"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

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

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Criticism from the bushes continues - I guess, I said something right

I made three posts recently that caused an immediate reaction from the legal profession:

1) Post No. 1 the first post was on, criticizing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer for writing books instead of doing his job, and for soliciting private funds for all-expenses-paid trips for his law clerks.  My review, under my real name, with a verified purchase of the book is at the Kindle Book page for the book "The Courts and The World") on

Since I gave the judge 1 star out of 5 for his book and that undermined his ratings at least somewhat, while he was vigorously advertising his book in the media (once again, instead of doing the job he is paid for out of taxpayers' pockets, mine included) the backlash immediately followed, in the way of nasty, personal and conclusory (no specifics) criticisms, and for the very first time in this blog's existence, critics came to the blog to post criticism here.

Which makes me believe that criticisms were caused by my review on, and my request to two U.S. Senators to impeach Judge Breyer and judges engaged in similar conduct.

2) Post No 2.  The second post was about the same topic that I reflected on, because deleted my links showing where evidence of Stephen Breyer's behavior that I was criticizing could be found, so I posted it on my blog;

3) Post No. 3.  The third post was my open request on Facebook to two Senators, with tagging of both of them, to impeach all federal judges who engage in practices that Justice Steven Breyer engaged in.

4) Post No. 4.  The fourth post, which was, I believe, the least cause of criticism, but which was used as the actual cause of criticism, was where I criticized the U.S. Supreme court for selective enforcement of judge-created (and thus unconstitutional) exceptions to federal jurisdiction that was not within the court's authority to make.

I had two critics whose appearance coincided with my posts regarding Justice Breyer.

They are both anonymous, both nasty and both fully or mainly conclusory (no specifics).

The second critic, I will start with the second, because that was a short criticism, was called "gypsysomething", accused me of being upset that Justice Breyer did not pick me for a law clerk, and the comment is nowhere to be found, somehow it disappeared.  My only response was that I want to see the face and identity of that critic.  Because if somebody engages in a nasty personal attacks, it helps to know who that person is to understand the reasons for the attack.  

The first critic, under the interesting name "Coyote Waits", keeps coming back, but so far ducked my invitation for a public video debate of issues that bother that critic in real time, with streaming of our debate to the public, and with recoding of the debate and posting it on the YouTube.

After I made a full post answering "Coyote Waits"' criticism and pointing out that the legal point that CW raised were unwarranted and that CW did not apply the law (constitutional law) correctly, CW answered not with a rebuttal point by point, but with more accusations of "playing fast-and-loose with the law", while not pointing out the exact instances of that "playing".

Here is our yesterday exchange.

1.  CW states that he or she or they "will respond to the substance of [my] reply later".  Good.  I will be waiting.

2.  CW wants to continue to sting from the bushes, anonymously, "for personal reasons", and if it hurts his/hers/their credibility, "so be it".

3. He/she/they "applaud my efforts to judicial misconduct".

4.  He/she/they "reviewed my litigation history" and made a conclusion that I "spend too much time chasing phantoms and attacking the wrong targets".

Now I got interested, but CW does not enlighten, once again, what exactly is meant, which is a bad trick in any dispute, much less in a public dispute that CW is undertaking.

First of all, my "litigation history" spans:

1/ New York State Supreme Court, trial and appellate level;
2/ New York State Family Court, trial and appellate level;
3/ New York state criminal courts, justice court and County court level, trial and appellate levels;
4/ federal courts, trial and appellate levels

The main litigation remains at the trial level and is not published.
Family Court litigation is private and is not published or given access to non-parties.
Litigation in criminal courts is not published unless it hits an appeal at the appellate division level, which rarely happens.
Successful litigation leading to dismissal of criminal cases before trial, which is the best for the defendant, is not published because such cases become sealed on dismissal.

So, when somebody says that they consulted (obviously, online) my "history of litigation", that is, first, impossible, and, second, it is interesting that the critic reserves his/her/their right to consult my litigation history, whatever is available, and does not reveal his/her/their identity, so that I am not able to consult their litigation history.

Because it can very well be that my ardent critic is either an object of my criticism for misconduct, a politician who has lost votes because of my blogs, or my losing opponent in litigation and I have had quite a few of those.


If CW wants to continue to sting from the bushes - fine.

I will be responding to any public dispute on my blog, even from hiding critics.

But the fact that CW 

  • stings anonymously, 
  • does not want a public streamed video debate of issues raised in real time, so that both of us do not have time to prepare our answers and reactions, 
  • prefers to criticize in a one-sided manner, by allegedly reviewing my litigation history and, of course, finding it lacking, while not allowing me to review CW's litigation history, and
  • does not provide valid specific points of criticism, instead of making conclusory allegations of me allegedly "pursuing wrong targets", "chasing phantoms", "playing fast-and-loose" with the law.
Of course, CW pretends to provide constructive criticism that would allow me to make "better, more focused points with possibly more effect".  Yet, there is no way to make anything better without knowing what exactly is bad - and CW does not provide any specific criticism, so I make the conclusion that constructive criticism is not CW's real goal.

Discrediting my blog is.

Since it is obvious that my critic is trained in the law, the critic should also realize that such criticism has not just little, but no credibility.

For that reason, I repeat my invitation to a public video debate.

Otherwise it seems pretty much like a losing disgruntled opponent - or a judge whose misconduct I criticized on the blog - coming back to vent from the bushes under a mask.

And that is exactly what I say about what is wrong about the legal profession nowadays - it has no courage to face existing issues openly.

Which is why the public is increasingly upset with the legal profession covering up misconduct within its ranks high-up, and that is because, I believe, quite soon we will see deregulation of the legal profession and stripping it of its unwarranted privileged status in the society.

And, as a conclusion.

The key word in CW's comment is that he/she/they are "annoyed" with my blog.

Well, to me that means that I said something right.

I think, the most annoying point about this blog is that the rank-and-file does not have the legal means to stop it.

Topics I discuss are issues of public concern fully protected by the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Evidence I provide is verified evidence.  I only report from reliable sources, most of them are public records or accounts from reliable witnesses.

I have a lot of feedback to my posts.  Some people tell me their stories, but do not want me to publicize them.  I honor those requests.  Some people want me to publicize their stories, and, after verification, I do.

Yet, my stories are backed up with evidence, and they, annoyingly for the rank-and-file of the legal profession and the judiciary, continue, costing them votes and raising awareness of issues that attorneys are terrified to discuss in the open and the mainstream media does not touch, but which the public, especially its not-so-wealthy-and-popular members become painfully aware of through their own experience when they come to the courtroom.

As I already wrote here, I was already criminally prosecuted for this blog.

There was such a stupid attempt, by attorney Mary Gasparini of the disciplinary committee from the 4th Department.  

MG was also annoyed - by the criticism of her own misconduct and incompetence, for bringing fraudulent disciplinary charges against me and stubbornly continuing with them, even despite documentary evidence that they are fraudulent (MG charged me with not appearing at depositions as an attorney at the time when I was not admitted to the bar), by the criticism that she used fabricated court transcripts to win a disciplinary case, where proof of fabrication was put on the blog, as a real-time sound recording.

The criminal prosecution was tossed by the court before the first appearance date, after I filed a Memorandum of Law with the court pointing out that Mary Gasparini knows as much about criminal law as she knows about disciplinary law - and that is nothing (I published my Memorandum on this blog), and that by her disingenuous personal attack she disqualified herself from disciplinary proceedings by appearing as a sole witness against me in the fabricated frivolous criminal proceedings that she started.

Criminal proceedings charging me for violating my own privacy (a crime against myself - amusing, isn't it) were then tossed by the court, but Mary Gasparini's disqualification remained, even though she barged right on prosecuting the disciplinary case.

So, I remain the attorney prosecuted 

  1. as a disciplinary matter for not committing a crime of unauthorized practice of law in 2008, not appearing at a deposition in September of 2008 and not answering a motion in December of 2008, because I did not and could not represent anybody in that deposition and on that motion for the simple reason that I was admitted to the bar in 2009.  Several courts, multiple judges and multiple attorneys, including Steven Mayas, Monica Duffy (member of the Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline), Mary Gasparini and at least two Assistant NYS Attorneys General on my removed case in federal court (one of them is Andrew Ayers, former law clerk of the now U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor at the time she was a judge of the 2nd Circuit), supported this fraudulent charge, with no consequences to themselves up to now;
  2. and, as a criminal matter, for violating my own privacy - speaking on this blog about misconduct in my own disciplinary proceedings, while the law gives me and not anybody else the choice of opening or closing them to the public, and I chose openness.

So, chasing phantoms is present big time, but the chasers are not me and they are still on the loose and not criticized by CW.

I understand that the most annoying point about my blog that, with all the stress and destruction of my husband's and my own law practice tossed at me by the system, with all the sanctions imposed upon us for lawful acts and professional activity as lawyers and citizens, with all the stupid and crazy prosecutions against us, including a criminal prosecution against me, and an attempted criminal prosecution against my husband for simply living in his home after disbarment and doing what anybody else does without any law licenses, we still remain active critics of the system, my husband - through his pro se federal civil rights litigation, and I through my blog.

The annoying point is that we do not shut up.

The annoying point is that we use our knowledge as legal experts to educate the public as to what is really going on in the court system that needs to be changed.

So, CW can remain hidden in the bushes, but the remaining anonymity of CW can mean that CW is Mary Gasparini for all I know, hitting from the bushes and afraid of public debate because CW is afraid he/she/they cannot stand up against me in discussing real issues in real time.

And if that is what CW insists upon, so be it.


  1. Oh, for fuck's sake . . . do you want me to pass you the nails up on that cross?

    It might surprise you that I do not really care about you or your pissing contests. If you insist purely on ad hominem attacks, I question whether I should bother even posting substance -- let alone shedding my anonymity as just a lawyer who happened to be intrigued by your blog. Why would I want to subject myself to personal abuse? Particularly as you have already made vague threats of defamation suits based purely on my disagreeing with you.

    Yes, I learned about you from your criticism of Justice Breyer's book. It was completely wrong, but it intrigued me and led me to read some of this blog. I have found it very interesting. If you do not want readers or do not want critical comments, fine. But not every criticism is a conspiracy to shut you up.

    I should clarify what I meant about your litigation history. I have no doubt you have been a very successful lawyer and recognize that published cases do not tell the tale of an attorney's professional career. I have only seen published (or "unpublished" but on the internet) court decisions involving you as a lawyer, plaintiff, or both. That history is full of dubious and quixotic causes of action. I know you see the decisions against you as wrong and even malicious. Most -- if not all -- at least read as correct applications of the law. You just lost. It happens and I'm not criticizing you just for losing.

    It is, by the way, perfectly understandable that the ordeals you and your husband have faced have been a frequent subject of your blog and that many seemingly unrelated posts are connected to issues you've been frustrated by or uncovered in running that gauntlet.

    I do not seek and do not want you to "shut up."

    Again, however, I will not debate you live and I will not shed my anonymity. As a lawyer, I would think you would recognize that an argument should stand on its own. If I wrongly cite the law or fail to support a point, that is a legitimate rebuttal. But merely saying "we don't know who you are" does not change the substance of anything I say. That you insist it does is rather sad.

    I have been up since yesterday morning so some of this may ramble and make little sense. I apologize if that is the case. I will now try to briefly go back and respond to the substance of our prior dispute -- in which I am going to admit some errors on my part while insisting you still made some errors.

    BTW, for the record, I am a "he." Not relevant and nothing to be proud of, but there it is.

  2. So, I guessed correctly on all points so far - that you are a male lawyer or a judge (because of the manner of presentation and patronizing attitude), and that you may have come from the Amazon.
    You are also the first commentator, coyote or human, from the many commentators who left comments since the beginning of this blog, to have used four-letter language in the comments. I encourage you to abstain from that in the future. I do not want to delete comments with any criticism, however strong, against the substance of my blog, but I will be deleting comments containing foul language. Get a grip on yourself, it will help you in the courtroom.
    I understand you may have been tired, I am tired now, too, yet, I do not use foul language. In my opinion, NOTHING justifies using the language you used in a public forum, in response to a criticism by a female attorney. And, once again, you are the most educated commentator on my blog so far, and the first who used the foul language and was disrespectful to me. Which is not a surprise to me – but does not add to public trust in the integrity of the legal profession. And I had some feedback from the public already about your disrespectful comments.
    The problem with anonymity in your case is that, because of your anonymity you think you can behave in a public forum, on my blog, as an infantile child, throwing tantrums when you do not like some criticism. It is, well, infantile and does not add to credibility of your arguments.
    And, lighten up, please. Nobody is going to chase you or sue you for your comments. I welcome comments, any comments, because, as I said before, they all contribute to public debate on issues of serious public concern.
    And you DO raise interesting and serious issues of public concern. As a scholar who is researching the issue of legal education, and of legal education of the public, I was very interested in your description how you went through my litigation history that is available on the Internet and what you discerned from those cases. I will run separate blog posts on that, not in a personal way. Just to show what is omitted from judicial decisions, as a rule, and where to get both the full background of researched cases, and the cutting-edge legal arguments that develop the law instead of pulling it back into the stone age and Star Chamber.
    Also, thank you for your assurance that you do not want to deter me from expressing my opinions freely on my blog. Even though you are not deterring me, I will accept that assurance as sincere.
    I also had a full working day, I was not able to post a more complete answer to all issues you raised in your comments, but I will try and do it tomorrow.
    I repeat my invitation for live video debates. Even though you are a lawyer, you are a coyote, not a chicken. Why the cold feet? :) Or, you do not believe in the integrity of the legal profession and are in fear of a disciplinary action for ideas you publicly express? What a sad thought…

  3. This will be my last post on your blog. I posted a substantive argument relating to your assertions about the Supreme Court and the domestic relations exception. Even though I admitted two errors on my part, I guess my specific explanation of your errors was not acceptable to you as my post has disappeared.

    Instead, I find these rambling attempts to goad me and not-so-subtle accusations of sexism which are laughable.

    I should have taken Mark Twain's advice about arguing with the likes of you. I will do so now.

    1. First, as I said, I do not delete posts on this blog and I did not delete your post. Your post could have disappeared because of how you tried to publish it (my guess, I do not know whether or how it happened).

      In my own experience, when I posted replies to your comments from a phone or an Windows-based computer, they appeared ok. When I posted comments from a Mac, they disappeared. Before posting, watch what is in the window "publish as". If it says "Google account", your comment will disappear, so I suggest you save what you wrote in a separate word document and post it from another device. If it says "Coyote Waits" (your actual Google account name), your comment will be published. It is my experience in posting, not my settings, but I hope it will help preserve comments on this blog, or on any other blog.

      That said, I regret that I have never seen your substantive analysis and encourage you to repost it. Once again, I did not delete any of your comments.

      It is apparent that you posted further comments under a misconception that I deleted your substantive analysis, and I posted comments in the misconception that you promised substantive analysis, but instead proceeded with conclusory allegations.

      That is a misunderstanding that can be easily avoided, and in fact can never happen in a face to face debate.

      I will not post any substantive comments as to what said about my alleged "goading", since you obviously were thinking I deleted your comment, which is incorrect.

      And, I will wait for you to repost your substantive analysis. Technical glitches happen, but reposting is an easy way to correct them.

      I am looking forward to addressing your substantive analysis, as I was throughout our exchange of comments.