1) Post No. 1 the first post was on Amazon.com, 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 Amazon.com
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 Amazon.com, 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 Amazon.com, because Amazon.com 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.
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
- 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;
- 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, 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.