The "Roy Moore" full-panel judicial recusal in the Alabama Supreme Court, the "Katrina" partial-panel recusal at the U.S. 5th Circuit and the necessity for a "special U.S. Supreme Court"

An unusual thing is happening in Alabama - the ENTIRE top court of the State of Alabama recused from hearing the appeal of its suspended Chief Judge Roy Moore, and a procedure was devised to convene a "Special Supreme Court", from retired judges.

While many times judges have personal knowledge of litigated facts, and in most cases they stick like glue to those cases and decide them for parties they favor, in this case the sheer rank of the litigant, the judge's prior boss - who may well get back into saddle as a result of that appeal and become their actual boss once again - dictated the recusals, apparently out of caution and self-preservation.

Back in 2010, there was a similar recusal with dissimilar results in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, where 8 judges recused from hearing an appeal because judges held stocks in companies that appeared as defendants in that court case.

Yet, contrary to what happened in Alabama where a procedure was devised to not deprive Chief Judge Roy Moore of access to court, even though the entire appellate court recused from hearing his appeal, the 5th Circuit simply refused to hear the petition for rehearing "en banc" (by a full court) - and provided to the litigants no alternative for the procedural step they were entitled to.

A good case for a full recusal of the U.S. Supreme Court presented itself in 2016 in a case against the U.S. Supreme Court Marshall, seeking to strike the federal law prohibiting protests in the plaza in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I admire the courage of the district judge Beryl A. Howell 

of the lower federal court who has stood up for the U.S. Constitution and the 1st Amendment that she was sworn to protect, stood up to the powerful U.S. Supreme Court, and who has struck the ban on protests in the plaza in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, here is judge Howell's decision.

Yet, an obedient federal appellate court panel consisting of one senior judge, judge Steven Williams, here is his biography and picture

 and two hopefuls for the U.S. Supreme Court justice positions , D.C. Circuit judges Karen L. Henderson,

and judge Sri Srinivasan, who is on President Obama's "short list" for U.S. Supreme Court Justices - and who, likely, will be on the short list of President Hillary Clinton, if she is elected,

self-servingly reinstated the ban.


Naturally, the truly honorable, competent and courageous Judge Howell is not on a "short list" for the U.S. Supreme Court nomination, the brown-nosing Judge Srinivasan is.

That was a good case for a full-court recusal and for a "Special U.S. Supreme Court", like Alabama did, since the case is self-serving for the High Court, where all justices of the sitting U.S. Supreme Court had a conflict of interest in taking the case and deciding it in favor of its own marshals and in favor of their own desire to go to work without being annoyed by the pesky protestors in front of their courthouse.

But instead of recusing and allowing for convention of a "Special U.S. Supreme Court" to hear this important case, the U.S. Supreme Court self-servingly denied the petition to reverse the appellate court decision and reinstate the decision of the district court

despite the obvious conflict of interest of ALL justices of the court - same as in Alabama, but with dissimilar results.  In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for itself and for its own Marshall.  Without any compunction or scruples.

Somehow, state judges in Alabama Supreme Court had more integrity than federal judges on the issue of recusal in self-serving cases.  Well, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit judges, unlike "justices" of the U.S. Supreme Court at least had the decency to recuse from cases where they had a personal interest.

The Alabama Supreme Court recusal and a "Special Supreme Court" procedure sets up an important precedent making available an alternative procedure to the self-serving doctrine of an interested court sitting "in necessity" because there is nobody else to review a case where judges of the court have a personal interest.  Apparently, there are other people to review such cases, and there may be procedures provided for such a review. 

The Alabama Supreme Court decision should give an example to other states, to federal courts and to the U.S. Congress to create a procedure of appointment of "special courts" in cases involving a conflict of interest for all judges of a certain federal court, because, apparently, on their own federal courts will not do what is right without being forced to do that by Congress.

And, where integrity of federal judges, even those of the highest court of the country, is at such an unfortunate low that they would decide cases in favor of themselves and their employees without recusing themselves, that is a big problem in the country where federal judges are the last resort for victims of human rights violations. 

What is common between Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo and New York State Office of Children and Family Services? Shredgates

There is one common feature between

• the Democratic candidate for Presidential Office Hillary Clinton,
• New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and
• the New York State for Children and Family Services -

their adamant disregard for the public's right to know what is going on in the government and shredding evidence of their and their agencies' misconduct.

The Hillary Clinton's e-mail shredding scandal and continues to rage at this time, with

• Hillary Clinton protected by public officials as high as President Obama and the sudden support of his wife Michele Obama, by
• refusal of FBI Director James Comey to do his job and turn Hillary Clinton's case into the grand jury proceedings, by
• Loretta Lynch's Office refusal to prosecute Hillary Clinton after her peculiar airport meeting with Bill Clinton (while Loretta Lynch was a law partner in a law firm representing the Clintons) and instead giving immunity to lawyers and employees of Hillary Clinton who destroyed evidence despite court orders,
• by the cowardly reaction of attorney state disciplinary authorities "waiting" for federal authorities to pursue either Hillary Clinton or her attorneys who shredded evidence sought in court in defiance of court orders - before taking any actions of their own.

Hillary Clinton actually is not alone in her e-mail shredding rampage, and she follows the tradition of New York State public officials, recently created, by the way - so Hillary Clinton has a great example to follow.

In 2015 New York Governor Andrew Cuomo

(whose brother Chris Cuomo recently made waves by a claim that he and his employer the CNN, called by many the Clinton New Network, is a better interpreter of documents published by WikiLeaks, and that it is illegal for anybody to possess such publications - other than to Chris Cuomo and CNN, of course)

made his own waves by announcing a policy that the Executive branch of the State of New York will delete all e-mails older than 90 days.

Andrew Cuomo, of course, explained away and defended his policy, but nevertheless it was called a "purge" by the media, and happened at the time when

• Cuomo and his connections was investigated for his sacking of the Public Ethics ("Moreland") Commission after it turned its focus on Andrew Cuomo and his cronies,
• when U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara raised the temperature of criminal corruption prosecutions by prosecuting and convicting the leaders of New York Legislature, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and the Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, and when
• Preet Bharara has now arrested some employees and lobbyists close to Cuomo himself,

making Cuomo's Shredgate similar to Clinton's Shredgate.

But, prior to Cuomo's Shredgate and Clinton's Shredgate, there was a New York State Office of Children and Family Services' Shredgate from which Cuomo could take example - and Clinton could learn from Cuomo.

In 2007, NYS OCFS was sued in federal court for hiring temp workers and shredding 25,000 applications for "fair hearings" to cleanse people's "indicated reports" of child maltreatment which were pending for years - instead of two months, as required by statute - preventing people from obtaining jobs they were seeking.

Instead of any meaningful discipline in any of the three Shredgate cases, what we see is just some tongue-lashing in the press - and that is all.

Yet, there is a means of addressing such criminal conduct - filing complaints with the U.S. Attorney's office demanding criminal prosecutions of participants in such "Shredgates", and then filing writs of mandamus (federal court cases) to force the U.S. Attorney's office to turn such cases into the federal grant juries - if they refuse to do it on their own, afraid of consequences.

There is a U.S. Statute, 18 U.S.C. 3332(a) that provides:
                  

"It shall be the duty of each such grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district. Such alleged offenses may be brought to the attention of the grand jury by the court or by any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States for the presentation of evidence. Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney’s action or recommendation."

So, whether the U.S. Attorney General deems feasible bringing criminal proceedings against high-ranking public officials like Cuomo or Clinton, or President Obama who, it appears, knowingly sent e-mails to Hillary Clinton's unprotected private server,

if "any other person" complains to the U.S. Attorney General and requests the U.S. Attorney General to turn such information against Hillary Clinton, her shred-happy employees, President Obama, Andrew Cuomo and any other shred-happy public officials,

18 U.S.C. 3332(a) requires the U.S. Attorney General to present the complaint, on the complainant's request, to a federal grand jury.

And, if the U.S. Attorney refuses to do her duty under this statute, a writ of mandamus remedy (a lawsuit in federal court seeking to make the U.S. Attorney comply with the statute and present the case to the federal grand jury) is available.

I wonder why nobody is filing such a criminal complaint or such a writ of mandamus action.

Afraid of the all-powerful Clintons and their financial supporters?

But, since there is a long statute of limitations for federal felonies, Hillary Clinton and her Shredgate helpers may remain on the hook for criminal prosecutions for a long time, even if she is elected President of the United States.

It is unfortunate that we have a choice between a presidential candidate of questionable fitness such as Trump and a candidate of unquestionable unfitness such as Hillary Clinton.

Yet, where there is a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime, and especially a crime against national security, the person and his accomplices must be prosecuted as a criminal, no matter the rank, if this country has any hope of being respected by its own citizens and in the international community alike, as a country governed by the rule of law.

A criminal complaint was filed against #DelawareCountyClerkSharonODell and the #DenningTownJusticeJonathanSFollender for knowingly entering a false, fabricated multi-thousand dollar judgment contrary to a court order

In New York, judges of local justice courts are allowed to practice law part time.

So, attorney Jonathan S. Follender practices law, and is a judge in the Town of Denning, Ulster County.

Yet, off the bench conduct of judges is reviewable by the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, and it is a relatively frequent occurrence that judges of justice courts are taken off the bench because of their conduct as private individuals, if that conduct reflects on their fitness as judges.

Criminal conduct of judges, whether on or off the bench, certainly reflect on their fitness, and the Delhi Village Police, as well as the Delaware County Sheriff's Department (in New York) received yesterday, by certified mail, my sworn criminal complaint against the #DeningTownJustice  #JonathanSFollender and against the #DelawareCountyClerk #SharonODell and her personnel - for filing a fraudulent judgment contrary to a court order.

The court order allowed Jonathan S. Follender to enter a money judgment against me of $1,750.61 plus "allowable costs".  Follender claimed that his costs are $740.  I will appeal legality of that judgment, but that's not the point here.

The point is that attorney Jonathan S. Follender was allowed by the court, by order of July 18, 2016, to enter only a money judgment for $1,751.60 plus "allowable costs", and the costs claimed by Follender were $740, so the total of the judgment that Follender could enter was $2,491.60.

Follender offered for filing a judgment, and Delaware County Clerk Sharon O'Dell or personnel working under her supervision accepted and entered, with Sharon O'Dell's signature, a money judgment of $10,961.60, plus 9% interest, $8,470.00 plus 9% interest more than the court authorized.

That judgment was knowingly entered despite the fact that another $8,470.00 judgment plus 9% interest remained docketed against me by Follender in the same case, while Follender just received satisfaction of that judgment out of the court's escrow.

Sharon O'Dell personally took that money from me and put it into escrow, and Sharon O'Dell had on file, when entering the SECOND judgment for $8,470, not authorized by court, both the first judgment for the same amount, already satisfied from the escrow, and the "Turnover Order", releasing the amount of the first judgment from the escrow.

So, now instead of one outstanding judgment of $2,491.60 authorized by the court (with the first judgment for $8,470 satisfied out of escrow), Follender, in collusion with Sharon O'Dell, has THREE judgments filed and pending against me for the total amount of $19,431.60 plus 9% interest, nearly 10 TIMES MORE than the court authorized.

The fraudulent judgment was filed by Follender and entered by O'Dell on September 26, 2016 in the office of the Delaware County Clerk's office in the case Neroni v Follender, Index No. 2013-331, in defiance of the court order of July 18, 2016 in the same case.

That is a crime of fraud, fraud upon the court (for Follender, who is an attorney), and of knowingly filing a false public document.

I also filed an impeachment demand against the Delaware County Clerk Sharon O'Dell with the Chairman of the Delaware County Board of Supervisors James Eisel,

and, against Jonathan S. Follender, I filed, in addition to the criminal complaint,

an attorney grievance complaint - because padding a judgment authorized by the court with an additional amount not authorized by the court is a fraud upon the court and a disbarring offense, and

and a complaint to the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, asking to suspend Follender from the bench immediately, pending investigation and prosecution (the documentary evidence of his fraud is irrefutable), and to ultimately take him off the bench and prohibit him to ever be a judge again.

I will announce how these complaints are progressing.

Attorney Follender also sent the fraudulent judgment to another state, which is a federal crime of mail fraud, so if the State of New York does not prosecute him because he is a judge and has other judges in his pocket, the feds might.

Stay tuned.

The artist sued for denying that he is the author of a painting, won the lawsuit - but on the "alibi" evidence, not on the law, which is a dangerous trend

An update on a previous blog - Peter Doig, the artist who was sued to force him to admit, or to have the court declare that a certain painting was Peter Doig's work, when he denied it (and thus, the value of it went down), won the lawsuit.

The claim was made by the initial alleged buyer of the painting that he allegedly bought it from Peter Doig when he was incarcerated in Canada for possession of LCD.

Peter Doig provided "alibi" evidence that he was in school, not in prison, in 1976, the time of the alleged purchase.

More evidence was provided that the painting was made by a now-deceased Canadian carpenter Peter Doige.

Yet, what is scary is that the lawsuit was not dismissed outright, simply because the artist denied he painted the picture - and had to go to an evidentiary hearing.

That means, that more of such lawsuits are possible, and that is an extremely dangerous trend.

If a person denies that a certain work of art is his, that should be the final word in any "determinations" of authorship.

Good faith enactments turned into nightmares based on money interests - and the need of citizen panels for statutory retention reviews

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 introduced for the noble purpose of fighting terrorism, is now precluding the claims of actual innocence, contributed to mass incarceration in the U.S.,  and is precluding release of people kept in prisons on convictions based on old laws that were repealed or changed.  In order to preclude re-trying of these cases (and ostensibly saving taxpayers money), more money is spent on litigation of appeals and civil rights lawsuits, and grave injustice is done by keeping in prison individuals put there with gross constitutional violations, and especially to prevent release of people who are in jail because of convictions based on old changed or repealed laws, and people who are innocent.

But, there are people, including judges, who consider it ok to follow that law.

Adoption and Safe Families Act, introduced in 1997 to allegedly help children not to linger in foster care for too long without permanent families and provided money to terminate parental rights in child protective proceedings faster, and that allows payments to the states of thousands of dollars per each child for the increased number of adoption of foster care children,

caused not only

• increased removal of children from parents on fabricated charges, especially in areas where there are less children - and thus less "cash cows" to grab, but also, as it appears
• increased infant mortality FOUR TIMES - after a steady decline in infant mortality that was, before enactment of Adoption and Safe Families Act,  the lowest in the world - on par with Canada, at around 7 infant deaths at birth per 100,000 births;

Money talks, and if the money incentive is given to rip a family apart and to separate a newborn from his mother, do not expect social services to instead "make reasonable efforts to reunite the family", as state laws also require them to do.  Money talks louder.

Here are words out of Section 201 of Public Law 105-89, "Adoption Incentive Payments", that funds for "technical assistance" will be provided to the states (50% of those funds to the courts) for:

‘‘(E) Models to encourage the fast tracking of children who have not attained 1 year of age into pre-adoptive placements.

 ‘‘(F) Development of programs that place children into pre-adoptive families without waiting for termination of parental rights.

While state laws do not make a distinction in the child's age in the procedural speed of termination of parental rights, and parental rights are constitutional rights not to be easily severed, federal law specifically provides for payments for doing just that - making separation of newborns from parents faster.

Of course, newborns and babies under 1 year old, with no memory of their parents yet, are the best "adoption material".

So, under the guise of protecting unborn babies, pregnant women are arrested and kept in detention across the U.S. on charges of "fetal neglect" - and in reality, to keep them in jail until delivery so that they would not escape, and so that the state can snatch the child from the mother at birth, get the federal grant money for fast-track adoption, and give the child to adoptive (richer than the mother) parents - all while claiming that all "procedural protections" for the mother and the child are observed.

While federal money buys fast-tracking adoptable babies into the hands of adoption parents, in reality it means that mothers are discouraged from getting prenatal care and hospital delivery, mortality rate of mothers and infants rises, and there is, of course, no fairness in snatching babies from the poor and giving it to the rich-er adoption parents.

Actually, adoptive parents who adopt children out of foster care receive benefits to feed and clothe the child as if the child is still kept in foster care by special "agreements". 

Here are the rates for such maintenance in Delaware County, New York, according to the County's response to my FOIL request.

Yet, that same amount of money is denied birth mothers to support her child and prevent separation with the child.  And, separation with the birth mother of a newborn or a baby under 1 deprives the baby of mother's breast milk, too - and undermines the buildup of the child's immunity, which does not concern CPS. 

Once again, money talks louder.

So, in criminal law we have the blunder of AEDPA.

In child protection we have the blunder of ASFA.

Now we have a emerging blunder of "end of life" legislation.

Introduced, same as AEDPA and ASFA for noble reasons of protection of safety and human rights, the end-of-life legislation is declared to allow people who suffer intolerable pain and/or have incurable diseases severely undermining their quality of life, to make a CONSCIOUS DECISION to end their lives.

Of course, such a decision must be the person's OWN decision.

Many people, on religious grounds, may not end their own life no matter what kind of pain they are experiencing.

There were concerns when such legislation was introduced, that such legislation will lead to ration healthcare and cleanse the elderly and the disabled, as a cheaper solution, instead of treating them or providing chemo and hospice care.

A case was reported as early as in 2008 when, in Oregon, instead of authorizing a $4,000-a-month cancer treatment for a terminal patient, the insurance company instead authorized $50 for a physician-assisted death.

Some time ago, a terminally ill mother of four, Stephanie Packer, wants to stay with her four children for as long as she can.

Yet, in June, her home state of California has passed the assisted suicide law ALLOWING her to CHOOSE THE OPTION of assisted suicide.

Well, her insurance company tries to make it less than an option and more of a mandate: it denied Mrs. Packer money to cover her treatment, but approved, same as in Oregon in 2008, a suicide pill, with a co-payment of $1.20.  The pill that Mrs. Packer does not want and did not ask for.

Moreover, Mrs. Packer is reportedly a devout Roman Catholic, and for her a suicide is not an option on religious grounds.

Mrs. Packer did get approval for her treatments - but only after she threatened to go to the media about the "choice" she was offered.

What happened in Oregon in 2008 and what happened in California in 2016 - denying money for treatment because an option for physician-assisted suicide exists - should be legislatively prohibited.  I doubt though that legislatures, lobbied by insurance companies, will do that change on their own, without being prodded by grass-roots movements and volunteer citizen review panels.

And the same applies to the "Effective Death Penalty Act", which came to mean the opposite because of prosecutorial ambitions towards conviction, because of prosecutorial and judicial careers already made - and easily made -  with the help of this statute.  Advancement from prosecutor to a state judge, from a state judge to a federal judge means more money and more power.  To turn that extra money and power down for the mere "fairness" to criminal defendants? Let's not be naïve. 

There are also prison officers unions that are interested in keeping all their jobs, which would require to keep the incarceration rates at present level.

There are also private prison complexes who benefits from slave labor.

There are also all of us, let's face it, who benefit from prison slave labor - from cheaply produced, and thus, sold for low prices, household goods and even "organic", "whole foods" - to inmate-produced disaster relief items, such as sandbags recently produced by inmates in South Carolina, according to daily announcements by the State Governor, at 10,000 sandbags a day, I am sure, for no pay or minimal pay to the inmates.

Lobbies in the U.S. Congress will prevent any changes to AEDPA without a grass roots movement and without volunteer citizen retention review panels for statutes. 

Existence of such panels is not prohibited by the law. 

Establishing them may help greatly in bringing about necessary changes in the law - peacefully, by legal means.

And the same applies to review of effectiveness (or harm) or "Adoption and Safe Families Act" - which rips and harms families instead of keeping them "safe". 

According to various sources, a child in foster care produces revenue from $85,000 to $250,000 to various government actors and "providers of services" they hire.

That is OUR, taxpayer money.

Much less of that money, a fraction of it, given to the parents in terms of maternity leave and job-preservation assistance, housing assistance, transportation assistance, food assistance, daycare costs assistance - will what will make families safe, not the gestapo proceedings happening in Family Courts around the country nowadays.

But, legislators will not listen unless there will be a lot of evidence collected by citizen groups.  Citizen review panels.

Such panels may review whether the already enacted legislation - local, state and federal - fulfils purposes for which it was enacted, or, whether it operates contrary to such purposes, or in harmful ways.

Our legislators, for whom their Senatorial seats have become something of hereditary boons where Senators "serve" for 30-40 or more years and then pass their seats from father to son, do not seem much interested in looking at any enactments or at changing any enactments that lobbyists did not pay them for.

And I mean citizen review panels which are NOT appointed by the government, which are self-organized, grass-roots entities unaffected by conflicts of interests.

Once again, it's our money that is being poured down the drain to enact and enforce harmful legislation.

It's time for us to act and change that.

To first enhance the oath of office for lawyers - and then to break it: that's what you can expect from the "honorable" organized bar. The case of Arizona Bar's loyalty amendments and "Public Service Center"

In 2014 Princeton university conducted a study asking people which professions (and representatives of those professions) they trust more and which they trust less.

A chart from that study shows that the public considers lawyers as a variety of competent prostitutes:

Yet, lawyers continue to claim themselves to be "the honorable profession", and judges (who are also lawyers) continue to put the "Honorable" as a required job title, claiming a "presumption of integrity", at the same time as they claim absolute immunity for their malicious and corrupt acts on the bench.
Lawyers were some of the least-trusted professionals, according to the public opinion.

In June of this year I wrote about the joint letter written by the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice, this letter.

In that letter the FTC and the US DOJ said this:

referencing their former comments to the American Bar Association back in 2002-2003:

And, in the ABA Comments in 2002-2003, FTC & US DOJ said, among other things (you can read the full comments of FTC & US DOJ to ABA here), the following:

So, the American Bar Association, a non-profit that participates in regulation of the legal profession by imposing educational standards of lawyers upon the states through certification of law schools, acknowledges, as FTC and US DOJ does, that "defining the practice of law has been a difficult question for the legal profession for many years".

Now, even if lawyers find it difficult - for many years - to define what the hell it is that they are doing for money -

1. how can an average citizen, untrained in the law (but presumed to know the laws - remember, lack of knowledge of the law is no defense in a criminal prosecution for unauthorized practice of law), know what the practice of law is, so that not to engage in "prohibited conduct" and so that not to commit a crime of unauthorized practice of law (UPL);

2.  How can the government regulate and issue licenses for the practice of law - if nobody can clearly define what is regulated; and

3. How can the government prosecute anybody for unauthorized practice of law - and UPL is vigorously prosecuted across the United States, and such prosecutions are driven, predictably, by LAWYERS, those same people who have a monopoly to practice law without knowing what the hell the practice of law means.

Which brings us back to the chart where people believe that lawyers are somewhat like competent prostitutes - but, if lawyers cannot even say what it is that they have the monopoly for and what it is that they are practicing and what it is that they are charging people for - the "competency" part goes out the door, too.

In the United States, lawyers are regulated either directly by the government (states with voluntary bar associations, New York is one of them), or by non-profit corporations, mandatory state bar associations to which state government delegate authority to regulate and license the practice of law.

Arizona is a state with a mandatory bar association.

Here is what the trustworthy and competent management of this non-profit corporation did recently - which, no doubt, greatly enhances public trust in the integrity of the legal profession.

First, the Arizona State Bar introduced amendments into the "Oath of Admission to the Bar" and the "Lawyer's Creed of Professionalism".

The changes the Arizona State Bar introduced are:

1) that it exposed attorneys in Arizona to discipline for challenging constitutionality of laws by requiring them to swear a loyalty oath to laws that may be unconstitutional and subject to THEIR challenge on behalf of clients:

2) it exposed attorneys in Arizona to discipline for maintaining lawsuits or defenses which the lawyer honestly believes to be debatable under the laws of the land - otherwise, it exposed attorneys in Arizona to discipline for CONSITUTIONAL CHALLENGES to laws:

3) allowed lawyers to discriminate against clients on personal grounds, and not to be disciplined for delaying cases for greed of malice:

As part of amended Lawyer's Creed, the Arizona State Bar:

1) mandated attorneys to allow adjournments of cases, even over opposition of their own clients

2) mandated lawyers to voluntarily exchange information, whether that information exchange is required or not by the formal rules of disclosure, and whether their client agrees to such exchange or not:

3) mandated lawyers to stipulate to facts for which "there is no genuine dispute" - again, without consent of client, and while what constitutes "genuine dispute" may be in itself an issue of fact; such a pledge is a violation of the client's state and federal constitutional right to try ALL, not just SOME issues of fact before a jury:

4) The new "Creed" exposed lawyers for discipline for "disrespect" to courts, where disrespect is usually loosely interpreted as any attempt at criticism of appearance of impropriety or misconduct of the judge or court personnel.  In other words, the lawyer must sign his or her own death sentence by signing this "Lawyer's Creed" in exchange for permission to earn a livelihood.

Both the oath and the creed also say a lot of lofty words about supporting "fair administration of justice" and providing services to those who cannot afford legal representation.

After saying all of that, the Arizona State Bar established a Public Service Center - while allowing, reportedly, only 2 minutes of comments from lawyers BEFORE the program was announced, and without any public bidding for the service that the third-party provider, Legal Services Link, LLC, was allegedly providing through that Public Service Center.

The Public Service Center was established - as declared by the Arizona State Bar  - for the noble cause of connecting the lawyers with the clients, and promoting pro bono service.

Yet, the "Public Service Center"

1) replaced a similar service of Arizona State Bar already in place, for which previously lawyers' money was expended (and, surely, all lawyers' costs were passed to clients in fees); and

2) competed with county lawyer referral services.

Moreover, while Arizona State Bar claimed that it will cost $300,000 for the Arizona State Bar to run the Public Service Center through the 3rd party provider, Legal Services Link LLC, Legal Services Link LLC reportedly announced on the website of the Public Service Center that, on the contrary, the "service" is free to Arizona State Bar and that Arizona State Bar will actually be paid revenues from operation of the Public Service Center, here is a comment about it by a reader of the Irreverent Lawyer blog:

So, with all the pandering to its members for candor and enhancing their trustworthiness, reinforced by "oaths" and "creeds", the management of Arizona State Bar demonstrated that it is a group of crooks, out to scam the ordinary members of the association.

The "public trust" chart was correct, it appears. 

With the exception of competence.

Taxpayer funded research should be accessible for the public for free - at EveryCRSReport.com

A lot of taxpayers' money is given out in various grants, for various types of research.

If you pay for something, you own it.

Right?

Wrong.  Many times, the government, or those third parties who do research based on government-funded grants, still either claim copyrights to the work, or, if research was made for the government, the government denies access to results of research or tries to charge people seeking access a fee for such access.

A group of individuals with support of undisclosed "Republican and a Democrat member of Congress" claims to have made federal taxpayer-funded research public. 

Publications on EveryCRSReport.com are reportedly split into 31 categories, with RSS feed available on them, so that people who want to follow Congressional research of a certain topic have an ability to follow reports on that research.

Whether all of such research was made public, and whether it any special interests are involved in such publication, I do not know.

Yet, it may prove a valuable information resource to the public, and such a publication is a yet another step towards transparency of the government.