Fair trial in #ChenangoCountyNewYork in the death of #JacelynDOConnor? With a jury pool this illiterate in the law and this contaminated and inflamed by publicity - dream on.

On July 30, 2017, in the town of Norwich, Chenango County, New York, it was reported that an 11-year-old girl Jacelyn D. O'Connor, was first reported as having a cardiac arrest, then charges of rape and murder were filed at a town court level (before the indictment) against first one man, James R. Brower, then a second defendant, Brower's alleged gay partner Tobias Tobias Rundstrom-Wooding, was also charged for the same crime.

The police and the prosecution, those people who should have been neutral and who should have prosecuted the law while preserving the defendants' right to a fair trial, instead bent over backwards to contaminate the jury pool by inflaming details they fed to the media.

The judge, who, under the circumstances, was supposed to impose a gag order to protect the jury pool from contamination and preserve the defendant's right to a fair trial, imposed no gag order.

The judge at arraignment in Norwich Town Court was, for some inexplicable reason, Chenango County Court judge Frank B. Revoir, Jr., the infamous judge who in 2014, yelled during the court proceedings that making a constitutional argument is the equivalent of lying.  He knows a lot of constitutional law, obviously, to preside over a criminal proceeding of this magnitude.

Since no gag order was imposed, the police and prosecution inflamed the public through leaking juicy bits of information to the press.

Of course, that is police and prosecutorial misconduct, but in New York courts, police and prosecution never get accountable for such misconduct and contamination of the jury pool.

And the public did get inflamed.

It did not matter that every statement in the accusation, from the fact that the girl did not die of natural causes (cardiac arrest), but was smothered "during rape", as the police and prosecution assert - all of that must be proven beyond the reasonable doubt to the jury picked from the cross-section of population of County of Chenango, State of New York.

After an indictment by a grand jury.

At this time, there was no indictment.

But, both defendants are already guilty by Facebook - which is exactly what the prosecution is seeking in this case.

Here is what people think of these two men who are presumed innocent under the law of the State of New York - based on information about the case fed to the press by the police and prosecution.

I put my two cents into comments, asking the volunteer torturers and killers a simple question - yet, a question that caused quite a bit of agitation among the readers of press reports about these criminal proceedings.  Readers who are potential jurors in this case.

Here is this revolutionary question.

And here is the lengthy discussion where people explain to me why they consider that stating the law of the state of New York and constitutional of the United States is sick, moronic, shameful, you name it.

And why, because I posed that question, I should not be blessed with children, and should not be called a mother, a sister, or a woman.

Here come my ardent critics - let's remember, for what they are criticizing me, for asking, why are we discussing these men as if they were already found guilty by the jury, what about their presumption of innocence, which is the law in the State of New York?

Let's see the march of potential jurors in this case.


Critic # 1.  Brooke Cogshall admonished me for asserting the concept of presumption of innocence, because an innocent child died.  I understand that.  Yet, presumption of innocence applies notwithstanding the identity of the alleged victim of a crime.

Critic # 2, Karen Simpson Johns teaches me that the girl was killed because of what was said in an article Karen Simpson Johns is not sure she read.

Imagine Karen Simpson Johns on the jury deciding your fate.

Critic # 3 Anna Hopkins resorted to blocks and asks me how many 11-year-olds die of natural causes each year.  I am not aware of any such statistics, and my knowledge of such statistics is nor relevant. Children do die of natural causes, and the girl was initially reported to have been in cardiac arrest. That the death is not of natural causes, remains to be proven by the prosecution - which Anna Hopkins appears to have a problem with, considering a news report as all the proof she needs to call people names for simply stating the law of her own state and of the United States, presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings.

Again, God help anybody who has Anna Hopkins on the jury.  She jumps to assumption, flies into passion against people who dare to know more than she does, and makes decisions based on her flighty grudges.

Critic # 4, Nikki Lynne, immediately calls me a moron for stating the law of presumption of innocence, and advises me that "they", whoever "they" are, "obviously have enough evidence to charge them".

"They", "them", the variety of Nikki Lynne's vocabulary in, I presume, her native language, stuns.  Yet, what I invoked is a simple concept of presumption of innocence that covers criminal defendants despite charges and because of charges, until and unless they are proven guilty by the jury of their peers, and the two criminal defendants in question were not indicted yet, so they cannot be tried yet, but Nikki Lynne already calls people "morons" simply because they state the law of her own state.

Beware of Nikki Lynne on the jury pool.

Critic # 5, Trisha Ann, goes personal and, because I cited the law of her own state, prays to a Deity to deny me children and shames me.

 Then, Critic #5 refuses to waste any more time on me, save for a long tirade, accusing me of threatening her with publicity with this "silly little blog".  Judging by the length of the tirade, Trisha Ann and the verbal explosion aimed at me, was upset with the prospect of publicity.

Imagine Trisha Ann on the jury if you or your loved one is charged with a crime.  She will convict you simply because sitting on the jury takes longer than ranting on Facebook, and because she does not care about the laws of her own state that she is presumed to know.

Next comes Critic # 6, Denning Marie Tina,  who calls me, once again (let's keep the cause of this agitation in perspective), for pointing out that in New York State presumption of innocence until and unless a jury of the defendant's peers pronounced the defendant guilty beyond the reasonable doubt.  Pointing out the law of her own state was called by Denning Marie Tina "preaching", so Denning Marie Tina obviously is not happy about that law, but obviously does nothing to change that law.

The next critic, Critic #7, Courtney Lynne Washburn, takes personal accusations for stating the law of her own State of New York even further and asserts that, because I reminded of that law, I am "not a mother, aunt, sister" or "a woman".  

Imagine Denning Marie Tina and/or Courtney Lynne Washburn on the jury.  They will pay lip service to the judge telling them about presumption of innocence and will convict simply because they think presumption of innocence is the wrong concept.

And, last but not least, Critic #8, Raelynn Ashby who took considerable time to educate me in the criminal law of the State of New York, considering my notions of the law foolish and unenlightened.

Is this discussion funny, dear reader?

A little girl is dead.

Two men is on trial for her death, and, if justice is to be served, and if the society is to be assured of integrity of court proceedings, at the very least, the law at least of presumption of innocence should not be subverted.

Yet, this commentator considered our discussion with Raelynn Ashby who was trying to accuse me of believing what the law presumes about this men (while I never said I believed they are innocent, only that the law presumes them to be innocent) - very funny.

Entertainment with popcorn.

To which my critic # 5 Trisha Ann laughingly agreed.

If you are charged with a crime, and when people are ready to torture and kill you based on accusation alone, and when people are viciously attacking those who, like me, had the audacity to cite the rule of law to the lynching crowd, you tell me - is it funny that the crowd does not give what is shown below




about the rule of law?

I am sure that people who were exonerated from death row, do not consider the concept of presumption of innocence funny, nor did those who were not exonerated and spent years in prison, or died because somebody on that jury considered that concept unnecessary and those who invoke that concept morons who should be ashamed of themselves.

The two critics, Critic # 8 and Critic # 5, just came back laughingly (remember the deceased girl?) exchanging such comments:

Defense attorneys in the area, beware of Critic # 8 Raelynn Ashby as a jury candidate.  She thinks that:

• an indictment is evidence, and
• an arrest would not have happened without good evidence; and
• that invocation of presumption of innocence is wrong.

And - just in - beware of Critic # 9, Jessica Morris-Klossner, who outdid all of the previous critics by claiming that I am "obviously a pedophile protecting fellow pedophiles hiding behind a fake profile" - once again, all for reminding people of what the judge usually reminds potential jurors, of the concept of presumption of innocence.

Imagine Jessica Morris-Klossner as your juror.

I will continue to cover this story, and developments in that story, with as full a list as possible of people who are making comments on the media incompatible with their role as potential jurors in this case, with their respective backgrounds.

Stay tuned.

Legal constitutional arguments have no place in Delaware County Family Court, State of New York... What about Chenango County Court?

This is what I heard from a judge, the Hon. Frank B. Revoir, Jr., in August of 2014.

First of all, the judge allowed himself to yell at me quite loudly (have a court recording to prove it), simply for making legal arguments, cut me off constantly, would not allow me to make appropriate arguments.

Here are the quotes from Judge Revoir from that day:

"Sit down, I am not going to argue that nonsense any longer".

My so-called "nonsense" (not to mention that it was HIGHLY disrespectful for Judge Revoir to speak to an attorney this way to begin with, especially to yell), was as follows:


1) mother and father had TWO court orders mandating parents to cover their own transportation costs for visitation of the child;

2) it was the father who relocated first to one state after the mother got joint legal custody back from an appellate court, and then to North Carolina, when a court of another state gave the mother a temporary visitation;  thus it was the father who should have born the costs of transportation, but the court split it evenly;

3) the mother was indigent and it was proven in court many times, and the mother had assigned counsel in many courts, which is only given to indigent parents;

4) TWO court orders, out of another state and, most recently, out of the state of New York, mandated the parents to cover their own transportation costs;

5) there was NO court order requiring the mother to deliver the child halfway to the father so that the father could save on his transportation costs;

6) the father simply bought tickets to an airport IN ANOTHER STATE, and required the indigent mother to travel 4 HOURS ROUNDTRIP, AT HER OWN EXPENSE, to that other state.  The mother ignored those claims because they were not in the court order.


Judge Revoir:


1) did not take jurisdiction because he said jurisdiction belongs in another state;

2) did not find the mother in violation of a court order and did not give her an evidentiary hearing for such a violation, but

3) still said that the mother was somehow "supposed" to make that 4-hour roundtrip to deliver the child to the father in antoher state, CONTRARY TO TWO COURT ORDERS that Judge Revoir ADMITTED HE LACKED AUTHORITY TO MODIFY,


and called my legal constitutional arguments about the above, supported by the text of the judicial decisions from two courts:


1) nonsense;
2) lying.


Judge Revoir did not allow me to speak, even when I politely asked to speak and put my arguments on the record, one time he said simply "no", the other time he allowed me to speak "briefly", but immediately as I started to speak, Judge Revoir started to interrupt me, run over me, cut me off at every word, yell at me, and finally told me that it is not the Supreme Court there, where I would think that I could make legal arguments in the alternative, in Family Court he calls it lying.

Family Court in New York is a court of LIMITED JURISDICTION.

Here is what a Family Court in New York has NO AUTHORITY to do:

1) conduct criminal proceedings;
2) provide equitable relief;
3) decide issues of constitutionality of statutes or regulations;
4) accept "motions" in lieu of petitions;
5) rule on credibility of one party contrary to the other without an EVIDENTIARY hearing.

The only function of the Family Court is to decide issues pertaining to family affairs:

1) child neglect and abuse proceedings;
2) child and spousal support;
3) child custody and visitation;
4) paternity;
5) family offense proceedings

Yet, ALL of those issues must be decided within the boundaries of

1) The Family Court Act and
2) State and Federal Constitutions

Thus, legal arguments are a MUST in Family Court.

Making alternative legal arguments is NEVER something wrong or punishable.

A LEGAL argument is not a FACTUAL statement.

That's why, a legal argument CANNOT POSSIBLY be considered lying.

When an attorney is accused of lying to the court, the attorney is impliedly threatened with sanctions and told to shut up.

When an attorney shuts up, he or she does not preserve certain issues for the record, and waives such issues for purposes of future appeal.

Thus, to intimidate an attorney for making "too many" legal arguments by accusations of "lying" to the court is to deprive a party of:

(1) effective representation of counsel,
(2) fair and impartial court,
(3) access to court,
(4) right to appeal

Where, like in Family Court, what is at stake is the FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of a parent for care and custody of his or her child, such behavior of a judge is simply intolerable. 


What Judge Revoir said is reflected in the record of those proceedings.  

I referred Judge Revoir for his misconduct to the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, which refused to even investigate him.

So, what Judge Revoir did - calling a constitutional argument "lying to the court", is acceptable from the point of view of New York Judicial Conduct Commission.


Yet, if there is no room to "alternative" legal argument in the judge's court, and the judge calls legal arguments "lying", there is a real issue about competency of that judge and his fitness for the bench.

If the judge has NO JURISDICTION TO MODIFY the order of custody or visitation, his only authority is to tell BOTH parents - get out of here, file your petitions in an appropriate court, I cannot do anything for you.

Yet, that's not what Judge Revoir did.

Judge Revoir said:  "I have NO JURISDICTION to review MOTHER's petition to modify custody", key words being "I have no jurisdiction".

Now, if the court dismisses mother's petition for lack of jurisdiction, the court dismisses ALL RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS with that dismissed petition.  And judge Revoir did dismiss the mother's petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Yet, that's now that's not what Judge Revoir did - and, remember, he did not want to hear "that nonsense" from me "about which airport". And the "nonsense" was not so much about "which airport", but about compliance with the text of two court orders that Judge Revoir stated HE HAS NO JURISDICTION TO MODIFY - well, at least for the mother.

By the way, motions in New York courts, including in Family Court, are governed by Civil Practice Law and Rules.  A motion on notice may only be heard if it was served by regular mail at least 13 days in advance of the hearing.  The COPY of an affidavit of service FAXED by the father to the Family Court stated that the motion on notice was sent 4 DAYS in advance of the hearing, so the court, under any circumstances, COULD NOT HEAR that motion.

Especially the court could not hear that motion because the mother, nor her counsel DID NOT HAVE THAT MOTION and there was insufficient time, even if they did receive it in the middle of the court proceeding, to respond to 100 pages of that motion where the judge refused to give mother's attorney ANY - ANY - time to review those 100 pages before he ruled on them.

If the judge said he has NO JURISDICTION to modify the order of custody and visitation, and the existing order of custody and visitation says that the parents must bear their own costs of transportation for visitation, and the mother already has borne her half, the other half, from door to door, must be borne fully by the father.

If the father CHOSE to buy tickets TO THE WRONG AIRPORT and texted mother about it, the mother, pursuant to the TWO EXISTING COURT ORDERS, had NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to go into expenses and deliver the child wherever father wanted it, because such a "requirement" by the father would be A MODIFICATION OF THE COURT ORDER, which the father should have first obtained from a court.

Yet - it was not Supreme Court, and Judge Revoir did not want to hear those LEGAL ARGUMENTS, instead calling them LYING, and I DO TAKE OFFENSE ABOUT IT, because it is an accusation not only against my client, but also against me, that my ALTERNATIVE LEGAL ARGUMENTS are somehow LYING TO THE COURT - which is, with due respect, nonsense and incompetence on behalf of a judge.

The bottom line:

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.  What is not good for the goose, is not good for the gander.

If the court did not have jurisdiction to modify custody and visitation order for the mother, the court did not have jurisdiction to modify custody and visitation order for the father, and that's exactly what Judge Revoir did, without any petition from the father pending, on a "motion" which was not properly served, without any time given to the mother for rebuttal of that 100-page motion, and with a threat that - if the indigent mother does not deliver the child to the father to far-away state, necessitating a plane or a very long drive, both expensive endeavors, and on the eve of a holiday weekend where tickets, especially last-minute tickets, are extremely expensive - the mother will (1) go to jail; (2) the judge will consider sanctions for frivolous conduct against the mother.

Once again - the judge DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION to hear the mother's case, but somehow the father DOES HAVE JURISDICTION to change the same court order for the benefit of the father - and to threaten mother with jail - and to threaten her with sanctions for frivolous conduct.

And - if we are talking about equitable principles of "fairness",

(1) it is not fair to allow the father NOT to comply with the court order requiring him to cover FULLY transportation costs for the child one way, and not only partially, as he did by ALLEGEDLY flying to the neighboring state's airport and demanding that the child be delivered to him;

(2) is not fair to allow the father to save money at the expense of an indigent mother; and

(3) the Family Court has NO JURISDICTION to decide issues of "equity", instead the Family Court MUST STICK TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE COURT ORDER - and there was NOTHING in that court order directing the mother, after she fulfilled her duty in covering transportation costs for the child one way, to cover any transportation costs for the child the other way.

My question then - if Judge Revoir does not recognize LEGAL ARGUMENTS in a court of limited jurisdiction that can only be governed BY LEGAL ARGUMENTS, and never by arguments regarding equity, and if Judge Revoir refused to consider any "best interests of the child" or talk to the child, instead denying the mother credibility simply because of the timing of her petition - what exactly is governing Judge Revoir's decisions?

If it is not the law, not legal arguments, not the contents of the court orders - then what?

==
Now, why did I invoke the events of 3 years past? 

By the way, Judge Revoir recused from that case, but both the mother, and her mother, were criminally prosecuted, and both prosecutions failed - by a jury acquittal in one case and a dismissal of felony charges in the other.

Because Judge Revoir considers constitutional argument made not in Supreme Court lying to the court.

And Judge Revoir is now presiding over a first degree murder trial in the alleged murder of an 11-year-old girl, Jacelyn D. O'Connor.

The judge is all about image and publicity, while his real image, is this:

- about the law and about the U.S. Constitution that Judge Revoir took an oath to protect.

So, on top of being a jerk, Judge Revoir is also an oath-breaker.

And, criminal proceedings, especially felony proceedings, are heavily based on constitutional law.  The law that Judge Revoir does not know and which it despises and punishes people for invoking it.

And, Judge Revoir was, nevertheless picked to preside over a case - at least at the town court's arraignment level and felony hearing that is scheduled for defendant Brower for tomorrow - that is hinged upon constitutional law, while considering constitutional arguments to the court lying and unacceptable.

The problem does not end there

Defendant Brower is, reportedly, indigent and was assigned a public defender - John Cameron, by "coincidence" a brother-in-law of the Supreme Court judge Kevin Dowd, of Chenango County, who reportedly has a nickname of a "hanging judge" and who is in-famous for his own misconduct, corruption and grudges.

Frank Revoir worked for Kevin Dowd as his law clerk, and was apparently mentored in judicial misconduct well.

Judge Dowd's law clerks have exceptional ethics. 

For example, Frank Revoir's successor in that honorable position, Claudette Newman (herself a judge of a local justice court) recently hid a long string of Facebook friends and made her profile private, as soon as she was caught having attorneys appearing in front of her (and to whom "her" judge gave money-bearing assignments) and court reporters reporting at "her" judge's cases, are the law clerk's Facebook friends.

As I said, Judge Dowd was an excellent mentor to Newman, and to Revoir.

As to having a brother-in-law of a judge who presides over criminal matters and whose former clerk, now a judge, also presides over criminal matters - it is all a big happy family in Chenango court system.

So, defendant Brower in the case accusing him of rape and murder of 11-year-old Jacelyn D. O'Connor is apparently worse off represented by the hanging judge's brother-in-law than if he would be representing himself .

After all, his defense attorney apparently owes his position of a public defender with a stable salary and benefits, to his judge-brother-in-law and it is unlikely that he will jeopardize his cushy position for a mere client who is facing life in prison.

Of course, time will show whether attorney Cameron will sell out his client, but red flags are all over the place.

Meanwhile, Judge Revoir had already started to put his ... uh... footprint... thumbprint... ass-print, rather, upon this case.

By not imposing a gag order on the police and prosecution and by irreversibly contaminating the jury pool.

The deceased girl's relatives, as well as the public at large, should be interested not to have just somebody to be locked up for this case, but to come down to the truth as to why and how their girl died, so that an innocent person is not convicted and a criminal is not left roaming the streets in search of next victims - as it happened in Arizona v Youngblood, as it happened in numerous murder cases where people were exonerated off death row after having served decades behind bars and escaping execution.

Passions are flying high in this case now.

And specifically because they are high, the judge who presides over this case, should have a level head, competency about the law and courage to follow it.

Now Revoir assigned the tomorrow's felony hearing to judge James A. Fox for tomorrow's felony hearing.

It is interesting whether Judge Revoir, after having acted as a judge in the court below, he will then proceed as a judge in the County Court, should the defendants be indicted (they were not yet), or will he have the unexpected decency to recuse.

I will continue to cover this case.

Stay tuned.

Russia's judges can take a master class from American judges in how to be corrupt more subtly - and how to quash dissent against such corruption more effectively. The case of Judge Khakhaleva and attorney Zhorin

An attorney reported on his Instagram account that a judge had a lavish wedding reception for her daughter's wedding, which experts estimated to have cost around 2 mln dollars.

The post went viral.

The backlash came, of course - not against the judge, but against an attorney.

You would think it is happening in America - as it usually does.

But no, it is happening in Russia.

Yet, same as in America, of course, the attorney is wrong and the judge is right.

And, of course, the judge submitted contracts for services at the wedding reception that did not amount to even close to what a reception with live performance by top pop-stars could cost, and the public is supposed to believe that bullshit, because the investigators did.

And, of course, those singers who were filmed (and the video posted) performing at the wedding, performed there for free, or for a song.

And, of course, since attorney Zhorin specializes on representing stars of Russian show business, and since his information may have come from sources with first-hand information, the pop stars who performed (or were underpaid, or were not invited) to the reception, his post should be considered totally unbelievable.

And, of course, when Zhorin claimed he made his exposing publications based on a reliable source, that should be totally disregarded.

Now, in a classic spinoff of what usually happens to American lawyers exposing a judge for what appears to be evidence of corruption, the heat is not on the judge - who claimed that it was her ex-husband businessman who paid for the wedding, 1 mln roubles, which is an equivalent roughly of $17,000, and not $2 mln, which was attorney Zhorin's assessment, based on the video, the caliber of performers at the wedding, his knowledge of such pop stars' usual fees, and a tip from a reliable source.

Of course, it is clear that such a star as Nikolay Baskov will not look in the direction of the Krasnodar region (where the wedding was held) for the claimed amount covering the entire wedding, yet he was filmed making speeches at the wedding while embraced with the judge:

Of course, it is possible that Nikolay Baskov is merely a personal friend of the judge who flew from Moscow to the provincial Krasnodar region to perform at her wedding for free, as friends do.

Same as the other pop stars:

Valeriy Meladze
Vera Brezhneva and
Joseph Kobson - who, by the way, was, reportedly, repeatedly denied US visas since 1994.

Of course, one of the unnamed guests at the wedding denied participation of these stars, and denied that Nikolay Baskov was acting as host at the wedding - so, what you see in the video of the wedding and the screenshot about is just a collective visual illusion to be disregarded.

And, of course, Joseph Kobzon, when asked about his participation in the wedding, preferred to feint indignation about the "invasion of privacy" on behalf of the judge, while the local press published, and quickly deleted an article about the judge's wedding.

And, of course, the judge and her guests were not served caviar or crabs at the wedding, as the unnamed guests assures. 

And, of course, the cost of a wedding involving live performances of top Russian pop stars was assessed not just by attorney Zhorin, but by experts of such fees, judging by the video of the wedding that surfaced on the Internet, and is still available on YouTube.

So, who is to blame for the scandal and backlash in social media that ensued?

Of course, attorney Zhorin, who "fouled his own nest" by exposing the wedding that had to cost, by conservative assessment, about 2 mln DOLLARS, while the judge's income by the tax declaration for the last year was around 2 mln ROUBLES (around $34,000).

How could he ... do what?

Post the video in his Instagram account?

Say that it is a feast in time of plague?

Say the truth?

How could he?

And, of course, the court where this "royal judge" sits, was known for a story where a large brick multi-story building was captured under the guise of a "legitimate transaction" where the unwilling seller ended up in jail "for fraud", and the very willing buyers sued claiming that the 10 000 roubles ($166) that they have transferred to the bank account of the unwilling seller constituted just and proper consideration for the building.

And, of course, the public would have a reason to worry about such a lavish wedding of a judge's daughter if a judge:

• sits on a court handling land issues;
• sits on a court handling land issues in Krasnodar region;
• sits on a court handling land issues in Krasnodar region where Sochi is located (remember the Sochi Olympics?);
• sits on a court handling land issues in Krasnodar region while it was reported that land was unfairly expropriated, through the court system including, so that the right land lands in the hands of the "right people" who would benefit from the Olympics, and from the tourist industry afterwards.

And, of course, nobody ever wrote about state corruption in the Sochi Olympics, right?  Like, Vanity Fair, for example, didn't?

And, of course, nobody in Russia described that the conveniently divorced allegedly former husband of the judge in question, Robert Khakhalev, was allegedly involved in asset-grabbing that prevented the farmers' march on Moscow protesting corruption in the region?

And nobody tried to mention that this judge's (allegedly) former husband wins all cases in court?  Which, of course, can be attributed only to the merits of his cases and the quality of his legal representation and to nothing else?

And nobody wrote quite recently about the judge's former longtime assistant presiding over the case of the judge's husband and ruling in favor of what the press characterized as illegal asset-grabbing - grabbing 33 land plots with houses already built on them, at the expense of a landowner who legally purchased the property?

And, that assistant to Judge Khakhaleva, the happy mother of the bride,  (a.k.a. The Tsarine of the Krasnodar Regional Court) did not:

• engage in multiple ex parte "consultations" with unknown persons during hearings;
• put parole evidence from plaintiff Khakhalev (the "former" husband of Judge Khakhaleva) over properly drawn and registered title documents.

And judge Khakhaleva's husband is a truly former husband, and the press never wrote about the yacht and the personal plane that the couple uses to fly to - gasp! - Sochi.

So, as to the wedding.  Why was it not reported in June of 2017 when it happened?

Good, but rhetorical question.

Appears that some insider got pissed and leaked the video to attorney Zhorin.

For some reason, attorney Zhorin thought that he is powerful enough to not be afraid to poke the dragon in the eye with a stick and exposed the judge.

The roar in the social media has brought the case to the top of federal news.

And THAT is the whole problem.

Not the corruption, but exposure.

So, in an ancient move - kill the messenger - the attack now against attorney Zhorin, to have the "independent" Chamber of Advocates, the "self-regulating organization" of Russian attorneys, discipline him for allegedly spreading false information about a judge.

Don't American lawyers disciplined, suspended and disbarred for the very same thing, identify with attorney Zhorin's plight.

Of course, judges in America act in more subtle ways than judges in Russia.

For example,

• they refuse to set up rules of professional conduct for themselves - like the U.S. Supreme Court does despite encouragements by scholars and despite criticsm in the press;
• they issue rules of their own conduct excluding gifts from attorneys, parties and foreign governments from inappropriate and treasonous behavior for themselves, 

• and then gorge on those gifts, which they report only a tiny portion of - imagine having a job like that when you can define your own ethical rules; and - TADA
• they issue court decisions changing the U.S. Constitution in that everybody has to abide by it, but the judges can give themselves immunity from malicious and corrupt acts in violation of the U.S. Constitution and their own oath of office and depriving victims of their unconstitutional behavior of any possibility of a legal remedy. In fact, courts regularly authorize victimizing these victims even further by sanctions and monetary fines for the audacity of asking for such a legal remedy, suing a judge who gave himself the gift of immunity against constitutional violations; 
• and, if charges for public corruption are made a little bit too close to home - at the level of governors (and top state legislators, since the case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court just after conviction of BOTH heads of the New York State Legislators for public corruption - of the State House and the State Senate), judges simply change the laws (by illegally legislating from the bench) - and make prosecution for public corruption nearly impossible, which is a great gift to their own precious selves.

And, American judges are regulating those who are investigating them - with the result that 99% of complaints against judges are dismissed without investigation.

And, American judges are regulating the legal profession, unlike Russia where judges still do not control the legal profession and there is no monopoly for legal representation in court.

So, theoretically, even if the federal Chamber of Advocates expels attorney Zhorin, he can still practice law and earn a living.

Not so in the United States.

If an attorney here criticizes a corrupt judge and his/her license is yanked for that - which regularly happens - the attorney will be foreclosed from not only the practice of law, but, in many states, even from jobs that do no require a law license from anybody but the suspended or disbarred attorney, such as law assistances, paralegals, legal secretaries etc.

And, such an attorney will not be able to work in any other professions requiring some kind of government approval (certification, registration, licensing) - while the percentage of such professions is, by conservative estimates of the White House in 2015 was close to 40% of the labor market, and, judging by job descriptions in job announcements in the U.S., is much higher.

Russian judges still have a lot to learn about:

• the subtlety of corruption; and
• about the means of quashing the public dissent - through regulating the legal profession, nipping the most knowledgeable and vocal critics of judges in the bud, and depriving the public of independent legal representation

And, they have great teachers.

Just recently, there was a project instituted by an American attorney to teach Russian lawyers (and judges) how to do their business so much better, after which the legal establishment in Russia started to push for attorney monopoly.

Because, if there was attorney monopoly in Russia, attorney Zhorin would never even opened his mouth to do what he did.

And everything would have been hunky-dory.

Why don't people learn from the best, even when it's offered on a silver platter?

Just don't blunder like this

and control those who can leak the most about you and who can be the most knowledgeable and creditable experts against you - attorneys.

Or, arrange for rules and behind-the-scenes organizations, like American Inns of Court in the U.S., where judges can comfortably meet with legal elite behind closed doors, at attorneys' expense, and discuss deals not like the Judge Khakhaleva's assistant did for Judge Khakhaleva's husband's asset-grabbing case (read above) - through ex parte "consultations" during breaks in a court hearing - but without the parties even knowing that it takes place.

Just be more subtle in your corruption and quash your critics more effectively - and you'll be fine.

Lawyers under siege trying to represent a client. A growing problem in America

Ok, so a lawyer has a client.

That is called a "fiduciary relationship", a relationship of trust.

And, the lawyer has a client for 15 years.

Meaning that the relationship of trust is long-standing, and the lawyer is the client's choice of legal representation of many years.

And then somebody comes out of the woodwork and sends, from an anonymous e-mail account, an email to the attorney demanding that the attorney should drop his client of 15 years, or there will be "consequences" to the lawyer, and/or the lawyer's law firm.

What has just happened?

That is qualified under the law as:

1) an attempt at tortious interference with a business relationship - for the lawyer;
2) an unlawful bullying over the internet.

So, what would a lawyer do with such an email?

Of course, the wisest decision when receiving such an e-mail is to put it into the spam folder and to report spam.

But, consider the following factors:

1) the e-mail was received at the end of a very long working day, and for a litigation attorney a very long working day means a very high level of stress;

2) even a litigation attorney has a right to his own private time, and those who are sending e-mails to him at night, while not even knowing the attorney personally, must observe the minimum civility as to timing of their messages;

3) the person who contacted the attorney was not his client, nor was he representative of a court notifying of changes in a schedule of a court case, it was a completely personal e-mail, unrelated to litigation, and was completely inappropriate - demanding the attorney to abandon a long-time client, and threatening consequences to him and his law firm if he doesn't.

So, what did the attorney do with the letter from an anonymous bully?

He responded.  In several reply messages.  With profanity.  Promising to verify the bully's identity.

Did the attorney have a right to verify identity of a person who threatened consequences to himself and his law firm if the attorney does not drop a long-time client?

Absolutely he did have such a right.

Did he have a right to be upset because of such pressure?

Absolutely he had a right to be upset.

Is the use of profanity illegal in this country in private settings?  Not at all.  It may be "distasteful", but it is not at all illegal.

Is the use of profanity prohibited to attorneys in private settings?  Not at all.  The bully was not the attorney's client, and was not a court official sending the attorney an e-mail on official court business.

So, did anything at all happen which is newsworthy?

In my view, not at all.

A bully tried to apply unlawful pressure upon an attorney to have the attorney drop a longtime client, threatening consequences to the attorney and his law firm.

The attorney told the bully (1) to mind his own business, and (2) that the attorney will verify the identity of the bully and, possibly, will go after him - I am sure, in a legal way, and not with his fists.

What about the attorney's use of profanity in his response e-mails?

Well, while the use of profanities is "distasteful", judges in the State of New York (where the attorney in question is licensed), who are all licensed attorneys, use profanities all the time and escape with no discipline at all, and that profanity happens during court proceedings, not in their private life.

And, judges in New York are regulators of the legal profession, those who set standards for lawyers to behave.

So, with those standards, and those circumstances, what made this piece of no-news a hotly discussed subject?

The identity of the attorney - the attorney for President Trump, #MarcKasowitz.

Marc Kasowitz is not a spring chicken.  Judging by his official registration information, he was admitted to practice law in New York in 1978, usually it takes 18 years to graduate high school, then 4 years of college and 3 years of law school, so Marc Kasowitz is at least 64 years of age at this time.

And, Mark Kasowitz confirms in his official biography on the website of his law firm that he has been representing President Trump for 15 years.

And, Marc Kasowitz was already subject to disciplinary complaints specifically BECAUSE of the identity of his client.

Now, if the President of the United States would be Hillary Clinton, nobody will give a damn what advice her lawyer gave to the staff of the White House - if that even happened.

Not with Donald Trump.

With Donald Trump, everybody is more interested to know the color of his care and the nature of his compliment to the wife of the President of France than what President Trump is actually doing in office.

And the same way with his attorney.

President Trump simply cannot be entitled to such a good litigator as Marc Kasowitz who successfully represented President Trump for 15 years, that simply should not be happening.

So, first, some pressure was put on Marc Kasowitz and his law firm - a successful law firm with many attorneys and rich and powerful clients, mind - to drop President Trump as a client.

And, Marc Kasowitz made some powerful enemies - among them, Preet Bharara, where some media source went so far as reporting that Marc Kasowitz actually was behind firing of Preet Bharara from his position of the U.S. Attorney General for the Southern District of New York.

And here is the original (as ProPublica published, with redactions) of the e-mail sent to attorney Marc Kasowitz:

So, while attorney Kasowitz is suddenly hit left and right by disciplinary complaints simply for representing his client (while nobody touched him with complaints while he represented Donald Trump before his presidency), while he is already under pressure to drop his client, he receives this masterpiece.

Somebody not courageous enough to make his (reportedly, the bully is a man) name, "believes", while pretending that he does not know Marc Kasowitz and Marc Kasowitz does not know the bully, that it is in Marc Kasowitz's interest and in the long-term interest of his firm for Marc Kasowitz "to resign from [his] position advising the President re. pending federal legal matters", and that "[n]o good can come from this".

How can a reasonable person NOT perceive this letter as a direct threat and pressure put on the attorney for the President of the United States that if he sticks to his PROFESSIONAL DUTY to his client, both the attorney and his law firm will suffer "long-time consequences".

What kind of long-time consequences can a 64-year-old attorney suffer professionally?

Disbarment.

That was the threat, sent after a long working day, by an anonymous bully.

You can read the further reported exchange between Marc Kasowitz and the bully here.

Of course, the bully had the audacity to get "offended" with profanity and forward Marc Kasowitz's emails to the FBI.

I believe, the President of the United States have every right in the world to actually task the FBI with investigating the author of the e-mail as to who is behind him in applying pressure on the counsel to the President to deprive the President of competent legal representation by a lawyer who the President has been represented by for 15 years.

Because, this case is political.

Instead, ProPublica turned it into a cheap hysterical row on social media.

There are a lot of comments following the slanted publication about the "incident", accusing Marc Kasowitz only of impropriety and demanding his head on a silver platter - disbarment.

The message is very clear: if he does not want to abandon his client "voluntarily", he will have to do it if he is disbarred.

Disbarred over what?

Over using profanity in a private email against an anonymous author of an unsolicited politically motivated Internet threat against the lawyer and his law firm?

The coward who has sent the e-mail message to the President's attorney still remains unidentified - as he asked ProPublica to do.

Yet, without knowing the identity of the coward, the public will not know how real was the threat of "consequences" to Marc Kasowitz and his law firm to assess whether his impassioned response at the end of a long working day was reasonable.

Of course, Marc Kasowitz, knowing what the disciplinary Nazi in New York can do to him, apologized to the bully to diffuse the situation.

There were enough people asking for his disbarment without even knowing the identity of the cowardly bully, and without knowing how many more threats like that were aimed at Marc Kasowitz and his law firm before this one.

Marc Kasowitz's spokesman was, no doubt, very restrained when he stated this in response to the "situation with the e-mails":

So, Kasowitz has been a "rainmaker" for the law firm - before one of his long-time clients became the President of the United States and continued to retain Kasowitz.

Then, those who do not like the CLIENT, turned on the attorney and his law firm and put the law firm under siege.

Adorable.

The new rule of the "honorable" legal profession is - represent somebody we don't like - get disbarred, no matter how, but you are on the radar, and we will get you no matter what.

That is not how independent counsel can operate.

But, while the public is foaming at the mouth as to how inappropriate PRIVATE conduct of the President's attorney in response to bullying and political pressure allegedly was, I have a question to this same public, and commentator seeking Marc Kasowitz's head: what about you?

What about your own personal legal representation if a disaster strikes you or your loved ones?

What if you, or your loved one in need of representation, for some reason yet unknown, will suddenly become a "persona non grata" to some powerful political figure, or lobbying group?

If the President of the United States has no chance for independent legal representation, if his counsel is under pressure to "choose" whether to abandon the client, or to lose his license and livelihood while committing neither an act of incompetence, or an act of dishonesty to his client or the courts - which is the ONLY thing that matters from the point of view of attorney licensing (that exists ONLY to protect interests of consumers of legal services) - and if a powerful attorney finds it easier to apologize for being a victim of bullying rather than lose his head and livelihood - WHAT CHANCES DO YOU HAVE, what chances does a mere mortal has for independent legal representation?

Read Marc Kasowitz's lips while apologizing to the anonymous bully.

None.

Laughter is not sufficient for disruption of Congress - while laughing at some public officials, but not others

A judge threw out a conviction of a woman for laughing at the confirmation of Jeff Sessions, because, in the judge's view, laughter was not enough to support a conviction for disruption of Congress.

Additionally, the defendant argued that she laughed involuntarily when Jeff Sessions announced that he treats all Americans equally.

So, it's official, folks - laughter at the stupidity of your public officials, right in their faces, may be deemed involuntary (like, you cannot control your natural spontaneous reactions) - cannot be the basis for a criminal conviction.

Who would think that reason will take the upper hand?

Or, did reason take the upper hand only because of the identity of the much disliked public official in question?

And the result would have been different if the disruption of Congress would have been at the confirmation of a judge - like it happened to #ElenaSassower, who simply asked a question if she may testify (which she asked, without an answer, in writing prior to the confirmation hearing, too) in opposition to confirmation of federal judge Richard Wesley to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and got 6 months in federal prison for her efforts, and especially for refusing to apologize for doing nothing wrong.

So, it is official, but still fuzzy, who you can laugh at.

The nominee for the U.S. Attorney General for the President kicked by the "liberal" press - oh, yes, of course, you can laugh at all you want.

As to a judge - nope, you cannot even ask a question at a pre-arranged spectacle of a confirmation hearing.

South Carolinans in need of new glasses or contact lenses - South Carolina new law, sponsored by optometrists, "protects" you - from new technology

New technology making goods and services cheaper and better is good.

Right?

Maybe not in South Carolina.

Not for people in need of new glasses or contact lenses, anyway.

Because there exists a new technology - in the form of a smartphone app, affordable to a wide range of consumers - that can read your retina, access your need for a lense and bypass an optometrist.

Would an optometrist do a better job than a smartphone app in assessing your needs for a new contact lense or glasses?

It is debatable.

First, a smart app does not cost much or long to develop, and is cheap.

On the contrary, medical equipment in an optometrist's office is expensive, as well as an optometrist's services - and is necessary built into the price of your lenses.

Moreover, an optometrist most definitely cannot afford to replace his medical equipment with newer one every year while retina reading and assessing smartphone app can be enhanced daily.

And, isn't it the consumer's final choice whether he or she wants or does not want an optometrist to advise him (presumably, with a higher level of precision), what kind of glasses/contact lenses he needs rather than a retina-reading smartphone app?

Not so, asserts the South Carolina optometrist association that lobbied a legislature that:

1. passed South Carolina House and Senate;
2. was vetoed last year by the then-governor Nikki Haley; and
3. the veto was overridden by South Carolina Senate.

So, now we have the law that prohibits the sale of eye lenses and glasses in South Carolina without an optometrists' prescription.

And the law, of course, is called Eye Care Consumer Protection Act.

The company that was selling online eye tests - OpterNative (out of Chicago, IL), has moved out of South Carolina after the Governor's veto was overridden.

Now, are South Carolinan patients in need of new glasses or a contact lense better off now?

The shameless optometrist-lobbied legislation did not protect consumers - it only prevented consumers from saving money on eye tests, and stripped them of their choices of providers of services.

Which brings me to a million-dollar-question as to any and all occupational licensing - if it exists for protection of consumers, why not allow consumers to OPT OUT of it?  And choose providers according to their own volition instead of from lists pre-approved by the government?

After all, if the government pre-approval/licensing of any professionals exists to just HELP consumers in their marketing and choice of providers, can't we, the consumers of any licensed services, tell the government - thank you for your help, but no, thank you?

And if not, why not?

Why the government thinks it can treat their own boss, their sovereign, the People (who are also consumers of various services of providers licensed by the government) as mentally incompetent in need of being forced to accept high-priced services we may not want - or need?

Do you want to pay less for your glasses?

Like $60 for glasses AND online vision test - as Opternative offers?

I certainly do.

But now, South Carolinans cannot get that order fulfilled in their own state.  They will have to go to another state to do that - which, in terms of costs, defeats the purpose of saving.

Great job, South Carolina Optometrist Association.

You won, we lost.  For now.

Yet, your temporary victory may turn out Pyrrhic.  Like Luddites in the 19th century, weavers destroying weaving equipment, you will not be able to stop technology from progressing.

Imagine that we would be forced, nowadays, in the 21st century, to buy weaved fabrics from individual weavers and not from factory manufacturers, because, under the guild-lobbied legislation, that was supposed to be "better for us".

The Optometrists Association's fight with technology - instead of embracing it - appears as bad.

Of course, nobody wants to see their income derived from costly training and licensing, disappear because of technology.

But, that's life, and, the concept of consumer PROTECTION should not be put on its head in order to shield service providers from doom brought on by technology - which HURTS consumers.

And, your efforts to stop technology (which hurts consumers, and you know it) only shows that occupational licensing, "even" of doctors, is nothing but a sham where a cheaper technology is available.

Consumers must be given a choice of buying what they need from whoever they need, approved by the government or not.

It is that simple.