses) is, first, revoked by an executive body and the doctor may then sue that executive body (the Lisensor) in court, challenging the legality of such a revocation (also not an ideal situation, but still), it is different with an attorney. 

A doctor has on option to sue: 

A. Either in the lower state court, and then he/she is afforded normal court procedures and, if his claim is denied, goes up the court system with his appeals, 

B. Or in the lower federal court, and then he is afforded full discovery and a jury trial. 

Not so with a lawyer. 

With a lawyer, the licensor (executive body) is actually the top state court that acts in the same disciplinary proceeding as a party (the body issuing and revoking licenses), a legislator that writes procedural and substantive laws for such procedures, an investigator, prosecutor and judge. 

And, while for everybody else, but lawyers, the top state court is the last appellate court, for lawyers it us the first (trial) court, so there are no appeals as of right, nowhere to appeal, while the US Supreme Court takes only those appeals that it wants to take and never took a lawyer disciplinary case in 50 years. 

And, a lawyer has no option to go to a federal court, like a doctor has, to challenge revocation of his law license - ever. 

Here is how it works. 

Since a doctor's professional license is revoked by an executive body, his federal lawsuit is not barred under the so-called Rooker-Feldman doctrine (illegal, court-invented, a restriction to jurisdiction of federal courts invented by courts in violation of Articles 1 and 3 of the US Constitution). 

Since a lawyer's license is revoked (the nature of the action is the same) by a court (even though acting in the same capacity as the doctor's Licensor, an executive body), the federal court

 A. Claims that the Licensor - as a court - is immune from lawsuit, and that 

B. Since the license was revoked (by the Licensor) calling itself a court, a federal lawsuit is barred under the court-created Rooker-Feldman doctrine forbidding to "re-litigate" state court decisions in federal courts. 

Knowing this, the lawyer in this Pennsylvania attorney disciplinary case has filed a challenge in federal court immediately when a disciplinary action was filed against him in - and by - the top state appellate court. 

Saying - under the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983 - "I have a right to have my federal constitutional challenges heard by a federal court, by a jury". 

Here is what the lawyer 

has got for his efforts - a dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit without a review on the merits by the federal court, by a judge with a law license from the defendant-licensor-top state appellate court, by a judge whose continued employment, and livelihood, depend on keeping this license, and, thus, keeping himself in the good graces of the defendant-court-licensor).

I will have to explain in a separate article how the state disciplinary proceedings were going on and why a lawyer of 29 years' experience has finally lost it and went to federal court to address the mess going on in the Pennsylvania top state court.

Suffice it to say that - predictably - the whole mess was based on 3 premises:

1) allegations that the lawyer criticized 2 judges of the Pennsylvania State Judicial Compensation Board for engaging in ex parte communications with opposing counsel;

So, the judges' names were Judge Patricia Bachman and Judge Joseph Hagan.

2) that opponents of the lawyer used the disciplinary proceedings to harass their opponent and thus gain advantage in litigation;

3) that opponents of the lawyer were trying to use to their advantage the recent illegal decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court regarding the ability of suspended attorney Andy Ostrowski to represent clients before that same board - which the statute said he (and anybody without any law license or formal education) can do, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that he cannot do - because they said so.

The federal judge has given the following reasons for the dismissal of the lawyer's federal civil rights lawsuit:

1) "failure to state a claim" of violation of his constitutional rights - for federal courts who are themselves licensing lawyers, and, thus, have an irreconcilable conflict of interest in such cases, nothing at all can possibly "state a claim" (a subjective, vague and undefined notion) where a court may violate a lawyer's constitutional rights; 

2) under a yet another court-invented (unconstitutional legislating from the bench) bar to a federal civil rights action - the so-called "Younger abstention", telling him - you have an ample opportunity to raise the claims of violations of your federal constitutional rights before people who are violating your federal constitutional rights, the defendant-court-licensor, holder of the presiding federal court judge's law license. No bias, conflict of interest or violation of due process at all;

3) the lawyer is told that the Licensor, as a state court, is immune from lawsuit under the 11th amendment supposedly "barring lawsuits against state agencies. Of course, the 11th Amendment says nothing of the kind. 

In fact, by it's clear text it bars only lawsuits by a resident of one state against another state, not against your own state. 

But, courts decided that "it is well settled" that the clear text of the 11th Amendment must be changed to mean something different from what its plain text actually means. 

Because - otherwise how will a federal judge, holder of a law license from the defendant-state court-licensor of the plaintiff lawyer in a federal civil action gets to protect the federal judge's own licensor? 

I was actually sanctioned by a federal judge, the then-Chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York Gary L Sharpe (in a lawsuit where his son's employer represented defendant licensor of the judge's own, and of his 2 sons' law licenses), sanctioned $6,995, for daring to quote to the judge the actual text of the 11th Amendment and pointing out its plain meaning. 

Note that English is not my native language, but it is native for Judge Sharpe.  Yet, I had to explain to a judge and a native speaker of English the plain meaning of the 11th Amendmeng that he has sworn to protect and uphold, as well as the entirety of the US Constitution and its amendments, as a condition of serving as a judge. 

Since I kept bringing civil rights lawsuits in federal courts against county and state officials for my clients (that is why the Civil Rights Act was enacted by the US Congress), it was my specialization (one if them, in addition to criminal and family law), I was suspended 4 years ago for 2 years, but without a right for automatic reinstatement on expiration of the 2 years. 

Knowing the "procedure for lawyers", or, rather, lack thereof, and knowing that I will have to beg and grovel in front of corrupt people who have broken every law in the book to make sure I do not successfully represent my clients again, I am not trying to restore my law license. 

This lawyer's disciplinary journey, judging by the dismissal based on the Younger abstention, has just begun. 

When his license is, practically inevitably under the current conditions of the "law", taken by the state court, predictably, without regard of his federal constitutional rights, 

1) the US Supreme Court will deny his appeal by 2 words in a letter - " certiorari denied", no explanation, and 

2) his new federal lawsuit will be dismissed on the grounds of: 

* the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, 

* judicial immunity - judges' gift to themselves, absolving themselves from their sworn duty to abide by the law, instead judges unlawfully legislated from the bench and gave themselves immunity for malicious and corrupt acts in office, 

* "sovereign immunity" - even though the People, not the government, us the sovereign, but saying that to a court will, most likely inflict upon you sanctions, even though this basis of our democracy is stated - in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution and in all state Constitutions; 

* 11th Amendment - wrongfully interpreted in a "well-settled" way, * failure to state a claim if constitutional violations. 

All of these grounds will be invoked before and without judicial review on the merits, and the lawyer will be denied by the federal judge, licensed by the defendant-state court-licensor in the lawsuit, his federal statutory right to a jury trial for the complete loss if his profession and livelihood. Lawyers know this - and keep mum, no matter what judges do. 

In the same Pennsylvsnia where this case was from, lawyers kept mum - for years - when a judge (Marc Ciavarella) presided over cases of minors who appeared in front of him, in violation of state law, without lawyers, even though the local public defense's office was well aware of what was going on, and the judge sent thus unrepresented minors, whether they were guilty or not, to a juvenile jail. In order to fill it to capacity for a private jail manager, for multimillion dollar bribes from that manager. 

Lawyers were mum. 

Judges were mum. 

The court personnel was mum. 

Everybody wanted to keep their well-paid jobs and businesses going.

Only after kids started to commit suicides in that kiddie jail, and parents started to push for an investigation, when the scandal could no longer be concealed, was the judge investigated, prosecuted, convicted and went to prison - but only by the feds, the state authorities, lawyers, still were afraid to touch him.

And, even when Judge Ciavarella went to federal prison, his victims were denied relief by a civil court - on the following grounds:

 “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. 

Remember, this supposed "law" is about a judge who, for years, was systematically and intentionally, was unlawfully sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks, to fill the juvenile jail, so that its private manager would turn a profit.

The court-licensor in this case, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court, is also "famous" in 3 more cases: 

1/ its judge presided over, denied 4 appeals and said nasty things about persistency of attorneys of a prisoner who the judge has obtained a fabricated wrongful conviction against as a prosecutor which the judge has used to get elected as a judge in the first place, William's v Pennsylvsnia, 2015. 

2/ the court has suspended the elected state attorney general Kathleen Kane when she started to investigate misconduct of judges of the court, and 

3/ the court has declared that suspended civil rights attorney Andrew Ostrowski who has run for the US Congress (and got 62,228, 1/3 of votes, reportedly, without any meaningful financial support) in 2014 on an anti-judicial-corruption platform may not "practice law" representing clients in front of an administrative unemployment benefits state board, even though the applicable statute allow non-lawyer representatives in front of that same board, and the statute specifically declares that such a representation is not "the practice of law", which is not clearly defined by statute in the state anyway. 

The court has then dangled in front of attorney Ostrowski, stripped of all - even lawful - means to earn a living an offer the attorney could not refuse under the circumstances: 

  • stop your successful anti-judicial-corruption radio show "Justice Served with Andy Ostrowski", 
  • delete the library of recorded interviews from attorneys from across the US who have been suspended or disbarred for criticizing judicial corruption, 
  • keep mum for a while as to any civil rights violations within the court system, the disciplinary system and the so-called legal profession - and we will return to you your law license and livelihood. 

When Ostrowsky caved in and did what was required of him by the "noble" court, the court (predictably) refused to restore his law license, which has sent Ostrowski into a mental breakdown, eviction and a criminal conviction. 

The lawyer in this case knows all of that and knows, what kind of "justice" he is facing with this particular licensor-court, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court. 

As does the federal judge who has, nevertheless, sent the lawyer back to that court with a callous statement that the lawyer will have "ample opportunities" to go knock himself out beating his head against a brick wall trying to persuade a corrupt body that is deeming itself completely above the law (and it is) that it is violating his federal constitutional rights, which they know they are doing, and doing intentionally. 

Now - ARE you surprised that you, dear Americans, cannot find an independent civil rights, family, criminal defense attorney to represent you in court? 

Why they are afraid to state what they know is going on in front of them? 

Why there is no independence of the "noble" legal profession in the United States?

We have a presidential and state elections campaigns raging across the U.S. at this time.

All candidates are making promises, and all candidates are clamoring for your votes and your money.

Just ASK them instead, some questions pertinent to your own access to justice.

Just DEMAND that they make it their CAMPAIGN PLATFORM:

  1.  to eradicate judicial corruption;
  2.  allow people to choose their own representatives in court, consultants and title document drafters without government approval;
  3. allow people's direct access to grand juries;
  4. make grand jury records public;
  5. remove prosecutors from their conflicted position of legal advisors of the grand juries;
  6. legislatively abolish all kinds of judicially created immunities and restrictions on jurisdiction of federal courts in civil rights actions;
  7. legislatively prohibit court sanctions for invoking violations of constituitonal rights.

Once this is done - you will see the government will become a lot tamer and a lot more - not honest, careful not to violate your constitutional rights.

If you continue to watch soap operas of a rich guy for Democrats vs a rich guy for Republicans, trying to take sides and sympathize for people who have no sympathy for you and do exactly what they want you to do - forget that YOU ARE THE MASTERS in this country, that they are YOUR SERVANTS, PUBLIC SERVANT, and that they MUST DO YOUR BIDDING, not invent ways for you to do theirs - you will continue to have what you have now.

The justice gap.

Thursday, September 26, 2019

How Russia is copycatting a big American disaster - perfectly. A tale of American foxies and chickens, and how to shit another planet after you have thoroughly shitted your own.

We have in the United States what economists call "absolute attorney monopoly".

Lawyers have clinched the market of legal services for themselves and do not allow anybody else to do anything in it.

Does not matter that "the practice of law" - the subject of regulation is not clearly defined by statute in any of the 255+ court jurisdictions across the United States, and that such regulation, under a standing and, supposedly, binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent, is unconstitutional based not on just one, but on several points.

Does not matter that it is non-sensical to allow the fox to regulate themselves for the benefit of the chickens (consumers) - without letting chickens have a say in the regulation, that is, supposedly, for their benefit.

Does not matter that the chickens may want to choose their own foxy to represent themselves in court - and, possibly, not from the pack approved by big bad foxes (the government).

Does not matter that there are - in abundance - situations when the "outside foxies" are knowledgeable in how to defend chickens against the big bad fox, while the "inside foxies" are not.  The big bad fox still tells the chickens then - you must choose the dumb inside foxies to represent yourself against me in my court, rather than the outside smart foxies, because I said so.

Does not matter that big bad foxes have long ruled that lack of a law license (not being a member of the monopoly) does not mean that services of such a person are ineffective 

- making such a regulation/monopoly nonsensical.

Does not matter that big bad foxes have long been punishing the outside foxies, for doing HIGH QUALITY, GOOD work for indigent chickens - because they were doing that GOOD work for the indigent chickens that no inside foxies wanted to do, but without permission from the big bad fox, and without paying their ways through the required "golden path" (see below).

That is a criminal offense in the United States, doing good work ("practice of law") without permission of the big bad fox - who cannot define what the practice of law is in the first place, but will put you in jail if you practice it without its permission.

Does not matter that it makes no sense, when the big bad fox (the government) sues the chicken, that the chicken's rights (the big bad fox says) are protected in the best way only (supposedly) if their own opponent, the big bad fox, chooses a foxy for the chicken, out of a list of foxies pre-approved by the big bad fox.

Does not matter that it makes no sense to allow the big bad fox (courts) to regulate all foxies while the absolute majority of foxies do not litigate (do not work in courts).

Does not matter that any monopoly - and attorney monopoly is no exception:

  • increases prices for consumer;
  • cuts diversity of products and services;
  • cuts quality of products and services - all by reducing competition,
  • stifles innovation,
  • stifles social progress by putting a high price on entry into the monopoly by requiring every new foxy to pay his way through a "golden path":

1/ graduate from high school;
2/ pay for and stay out of the job market for 4 years of college (does not matter what degree - it is useless, its role is to make candidates to enter the monopoly WAIT for 4 more years and pay for it through their noses - the poor will fall off the wagon of candidates on their own 
3/ pay for and stay out of the job market for 3 more years of law school (200,000 dollars all in all for not the best of law schools nowadays - on to of college student loans);
4/ pay for an "ethics" exam 
5/ pay a Board licensing fee
6/ pay for a super-expensive bar exam preparation fee
7/ pay a bar exam fee;
8/ regularly pay the ever-increasing biennial licensing fees and
9/ Continued Legal education - not cheap, but mandatory amount of hours to maintain a license
10/ it is very advisable for foxies (individually and as firms and associations) to make "contributions" to election campaign of judges - to win cases in front of them.

All of the above - inevitably - has led to the current situation (and it has been for some time this way) in the United States where the absolute majority of American chickens cannot afford legal services of foxies, and where the majority of inside foxies do not even want to represent the American chickens, instead preferring to work for big chicken farms ( less than 0.6% of American attorneys work for the poor, while 75% of American attorneys work for corporations) - since all foxies must necessarily put into their prices the cost of the "golden path".

But, we have long passed that point - and the poor STILL cannot hire outside foxies, cannot make a choice any legally competent adult must be able to make for himself - who is going to be his trusted person to represent him in court.

Meanwhile, the same justice Sotomayor (and her brothers and sisters) STILL continued to reject petitions of attorneys for the poor disbarred or suspended and taken out of the rich of their indigent clients, thus broadening the justice gap over which this "Democratic" justice has shed her crocodile tears.


Attorney monopoly in the United States DID start to give way - albeit slowly.

1. has introduced an AI (artificial intelligence)-assisted legal research, available to anyone, for 65 bucks a month.  That's 18 cents an hour, folks, 1667 TIMES cheaper than to pay a fee to an attorney who may not even know the subject, but will take your money anyway.

You scan in and upload your legal document, the software, assisted by artificial intelligence, spots legal issues in it and pops up for you statutes and court decisions on points of those decisions - you can read it and form your own impression what are your chances in a particular court proceeding.

2.  5 states so far (California, Utah, Arizona, Maine, and Illinois) at the moment are contemplating deregulation, allowing non-lawyers to practice law.  A month ago it was only California.  So, the snowball of deregulation has started rolling.  Slowly, imperfectly, but it did start rolling.

But, foxes are called foxes because they are tricky.

And, American foxes (attorneys) have seen the writing of deregulation on the wall a wrong time ago.  And made precautionary arrangements.

Tell me, what do you do if you bomb and poison and burn your own planet into extinction?

You try to find another one to bomb and poison and burn into extinction, of course.

And that's what the American legal profession has done.

It has founded a project - funded by American taxpayers, mind, those same taxpayers who the American legal profession has caused not to be able to afford a lawyer, so they go without legal help.  The project started at the fall of the Berlin wall, and, of course, is called "The Rule of Law".    

The essence of the project is, of course, nothing close to spreading the Rule of Law over the welcoming world.  

It is a project transplanting all that is bad in the U.S. - its corrupt and ineffective court system, its attorney monopoly that has caused a dire crises of access to justice - to the so-called 3rd world and post-Soviet countries, including Russia.

To transplant their home Armageddon overseas to be able to operate under homelike conditions, the American legal profession did not spare millions over millions - of taxpayer money, of course, they work through and with USAID - which keeps contracts with the ABA on this project secret, blocking Freedom of Information requests from the likes of me.

But, judging by certain tax returns of certain organizations available on, the ABA works on the global shit-spreading project the same way as they work at home.

They bribed the necessary people, brought them on world and U.S. tours, educated them in Harvard, employed their friends and relatives - and, thus, changed country Constitutions and legislations, and instilled American-type attorney monopolies across the world.

Russia has fallen into this trap, too.

It was not easy to instill attorney monopoly in Russia.  Well, it was not easy to do that in the U.S. either.  It required nearly a century to do that - but it was done.  And so it was - nearly completely now - in Russia.

In 1993 American lawyers have "helped" Russia re-write its Constitution, putting into it an "Article 48" that provided a guarantee to Russians not for just legal "help", but for "qualified legal help".  That was later used as a pretext to restrict those who are allowed to provide "legal help" to the population - because they need to be "qualified", and their qualifications are to be determined by - guess who - members of the monopoly, of course, not the public.

In 9 years, in 2002 - a group of attorneys called "advocates" (about 80 000 out of the current 1-2 mln of Russian attorneys, nobody counted them, it is an educated guess), have gained monopoly in criminal cases, through a statute.

17 years further down the road, in less than a week, on October 1, 2019 - a yet another new statute goes into effect in Russia, by which all attorneys gained monopoly for court representation in civil cases.

On September 30, 2019 - the third and final stage of instilling American-type attorney monopoly starts, when the Russian Legislature, Gosduma, starts to discuss - behind closed doors, in a "working group" of unknown membership - how to put the final nail into Russian people's access to justice and how to gain submission of all Russian attorneys to government-controlled rich attorney elites. 

Just like we have it in our United States of America.

And we are saying that Russia has interfered into our elections.  

It's not even funny, foxies.

But - well, now indigent Americans can hope that the aurora is arising for them with the slowly coming deregulation of the rule of foxies in the US - while indigent Russians get plunged upon the conveniently offered American rake.

Thursday, September 19, 2019

In order to keep up its budgets, the Delaware County DSS steps up its child-hunt., now hiring a really good trial lawyer, Erin Neale. Parents, beware.

My personal opinion: NO self-respecting attorney will agree to work for DSS, especially for the corrupt Delaware County (NY) DSS.

Especially under the unethical County Attorney Amy Merklen, who has just committed an ultimate unethical act - instead of obeying direction of her client, DSS Commissioner Dana Scuderi-Hunter, Merklen reported her to the County Board, obtaining her removal from her position.

Amy Merklen has, as I wrote before, a short fuse and a history of questionable behavior, but in the removal of Scuderi-Hunter she has outdone herself - while knowing full well that she can commit any unethical conduct as an attorney, and her rear end will be covered by the local corrupt clique of the DA's office (former Becker's law partner John Hubbard) and his boss (also Judge Becker's friend Richard Northrup).

Erin Neale must know just what kind of dirt-pool she has plunged herself in - but nobody makes people accept such jobs, so, she did it voluntarily.  

Official court records from Family e-courts show that Erin Neale - a good trial lawyer whom I respected - has joined Delaware County DSS.

Here is attorney Neale's docket report from the New York State e-courts, as if today.

It is a very long list of court cases, and, in all of these listed court cases for Erin Neale, she is listed in the following way:

Erin Neale did not yet reflect joining Delaware County DSS in her official attorney registration information,

 so the switch must be recent.

Apparently, Erin Neale has split from her ... interesting former law partner Renee Albaugh, of Delhi, NY (see different P.O. Box numbers and see that Erin Neale no longer listed that she worked in Albaugh's law firm).

The interesting law partner who, upon my personal knowledge, has ardently fought for very close access to other people's children for a client, Justin Crandall, whom local law enforcement (including this particular DSS Department) protected - so it had to be the feds who has had to deal with him.

He was recently sent to federal prison for 50 years for sexual abuse of a 17 month old child and production of child porn.

So, now, possibly, to distance from Albaugh, Neale switched to the "very right side", the most corrupt DSS department?  

Knowing very well it is corrupt after representing so many private clients against it in Family Court?

What the switch means for Delaware County parents.

1.  Erin Neale is a very good trial lawyer, so, the chance of losing your kids to DSS has just got higher.

2.  Just because Erin Neale (who I knew as an honest attorney) has joined the DSS - while its new Commissioner was dumped with the help of the former corrupt Commissioner Bill Moon - DSS is not going to turn honest and will not change its policies based on financial (federal and state) incentives to fabricate cases and grab children from parents.  Erin Neale will have to follow those policies and help DSS implement them - while using her good trial lawyer skills for DSS.

The bottom line for Delaware County parents:

1.  If you can - run, literally, leave Delaware County with your precious children;

2.  If you cannot leave, but if one of the parents can switch to homeschooling - switch to homeschooling.  

It is from schools that DSS most readily grabs children, and now, with introduction of New York "red flag law", teachers received an additional tool of helping DSS grab children, by reporting gunowner/hunter parents to court as "dangerous to themselves or others";

3.  Be very afraid, and very alert for tricks of DSS.

4.  Educate yourself as to how to fight CPS in court yourself.  It is highly unlikely that your assigned counsel will help you.  

If even such a trial lawyer as Erin Neale does not have enough business in the area, to the point that she accepted a job from DSS (that is hitting the rock bottom for a trial lawyer of her class), your assigned counsel, even if they wanted to go against her, have no chance.

But they won't.  They will remember the example of attorney David Roosa who has stopped getting assigned cases from Judge Becker and then was suspended - for performing as much work and as effectively for assigned clients, as for private clients.

The recent Albany Law School study says that upstate attorneys are leaving - or starving.

Assigned cases (paying $75 an hour for in- and out-of-court work, including travel to and from court and the time spent waiting in court, which in neglect cases is considerable) may be the only for assigned attorneys to survive.

Since that is so, your assigned attorney, will not "stir the pot" just to help you out.

If they do their job for you, they will not be assigned again - and will starve.  So - they won't do it for you.   

Your only chances to beat DSS at their child-hunting game is, as I said above,

1. run from the County (better from the State), or
2. homeschool, and
3. learn how to represent yourself efficiently in court.

Don't be lazy.

Law is not rocket science, you can do it.

Read the law, research your case, use AI-assisted research (it is cheap nowadays, just 65 bucks a month, 18 cents an hour at

Otherwise, you are doomed, I am serious.

Remember that there are less children born in the US nowadays and in New York State, and there are increasingly less children in Delaware County - people are fleeing New York.

See that schools are closing, see that maternity hospitals are closing, see that the size of classes in local public schools are getting much, much smaller - that's an indicator that there are less children.

But, DSS workers, and their attorneys,  still want to eat, as good or better than before.  

They do not want budget cuts.  

To prevent budget cuts, they want to steal the same number of children as before from Delaware County parents, even if there are less children in the County.

And they have already bulked up on their resources to do just that.

They now have a child interrogation bus.

They now booted out a not-so-corrupt new DSS Commissioner (who was against acquiring this bus, by the way) with the help of the previous, very corrupt,  DSS Commissioner, Bill Moon, so you know something kind of tricks are being prepared.

Now they have gone even further and, for the first time in several decades, they have hired a real litigation attorney, a really good trial lawyer, Erin Neale.

So - be prepared for an offensive operation to steal your children - they are a very much needed commodity for DSS at this time.

For an illustration of what kind of financial and other tricks DSS are doing with the kids, watch this excellent interview.  It is a little bit emotional at the beginning, but bear with it, later on really interesting details come out.

It is from the State of Michigan, but, since financial incentives for DSS to steal children come from federal law, DSS acts the same (corrupt) way throughout the country.

I cannot stress it enough - the situation is very serious.

Every parent and every child is at risk.

If you think that "it will not happen to me", think again.
When people want to keep their jobs, keep their budgets up, and your child is a commodity that will help them do that - no law or ethics will stand in the way.

The shortage of children as a commodity to fill out DSS budgets and make a living for numerous DSS partners is now so bad that presidential candidate Joe Biden, for example, suggested that the government should attach social workers to every single family, to teach parents how to raise their kids - or, rather, to be able to have a ready access to the family in order to snatch children.

And, of course, to be able to control parents, including their political views, by threatening to remove their children.

And, another presidential candidate's, Senator Bernie Sanders', wife IS a social worker.

You may expect a lot of good things if either of these 2 get elected in 2020.

So.  Read ahead of time.  Be prepared ahead of time.

Nobody will be able to help you, but yourself now.

Saturday, August 10, 2019

The spectaculaly fake story of Epstein's death

So, yesterday one court released a massive trail of files regarding civil sexual abuse lawsuit against Epstein, including materials from depositions - the tool not carefully not allowed in criminal proceedings, because it will prevent too many wrongful convictions.  I have written about that tool here.

Within hours, Epstein is claimed dead - by suicide, authorities say, while being on a 24/7 suicide watch during a pretrial detention.

Naturally, given the wealth of the accused and the names mentioned in the press of people who were supposedly frequenting child sex sessions at Epstein's private quarters, not many commentators on social media believe the reports of suicide - or even death - of Epstein.

There are a lot of theories that:

  • he was murdered;
  • he paid his way out of a criminal case and went to enjoy the rest of his life, under an assumed identity and after a thorough plastic surgery, some place nice and remote from the United States; or
  • that he is whisked into Witness Protection Program.
Whichever theory you prefer, be my guest, but the interesting thing that Epstein is not the first accused child sex ring leader who has died in government custody this year.

I wrote about that case here.  

I wonder now whether Christian Maire was also WPP'd or is "doing time" at some tropical island.

Too many high-powered people are involved.

Of course, on the one hand, it may be cheaper to kill off such powerful sources of information.

But, one thing that our government does without fail - is cultivating corruption within its ranks, so, some gut feeling tells me that, for those holding strings to Epstein's - and Maire's - freedom, bribe amounts that child sex ring leaders could generate who were supposedly pandering children for sex to top-rank people in state and federal governments were not to be passed by.

I wonder how many people in high places are sighing a sigh of relief, and how many people, also in high places, are no less happily counting their bribe money.

Some things never change.

Sunday, July 28, 2019

When a judge is openly playing on the prosecution's team. The criminal case against attorney Connie Reguli, Tennessee, and her client - for winning in Family Court against CPS, twice

I have written so far 3 articles about the astounding case where an attorney and her client, a mother of minor children, were charged with crimes in the State of Tennessee after the attorney has WON the case for the mother against the CPS and had had her children returned from the CPS back to the mother - for the 2nd time!

The previous articles can be read

The first  article of the series - here, about the identity of the judge whose words, name and circumstances when they were said withheld, were leaked by the prosecution to the press and published - in order to taint the jury pool, send a message to the potential jurors as to what a high-ranking judge wants from them from this ver, very bad (the judge says) attorney, so bad that the mother should fire her in order to be able to get her children back.

the second article of the series - here, describing what the prosecution claims it is charging attorney Reguli and Wendy Hancock for - without filing the unsealed indictment with the court or giving a copy to the criminal defendants, as required by law


the third article - about just some of provisions of the Tennessee State Constitution that were blatantly violated by this criminal prosecution - and I did not even start on the `1st Amendment, which is all over this case -  here.

I have been defending criminal cases (in the State of New York) and litigating constitutional violations by the government, civil rights lawsuits, as an attorney for many years and can testify in court - including by Tennessee Rule 702 - as an expert in the field.

What attorney Reguli described yesterday about what the judge and the prosecutor, Williamson County DA, are doing in her case - has nothing to do with  the law, at all.  

It is my expert opinion that both the prosecutor and the judge in this case should be impeached, removed from their respective offices, criminally prosecuted and never allowed to take public offices again for what they are doing in this criminal case.

Let me start with saying that constitutional rights of criminal defendants work the same way in all states, since they are based on federal Constitution - which every judge and every prosecutor is sworn to uphold - and on state Constitutions, which cannot take away federal constitutional rights, but can ADD more rights - not to the prosecution, but to the criminal defendants.

From the point of view of plain vanilla criminal defense what is going on in attorney Reguli's criminal case is - bizarre is not even beginning to describe it.

Violation of the 5th Amendment

Many people assume that the 5th Amendment is just for the right to remain silent - "I plead the 5th" is a famous phrase often reproduced in movies.

Yet, the 5th Amendment is about much more - including the protection OF THE DEFENDANT with the help of grand jury proceedings.

Here is the full text of the 5th Amendment:

"Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The very first phrase of the 5th Amendment is actually not about self-incrimination, but is about the grand jury.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury...".
This phrase, "HELD to answer" is about JURISDICTION of a criminal court to have a person ARRESTED on criminal charges for felonies.
The court has no JURISDICTION - no AUTHORITY - to ARREST a person on felony charges other than on a "presentment or indictment of the grand jury".
Of course, states, through "state law", have - unconstitutionally - made federal constitutional PROTECTION of criminal defendants through grand jury proceedings into a mockery and its exact opposite, into prosecution's secret tool of attack, completely reversing the meaning of the 5th Amendment - I have recently wrote about this technique in detail in a law review article, here.
But, some shreds of the 5th Amendment PROTECTION of criminal defendants through grand jury proceedings still remain even in state law.
And the most important of such shreds is - that the criminal court RECEIVES JURISDICTION over a felony case only when an unsealed indictment, a public document, is filed with the court, or, a sealed indictment is filed with the court, and it is unsealed at the arraignment of the defendant on it - and the copy of an unsealed indictment is given to the defendant at arraignment and is read out loud in an open court in front of the defendant.
We do not have secret criminal charges or secret criminal proceedings in the U.S.
Well, guess what?
Attorney Reguli and her client have already been 
  • called by the police nearly 2 WEEKS AGO (July 16, 2019), 
  • told that there is a SEALED indictment against them and an arrest warrant (necessarily signed by a judge based on that indictment - so the judge must have seen the indictment), that 
  • they supposedly need to turn themselves into the police on July 17, 2019 if they do not want the police to pick them up forcibly and bring them in - FOR BOOKING, not arraignment - in handcuffs,
  • both attorney Reguli and her client Wendy Hancock have already turned themselves into the police on July 17, 2019,
  • were subjected to the theatrical handcuffing by their wrists to the wall of the police station while being booked, and
  • were released -
    •  Connie Reguli with a JUDGE'S STATEMENT "ROR" and the JUDGE'S SIGNATURE on - not a copy of the indictment, no - on a copy of a piece of paper describing in vague terms that she was criminally charged for something, without describing what exactly she was charged with, and
    • her client Wendy Hancock - on a $1000 bond, also ordered by a judge.
Now, wait a minute.

There was NO PUBLIC COURT HEARING called the ARRAIGNMENT where - in open court, in front of the public, defendants would be presented with the INDICTMENT of the grand jury.

If there was no arraignment, the court could not - BEFORE the arrest - make a determination he would have been required to do at such a PUBLIC hearing - to release defendant attorney Reguli ROR (on her own recognizance) and to release defendant Hancock on a $1,000 bond.

What the judge did was completely illegal.

A criminal case is an open court case - we are not having Star Chambers here in the United States.

Moreover, the Tennessee Constitution guarantees to the public that courts are open to the public, 

all indictments must include specific wording to be valid,

and that the government - any of its branches, including prosecutors and judges - is blocked from changing that,

There is a pretense made by the state - and the press is informed about it by the prosecution - that 2 people, one of them a prominent family court and civil rights attorney who testified to the State Legislature about judicial and CPS misconduct for decades - are charged with crimes, specifically, with FELONIES.


That means that criminal proceedings have already started.

  1. No indictment was FILED - as an OPEN PUBLIC DOCUMENT - with the court, so that ANYBODY, including - OF COURSE - people who are the target of these charges, the two criminal defendants, attorney Connie Reguli and Wendy Hancock - can familiarize themselves with the charges;
  2. No public arraignment of the defendants was held by the court on that indictment;
  3. Defendants WERE NOT GIVEN a copy of the indictment, it remains SECRET a this time, and nobody - not the defendants, not their attorneys if they have them, not the press and not the public - know WHETHER such an indictment EXISTS, and, if it does, what it contains.
In other words, 12 days after the arrest of Connie Reguli and her client the criminal court still DID NOT RECEIVE JURISDICTION over the criminal case - and the arrest, booking and the judge's ROR/Bond release on some obscure piece of paper replacing the indictment - was utterly, completely illegal.

It gets even better, ladies and gentlemen.

Ex parte communications of the judge with the prosecution

Not many non-lawyers are familiar with the expression "ex parte communications" in relation to court proceedings.

"Ex parte communications" means - communication of one of the parties with a judge when the other party does not know about it.

Such communications are prohibited in all state and federal jurisdiction, for a number of reasons.

1.  court proceedings are, constitutionally, open to the public.
2.  opposing parties in court have equal rights; and
3.  people have a due process right to an impartial judge reviewing their case

All these three constitutional rights disappear when one of the parties goes behind the back of the other and - secretly - negotiates with the judge assigned to the case how the case should be decided.

This appears to be the case in the not-yet-started (legally) criminal proceedings against defendants attorney Connie Reguli and Wendy Hancock.

According to what Connie Reguli received - BY EMAIL from the court, after the court negotiated ex parte with the prosecution, the prosecution, even before any kind of arraignment - approached the judge with a motion to impose a GAG ORDER (remember - court proceedings must be open by the Tennessee Constitution? remember the federal 1st Amendment right to speak out and criticize the government?

Once again, the Williamson County DA, a public officer sworn to uphold the U.S. and Tennessee Constitution, 
  • before and INSTEAD OF filing the UNSEALED indictment with the court that would have given the court jurisdiction to arraign the defendants and to entertain motions from both parties
  • before the court obtained jurisdiction over the defendants through such an arraignment (which did not happen until now) - filed an ex parte motion with the court for a GAG order against both defendants, so that they would not openly talk to the press, on social media and with anybody at all, about the case, because that would supposedly destroy THE PROSECUTION's right to a fair trial.
That the prosecution leaked to the press portions of a transcript of a motion to recuse Judge Amy Hollars, filed by attorney Reguli on behalf of her client Wendy Hancock BEFORE she WON that case after a full trial - without disclosing 

  • the identity of the judge;
  • the identity of the proceeding;
  • that the statement of the judge leaked to the press was a part of the judge's hissy fit immediately before the judge has GRANTED the motion to recuse and RECUSED herself - which gives the judge's statement the coloring of a THREAT to the parent that, if she does not fire her attorney, Connie Reguli before trial (the attorney who has won her children back for her before, who knew her case very well and who eventually won the case for her at trial AGAIN), her children will be taken away from her by the state.
- somehow is not considered tainting the jury pool.  Right?

And it STILL gets better.

The judge, of course, had no right to entertain that "motion" before getting jurisdiction over the case.

The judge should have waited until the indictment, sealed or unsealed, be filed with the court, and until the judge unseals it at an arraignment, hands it over to the defendants, holds the arraignment and then allow parties to do discovery and motions - on the schedule set by law.

But, no.

This case is too important for the State of Tennessee to follow the law.  It has to be "done right".  I has to achieve "the right result".  The law is interfering with that goal.

So, if they cannot do it right when the press is watching, a "reasonable remedy" that they have arrived to is - to scarp defendants' rights and to block the press from ever watching.

Yes, a gag order - before the court ever got jurisdiction over the case.

And not only that.

  • the ILLEGAL ex parte negotiation with the prosecution about 
  • the ILLEGAL motion for a gag order made based on 
  • an ILLEGAL (not yet filed) accusatory instrument (supposedly, a sealed indictment - but nobody saw it, so we do not really know whether it exists, what charges it contains, if any, and whether it contains the language required by the Tennessee State Constitution without which it is not valid), the judge who 
  • ILLEGALLY usurped the power in the case (since, again an UNSEALED indictment was not yet filed with the court), engaged in an 
  • ILLEGAL ex parte communication - now with defendant Connie Reguli.

You know, on what subject?

The judge appeared in the role of a NEGOTIATOR ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION.

According to Connie Reguli, the judge said, in an ex parte e-mail to Connie Reguli, the following, and, of course, I give here the paraphrased meaning, not the exact words of the judge:

"Here is the deal.

Let's make an exchange.

YOU, defendant Reguli, 
  • WAIVE your right to discovery and motions, 
  • AGREE to sever (separate, cut off) your case from the case of Wendy Hancock, so that they are tried separately;
  • AGREE to set the trial in just 5 weeks, on September 5, 2019,
and I, the judge - do not grant 
  • the ILLEGAL prosecution's motion for a gag order, 
  • ILLEGALLY filed with the judge INSTEAD OF filing the UNSEALED indictment with the court and then proceeding to ARRAIGNMENT, DISCOVERY and filing motions IN OPEN COURT.
That means, that the judge - before ever obtaining jurisdiction over the case, has already become part of the prosecution's team, engaging in misconduct on prosecution's behalf and using his (usurped) power to pressure defendants to cede important constitutional rights before the criminal case even officially commenced.

A judge even went so far as to negotiating a NEVER MADE MOTION TO SEVER cases.

This motion, again, could not be made - because, I will repeat even if I sound as a looped soundtrack,
  • the UNSEALED indictment was never filed with the court and never given to defendants,
  • the court, thus, did not receive jurisdiction over the criminal proceedings;
  • no motions COULD be filed at this time; and
  • the court MAY NOT FILE MOTIONS on behalf of parties - in writing or orally - 
which did not deter the judge in question one bit, and he has MADE A MOTION TO SEVER on behalf of the prosecution, by sending such a "request" to defendant attorney Connie Reguli BY EMAIL, very obviously after an ex parte request to do that was made to the judge by the prosecution.

It is exceedingly obvious that NO JUSTICE can be obtained in such a - yes, KANGUROO COURT - for either of the defendants, if both the prosecutor and the judge act as if they have never gone to law school and instead engage in a backyard bullying in middle school where whoever has the bigger stick, sets the rules as they see fit.

From my point of view, the first order of things is to 
  • file for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the court to proceed before the UNSEALED indictment is filed;
  • to request in that writ of prohibition, that the judge and the prosecutor are taken off the cases in view of their egregious misconduct;
  • once the unsealed indictment is filed with the court and the arraignment on it held, 
    • to file motions to 
      • recuse the judge;
      • disqualify the prosecutor;
      • sanction the prosecutor for ex parte communications with the judge
  • turn the judge into the judicial conduct authorities;
  • turn both the judge and the prosecutor into the FBI;
  • have the prosecutor sanctioned, taken off the case and criminally prosecuted by a special out-of-state counsel presenting the case to a special grand jury;
  • to have the judge sanctioned, taken off the case and criminally prosecuted, also by a special out-of-state counsel presenting the case to a special grand jury.

Because, ladies and gentlemen, criminal proceedings should not be turned by people with middleschool bully mentality holding taxpayer-funded sticks into dog and pony shows.

There is procedure for criminal proceedings and laws to be observed, and the defendants, the public and the press should not be treated by the government as idiots having no rights whatsoever.

If government officials do that, they should be stopped, prosecuted, replaced and blocked from ever holding public office.

The Tennessee Constitution allows and encourages that, actually.