Commission on prosecutorial conduct in New York - a dangerous illusion about to be created by good intentions of wrongfully convicted together with special interest groups

I've written a lot about how the New York Commission for Judicial Conduct dumps the absolute majority of complaints about judges without investigation, no matter how well complaints are supported by documentary evidence, and how courts consider that the public have no say in it.

In this case, federal court said that members of the public (victims of misconduct) have absolutely no say (standing) to complain about non-prosecution of judicial misconduct.

And, the New York Commission for Judicial Conduct has permanent budget constraints, which ostensibly prevents it from properly handling the majority of complaints.  That is not true, of course - once I did talk to an investigator from the Commission when I did call them, and the person on the other end refused to send me documents by e-mail citing their "policy", the "policy" being that they are supposed to send out anything they send out only by fax.

Sending anything by fax in our day and time is not only technologically obsolete, but it also has the advantage - for the Commission - that such a transaction does not leave a record of what was sent, unless an e-mail.  Some policy.

Moreover, New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct is conflict-ridden.  Most members of the Commission are attorneys (whose licenses and livelihoods are regulated by judges) and judges.  The public is not allowed to have a say as to competence and integrity of judges, it is all decided behind closed doors by a "good ol' boys' club".

As a result, the majority of judges (double digits with 4-digit number of complaints filed each year) disciplined by the Commission are not licensed attorneys, they are justice court judges who wield much lesser power than those who the Commission allows to continue to sit on the bench, no matter what misconduct they engaged in.

Guess what, the NY Senate has just voted, and the NY Assembly is expected to vote this week on the law establishing a commission to deal with prosecutorial misconduct - fashioned after the useless New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct.

The sad part about this vote is that groups of wrongfully convicted New Yorkers support creation of this dangerous illusion.

Why it is a dangerous illusion?

Well, first of all, if it is fashioned after the Commission for Judicial Conduct, it will work the same way - only then it will be claimed that the mere fact that such a Commission exists is somehow giving the public a remedy against prosecutorial misconduct and the resulting wrongful conviction, which will not be true - as the case Bracci v Becker raising the issue of non-availability of appeals when complaints against judges are dismissed without investigation are filed by victims.

The supposed "remedy" is that there will be yet another group formed out of attorneys and judges, the cause of the problem, to deal with prosecutors behind closed doors, without the public being able to take part in the decisions or to contest it.

There are several problems that the Commission will be unable to meet.

The first is the identity of prosecutors who have caused wrongful convictions for people who have served years in jail.

It is an open secret that "serving" as a criminal prosecutor in the United States (and in the State of New York, too) is the stepping stone to become a judge.  The overwhelming majority of American judges are former prosecutors.

The number of convictions is used as the evidence for voters of "being tough on crime" in judicial elections of a prosecutor.

There is a very high probability, therefore, that prosecutors who have gained wrongful convictions are already judges at his time.  

If the general rule of attorney discipline is applied to prosecutorial misconduct, that there is no statute of limitations for attorney misconduct (including prosecutorial misconduct), but the prosecutor has become a judge, the following problems appear.

1.  judges are regulators of attorney licenses and livelihoods, they will not disbar their own for former prosecutorial misconduct;

2. there is already in place the system of attorney discipline in New York, hearings were held in 2015 before a special commission on attorney discipline, issues that attorney grievance committees refuse to deal with prosecutorial misconduct for political consideration were raised,  see testimony of Bill Bastuk before that commission (Bastuk was formerly counsel, coincidentally, for the Judicial Conduct Commission and one of the supporters of a separate commission for prosecutorial conduct fashioned after the useless and conflict-ridden Judicial Conduct Commission where Bastik once worked) and rejected by the commission.

If there is no statute of limitations on attorney misconduct, including prosecutorial misconduct, and attorney disciplinary bodies (under the guidance and as part of courts) have been working in New York for decades, why wasn't prosecutorial misconduct handled through these bodies?

Does it mean that attorney discipline in New York is handled as a selective, political process, and prosecutors are "spared" discipline - after being granted by the U.S. Supreme Court immunity for malicious and corrupt conduct in office specifically because discipline is (theoretically) available?

If that is true - and the Senate's vote to create an alternative Commission for prosecutorial conduct has already proven it - what does it say about the integrity of the judiciary, regulator of attorneys, and of the integrity of those commissions, "arms of the judiciary", consisting of attorneys, sworn "officers of the court"?

And why do we need "regulation" of attorneys - and, through attorneys, of access to courts - that is now admittedly selectively political in nature?  

It appears as if the public was duped first by the U.S. Supreme Court - that gave prosecutors immunity from lawsuits for civil rights violations (which are federal crimes, 18 USC 242), and then by state courts and their attorney disciplinary committees who refuse to apply discipline that was used as a pretext to give prosecutors that immunity.

Now, the public is about to be duped for the 3rd time - by expending money on creating and maintaining a "commission" that will block the public from dealing with the issue of prosecutorial misconduct directly.

There is still no remedy, the Commission is not creating a remedy, it is taking it away, and sucking up the much needed funds that could have been used otherwise.

And, there also exists an issue that the secretive Commission can, indeed, be used, but in the way opposite to the declarations of why it is created (same as with attorney discipline) - to disenfranchise the public and remove from office elected public prosecutors who actually do their jobs, but have stepped on toes of powerful public officials.

As attorney discipline was used against Pennsylvania elected public official, Attorney General Kathleen Kane.  Kathleen Kane had the misfortune of investigating the very people who suspended her license and caused her demise as an elected public official.

Yet another secretive body to deal with an elected public official, a prosecutor, is a very bad idea.

There is the procedure of impeachment.

As the recent recall of judge Aaron Persky in California showed, matters of misconduct of public officials causing grievous injuries to the public - and wrongful convictions are such injuries - must be subject to a recall of the prosecutor through a referendum.

And, if the same NY Senate put the same effort it did into creation of the useless secretive Commission for Prosecutorial Conduct, consisting predominantly of attorneys and judges and not of non-attorney members of the public:

into legislation abolition of prosecutorial immunity, prosecutorial misconduct would have disappeared overnight.

Only that would not happen - too many careers of too many powerful people depend on that.

So, urge your representatives in the Assembly to vote NO to the creation of the Commission of Prosecutorial Conduct.  

It is a dangerous illusion, a waste of much needed public funds, and a delay of the much needed reform in regulation of prosecutors, attorneys, judges and of access to justice in New York.

An important silver lining of the Senate's vote, as I mentioned above, is an admission by the NY Senate that attorney disciplinary committees, "arms of the court", are politically selective in regulation of prosecutors and do not do their jobs in attorney regulation of the only powerful people who have authority to put corrupt attorneys, corrupt prosecutors and corrupt judges (regulators of attorneys) in jail, through grant juries.

It is interesting how the current regulators of attorneys deal with attorney discipline:

1. favoritism of the judiciary, regulator of attorneys, specifically to prosecutors, as revealed by the supposed necessity to create a separate body to regulate prosecutors, speaks loud and clear - gifts (immunity and no discipline) to prosecutors in return for non-prosecution of judges (unless prosecutors commit the ultimate no-no and criticize judges - the only prosecutors discipline in New York since the 70s were two prosecutors, the Albany DA Paul David Soares, and the Manhattan DA Elizabeth Holtzmann, for criticizing judges, regulators of their licenses);
2. punishment for "regular attorneys" who do not have the power to assemble and advise a grand jury to indict, let's say, a corrupt judge - for speaking out against judicial corruption.

If we have a dishonest and political "regulator" of attorneys, dishonest and politically selective to the point of the public having to fund a separate commission to prosecute prosecutorial misconduct - why not get rid of that regulator and reform attorney regulation to make it not pollical and not handled by interest groups?

Is it such a difficult idea to fathom?

The public should now use the de facto admission by the NY Senate that the judiciary does and attorney grievance committees do not properly do their jobs as regulators of attorneys (and, through attorneys, of the public's access to justice), and to demand to deregulate the legal profession and allow the public to pick their own representative in court - without the in-between "protectors" of the public who protect only connected attorneys from discipline from commission of public crimes.  Or at least to remove interested parties (licensed attorneys, including judges) from regulation of the legal profession and of all parts of it - "just attorneys", judges and prosecutors.

And, the public should demand a legislation on recall of prosecutors (and judges), and a legislation on access to grand juries bypassing prosecutors with their grievances of crimes committed by public officials.

Foxes do not do a good job guarding chicken coops, attorneys (including judges and prosecutors) do not do a good job guarding consumer interests, consumers can do it well themselves.  

It is logical and reasonable, especially based on the necessity to create a separate commission to deal with prosecutorial misconduct, for consumers, voters to demand the NY Senate and Assembly to finally do their jobs and promote not legislation lobbied by yet another attorney-senator (as this particular bill's "sponsor" Senator John DeFrancisco is), not a legislation that will give power and jobs to yet another bunch of attorneys while blocking victims of prosecutorial conduct from having a remedy for wrongful convictions, but through an independent public review.

And that independent public review, the "sunrise review" of a packet of legislation to revamp the public's access to court and to criminal justice, should exclude SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS at every single stage of it:

• market survey - by independent experts only, not connected to attorneys, prosecutors or judiciary;
• bill sponsoring - not by attorneys ("officers of the court") whose license and livelihood, theirs and their family members' (like John DeFrancisco's son with whom he co-owns a law firm) are in the hands of those same people who fail to regulate attorneys properly - which caused the Senator to veer the public away from the actual problems, prosecutorial immunity, lack of public access to grand juries, lack of recall procedures for public officials;
• composition of any publicly funded bodies, or bodies having power of investigation or prosecution.

No special interests should be allowed close to creating, promoting or handling the regulation of public access to justice, including criminal courts, and to regulation of any professionals who deliver that justice - attorneys, prosecutors and judges.

Then maybe the shameful prosecutorial misconduct that is rampant in New York State (as evidenced by the supposed necessity of a separate commission to deal with it) will start to go away.

For how long will attorneys be regulated by an interested regulator? The case of Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzmann

In doing some research, I am reviewing cases of the nearly absent discipline of prosecutors for misconduct by the regulators of the legal profession, judges. 

Of course, prosecutors are a touchy bunch, they can prosecute judges for crimes, right?  For that reason, it is better to appease them - with prosecutorial immunity, for example, or with support as a breeding pool for judiciary. 

But a law license of a prosecutor in the hands of a judge as "regulator" of the legal profession can be a handy tool at times.

Think Pennsylvania's former Attorney General Kathleen Kane, elected by 4 million of voters, who was:

1. first suspended and then disbarred by judges who she criticized and investigated;
2. turned into a grand jury by an "obedient" prosecutor whose license was in the hands of the judges she criticized and investigated;
3. convicted "by jury" when an obedient judge (also a law license holder whose license was controlled by the judges who Kathleen Kane criticized) blocked jury's access to information that criminal proceedings against Kathleen Kane were politically fabricated by the powerful subjects of her investigation.

Convicted, disbarred, removed from office, bad-mouthed.

That's what awaits a prosecutor, an attorney, a woman who dares to criticize the judiciary and investigate it for corruption.

And prosecutors, also licensed attorneys, take notice.  They do not criticize judges.  They do not investigate or prosecute judges.  And judges are grateful.

The only discipline for misconduct that I am finding though is discipline by the regulator of the legal profession (the judiciary) for criticism of that same regulator of the legal profession.

Think Kathleen Kane, PA.
Think prosecutor George Westfall in Missouri
Think prosecutors Elizabeth Holtzman and Paul David Soares in New York.

One of the most prominent cases of discipline against a prosecutor for criticizing a judge is discipline in 1991 of New York City prosecutor Elizabeth Holtzmann - for protection of a victim of rape who was humiliated by the judge in chambers, outside of the view of the public and, of course, while that show of humiliation was not 

Yet, there was no mention of that truly heroic deed of Elizabeth Holtzmann in the Wikipedia article about her, so I decided to correct that omission - especially when contributions and edits to Wikipedia articles are encouraged by Wikipedia.

The only condition for a contribution was that the contribution should have quotes and not contain defamatory statements - false statements of fact.

I registered as an editing contributor, and offered a section "attorney discipline" to Elizabeth Holtzmann's Wikipedia article.

Since I doubt that Wikipedia will dare to publish it - even though every statement that I have made there is supported by court cases, one White House report, a law review article authored by a judge, an admission by a former judge in his "prison memoir" and an article in New York Times - I am republishing my contribution to Wikipedia here.  Since the font of the scans may be too small, I am also publish the submission in PDF format, so that readers can enlarge the font for easier reading, here.

Nothing in the review is defamatory, as all my statements are based on public records and long-published sources, including self-reporting by judges through court cases, memoirs and law review articles.

Let us consider what Elizabeth Holtzmann was disciplined for once in connection with the #MeToo movement and the recent "Women's March" - where her name was not even mentioned, despite the price she paid for her personal courage in protecting the victim of rape from humiliation by a male judge which surely discouraged many more victims of rape from coming forward.

She was disciplined for "defaming a judge".

Judges are regulators of the legal profession in the United States and in New York - which means in plain English that judges control every lawyer's ability to work and earn money for his family.

Coincidentally, all other witnesses present in the chambers and who refused to support Holtzman's story were people whose livelihood was controlled by the judge:

• a defense attorney whose license the judge could easily revoke through sanctions for criticism (as it was done to attorney John Aretakis in 2008, for criticism of a judge in a motion to recuse in a criminal case) and
• two court employees who the judge could fire at any time.

The witnesses preferred self-preservation.

No independent record (a videotape or an audiotape) existed to verify Elizabeth Hotlzmann's words.

Now, what usually happens if anybody thinks he is defamed?

The "aggrieved" person who thinks he was defamed can sue the person who he thinks defamed him.

And, such a lawsuit in New York involves a "special pleading" standard - if that "elevated" pleading standard is not met, the complaint is dismissed before discovery or trial.

And, such a lawsuit in New York would require to be proven - to a jury no less (trial by jury in New York is provided as a matter of right by New York Constitution for all issues of fact) - by preponderance of the evidence.

And, where the plaintiff is a public official, the public official faces a nearly impossible task of claiming that not only the statements against him were false, but they were made with a malicious intent.

And, in such a trial, the victim of rape would surely be able to testify under oath, in public, and describe what is being done to her in the judicial chambers.

And, Elizabeth Holtzmann, a defendant in such an action where Judge Irving Levine would have been a plaintiff - who would have had to:

1. draft a complaint - meeting the elevated pleading standard;
2. file it publicly in court, subjecting himself to discovery, written interrogatories under oath, out-of-court depositions under oath

would be able to depose Judge Levine and cross-examine the living hell out of him in a public trial.

So - the necessity to expose the judge to the

1. expense;
2. public exposure; and
3. pleading standards;
4. standards of proof before an impartial jury of people whose livelihood does not depend on whether the judiciary gives or does not give them permission to work (like they do with attorneys and court employees)

in a defamation lawsuit by a judge against an attorney is tremendous.

And, of course, Judge Irving Levine who was taken off the bench 2 years after the episode reported by Elizabeth Holtzmann because - instead of a puny prosecutor whose license was in the hands of Judge Levine - his misconduct, corruption, was now outed by FBI agents who overheard his lovely conversation about fixing a court case for his very wealthy and very influential friend Meade Esposito (to whom Judge Levine owed his judicial career), the "former Brooklyn political leader", when Judge Levine was casually discussing the fixing of the court case with Meade Esposito, ex parte, in a restaurant.

What kind of influence Meade Esposito had on New York State judges, up to the Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals (the top state court) is demonstrated in these two articles of New York Times - from 1972

and from 1973:

Still, by the time FBI agents overhead the court-fixing conversations between friends, the judge-maker Meade Esposito and Judge Irwing Levine, Esposito was already convicted for public corruption - but not sent to prison, mind, where ordinary folks get locked up for stealing five bucks.

Thus there was no brow-beating the FBI agents at that time, and the New York State Commission took Levine off the bench, including for lying to the FBI agents in denying misconduct - but Judge Levine was never criminally prosecuted for case-fixing and corruption and was never disciplined as an attorney.

He died with "no record of public discipline".

Yet, when a prosecutor, Elizabeth Holtzmann, who reported a different kind of judicial misconduct of Judge Irving W. Levine, her fate was quite different from the fate of the FBI agents whose testimony the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct could not shrug off as easily as Holtzmann's press-release.

Her report of Levine's judicial misconduct was first reviewed by Robert Keating, Administrative Judge of the New York City Criminal Court, who is now an adjunct professor of Pace Law School and even Vice-President of that school:

It is Judge Keating who conducted a "review" - instead of requiring Judge Levine to go to court and file a defamation case if he wants to claim that he was defamed by Elizabeth Holtzmann.

And it was Judge Keating who, instead of a jury in a never-filed defamation lawsuit who "found" that report of judicial misconduct of Judge Levine (friend of influential and wealthy judge-maker Meade Esposito) by Elizabeth Holtzmann "is not supported by the evidence".

Judge Keating had an interesting connection with the same Meade Esposito, judgemaker and "boss" of New York State judges and friend and career-maker of Judge Levine.

In his biography published on his Pace Law School webpage, Vice-President of Pace Law School mentions that he was "the Coordinator of Criminal Justice for Mayor Edward Koch from 1980 to 1982" and that he was only "later being appointed to the Criminal Court bench in New York City" and further up the judicial ladder.

Coincidentally, Meade Esposito made Robert Keating's former boss NYC Mayor Koch the mayor of NYC. 

Since Keating was himself "appointed" after working for Koch, and Esposito was the one who "made" judgeships at that time, it is fair to suppose that Esposito played a role in Keating's judicial career, too.

So, Levine's friend and colleague, connected with Levine not only as a colleague, but also through connections with Levine's wealthy and politically influential friend, supporter of Levine's judicial career for whom Levine fixed court cases, absolved Levine from the necessity of filing a defamation court case against Elizabeth Holtzmann.

Mind that as an "administrative judge" of criminal court, Robert Keating had no authority to conduct any reviews - he was not a member of the Judicial Conduct Commission.

Yet, not only he did it, but several state authorities relied on his review in disciplining not the judge, but the judge's critic, prosecutor Elizabeth Hotlzmann.

It is interesting to see how discipline of Elizabeth Holtzmann fits into the record of her own - quite outstanding - career as a public servant.

Her report of judicial misconduct of Judge Levine in 1987 was not the first time when she upset a powerful political figure related to the judiciary.

15 years before that, at the age of 31, she has upset the many-times-incumbent Chief it he U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee by ousting him and being the first woman to be elected into the U.S. Congress.

And, in her report in 2016, Elizabeth Holtzmann provided the following additional details as to her discipline for criticism of a judge when she was a District Attorney in New York City.

First of all, she pointed out that at that time public officials were not ashamed in publicly denigrating  and demeaning women,

including female attorneys:

Second, Elizabeth Holtzmann was the woman who upset the "Old Boys Club" of the judiciary by her previous election to the U.S. Congress that ousted the male Chairman of the Senate's Judiciary Committee of many years, the woman who won the District Attorney elections against a male opponent who was putting her down as a little girl, and was fighting to abolish the requirement that rape could be proven only if the women proves resistance and could never be proven against the woman's husband, making marital rape legal, enabled and encouraged.

It is that with that background in mind that discipline of Elizabeth Holtzmann was handled.

No defamation lawsuit was required of Judge Levine to win against Elizabeth Holtzmann.

Instead, the judiciary's role as the regulator of the legal profession - regulation introduced to help consumers find competent and honest attorneys - was used to create a private and institutional benefit for regulators themselves, to quash critics of their own misconduct.

It must be stated with regret that even the single female judge on the Court of Appeals, Judge Judith Kaye, supported discipline against Elizabeth Holtzmann claiming that she is protecting not a judge from criticism of misconduct, but the public from "unfair" defamation of a judge, knowing that defamation must be first proven in a defamation lawsuit - a lawsuit that Judge Levine never filed.

Judge Kaye's

• "being a good girl",
• bowing to the Old Boys' Club in browbeating a female prosecutor simply because she protected a victim of rape from vile misconduct of a male judge and
• blocking the path of so many victims of rape to a legal remedy - who would want to subject themselves to humiliation the kind of which the victim of Judge Levine's misconduct suffered -

paid off big time for her: Judge Kaye was appointed by Governor Mario Cuomo as the Chief Judge of the court in just two years after that, when Cuomo's friend Chief Judge Sol Wachtler was charged with federal crimes.

Moreover, Wachtler reported in his prison memoirs that Kaye sent him friendly notes to prison:

"Joe Bellacosa, my friend of forty years, who had sat with me as a judge on New York State’s highest court for eight years, came to visit me today. He flew down from Albany this morning to, as he put it, give me “a hug.” He did more than that. He gave me reassurance of the affection and concern of my former colleagues and delivered a warm note from Judith Kaye, the Chief Judge.

Wachtler, Sol. After the Madness: A Judge's Own Prison Memoir (p. 140). Open Road Media. Kindle Edition. "

Once again - Wachtler was convicted for extorting money from a woman in exchange for a promise that he will not kidnap her minor daughter.

It is interesting to mention that, when Holtzman's discipline was upheld in 1991 by the Court of Appeals, and when judges created a court precedent portraying her as a dishonest person making false statements against judges, Holtzman was already elected as New York City Comptroller - at the time when "it has long been an open secret that New York City courts are patronage mills where party loyalty buys judgeships and judges reward party hacks with lucrative assignments".

In fact, Kaye herself conducted a token "investigation" into such practice, which continues throughout New York State to this day, long after Kaye has gone from the Court of Appeals and died.

The discipline did not stop Holtzman.

After discipline was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in July of 1991, in October of 1991 Holtzman tried to have the Senate's Judiciary Committee hear testimony of a second alleged rape victim of a U.S. Supreme Court judicial nominee Clarence Thomas.

The witness was not heard.

Thomas was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Another witness against a federal judicial nominee, also a young woman from New York City, Elena Sassower, protesting against nomination of Judge Richard Wesley, who insisted on her testimony before the U.S. Congress, was simply jailed by the old boys' club, and the judge was still appointed.

Coincidentally, Elena Sassower's mother, attorney Doris Sassower, was suspended indefinitely from the practice of law just one month before discipline against Holtzman was affirmed by the New York State Court of Appeals, for filing constitutional challenges of the cross-endorsements party schemes, the kind of which Meade Esposito was the mastermind.

New York State now celebrates trailblazer women who fought against the establishment for civil rights.

Yet, I do not see Elizabeth Holtzmann, while giving speeches about progress in women's rights, pointing out to the plight of other women attorneys who have less connections than Holtzmann's and whose license, thus, could not be saved from judicial retaliation after they exposed judicial misconduct.

Doris Sassower, suspended in 1991 for criticism of judicial corruption and for her work as a civil rights attorney filing constitutional challenges to that corruption, remains suspended.

This author, suspended in 2015 for the same, see the article where a local newspaper in Delaware County, New York, with connections to a judge who is behind my suspension, acknowledges that I was suspended for criticizing "gross judicial misconduct"

remains suspended. Mind this bibliographical rarity, The Walton Reporter is the only public source (other than my blog) that has made this "slip of the tongue", a confession that my law license and livelihood was, indeed, taken by judges taking advantage of their roles as regulators of the legal profession in retaliation for criticism of those same regulators, judges. 

Other sources, including the order of suspension itself, does not state that I was suspended FOR criticizing judicial misconduct - even though I was really suspended

• without ANY fact-finding hearing
• based solely and exclusively on sanctions imposed upon me by the corrupt Delaware County judge Carl Becker (whose pictures with bears he killed Walton Reporter regularly posted in the past) FOR making a motion to recuse Becker because of his misconduct and corruption (he recused from my cases in 2009, then got himself reassigned to my cases in order to be able to get me, got me in 2011 and immediately put his sanctions into the "disciplinary pipeline", same as Judge Levine did with Elizabeth Holtzmann).

The only prosecutor disciplined since Holtzmann in 1991 was Paul David Soares, the Albany County DA, in 2012 - "coincidentally", also for criticism of a judge.

By the way, my discipline was sustained by the court in a similar fashion with Holtzmann's discipline - by the time I was suspended in November of 2015 Judge Carl F. Becker already ran from the bench during an FBI and Commission for Judicial Conduct investigation.  

Yet, it is a crime for an attorney to criticize a judge even if his misconduct has already caught up with him.

Since Holtzmann's discipline many, many attorneys, regulated by the judiciary, were disciplined by judges, and removed from the reach of the public they could benefit by their services, for criticism of their own regulator - which is, as Holtzmann knows and argued to the court, not only unconstitutional, but requires the change of the interested regulator of the legal profession.

Holtzmann, knowing full well that attorney regulation, introduced for the benefit of the public, is used to the detriment of the public, sat by in Congress for several decades, not trying to lobby the federal Legislature to remove the regulation of the legal profession, and with that, of public access to court, from the hands of the regulator who is using it to grab private privileges for the regulator itself and to quash criticism of its own misconduct.

So, when we are celebrating "Power to Women", we must ask ourselves - for what purpose do some powerful women, like former Congresswoman Holtzmann, used that power?

For self-promotion only?

That is not what voters expected of her.  And that is why I do not support pink-hatted "women's marches".  They are useless.  Their organizers are nowhere to be found where real women's real civil rights are violated.

I did not hear anybody "of consequence" trying to speak at that Women's March about the plight of many, many, many attorneys, female and male, who are disciplined and lose their licenses for criticizing their regulator - which is their duty to their client and to the public to do and their citizen's rights to do, too.

The change of the judiciary as the interested regulator of the legal profession is long overdue.

The way the judiciary uses attorney regulation to gain privileges and quash critics, skipping the necessary defamation proceedings against critics to find defamation through closed-doors "Star Chamber" proceedings without prior discovery or a jury trial, is a shame of the American judicial system.

An interesting historical note before I bow out.

The American judiciary grabbed regulation of attorneys claiming that such a power of the judiciary to regulate the legal profession is "historical", that it was like that in the "Old Country" - the country separation from which because of its unfair laws was won through a bloody war, and paid for with so many lives.

Yet, even in the Old Country cases where people were prosecuted for criticism of the government were taken away from judges of the Star Chamber in 1792, and put into the hands of juries, by the Libel (Fox) Act, specifically because judges proved they could not be impartial in handling criticism of themselves.

Let's remember the date when this rule was revoked in the Old Country - and based on a petition drafted by a Star Chamber Judge Sir Edward Coke who knew from his own experience how biased he was in cases of seditious libel (criticism of the government).

1792.

In 1792 in England, by an act of Parliament, cases of prosecutions for criticism of the government were taken from judges and given to juries.

Of course, juries often do not help if they are fed self-serving law by judges.

For example, in 1964 the U.S. Supreme Court (itself a regulator of its own "bar"), decided Garrison v Lousiana where it reversed a criminal conviction of a prosecutor for criticism of judges, saying:

"A state court convicted him of violating the Louisiana Criminal Defamation Statute, which, in the context of criticism of official conduct, includes punishment for true statements made with "actual malice" in the sense of ill-will, as well as false statements if made with ill-will or without reasonable belief that they were true. The state supreme court affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute did not unconstitutionally abridge appellant's rights of free expression.

Held:

1. The Constitution limits state power to impose sanctions for criticism of the official conduct of public officials, in criminal cases as in civil cases, to false statements concerning official conduct made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, followed. Pp. 379 U. S. 67-75.

2. Appellant's accusations concerned the judges' official conduct and, did not become private defamation because they might also have reflected on the judges' private character. Pp. 379 U. S. 76-77."

After Garrison, disciplinary boards (entities populated and controlled by judges and considered as "arms of the court") continued to provide a service for those who gave them their licenses and ability to earn a living, judges, while blocking access or control over the regulation by people who they are supposed to benefit - consumers (just look up compositions of disciplinary boards, consumers are always present in token numbers, if at all - in such numbers as never to outvote judge-regulated attorney members).

Disciplinary boards allowed judges, as described above, to skip the necessity to file defamation lawsuits against attorneys who they think make false statements against them, and to take their licenses without any impediments like open court proceedings, discovery or jury trials.

Instead, judges are offered a "service" - just complain to us, and we will stage a Star Chamber for attorneys and decide who gets to continue to practice, and who gets to starve because they dared to criticize "the hand that feeds them" - even though the supposed "hand that feeds" attorneys is only a REGULATOR of law licenses FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC, not the King to do with the license what they want because of their personal grudges.

In other words, disciplinary boards continue to offer judges Star Chamber services that were prohibited in the Old Country in 1792.

And, American attorneys - and the public they represent - continue to live in a pre-1792 era.

And, nothing is done about it because attorneys whose licenses are controlled by judges have so far overpowered all branches of the government, so the concept of "checks and balances" became a mockery.

What importance this all is to the public at large minding its own business far away from "attorney squabbles"?

Next time when you cannot find an attorney who would not be afraid to take on a civil rights case of judicial misconduct, or file a motion to recuse a judge - remember to ask former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, who cozily hid behind her connections and public officer's salary for 50 years.

Ask her just one question.

You knew that the regulator of the legal profession has a major conflict of interest and uses that conflict to grab personal advantages to the detriment of the public - instead of doing its job and regulating the profession for the benefit of the public.  You knew that to pursue that goal the judiciary makes attorneys live in a pre-1792 Star Chamber England.

Why didn't you use your 50 freaking years in the U.S. Congress to change that?

Just saying.

Russia tries hard to step on the same rake that already deprived Americans of independent court representation. The case of attorney #VitaliyBurkin and expansion of attorney monopoly in Russia - with the urging of the American Bar Association

Since its inception in 2014, this blog is dedicated to promoting independence of court representatives, the in the United States and not only.

I repeatedly write about cases when such independence is infringed upon and especially in cases where attorneys are disciplined for criticism of their own regulator (in the U.S.) - courts and judges.

Punishment of attorneys in the U.S. for criticism of the judiciary have become a practically routine occurrence.  I wrote about some statistics of that "phenomenon" here. 

I will repost the names of attorneys I know from my own research and from research of law professor Margaret Tarkington here.

Prof. Tarkington in her law review article on attorney speech lists 48 cases from 28 states where attorneys were sanctioned for criticism of judges, from 1877 to 2007.

Kansas	1877	In re Pryor, 18 Kan. 72
California	1911	In re Shay, 160 Cal. 399
New Jersey	1930	In re Glauberman, 107 N. J. Eq. 384, 152, Atl. 650
California	1934	In re Friday, 138 Cal. App. 660, 32 P.2d 1117
Wyoming	1945	State Board of Law Exam'rs v. Spriggs, 155 P.2d 285
Iowa	1964	In re Glenn, 256 Iowa 1233
New Mexico	1966	In re Meeker, 76 N.M. 354, 414 P.2d 862
Nevada	1971	In re Raggio, 87 Nev. 369
Florida	1973	In re Shimeck, 284 So. 2d 686, 690
Iowa	1976	In re Frerichs, 238 N.W.2d 764, 769-70
South Dakota	1979	In re Lacey, 283 N.W.2d 250
California	1980	Ramirez v. State Bar of Cal., 28 Cal.3d 402
Iowa	1980	Comm. On Prof'l Ethics and Conduct of the Iowa State Bar Ass'n v. Horak, 292 N.W.2d 129
Kentucky	1980	Ky. Bar Ass'n v. Heleringer, 602 S.W.2d 165, 168
Kentucky (another)	1980	Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Nall, 599 S.W.2d 899
Louisiana	1983	La. State Bar Ass'n v. Karst, 428 So.2d 406
Tennessee	1983	Farmer v. Board of Prof'l Responsibility of the Sup. Ct. of Tenn., 660 S.W.2d 490
Maryland?	1986	In re Evans, 801 F.2d 703 (4th Cir. 1986) (disbarred from USDC for district of Maryland), footnote 15
Tennessee	1989	Ramsey v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, 771 S.W.2d 116
Minnesota	1990	In re Graham, 453 N.W.2d 313
Missouri	1991	In re Westfall, 808 S.W.2d 829, 833-34
New York	1991	In re Holtzman, 78 N.Y.2d 184
West Virginia	1991	Committee on Legal Ethics of the W. Va. State Bar v. Farber, 408 S.E.2d 274
California	1993	Peters v. State Bar of Cal., 219 Cal. 218
Indiana	1993	In re Becker, 620 N.E.2d 691
Washington?	1993	S. Dist. Ct. for E.D. of Wash. V. Sandlin, 12 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 1993)
Indiana	1994	In re Antanga, 636 N.E.2d 1253
Indiana (another)	1994	In re Garringer, 626 N.E.2d 809
California?	1995	Standing Committee on Discipline for the U.S.Dist. Ct. for the Cent. Dist. Cal. V. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430, 1437 (9th Cir. 1995)
Idaho	1996	Idaho State Bar v. Topp, 129 Idaho 414
Iowa	1996	Iowa Sup. Ct. Board of Prof'l Ethics and Conduct v. Ronwin, 557 N.W.2d 515
Kentucky	1996	Ky. Bar Ass'n v. Waller, 929 S.W.2d 181
Indiana	1999	In re Reed, 716 N.E.2d 426
Delaware	2000	In re Guy, 756 A.2d 875
Florida	2001	Fla. Bar v. Ray, 797 So.2d 556
Indiana	2001	In re McCellan, 754 N.E.2d 500 ("McClellan" in fn 39)
Indiana	2002	In re Wilkins, 777 N.E.2d 714
Kansas	2002	In re Arnold, 274 Kan. 761
Ohio	2003	Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Gardner, 99 Ohio St.3d 416, 793 N.E.2d 425
Louisiana	2005	In re Simon, 913 So.2d 816
Massachussetts	2005	In re Cobb, 445 Mass. 452
Michigan	2006	Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 719 N.W.2d 123
Minnesota	2006	In re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct involving File No. 17139, 720 N.W.2d 807
Arkansas	2007	Stilley v. Sup. Ct. Comm. On Prof'l Conduct, 370 Ark. 294
Delaware	2007	In re Abbott, 925 A.2d 482
Kansas	2007	In re Pyle, 283 Kan. 807, 156 P.3d 1231
Utah	2007	Peters v. Pine Meadows Ranch Home, 151 P.3d 962
Utah (another)	2007	Utah v. Santana-Ruiz, 167 p.3d 1038, 1044

Additionally, through my own research I found 33 cases from 14 states:

John E. Wofgram	California	Attorney challenging the concept of judicial immunity as unconstitutional and who sided with the "Jail for Judges" movement seeking state constitutional amendments to abolish judicial immunity - by legal process	1989
Dr. Richard Fine	California	Disbarred, incarcerated and held in solitary confinement for exposure of judicial corruption	2009
George Sassower	New York	Disbarred for exposing judicial corruption, held in contempt, bankrupted	1988
Doris Sassower	New York	Suspended after she filed an appeal of a dismissal of lawsuit on behalf of clients challenging impropriety of cross-endorsing judges by multiple parties in judicial elections	1991
Doug Schafer	Washington	Suspended for reporting judicial corruption	2003
Barbara Johnson	Massachussets	Disbarred after she ran for the seat of the State Governor on a platform of judicial reform and cleaning up judicial corruption	2006
Eugene Wrona	Pennsylvania	disbarred for calling a judge a "domestic terrorist"	2006
Zena Crenshaw-Logal	Indiana	Suspended for “making false allegations against judges”	2007
John A. Aretakis	New York	The attorney who exposed child molestation by Catholic priests, was suspended for making motions to recuse and defaming the Catholic priests	2008
David Roosa Sean Conway	New York Florida	Criticized a judge for misconduct in assigning cases only to attorneys who will not do discovery, motions and trials for their clients Suspended for calling a criminal court judge who gave only a week to prepare for a criminal trial after indictment, an "evil, unfair witch"	2009
Andy Ostrowski	Pennsylvania	Criticized and continues to criticize judicial misconduct in publications and a radio show, ran for the U.S. Congress on the platform of judicial reform, is being repeatedly denied reinstatement on those grounds	2010
Lanre Amu, a Nigerian lawyer	Illinois	Made a complaint against a Circuit Judge	2011
Frederick J Neroni	New York	Disbarred after his law partner and wife criticized a judge for apparent bribery, the judge's former law parnter, a local criminal prosecutor, threatened Mr. Neroni to withdraw a criminal appeal raising the same issues, not to "burn the bridges", Mr. Neroni was disbarred after he refused to do that	2011
Jeffrey Norkin	Florida	suspended in 2013 "for making threatening and disparaging statements to a judge", and then disbarred	2013
Leon Koziol	New York	repeatedly denied reinstatement for testimony against judicial corruption before the Moreland Commission, publications and rallies criticizing judicial misconduct in Family Courts	2013
Don Bailey	Pennsylvania	Criticized federal judges in pleadings	2013
Robert Serafinowicz	Connecticut	Suspended for 120 days for criticizing a judge in an email, making a motion to recuse and filing a complaint agains the judge with state disciplinary authorities	2014
Kenneth Ditkowski	Illinois	Suspended for criticizing judicial corruption in probate courts	2014
Paul Ogden	Indiana	suspended for an e-mail criticizing a judge, ordered to pay giant disciplinary cost of proceedings	2014
James Albert Frost	Maryland	Suspended for impugning integrity of judges and disciplinary prosecutors	2014
Michele MacDonald Shimota	Minnesota	Was arrested in the courthouse by order of a judge she sought to recuse and sued, sexually abused in the holding cell, forced into a wheelchair, stripped of glasses, shoes, files, wheeled into the courtroom and forced to represent a client this way	2014
Robert Grundstein	Washington	Disbarred for criticism of judicial corruption in Ohio courts	2014
Stephen L. Hall	West Virginia	Suspended for 3 months for criticizing judges	2014
Erwin Rosenberg	Florida	Suspension time increased from what was recommended after attorney moved to disqualify the judge-referee	2015
JoAnne Marie Denison	Illinois	Suspended for 3 years for exposure of corruption in probate courts through blogs	2015
Nanine McCool	Louisiana	Disbarred after running for a judicial seat, then criticizing a judge in motions to recuse	2015
Tatiana Neroni	New York	Suspended for criticizing a judge for apparent misconduct and corruption in motions to recuse	2015
Kathleen Kane	Pennsylvania	revealed judicial and prosecutorial misconduct in e-mails, was suspended by the judge she outed, the judge resigned after suspending her	2015
Kevin A. McKenna	Rhode Island	Suspended for 1 year for criticism of judges	2015
David Dow	Texas	An attorney who exposed misconduct of Judge Sharon Keller who refused the last-minute death appeal by a statement "we close at 5" - was held in contempt and blocked from appearing in death penalty cases	2015
Russel Stookey	Georgia	Charged with a felony for seeking public records of a court operating account to expose judicial misconduct	2016
Christine Mire	Louisiana	Suspended for well-founded criticism of a judge, based on documentary evidence and testimony of witnesses that indicated that the judge altered or caused to alter court audio files of a judicial proceedings protecting herself from allegations that she did not disclose the judge's irreconcilable conflict of interest	2016
Ty Clevenger	Texas	attorney who exposed sexual misconduct of federal judge Walter Smith and insisted on reopening of his case and speeding investigation once the case was reopened	2016

Conceptual support of such punishment is exceptionally poor. 

After all, the 1st Amendment prohibits infringement upon speech, and the prohibition is absolute.

Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court, as it usually does, did invent exceptions to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and amended the Bill of Rights by inventing, instead of a direct prohibition to infringe upon the freedom of speech, "tests" as to when such infringement is prohibited, and when it can be allowed.

But, even under the U.S. Supreme Court's jurisprudence, content-based regulation of speech must be subject to the highest levels of scrutiny, the strict scrutiny - and that applies to even the type of speech that the U.S. Supreme Court gives the lowest type of protection, commercial speech.

Not in cases of attorney discipline though. 

The U.S. Supreme Court routinely refuses to hear such cases, thus allowing states courts and lower federal courts to keep a fear grip on the bar and undermine independence of court representation.

After all, it is unreasonable to expect from an attorney such a level of self-sacrifice (and sacrifice of his family's well-being, too) that, for the sake of faithful representation of one client he would risk losing years of investment of time, effort and money into his profession. 

It is not reasonable to expect an average attorney to accept that risk of losing his attorney status, especially in the country where a motion to recuse a judge may land you without a law license, as it regularly happens in the U.S. (in the case of John Aretakis in New York, Christine Mire in Louisiana and many others) and blacklisted not only from working in a law office, even as a driver or a plumber, but also from all other regulated professions - which take in the U.S., by conservative assessments, from 25% to 30% of the market.

In other words, if you criticize a judge, you risk leaving yourself without any ability to earn a decent income for life.

The situation is aggravated by the fact that, as regulators of attorneys, American courts invented or pushed through legislatures (also permeated by attorneys as senators and advisers to senators) laws restricting or eliminating attorneys' rights to appeal disciplinary decisions. 

And, since the U.S. did not fully ratify the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, there is no possibility for disciplined American attorneys to obtain or even seek an out-of-the-country review of such decisions, stripping them of their livelihood for doing their job as attorneys and citizens - as attorneys from other countries, including Belarus and Russia, may do.

For example, the United Nations Commission of Human Rights fairly recently reversed denial of a law license by Belarus to Mechislav Gryb for criticism of the government.

And, the European Court of Human Rights fairly recently reversed disbarment of a Russian attorney Igor Kabanov for, among other things, criticism of a judge.

Not so in the U.S. 

With

• no meaningful court review,
• no right to a jury trial,
• no right to appeal,
• a review of attorney disciplinary cases by competitors and not by consumers of the attorney and without any decisionmaking authority by consumers of attorney's services, and with
• the statistics of the overwhelming majority of disciplinary cases against attorneys disciplined for criticism of the judiciary decided against attorneys, attorneys are forced to operate in a self-preservation mode. 

And keep their heads low as far as criticism of the judiciary goes.

To the point of letting known bad violations of human rights proceed - as it happened in Kids-for-Cash scandal in Pennsylvania - rather than criticize a judge, as Professor Jonathan Turley and Indiana attorney Paul Ogden (himself punished for criticism of the judiciary) point out.

Attorneys are not only deadly afraid to report judicial misconduct - ask a law professor what to do if a judge in front of you is committing misconduct, and he will tell you (as professors told many of my readers who asked that question) that to report judicial misconduct or challenge it in any way would be a "professional suicide" - they are proud of their "record" of never reporting judicial misconduct.

For example, one attorney I interviewed recently about his ordeal with trying to get open records for his client from the court system and getting arrested instead, proudly stated that he has never complained about judicial misconduct of any judges, even when that misconduct hurt him personally.

Given that the attorney practiced for a lifetime, and, naturally, must have seen a lot of judicial misconduct, especially after 1978, when American judges granted themselves immunity from malicious and corrupt acts, and judicial misconduct was thus encouraged, that proud statement did not sound that good.

Rather, it was a sign of operating, for a lifetime, in a forced self-preservation, survival mode, the so-called "defensive lawyering" - as compared to "defensive doctoring", doing certain procedures not to help the patient (client), but to, at the same time, charge money and protect yourself from punishment.  That's not a good thing - not in doctoring, not in lawyering. 

And, that is definitely not a good sign for consumers of legal services in need of a rigorous defenders of their constitutional right to impartial judicial review, and their constitutional right to a vigorous court defense in cases fought in court against the government, a powerful opponent with unlimited financial resources.

It is understandable that lawyers do not pay money for their law education to become penniless martyrs because of one case where a motion to recuse needs to be filed, and, as a result, that there are not many kamikazes who would want to criticize a judge, no matter how badly the client's case requires it.

The bar across the country is intimidated and trembling, keeping silent when such discipline is imposed upon lawyers, provides no support to such lawyers, instead, instantly casts them out of attorney organizations, such as the ABA and New York State Bar Association, and even rescinds book offers for foreign attorneys who were punished for their civil rights activities by obviously politically oppressive regimes - for financial and political reasons.

And, while the bar is silent, consumers of legal services suffer. 

Because the right to not just any judicial review, but to an impartial judicial review is a constitutional right - and when your lawyer is afraid to make a motion to recuse a biased or corrupt judge for fear of losing his income forever, your right to an impartial judicial review is shot.  It is simply non-existent. 

And quashing this constitutional right wouldn't have been possible without attorney monopoly, where court representation is restricted only to people who are approved - or disapproved - by the same judiciary that they are supposed to challenge in objections, motions to recuse and appeals.

Well, unfortunately, this example of keeping the bar "in check" appeared to be contagious for another country. 

Actually, Russia appears to be borrowing this American rake to step upon it - and, as it will be shown below, with the help of the American Bar Association whose members priced themselves out of the shrinking U.S. market of legal services and are now preparing expansion into the Russian market, clinching it for themselves by pushing through the American model of attorney monopoly.

A good illustration of how that attorney monopoly will hurt consumers of legal services in both criminal and civil proceedings, and out of court, too, is the case of Russian attorney from the city of Ufa in the Republic of Bashkortostan.

This past week, a young and talented criminal defense attorney, Vitaliy Burkin, was stripped of his attorney status - and instantly removed from tens of criminal cases - because of his open and sharp criticism of judges and judicial system.

What were his particular faux pas?

In July of 2017 he posted on social media a picture of three expensive cars illegally parked on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bakhkortostan in the city of Ufa.  Not only he posted a picture on the media, but he also called for the tow service and had them towed.

The illegally parked, and towed, vehicles, belonged to a judge and two prosecutors.

Of course, Vitaliy Burkin said in a video interview that he does not believe that judges would be so petty as to exact revenge against him for having their vehicles towed. 





Yet, it appears that Russian judges and prosecutors are made from the same ... materials as judges in the U.S. and no petty revenge is beneath them.

Even more so that Vitaliy Burkin not only had their vehicles towed for illegal parking, that was the last drop.  He also criticized - and asked the federal Attorney General of Russia to criminally prosecute - high-ranking judges of the Republic of Bashkortostan who illegally transferred some real estate to themselves.

Vitaliy Burkin also publicly made a stand against oppressive judicial decisions which were not based on the law - does it ring a bell, my American readers?

And, during review by the European Court of Human Rights of the case of Oxana Semenova, a prison inmate and a cancer patient who was denied treatment and painkillers by Russia prison authorities, Vitaliy Burkin had the duty (no, the audacity, apparently) to raise the same issues of denying cancer treatment to his client, a pre-trial detainee.

And, the most grievous error of Vitaliy Burkin's ways was, and that's his own assessment in his video interview embedded above, that he is actually a very good criminal defense attorney who undermined the conviction count for the local prosecutors by getting "too many" acquittals or reversals of convictions on appeal.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled against Russia in Oxana Semenova's case on October 3, 2017.  According to Russian sources, Oxana Semenova was diagnosed in prison with cervical cancer, the prison hospital lacked medical license, ability to treat cancer (radiation therapy equipment and personnel), or painkillers.  The court refused to authorize a medical release Oxana Semenova to obtain medical treatment outside the prison system, and she died in prison.  The complaint to the ECHR was made on behalf of her 14-year-old daughter.

On the same date, October 3, 2017, ECHR ruled against Russia on a freedom of speech and expression issue, ruling as unlawful conviction of a newspaper editor for publishing statements by "two Chechen separatist leaders". 

On the same date, October 3, 2017, ECHR made yet another decision against Russia on violation of free speech, declaring as unlawful "defamation proceedings against an editorial house and a journalist following the publication of two articles concerning the sinking of the Russian Navy's nuclear cruise missile submarine "Kursk" in the Barents Sea in August 2000 and the investigation into the accident".

Americans can only envy Russian, as well as other countries who have access to an out-of-the-country review of inside-the-country human rights violations, since Americans do not have such a right.

Even though in America, inmates are also denied medical care, but, due to severe procedural restrictions (15 days to file a grievance in the same jail where you are kept and face the risk of retaliation for that, in order to preserve your right to sue for human rights violations) created by the Prison Litigation Reform Act and federal law allowing federal judges to toss prisoner lawsuits as "frivolous" before they are even served, on subjective grounds, such cases, unless some powerful organization turns its eye at them, do not even get reported, much less get reviewed by any international human rights organizations.

And, even though in America,

• people are persecuted, and viciously, for critical publications against the government, as it happened last year to journalist Mark Thomason of Georgia (see also my blogs this month about #JudgeBrendaWeaver),
• persecuted for filming police misconduct, as it happened to Maurice "Mo" Crawley and Adam Rupeka in New York, legislator John Walker in Arkansas and the legislator's lawyer Omavi Kushukuru;
• criminal cases are fabricated against them, as it happened to #MarkThomason, his attorney Russell Stookey in Georgia, Maurice "Mo" Crawley and blogger #AdamRupeka in New York last year, and
• when people are, to all appearances (because no meaningful investigations are happening in such cases, so what remains are only appearances) assassinated, as it very likely happened to
• Sunny Shue in New York after repeatedly reporting on judicial misconduct and starting investigations of a New York judge's property holdings,
• as it happened in New York last year to vigorous critic of police misconduct Adam Rupeka, and
• as it happened recently to attorney #PatrickMissud in California who actively criticized judges, up to the Chief Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court John Roberts, and was mysteriously found dead in jail when detained before trial where he was supposed to testify in a case of "criminal threats against a judge"

 - victims of such persecution and their families lack the right of out-of-the-country review, and in-the-country review of such things usually leads to dismissals, if not with sanctions, because nothing that the government (and especially the judiciary) does in the U.S. may be deemed bad.

Russian government at the very least allowed Russian citizens to sue itself in an outside forum, the European Court of Human Rights.

Nevertheless, victories in free speech lawsuits against Russia at the beginning of this month did not prevent, and, very possibly, accelerated what happened to attorney Vitaliy Burkin, as a method of intimidation of all other potential critics of the government in Russia.

In two and a half weeks, Vitaliy Burkin, the "troublemaker", was stripped of his "advocate status" and removed from criminal cases.

By the "Chamber of Advocates", an association of his competitors.

While having done NOTHING WRONG in representation of his clients - and regulation of the legal profession in Russia, as well as in the United States, was introduced on the pretext of protecting consumers of their services.

Apparently, his clients suffered, same as clients suffer in the United States, when their chosen, competent and courageous attorneys, usually independent solo or small-firm criminal defense or civil rights attorneys, are removed for criticism of the judiciary.

And, apparently, same as in the United States, nobody asked Vitaliy Burkin's clients whether they would agree to removal of Vitaliy Burkin from their cases.

Somehow, the decision of who would represent their interests in court was taken out of their hands and given to competitors of their own attorneys, and very possibly, to their opponents in litigation, since - remember? - Vitaliy Burkin, after all, called a tow truck upon a couple of prosecutors, one with the same last name as the Deputy Chief Attorney General of the Republic of Bashkortostan.

"Coincidentally", at the time of persecution of Vitaliy Burkin, lawyer lobby was actively trying to push through the Russian Legislature (the Duma) various types of attorney monopoly - similar to what already exists in Russia, and, similarly to the U.S., without any sunrise review and without any verification with consumers of legal services whose rights such attorney monopoly is claimed to protect, whether consumers want attorneys to guard the chicken coop. 

It is interesting to see the supposedly unrelated interaction of Vitaliy Burkin's case with what is happening in the Duma.

As soon as Vitaliy Burkin was told that he was stripped of attorney status - without actually giving him, according to Vitaliy Burkin, the written decision with reasoning about such an extraordinary punishment - Vitaliy Burkin made a public statement in an interview with journalist Stas Michailov.

In that interview, attorney Burkin, in answer to the journalist's question whether he is going to undertake steps to restore his "advocate status", answered that the "advocate status" does not make much difference in his work since he can still work as a lawyer without being a court criminal defense attorney.

In Russia, attorney monopoly at this time concerns only representation in criminal court, specifically appearances in court, and not consulting, giving legal advice, preparing documents, and representing people in arbitration and civil court proceedings.

But, attorney Burkin may be out of luck in his hopes that he was stripped only of the status of criminal defense court attorney.

According to reports of Russian business newspaper "Kommersant", a new bill in the works - to spread attorney monopoly exactly the same way as it exists in the U.S., to cover all those things that were not (yet) stripped from attorney Burkin.

If that is passed, competitors and the government will have an opportunity to remove independent Russian attorneys not only from criminal cases, but also from arbitration, civil and, especially, from civil rights cases - and prohibit attorneys to so much as peep a legal opinion or give legal advice to people, or draft any documents.

And, the interesting thing is that such a bill appeared after you know who vigorously toiled to teach Russian attorney bureaucracy and judiciary about "the rule of law"? 

The American Bar Association that has a death grip upon attorney monopoly in the United States, notwithstanding the "justice gap" that such an attorney monopoly produces for people.

The ABA, through its "Rule of Law" project and its exceptionally interesting director, Gleb Glinka, husband of the recently (allegedly) deceased Dr. Lisa, who has his own very interesting ties in top tiers of both the U.S. and the Russian government, brought American own corrupt judges to lecture to the Russian judges how to rule the legal profession better, engage in corruption and escape accountability for that, brought Russian judges back to America for tours (I translated in one of them, where judges came from the Astrakhan region). 

In view of the ABA turning a deaf ear and a blind eye to the fate of attorneys who suffered for criticism of the country in the ABA's own country, and in other countries - which is reflected in the ABA's policy of membership to accept only attorneys "in good standing" with their own governments, even if those governments are oppressive dictatorships, and in view of the recent testimony in the U.S. Congress about the ABA's reneging a book offer to a Chinese civil rights attorney, obviously in an effort not to ruffle the feathers of Chinese government and not to jeopardize business prospects of its members in China - the recently concluded "Rule of Law" project of the ABA in Russia was not any kind of charity to sermonize to the supposedly uneducated Russian lawyers and judges what the rule of law is - but a purely business venture.

The ABA was pushing through the American model of attorney regulation in Russia notwithstanding the fact that attorney monopoly enriching politically connected attorneys in the United States, makes the majority of Americans go to court without an attorney or forego their legal rights completely, since, with the minimal pay across the United States under $15 an hour, they are unable to afford a licensed attorney whose hourly rate starts at $200, and, according to comments, is on average now $400 an hour.

At the same time, due to criminal laws pushed through by attorney lobbies in the US, which prohibit "unauthorized practice of law", without clearly defining what the "practice of law" actually is, with severe penalties such as up to 5 years in prison, a criminal felony conviction and stripping of rights of employment and voting rights on conviction, people who cannot afford to pay $400 an hour to a lawyer (actually, much more upfront since most of attorneys require several thousand dollars down as a retainer to start representation in a court case), are forced to proceed without an attorney entirely. 

Thus, attorney regulation as it exists in the US, protects only the rich, who can afford an attorney and who does not need such "protection", and as a result of such "protection" people who do need court representation go without any such representation whatsoever, because their choice of their own court representatives is taken away by the government and by the legal profession.

Hiring a court representative of their own choice from anything but a government-approved lists of licensed attorneys is a crime in the United States, for both the consumer (as a solicitation), and the contractor - which is especially stupid when the very government who restricts consumer choice of court representatives, is the opponent of that same consumer in litigation, in:

• family court social services cases against parents,
• tax foreclosures,
• property forfeiture cases,
• disciplinary proceedings against licensed professionals,
• criminal proceedings, and in 
• civil rights cases where the government is being sued by people for violation of their civil rights.

Apparently, that's the rake towards which the ABA, through its now embedded lobby in Russia, is pushing Russia.

And, attorney Burkin's case - and his instant removal, by a group of competitors, from criminal cases where his clients chosen him to represent them for his competence, skills, courage and independence, without his client's knowledge, notice or consent - is, unfortunately, but likely, only the beginning of the backlash against independent court representatives in Russia.

Apparently, corruption and greed are the best products that the American legal profession can export to Russia.

Nothing like plunging people into the dark ages, all the way asserting lofty causes.

I would very much prefer that Russian consumers of court representation - same as American consumers - wake up finally and make their opinion on the subject of attorney monopoly, and the resulting justice gap, known.

Until then, third parties with special interests will be deciding who and how will represent them in court, where their life (in the U.S.), liberty, property, custody of children (both in the U.S. and in Russia) are concerned.

And attorneys of their choice will continue to be removed from their cases by decisions of those third parties with special interests - like it happened in American cases listed above, like it happened in Russian in the case of attorney Vitaliy Burkin.