"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.

Monday, September 21, 2015

Will my critic "Coyote Waits" come to a public dispute at Google+ Hangouts to discuss the issues of judicial corruption and application of judicially created restriction on jurisdiction of federal courts?

As I wrote on this blog recently, I am studying new technology and will soon start publishing podcasts and, possibly, videoblogs (Vlogs).  

That, of course, requires a steep "learning curve", to learn a lot of new things and new technologies, which requires some time.

But, some of the technology is readily available by Google+ already - and there is a wonderful way of communicating with the public and holding public video interviews and public disputes, through Google+ Hangouts.

So, by this blog I am making a direct proposal to my critic by the name of "Coyote Waits" from a profile that had 0 views and 0 followers when I looked it up today, and which is by now locked to me, so I cannot see any followers or views.

But, I did see in the morning that it was an account with no views or followers as of today.

"Coyote Waits" placed the following comment to me blog post asking a question regarding selective enforcement by federal courts of the so-called domestic relations exception, created by federal courts to restrict their jurisdiction in some cases, but not in others.

Here is the comment:

So, a person without a face or real name, but with legal training, judging by the way that person writes (I don't know whether it is a "he" or a "she") claims the following:

  1. That what I am claiming in the blog post about selective enforcement of the domestic relations exception is rather silly;
  2. That I did not do proper research before I made my posts;
  3. The implication is - that I am incompetent as a civil rights lawyer;
  4. The Coyote Waits persona is trying to teach me about federal jurisdiction and how to do research;
  5. The Coyote Waits persona is trying to teach me how to allocate my time, specifically, to spend time on "spinning conspiracy theories" regarding judicial corruption and "spend more time reading the law [I am] supposedly writing about".
Well, first of all, I am not SUPPOSEDLY writing about the law, I am ACTUALLY doing it.

Second, in criticisms raising the "conspiracy theory" claims it is always amusing to see that such criticism are always what courts call "conclusory".  In other words, the Coyote Waits persona, on the one hand, accuses me of "spinning conspiracy theories", and "spinning" presupposes that I am using false information, yet, fails to provide a SINGLE instance where I made a false statement and any proof that anything I said on the blog is false.

In other words, the Coyote Waits persona is not happy that I am raising the issue of judicial misconduct, which is tough.

It is not by chance that I put on top of this blog, as a header shown in all blogposts, a quotation from a federal civil rights case dismissing civil rights claims against the "Kids-for-Cash" judge Mark Ciavarella on judicial immunity ground for malicious and CORRUPT acts.  If the judiciary considered it necessary to introduce such immunity to help themselves avoid lawsuits charging them with corrupt acts on the bench, corrupt acts on the bench are not only a reality, but a pervasive reality, otherwise this absolute immunity would not have been devised about 40 years ago.

And the other quote on top of every blog post is from a 19th century court case providing that a lawyer, MORE than anybody else, is entitled to disclose facts of judicial misconduct in public speech, without fear of retaliation or punishment.

I have a funny feeling that the Coyote Waits persona is upset with one thing about my blog - it shows that I, as an attorney who may be severely sanctioned (and already was sanctioned, and await more sanctions) for my free speech exposing judicial misconduct, still have no fear, and that I still continue to bring these issues of public concern sidestepped by the mainstream media squarely to public attention - and the public is reading me, as the number of reviews on my blog shows.

And I am grateful to every reader - including those who does not like what I write, including those who criticize me, because these issues need at least to be raised, read and discussed.

The Coyote Waits persona is not the first representative of the legal profession who is upset with my blog.  There were several lawyers who were trying to use my blog in their pleadings to inflame judges against me and obtain sanctions against me.  

But Coyote Waits persona is the first voice from the legal profession who, even though anonymously, without a name or a face, published something on my blog in comments - and that is in 1.5 years of the blog's existence, with over 276,000 views 

and over 600 posts so far.

When a person is criticizing a post made by a person like me, who posts under her real name and with her real face on all blogs, without revealing the critic's name or face, like this

that immediately detracts from the person's credibility.

What further detracts from the Coyote Waits persona's credibility is what that persona actually says in the criticism.

Remember, the CW persona accuses me of not having read the law I am talking about.

It appears that the opposite is true, that the CW persona did not read the applicable law when attempting to criticize me and teach me how to allocate my time.

I will address the substantive points of CW's criticism one by one.

Here is the comment once again, piece by piece:

Ok, CW asserts that, before posting a blog about a dismissal of a federal civil rights case based on the so-called "domestic relations exception" and before making a point that federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, selectively enforce their own judge-created (and unconstitutional) restrictions on federal jurisdiction, CW claims that I had an obligation to read Ankenbrandt v Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992), because otherwise I assert silly and incompetent things.

Here is Ankenbrandt v Richards.  It appears that CW, who made his post either in the middle of the night if he is in California (the time stamp on the comment is 2:27 AM Pacific time, since the Blogger server is in Los Angeles, CA), or at 5:27 AM, still very early, if CW was in New York or on the East Coast.  Not many people will spend the wee hours of the morning by putting legal briefs in comments on blogs.

So, CW had a purpose, and the purpose was, obviously, to discredit me and to present me to my reading community as an incompetent attorney who spins conspiracy theory without checking the applicable law.

Well, Ankenbrand is not the applicable law to application of "domestic exception to jurisdiction" that I discussed as applied to civil rights cases - because Ankenbrand is not a civil rights ("federal question jurisdiction") case, it is a diversity case, where exception to jurisdiction is based on other grounds.

So, to begin with Ankenbrand, a diversity case, is inapplicable to civil rights cases that I discussed in my blog that CW criticized.

Moreover, when the "domestic exception" restriction to jurisdiction is applied to a civil rights claim brought under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983 that says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about any "domestic relations exceptions", or deferences, or immunities, or comities, or abstentions, when the court invents grounds like exceptions-deferences-immunities-comities-abstentions etc., the court does usurp the exclusive power of the U.S. Congress to legislate or amend enacted legislation, granted to it by Article I of the U.S. Constitution, but not granted to federal courts, courts of limited jurisdiction, under the Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

CW, being, as the way he/she writes an individual trained in law, could not miss such a difference, and could not miss that he is accusing me of not reading an inapplicable and irrelevant case.  Thus, I can reasonably believe that CW's deliberately made a false claim that I should have read Ankenbrand before making my blog post about the selective enforcement of "domestic relations exception" in civil rights cases - documented by the court order that I posted in that blog post, as opposed to other civil rights cases where such domestic relations exception was not applied.

I am fortified in my belief by the fact that CW made his/her false claim of my alleged incompetence anonymously, obviously being in fear of a lawsuit for defamation.

Next, CW undertakes to teach me about federal courts' obligation to analyze whether they have jurisdiction over a case.

Yet, here CW is also discussing apples and oranges, because I was discussing in the blog post that CW criticized illegally created "exceptions" to jurisdiction of federal courts where jurisdiction DOES EXIST according to a plain-text statute, the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983.

So, who is spinning what here?

It has become a tradition in the legal profession - and, unfortunately, the courts - and even in perceptions of the public, that the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions are somehow the final authority on the issue of what the U.S. Constitution means and part of the Supreme law of the land.

Yet, that is not so.

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not include U.S. Supreme Court cases.  It does include though the U.S. Constitution itself and the written laws enacted under the Constitution, as well as treaties. 

Thus, if a statute was enacted under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, like the Civil Rights Act was, and the statute is a plain-text and completely straightforward statute without any ambiguities, as the Civil Rights Act is, and the statute is a civil twin of a criminal statute that provides for no exceptions through immunities/abstentions/deferences etc., which is what Civil Rights Act also is, the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court are tied and it is not ALLOWED BY LAW to provide any interpretations, because such interpretations of a plain-text statute are, in fact, amendments of the statute through interpretation, which the U.S. Supreme Court, deriving its sole power from Article III of the U.S. Constitution, is not allowed to do.

So, when CW is teaching me in the comment about how federal courts should review cases as to whether they have jurisdiction - I wholeheartedly agree.

They absolutely should.

And once they find that the case raises issues pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983, they are not authorized to invent any reasons why they would not take the case.

They absolutely should take that case - which in 85% or more of civil rights cases (I read scholarly reviews of the statistics on the matter) does not happen, civil rights cases are increasingly tossed automatically based on court-invented restrictions to jurisdiction that are nowhere to be found in the statute, 42 U.S.C. 1983.

So, my anonymous critic, once again, tried to spin the discussion away from its real focus - that federal courts deliberately make it impossible for people to enforce their constitutional rights through a private cause of action allowed by the U.S. Congress, the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983.

And criticism of this kind, especially of issues that are issues of serious public concern, should not be anonymous.

For that reason, by this post I invite the Coyote Waits commentator to a Google+ Hangout that will be  streamed to the public in real time, as well as recorded and, without redactions, posted online in video format.

And, for purposes of that video debate, I will absolutely demand that Coyote Waits should disclose his/her identity.  I debate under my own name and only with real people.


  1. I will respond to the substance of your reply to me later, but I decline your invitation to any type of video debate. I also decline to shed my anonymity. I have a host of reasons for both, many of which are personal. If they hurt my credibility in your eyes or those of anyone else, so be it. I will let any statements I post speak for themselves.

    I have no desire to stop you from exposing judicial misconduct or flaws in our judiciary. To the contrary, I applaud your attempts to do so. Having looked through your blog and read much of your litigation history, however, I am afraid you spend too much time chasing phantoms and attacking the wrong targets. Mark Ciavarella is a disgrace to the legal profession. Members of the American Inns of Court aren't (at least not merely for belonging to that organization). I also think that, whether in pursuit of admirable goals or personal vendettas, you often either get confused or play fast-and-loose with the law.

    These things hurt YOUR credibility when you could be making better, more focused points with possibly more effect. That is why I responded to your post. I could have been more polite, but I was also a bit annoyed at what I thought was poor legal argument. (As I said I return to the legal argument itself in a later post.)

    1. Yes, anonymity destroys your credibility. As do your continuing general accusations without any specifics. I have no respect for critics from the bushes, especially those who cannot even specifically formulate their criticisms. Who is playing fast and loose here? I am ready for an open public debate of any topic, any issue and any fact I discussed, and you continue to hide and throw conclusory allegations at me. I am not after your politeness. But faceless phantoms do not have any credibility, at least in my eyes.

    2. A truthful argument stands on its own merit. An argument is correct or incorrect regardless of who posts it or where it comes from. If you truly think ad hominem fallacies are sufficient to answer a critic, there is little point posting here.

      Criticizing my argument for a lack of specifics is a legitimate answer, however. I am not sure what I needed to be more specific about as I was talking in general about my motives in posting, my lack of a desire to silence you, and my hope to channel your energies a little more productively. That seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Perhaps I did not communicate my point well.

      I'll take my substantive reply back to the original post where it can be read in context. Having to answer you in a whole new blog post with every new volley you have is annoying.

    3. I agree that a truthful argument stands on its own. Yet, assessment of truthfulness often depends on assessment of the author's background and motivation, as you well know. After all, you claimed to have researched my litigation history in order to come back and try to undermine credibility of my arguments in a blog, at the same time denying me an equal opportunity to research your background. Your patronizing attitude is revealing though. As annoying as you may find it, I will answer you in full later in a separate blog post. I think the way you handle, or rather, cannot handle a public debate with a woman, is in itself worthy of discussion.