The reality of attorney regulation: when a judge violates your constitutional rights, apologize - or else

I wrote on this blog about #JudgeDanPolster of an Ohio federal court who ordered a New Jersey attorney, who was not a party or attorney in an action and who was not admitted to practice law in Ohio, without serving the order upon him, to personally appear in contempt proceedings the next day after the date of the order, see my blogs here, here and here.

When the attorney did not appear and claimed - correctly - that Judge Polster has no jurisdiction over him, Judge Polster held him in contempt, issued an arrest bench warrant and then changed the warrant to $500/a day sanctions against attorney John McDermott.

Reportedly, the situation changed once again recently when:

1) Judge Polster once again changed his contempt order, now "only" requiring attorney John McDermott - who is still not a party or attorney of record in the proceeding - to pay costs and attorney fees to the opponent of John McDermott's brother, and

2) attorney John McDermott apologized to the court in a letter indicating that he never meant disrespect to the judge or any other court.

Once again - it is the Judge Dan Polster who violated John McDermott constitutional rights to due process of law by holding him in contempt without serving upon an order to appear, and without having any authority to claim his appearance.

It is Judge Dan Polster who harassed attorney John McDermott, even though, based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision as of June 9, 2016 a judge may not be an accuser in the same action - thus invalidating sua sponte contempt proceedings presided over by the judges who brought them, and that was exactly the situation of Judge Dan Polster.

It is Judge Dan Polster who compounded his due process violations against John McDermott by insisting on sanctions and attorney fees upon him, while having no jurisdiction over him and while being disqualified from imposing any sanctions, after Judge Dan Polster stepped into the case as an accuser in the sua sponte contempt proceedings he illegally brought against John McDermott.

But, it is John McDermott who now feels compelled to apologize to his abuser, to a judge committing egregious misconduct against him and who is violating his constitutional rights - because attorney McDermott, likely, feels that Judge Polster can deprive John McDermott of his livelihood.

I wonder if Judge Polster turned John McDermott into the disciplinary investigation in New Jersey which triggered the apologetic letter to the judge who is committing misconduct.

This is the reality of attorney regulation in this country: when a judge violates your constitutional rights - apologize, or be stripped of your right to earn a living.