Why the National District Attorneys Association chooses the most unethical prosecutors as their Presidents - Part I, #DAWilliamFitzpatrick The Extortioner

The current President of the National District Attorneys' Association is William Fitzpatrick, the District Attorney of Onondaga County, New York.

That is the District Attorney who is the law school buddy and roommate of the corrupt judge James Tormey who remains the Chief Administrative Judge of the 5th Admnistrative District despite being sued by several female plaintiffs for sexism, retaliation and using his judicial office for political espionage.

The last time Judge Tormey sued, he was sued together with his buddy DA Fitzpatrick, because of their collusive efforts to demote and strip of livelihood a Spanish female court interpreter who Fitzpatrick tried to prosecute for a felony, but who was acquitted by a jury.

The lawsuit - unfortunately - was dismissed on 'absolute immunity" grounds.

The previous lawsuit was brought against Tormey by a female court attorney who Tormey harassed, demoted and persecuted after she refused to spy on a judge who ran for re-election on a Democratic ticket (Tormey is a Republican).

That lawsuit was litigated for 4.5 years and was settled on the eve of trial for $600,000 out of taxpayers pockets.

The judge who leaked to the plaintiff Bobette Morin that Tormey and his cronies are out to get her was Onondaga Family Court judge Bryan Hedges.

After the settlement of the lawsuit against Tormey, William Fitzpatrick, Tormey's law school buddy, according to the records on file with the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, started to blackmail Judge Hedges and extort from him money on behalf of himself and the alleged victim of Judge Hedges of nearly 40 years back.

Fitzpatrick knew that in New York there is a statute of limitations for sex crimes, in criminal and civil court, and that claims of the alleged victim were time-barred.

Nevertheless, Fitzpatrick pursued extortion against Judge Hedges, according to e-mails of the alleged victim referenced by Judge Hedges attorney in the disciplinary proceedings before the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct.

According to the alleged victim, DA William Fitzpatrick wanted a portion of the extorted money, 


see my blog about the corrupt relationship between DA Fitzpatrick and Judge Tormey here, see arguments of Judge Hedges to the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct here, page 9.

When Judge Hedges did not cave into that extortion, DA Fitzpatrick turned him into the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct.

Judge Hedges was taken off the bench.

DA Fitzpatrick was never prosecuted for extortion.

Instead, he was appointed to the New York State Commission for Public Ethics (the now-disbanded "Moreland Commission"), and is currently listed as the President of the National District Attorneys' Association.

Look at how the extorting DA Fitzpatrick talks about morals and ethics.  It is truly sickening.

Apparently, NDAA is happy to acknowledge that William Fitzpatrick is representing the FACE of ALL of prosecutors in the United States.

Look at the face of the "hero".

A very self-righteous guy, isn't he?

And extremely ethical.

As to my separate blog about yet another unethical pick-for-President (a recent one) by the National District Attorneys' Association - stay tuned.

Pennsylvania overturns a $1M sanction against an attorney because of wrong jury instruction and criticizes opposing counsel for personal venom

A Pennsylvania court has overturned a ONE MILLION dollar sanction against an attorney imposed in a civil case where the attorney's witness gave testimony on the subject that the trial judge claimed was precluded.

Not only the amount was staggering, but, as the appellate court found:

• the jury instruction on the subject was not clear as to whether the testimony was precluded; and
• it is generally unfair to sanction an attorney for actions of a third party that is not within the attorney's control.

It is interesting that the appellate court specifically criticized conduct of the attorney's opposing counsel who tried to bury her deeper throughout the ordeal.

"Each time plaintiff's counsel brought the contempt issue before the court, they presumed what they were initially required to prove and presented their conclusions with transparent venom, bloom, innuendo and increased outrage, refreshed periodically with personal attacks on Ms. Raynor," said the opinion, written by Superior Court President Judge Susan Gantman.

It is very clear that courts should not have authority to impose monetary fines upon attorneys, and especially fines of such a magnitude as was imposed upon attorney Nancy Raynor.

Such sanctions, imposed as a matter of the court's "discretion" (whim) are absolutely arbitrary and can be used simply as a tool of retaliation against an attorney who the judge simply does not like.

I am glad that for attorney Raynor the ordeal is over.

But, "discretionary" sanctions against attorneys and parties, which are nearly impossible to eliminate on appeal, are still on the books and should be eliminated.

Attorney Raynor is simply lucky that the issue upon which she was appealing caused an uproar in the upper echelons of he legal establishment.

Had the fine been $10,000, she would still be saddled with it.

California Legislature is seeking to dismantle attorney regulation by attorneys. Good first step, but too small under the circumstances to help close the "justice gap".

I wrote on this blog about a super-interesting court decisions in three states, including the State of California, where courts that are also regulating attorney licensing and discipline, claimed that attorney licensing and discipline has nothing to do with effective representation - meaning that representation by an attorney suspended as a matter of discipline was not a denial of effective representation to a criminal defendant.

California belongs to the majority of states with "organized bars", meaning that a non-profit corporation, a bar association, is acting as a government agency prosecuting attorney misconduct.

In February of 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that occupational licensing and discipline by members of the regulated profession without neutral state supervision is in violation of federal antitrust laws and stripped antitrust immunity from regulators.

After that, state bars did nothing to comply with that decision, give consumers more authority in the regulation of the legal profession which is done allegedly for consumers' benefit, nor did legislatures enact laws which would ensure neutral state supervision over occupational regulation in general and over attorney regulation in particular.

Last month, I wrote about how California State Bar and judiciary, in obvious collusion, were fighting against the former insider of the California State Bar and now whistleblower Joseph Dunn. 

The California Legislature responded to the corruption games in the California State Bar by a yet-unprecedented move suspending the CalBar's  authority to collect annual membership fees (allegedly used to prosecute attorney discipline).

It appears that the California Legislature is reacting to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v FTC in seeking "deunification" of the "organized bar" of the State of California, seeking to remove regulatory authority over attorney licensing and discipline from the California Bar Association, attorneys' special interest group.

The next logical step would be removal of yet another special-interest group, the American Bar Association, from controlling attorney licensing through certification of law schools where an attorney can only be licensed to practice law in a given state if he graduated from an "ABA-certified" law school.

Talking about special interests.

But, let's come back to where this article has started.

When 

• attorney discipline was ruled - by the California top court - as having nothing to do with effective representation,
• when all states at this time are violating federal civil and criminal antitrust laws in occupational regulation, including attorney regulation, by their non-compliance with the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court precedent;
• when what constitutes the practice of law is not clearly defined, and when the U.S. Federal Trade Commission AND the U.S. Department of Justice distinguish between legal services (by licensed attorneys AND unlicensed providers) and the practice of law, and
• when FTC and DOJ acknowledges that attorney regulation should be loosened up to deal with the "justice gap" - obviously admitting that the justice gap has been caused by attorney regulation -

WHY would the State Legislatures proceed in deregulating by mini-steps instead of ordering a Commission consisting of CONSUMERS ONLY, who have nothing to do with the legal profession, to verify whether attorney regulation as a measure of consumer protection is evidence-based and warranted?

Why not?

Under these circumstances?

Too much money paid by lobbyists to prevent that?

On adherence to "5-lawyer majority opinions" and the use of AEDPA in the State of Alabama - and in other states

An Alabama judge filed a lawsuit because he is upset.

He is upset for being investigated by disciplinary authorities for disobeying the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court precedent that legitimized same-sex marriage throughout the United States.

The judge calls that precedent a "5-lawyer majority decision".

And, apparently, thinks that such a "5-lawyer majority decision" cannot be binding law upon the judge when such a majority decision clashes with the judge's personal, including religious, views on homosexuality and marriage.

The interesting point in Judge Parker's opposition to "5-lawyer majority decisions" is that Judge Parker is a former Assistant Attorney General for the State of Alabama who regularly sought the death penalty for criminal defendants, according to his own biography on the court's website.

And, as the Assistant AG, Judge Parker had to regularly oppose death penalty appeals and habeas corpuses where defendants routinely raised the issue that the death penalty is unconstitutional.

And, I am sure that Assistant AG Parker argued that there is no "5-lawyer majority opinion" proclaiming that the death penalty is unconstitutional, and therefore, the defendants must be executed.

But, when a "5-lawyer majority opinion" is now being used against Judge Parker, with a potential to bite him in the butt, then Judge Parker got on the white horse and is claiming that U.S. Supreme Court decisions are just a "5-lawyer majority opinion" nonsense.

Judge Parker's yoyo arguments in the death penalty cases and in his own case prove only one things - there is no such thing as the rule of law or independent justice when a long-time prosecutor and judge sends people to death based on authority of the same court that he rejects in his own disciplinary case.

What was good to send people to their deaths should be good to discipline a judge.

Shouldn't it?

Who was #JudgeJosephBoeckmann betting with to take sexually suggestive pictures of a criminal defendant?

Last month, I wrote on this blog about a judge in the State of Arkansas, #JudgeJoseph Boeckmann who, reportedly, gave lenient sentences to young males in his criminal court in exchange for "community service", community service being posing for the judge taking pictures of the defendants' butts, legs spread - sometimes with clothes, sometimes without.

Here is the "hero" Judge Boeckmann:

Now, reports come out that Judge Boeckmann also forged court records reflecting his sentences in such cases.

While there are reports about a disciplinary investigation against Judge Boeckmann, I did not see reports in the press as yet that Judge Boeckmann was criminally charged - for abuse of office, as well as for forging court documents.

And, the lingering and unsettling question is - many people HAD to know what Judge Boeckmann was doing.

Court personnel, probation HAD to know that Judge Boeckmann was forging court papers.

Moreover, Judge Boeckmann reportedly was not just taking pictures of defendants for his own personal pleasure - but was doing that as "bets with friends".

I wonder - will Judge Boeckmann AND his enablers be investigated, both in court and the "betting" friends?

And, who are the betting friends of Judge Boeckman?

Leniency/corruption in regards to discipline and criminal prosecution of drunk driving judges in New York continues - the case of #JudgeTimothyJCooper

I wrote on this blog about some high-ranking New York state judges who drove drunk, attempted to use their position to get out of criminal charges, got lenient plea bargains because of who they were, and remained on the bench, see my blogs about:

• Albany County Family Court Judge Gerard Maney - who drove drunk and tried to intimidate the arresting police officer with his status as a judge to get out of criminal charges; 

Judge Maney was only censured by the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, and remains an attorney with "no record of public discipline" - and a judge:

Note that the drunk judge Maney presided during his drunk driving criminal prosecution and disciplinary proceedings, and continues to preside over this day over:

• Juvenile Drug Court, and
• Family Treatment Court - you know, substance abuse, alcoholics and domestic violence caused by drinking.

A perfect choice for a judge for both of these courts.

Judge Maney will be (dis)gracing litigants with his "service" until at least 2021.

The next celebrity drunk judge in New York who escaped proper discipline is:

• Judge Carl F. Landicino;

Judge Landicino is also an attorney who has "no record of public discipline", despite public discipline (super-light though it was, just censure) from the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct;

The next "hero" is attorney and iciaicia Astacio - not disciplined at all.

• Judge Leticia Astacio, of the Rochester City court was charged with a DWI on the way to court, where she was supposed to hear DWI cases - she is still on the bench, and not disciplined.

Attorney Leticia Astacio has no record of public discipline.

I also wrote on this blog about the unwritten policy of the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct (which is transparent from the Commission's actions) disciplining - if at all - predominantly local justice court judges, and not touching judges starting with county level, Supreme Court level and especially Appellate court level.

True to the policy, the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct recently took off the bench Judge Timothy J. Cooper, a justice of the Evans Town Court in Erie County, with a stipulation that he will neither seek nor accept a judicial office, and that if he breaks the terms of the stipulation, the judicial disciplinary proceeding will resume and go a hearing before a referee.

Here is judge Cooper:

I guess, New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct needs to be prodded in the rear end to commence such a proceeding before a referee because Judge Cooper did violate the terms of the Stipulation - or the Stipulation was deliberately not worded precisely in order to allow Judge Cooper to retain his position of - guess who? - a Magistrate judge in the Niagara County Family Court, which he remains, according to the court's website, until this day:

Now the Commission took off ONE bench out of TWO Judge Timothy Cooper (without mentioning that Justice Cooper of the Town of Evans court is also a Niagara Family Court magistrate).

Not only the discipline of Judge Cooper was crooked, his criminal prosecution and conviction was even more crooked.

Let's see what Judge Cooper did, what he was charged with, and what he was convicted of.

The snippets below is from the NYS Commission's publication regarding proceedings against judge Timothy J. Cooper.

Let's remember - Judge Cooper drank before driving four 12-ounce(large) beers and a one half-ounce shot of whiskey.

His alcohol content should have been quite high if Judge Cooper could not control himself from veering into a LONELY car coming his way in the opposite lane.

There was just ONE car coming his way because otherwise, when Judge Cooper struck it and when it has spun, flipped and stopped across the highway, there could have been additional accidents if there were more cars on the road at that time.

So, attorney, Niagara Family Court magistrate and Town of Evans justice Timothy Cooper was driving drunk, veered into oncoming traffic despite seeing that there is a vehicle coming his way in the opposite lane, hit that vehicle and caused the other vehicle to "spin, flip on its side, and come to rest blocking the northbound lane of the roadway".

It is sheer luck that the person in that vehicle was not killed and that there were no more accidents.

Where a vehicle is blocking the roadway across, it could very well be that more vehicles could ram into it, not having time to stop.

The injured person sustained "a cut on the side of his head" - not to mention the stress of the near-death experience.

Judge Cooper:

1) admitted to using alcohol - four 12-ounce beers and 1 half-ounce shot of whiskey;

2) refused a breathalyzer test;

3) failed the field sobriety tests;

4) had glassy eyes, slurred speech, and "smelled of alcohol" ("smelled of alcohol" was bad police work, the police should verify that the breath, and not the clothes, smells of alcohol).

In my practice and my husband's practice as criminal defense attorneys in New York,

1) refusal to take a breathalyzer test leads to an automatic suspension of a driver's license;

2) arrest for driving while intoxicated after causing a car accident with injuries, and with an admission to the amount of alcohol Judge Cooper admitted "consuming" leads to charges for

Here is what Judge Cooper was charged with:

1. 
   VTL 1192(3) - a misdemeanor driving while intoxicated (up to 1 year in the local jail if convicted, 3 years probation and a mandatory ignition interlock device on all vehicles in the family);  the next DWI after a misdemeanor DWI conviction is automatically a felony, and conviction of an attorney for a felony in New York causes automatic disbarment as of the date of conviction;
2. VTL 1194(1)(b) - refusal of a chemical test, which should lead to a 1-year suspension of the driver's license in the case of a first refusal;
3. VTL 1128(a) - failure to keep right.

Judge Cooper was definitely undercharged.

He was not charged for an aggravated DWI (after having caused a car accident with injuries), and the police did not insist on having his blood drawn after he refused a breathalyzer test - which could lead to a felony-DWI charges.

By the way, two days ago the New York State Senate voted to enact a law that would make it mandatory for the police to check breath, urine and blood of DWI suspects in cases of car accidents that caused death or serious bodily injury.

In my experience as a defense attorney, New York police force defendants to have their blood drawn even without car accidents.

New York law, 1194(2)(a), presumes consent to drawing blood given by all motorists in exchange for driving privileges in the state.

In this case, after Judge Cooper refused the breathalyzer test, but admitted that he drank 4 12-ounce beers and one 1/2 ounce shot of whiskey before veering into ongoing traffic and causing an accident with injuries, it was the most logical thing to do - to check Judge Cooper's alcohol level by having his blood drawn, to ensure safety of other people on the road and protect them from drunk drivers like Judge Cooper.

That was not done.

What occurred next is no less bizarre.

According to NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct, the drunk driving occurred on April 23, 2014, and criminal prosecution of Judge Cooper which was initially started in Lewiston Town Court.

In May of 2014 the prosecution was transferred to the North Tonawanda City Court because both of the judges of the original court recused.

The presiding judge in the new court was Judge William R. Lewis.

Apparently, Judge Cooper opted for a non-jury trial by Judge Lewis, and was not disappointed.

According to press reports, Judge Lewis convicted Judge Cooper of a reduced charge of driving while ability impaired and sentenced him to - guess what?

1. fines and surcharges totaling $615;
2. suspension of Judge Cooper's driver's license for whopping 90 days; and, imagine
3. a conditional discharge.

No jail time.

No probation.

No ignition interlock device.

No court-ordered treatment.

Nothing.

The question is - how did a misdemeanor DWI in a context of causing a car accident with an injury turn into a VIOLATION (not a crime) driving while ability impaired?

How did the refusal to take a breathalyzer test disappear - without a plea bargain, after a jury trial?

Judge Lewis definitely overstepped his bounds in convicting a DWI misdemeanor-charged judge for an ability-impaired violation only and in dropping the chemical test refusal charges.

I wonder how much Judge Lewis was paid by Judge Cooper to do what Judge Lewis did.

Since Judge Lewis considered an early retirement immediately after the "conviction" of Judge Cooper for an "ability impaired" violation, Judge Lewis appears to have been paid enough.

Here is the attorney registration of the "hero", Judge Lewis who saved his colleague from a lot of "inconveniences" that a defendant in Judge Cooper's position usually faces.

Once again, what happened in how Judge Cooper was charged and prosecuted, usually does not happen to a regular DWI defendant.

A regular DWI defendant who caused a car accident with injuries does not usually get a reduction of charges to an AI, and especially after a trial.

A DWI defendant in this position usually gets a plea of probation, and, in exchange of not being sent to jail, has to go through 3 years of visits to probation officer, counseling, substance abuse treatment and COSTLY ignition interlock devices for ALL vehicles that the defendant's family is using.

Moreover, probation supervision usually involves a 10 pm to 6 am curfew, prohibition on having alcohol in the house, prohibition of visiting alcohol-serving establishments, and consent to random warrantless searches of defendant's residence.

I know many people who went to jail or prison on violation of probation simply because a probation officer, during a random search, found a bottle of beer in their fridge that defendants claimed belonged to their spouse.

I know many people who went to jail because they did not come to see their probation officer on time, even when claimed they were tied up in traffic or were sick and needed to visit a doctor on the day of scheduled probation appointment.

Moreover, as I mentioned above, the next DWI charge after a misdemeanor DWI conviction is a felony in New York - a mandatory felony, and conviction of a felony in New York of an attorney leads to an automatic disbarment.

Judge Cooper is not on probation.

Judge Cooper is not undergoing alcoholism-related treatment.

Judge Cooper and his family do not pay for and do not experience the inconvenience of ignition interlock devices.

And, motorists are not protected from Judge Cooper who, having been given an understanding of his impunity and invincibility because of his connections in the government, is going to do it again - he is a drunk-driving time bomb.

And, I do not see big campaigns in the press or social media like the one to oust judge Aaron Persky who gave a super-lenient sentence (but still some jail time) to the Stanford rapist.

Here, judge William R. Lewis allowed a super-drunk judge an ability to regain his license within 90 days instead of a year's suspension plus 3 years probation plus counseling and treatment plus ignition interlock devices.

Judge Lewis opted not to protect the public from his fellow drunk judge, and is quickly retiring after his decision.

And, the Commission removed Judge Cooper from his position in Evans Town Court, but apparently forgot to remove him as a Niagara Family Court magistrate where he is paid SEVEN times more than in his position as Evans Town Court judge, compare:

And, the NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct has worded the Stipulation of removal of Judge Cooper in such a way that Judge Cooper only pledged that he will not "seek" or "accept" new judicial positions, but said nothing about being taken off his current position as a support magistrate?

So, Judge Cooper was removed from the bench - kind of, in one place - but allowed to remain on his bench as a Niagara Family Court Support Magistrate?

That is called judicial discipline nowadays in New York?

Don't you think that something stinks?  Very much?

This is what this judge reportedly caused:

We should more of the same from attorney and support magistrate Timothy J. Cooper since he escaped without proper discipline or proper punishment.

And we should expect ourselves and our children and loved ones to be inside that smashed car - because it is WE THE PEOPLE who allow judges to escape accountability and punishment for their crimes, and it is WE THE PEOPLE who, through our inaction, allow such drunk driving judges to remain on our roads.

FTC and DOJ joint letter regarding statutory definitions of the practice of law confesses that the regulation of the legal profession is a sham

On June 10, 2016 the Federal Trade Commission, as well as the U.S. Department of Justice have issued a joint letter to the North Carolina legislature regarding the upcoming legislative bill that proposes to exempt interactive legal document preparation websites from the definition of the practice of law.

Here is the letter.

The letter is, let's say, interesting.

It asks the legislators to EXEMPT certain activities from the DEFINITION of the practice of law or unauthorized practice of law because - gasp! - the practice of law is NOT CLEARLY DEFINED.

Now, if something is not clearly defined, there is NO definition, and thus there can be NO regulation of the practice of law (which is not clearly defined) and NO prosecution for unauthorized practice of law (which is not clearly defined) and NO exemptions from what is not clearly defined - because there is nothing to exempt anything from.

That would be pure logic, wouldn't it?

By the way, FTC has been mulling on my complaint against New York State for its antitrust activities in regulation of the practice of law for over a year, but now gives birth to this masterpiece?

So, now FTC and DOJ recommends, in an official letter, to a state legislature that, to close the "justice gap" (access to court by litigants who cannot afford an attorney), document self-prep websites should be LEGISLATIVELY permitted so that the honorable legal profession wouldn't prosecute such justice-gap-closing and consumer-helping businesses for taking the bread out of attorneys' mouths.

What is also extremely interesting is that FTC and DOJ in its letter seems to separate the concept of "legal services" with the "practice of law":

"Overbroad scope-of-practice and unauthorized-practice-of-law policies can
restrict competition between licensed attorneys and non-attorney providers of
legal services, increasing the prices consumers must pay for legal services, and
reducing consumers’ choices."

As far as I know, there is no such thing as "attorney providers of legal services" in the American jurisprudence.

Instead, legal services are automatically equated with practice of law and, if done by unlicensed providers, are equated to the committing the crime of unauthorized practice of law.

So, FTC and DOJ is urging state legislatures to erode the concept of the "practice of law" even further.

Since that concept is not clearly defined anyway, it becomes increasingly clear that:

1) regulation of the legal profession creates and aggravates the "justice gap", for the benefit of attorneys and is harming consumers of LEGAL SERVICES;

2) what constitutes the practice of law is not clearly defined, thus undermining both the administrative regulation of the practice of law, and criminal prosecution of unauthorized practice of law;

3) separation of the terms "practice of law" and "legal services" BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and official promotion of competition between "licensed attorneys and non-attorney providers of legal services" further shows just how bad people are hurting BY regulation of the practice of law that prevents people from getting an affordable provider of legal services (which, for FTC and DOJ, is not the same as, exclusively, a licensed attorney).

What is unsettling though is that the federal government does not require the state legislatures to dismantle what constitutes illegal (and anticompetitive) regulation of the legal profession to help consumers of LEGAL SERVICES (which is not the same as the practice of law, according to FTC and DOJ), but instead humbly "recommends" to provide a "Band-Aid to cover the bullet hole" and to allow people who cannot afford a licensed attorney to at least be able to use document self-prep websites.

Yet, people who cannot afford an attorney, most likely, have a low literacy level and may have a problem with the self-prep websites, too, or no or poor Internet access and no literacy as to how to use the Internet.

So, why people who cannot afford an attorney should scramble either on their own, or with the help of document-prep websites, but cannot hire a "non-attorney provider of legal services" of their own choice who they trust?

And why FTC and DOJ, after all but confessing that regulation of the practice of law is a sham to protect the turf of the legal establishment, still continues to help protect it, instead of posing an ultimatum, according to its own logic:

1) Either you bring your attorney regulation in compliance with federal antitrust laws, in accordance with North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v FTC (as of February 2015) and FTC Guidelines to Staff (as of October 2015) - or you STOP regulation of the legal profession as hurting consumers, creating and contributing to the justice gap;

2) Either you CLEARLY DEFINE what constitutes the practice of law, on a legislative level, and without participation of market players IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS (remember what percentage of state legislators in any state are licensed attorneys?) - or you deregulate, because otherwise your regulation, including criminal UPL laws, is nothing other than helping the legal establishment protect their markets at the expense of consumers, in violation of federal CRIMINAL and civil antitrust laws.

So, my question is - the letter, while confessing a lot, is not doing much other than confessing a lot.

When will FTC and DOJ finally start doing their jobs and pursue elimination regulation of what is not defined, of the "practice of law" as unlawful and as a practice that hurts consumers, creates and contributes to the justice gap, only to enrich the market players?

And, by the way, the FTC and DOJ letter of June 10, 2016 somehow advises to state legislatures to actually regulate the document self-prep websites, too, for "consumer protection" purposes - and advise the state governments to use a 1980 U.S. Supreme Court precedent on permissible content-based restrictions on commercial speech.

Yet, the recommended 1980 U.S. Supreme Court precedent was effectively overruled in June of 2015 in Reed v Town of Gilbert, now requiring of the government to satisfy the "strict scrutiny test" (which the U.S. Supreme Court did not require in 1980).

So, why are FTC and DOJ recommending to use a precedent that was overruled a year prior to the date of their letter recommendation?

Are the FTC and DOJ trying to actually help state governments keep the corpse of attorney regulation alive for a little more, under the false pretensions of legality?