"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.

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Anti-Semitism flourishes in American courts - and may pave way to fascism in the U.S., as German judges did in Hitler's Germany

Anti-Semitism has been at the root of extermination of millions of people and should be taken very seriously.

And, in the U.S., the issue of Anti-Semitism is often raised, both in publications and in the media, giving the impression that the Anti-Semitism is being vigorously fought.

Yet, the issues that are - and are not - fought in the social media - indicate that people's understanding of what is and what is not Anti-Semitism are extremely politicized, and are not helpful (in my personal view) in the fight with the actual Anti-Semitism.

Solidarity with Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard - convicting of an Israeli spy for spying is NOT Anti-Semitism

For example, there was a lot of support to free and allow to go live in Israel to the spy for Israel Jonathan Pollard.

Even the felon former New York Chief Judge Sol Wachtler  (who is Jewish) pitched in in his memoirs from prison, where he did hard time together with Jonathan Pollard.

In Sol Wachtler's enlightened view, as in view of many other supporters of Jonathan Pollard who sold the country of his citizenship (the U.S.) to the country of his ancestors (Israel) for money, Jonathan Pollard is not guilty of treason, or at least not "that" guilty, because Israel is the U.S. ally.


"Jonathan is our most prominent inmate, having been arrested eight years ago for espionage. He pled guilty to the crime of passing government secrets to Israel, secrets that he accessed while a civilian employee of naval intelligence. Mind you, he is not a traitor— traitors deal with hostile nations. Jonathan gave our government’s secrets to Israel, a friendly nation. I say “gave” our secrets, although he admits to receiving fifty thousand dollars from Israel. His defenders, and there are many, will tell you that the money was to reimburse him for travel and other expenses during the period he was a spy. Those same supporters will tell you that he gave no information to Israel that it was not already entitled to as our ally.

Those who are antagonistic to Pollard will tell you that when he delivered those suitcases filled with secrets to Israel, he was selling out America— that Israel could well have traded those secrets off to Russia, or some other nation hostile to America, so that his espionage could have been traitorous. The interesting part of the Pollard case is the change in the attitude of American Jews. When he was sentenced to life imprisonment, most mainstream Jewish groups were reluctant to take up his cause. They were afraid that to do so could indicate a lack of patriotism. But with the end of the Cold War that attitude has changed. Even the Israeli government, which at first was indifferent to Pollard’s fate, has now come to his aid; a plea was made yesterday by Israel’s Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin for presidential clemency.


Wachtler, Sol. After the Madness: A Judge's Own Prison Memoir (pp. 115-116). Open Road Media. Kindle Edition.

Well, if Israel is an ally, and if it was "already entitled", as an ally, to the document it has bought from Pollard, wouldn't an ally ask the U.S., its ally, politely, acting in good faith, for whatever information it needed, instead of hiring a spy within the U.S. intelligence community and pay that spy to sell U.S. state secrets to Israel?

And wouldn't Israel at least own up to what it did - instead of booting Jonathan Pollard who initially ran for refuge into the Israeli embassy?

New York Governor Cuomo's publicity stunt in divestment of public funds to those who participate in boycotting Israel, as part of a human rights movement

Boycotting the State of Israel for crimes against human rights is NOT Anti-Semitism

New York Governor Cuomo recently make a publicity stunt, obviously trying to get the Jewish population of New York State out to vote for the Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, signing an executive order that denied public funds to human rights organizations boycotting Israel for human rights violations on Palestinian territories.

Apparently, to Governor Cuomo, any criticism of the State policies of the State of Israel equals Anti-Semitism.

Of course, Governor Cuomo is not the President of the United States, and, as such, had no right of issuing executive orders regarding the U.S. foreign policy.

Sovereign states in the United States have no right of issuing foreign policy decisions, so Cuomo apparently signed such an order either in a fit of self-aggrandizing, or in anticipation that that executive order will later turn into an executive order by President Hillary Clinton - which did not come to be.

A demand that the U.S. support Israel on the issue of settlements on Palestinian territories

Demanding that Israel stops occupying the lands that does not belong to it and stops committing atrocities on those lands is NOT Anti-Semitism

Recently, the U.S. abstention from voting at the United Nations on the issue of a resolution of the Security Council regarding condemning Israel's settlement on occupied Palestinian territories caused such a fierce outcry in the media, including accusations of the U.S. of "betraying" Israel that it could make a person think whether the U.S. has somehow become a part of the State of Israel, beholding to the State of Israel to vote for it no matter what atrocities it commits.

So, at the same time, the State of Israel, on the one hand, receives billions of taxpayer money from the U.S. that it uses to build its gardens in the desert, develop its sciences, including medical and defense sciences, build armaments and those same settlements condemned by the U.N., and, on the other hand, hires U.S. employees to spy against the U.S. in favor of Israel and solicits those spies to sell to Israel (the alleged ally of the U.S.) classified intelligence manuals, as Israel did in Jonathan Pollard's case.

Yet, I have seen that many commentators who openly oppose what Israel is doing on human rights grounds condemned for Anti-Semitism, in comments on social media - and those condemnation were very far from being civilized.  Apparently, Israel can do nothing wrong and any criticism of the state policy of the State of Israel is Anti-Semitism.

There was a fierce outcry in the social media against conviction of an Israeli soldier who has shot execution style, a wounded Palestinian attacker who was already disabled and down on the ground

Supporting a criminal conviction of an Israeli soldier for a well-documented crime is NOT Anti-Semitism

Very recently, yet another fierce discussion unfolded in the mainstream media and social media regarding a conviction, by an Israeli judge, of an Israeli soldier, of "negligent manslaughter" - for a deliberate execution-style killing of a severely wounded Palestinian attacker who, at the time of execution, was on the ground, was on the ground for some time, diffusing the claims that he could presented a danger of activating a bomb, was disabled and did not present a danger to the soldier or anybody else.

Most likely, the only reason why the soldier was even charged was because the killing was videotaped, and the videotape shared on the Internet.

The soldier who executed a prisoner without due process of law, was paraded by many commentators as a hero, and any critics and supporters of the conviction were accused, naturally, of Anti-Semitism.

Yet, during all of this show of support to the State of Israel, to the point of accusing for Anti-Semitism anybody who dares to criticize whatever the State of Israel is doing, the REAL Anti-Semitism flourishes.

Picking a Nazi intermediate petition for a discretionary certiorari review on the merits by the U.S. Supreme Court and granting the petition for the Nazis, allowing a Nazi march in the village of Holocaust survivors IS Anti-Semitism

I wrote on this blog about the arithmetic of appellate review by the U.S. Supreme Court - that the court refuses to review the overwhelming majority of petitions, without the public even being aware what issues, possibly, very important issues of public concern, are being tossed by the court.

Yet, the U.S. Supreme Court considered it necessary to take the case of the Nazi intimidation march through the village of Holocaust survivors - and decide that case, on constitutional grounds no less, in favor of the Nazis.

Consider watching the recent documentary describing that legal battle of the Nazis against the village of Holocaust survivors where the Nazis insisted the had a constitutional right to march - and won that "right" from the nation's highest court.

The U.S. Supreme Court was, in fact, so concerned about constitutional rights of the Nazis that it reversed the denial of a stay of injunction on the Nazi march in the village of Holocaust survivors while the appeal was still pending in state courts - an unheard-of procedural jump.

In its decision the U.S. Supreme Court claimed that it "treats" the application to reverse the denial of stay of injunction (which requires some mental gymnastics to realize what was even asked from the U.S. Supreme Court:

1) the lower court enjoined (blocked) the Nazi march;
2) the Nazis appealed, and requested the intermediate state appellate court to stay (lift) the injunction, so that the Nazi march would be able to proceed; the intermediate appellate court refused, and left the injunction in place - so, the intermediate state appellate court also prohibited the Nazi march during the pendency of the appeal;
3) the Nazis asked the top state appellate court to lift the injunction and allow the Nazi march - which the top appellate court also refused to do.
4) THEN the Nazis begged the U.S. Supreme Court to help them out - and the U.S. Supreme Court not only considered the case worth its review on the merits, before it came before the court on appeal, but reversed the stays in the lower courts, because, in the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion, it will be too much of a hardship on the Nazi's constitutional rights to wait until the case made its way through state appellate courts while the Nazis wanted the march immediately.

I do not see the same court granting any such petitions for anybody else asserting violation of their constitutional rights during state appellate processes.

The Nazis were the ONLY party known so far, as far as I know, who were granted an INTERMEDIATE CERTIORARI by the U.S. Supreme Court - which shows the U.S. Supreme Court colors very well.

Refusing to charge the swastika-drawing son of a celebrity with hate crimes IS Anti-Semitism

The U.S. Supreme Court's pro-fascist decision in Skokie greatly deterred prosecution of fascists for hate crimes.

For example, most recently, a swastika-drawing Vadim Imperioli, the son of "The Soprano's" star Michael Imperioli, was charged only with criminal mischief.

Criminal mischief is a charge for doing damage to property.

So, Vadim Imperioli was not charged for intimidating Jewish students with swastikas, which may be clearly perceived by such students as a death threat, but was only charged with damaging the walls of the dorm of SUNY Purchase with graffiti, drawing in the walls - and was not charged with a hate crime.

Because, due to the U.S. Supreme Court's help to the Nazis in the Skokie case, charging a fascist for drawing a swastika in a dorm in a college where Jewish life is very active, and where such swastikas clearly target Jewish students, will be - according to the nation's top court - a violation of the fascist's 1st Amendment rights.

Of course, New York state prosecutors and courts usually do not give a damn what the U.S. Constitution, or the U.S. Supreme Court says, even sanctioning attorneys left and right for raising constitutional issues in court, but, where the U.S. Supreme Court's respect to Nazis is concerned, the Westchester DA, raised at the knee of the present New York State Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, who was herself a Westchester DA before coming to the bench in 2016, religiously adhere to this particular U.S. Supreme Court precedent - and refused to charge a celebrity's son with a hate crime for intimidating Jewish students with swastikas which, as I said above, could clearly be perceived by the Jewish students as death threats.

By the way, the same Vadim Imperioli, as the prosecution reportedly claimed to the court when asking to raise bail (from $3,000 only) was already convicted an put on probation for "vandalism" in California, and had another case pending against him, a petit larceny, "unauthorized use of a car".

So, Vadim Imperioli is obviously not only would not stop his attempts at "vandalism", but is also very mobile and will use transportation to escape a jurisdiction by "unauthorized use of a car" if necessary.

And he was still allowed out on bail.

Apparently, the Westchester County DA go easy on celebrity fascists - and that IS Anti-Semitism.

Allowing intimidation of an Israeli citizen and his minor children by an armed Hitler sympathizer IS Anti-Semitism

Yesterday, there was a report that in Great Britain, the "Old Country", an employee of Amazon was fired, and a hate crime investigation started by the British police, when that employee put a "greetings from Adolf" card into a package going to a Jewish customer - a "greeting" that upset the customer so much that she had, reportedly, to take 2 days off from work.

On our side of the pond, in a similar (in fact, identical) situation, a court employee who, while registering a minor child of a citizen of the State of Israel Moshe Shtrauch, for "safety IDs" in Chenango County, reminded the father that it was Hitler's birthday that day (it wasn't, Hitler's birthday was in April, the statement was made in June), which was a clear intimidation of the father and the child - led to no consequences for the employee.

Here is the picture of that court employee who, reportedly, left the court system and went to work for the Norwich City police department:

Instead, when Moshe made a complaint to the then-Chief Administrative Judge for the 6th Judicial District Robert C. Mulvey, Mulvey dumped the complaint to Chenango Supreme Court justice Kevin Dowd, and Dowd put Moshe through hell, putting that same Hitler sympathizer, armed, behind Moshe's back during an unnecessary "motion session" in Dowd's chambers - after Moshe made a motion to recuse Dowd on the papers, did not require a hearing, and neither did the opposing party.

Dowd then recused, called Moshe "a disgusting human being", and ordered the armed Hitler sympathizer to march Moshe out of "Dowd's" courthouse - which was a public courthouse, where Moshe had a perfect right to be after he left Dowd's chambers, same as all other members of the public.

Moshe's federal lawsuit (I represented him in the court below) was opposed by the fighter for civil rights New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman (himself Jewish, I understand) who asked the court to dismiss the case on "judicial immunity" grounds (and the court obliged), even though Dowd ordered expulsion of Moshe from the courthouse by an armed Hitler sympathizer after he recused from the case and was no longer a judge in the case.

In my previous blog articles, I described

Yet, look who was the attorney opposing Moshe's federal lawsuit and who made it disappear.  Even though for milder behavior that got the British Amazon employee was fired and the police started a prosecution for a hate crime.

By the way, Schneiderman is a man-of-all-hats, who is both representing judges (like he did in opposing Moshe's lawsuit), and investigating judges, his own clients, as he is now doing with Sullivan County Court judge Frank LaBuda (who is reportedly "cooperating" with his own attorney Schneiderman).

It is a deliberately created mess of conflicts of interest where "little people" with their petty civil rights lose.

Lose custody of their children, their properties, their right to work, and their lives.

Dowd is still employed by New York court system, at taxpayers' expense.

The Hitler sympathizer is, according to a tip from a reader, now employed as a police officer in the Norwich City Police Department, also at taxpayer's expense.

They were never investigated by New York Attorney General Schneiderman, which is his duty to do - as he did with the investigation of the alleged crime of the Sullivan County Judge Frank LaBuda.

So, what is a hate crime and a gross Anti-Semitic conduct in Great Britain, is business as usual in New York State and federal courts.

Moreover, after Moshe's federal lawsuit, Dowd viciously retaliated against both Moshe and his attorney who dared to sue Dowd.

My husband also sued Dowd, in 2013, in a pro se action  (I did not represent my husband in that case), which was dismissed on "judicial immunity" grounds - yet, casting my husband, and me, as his wife, by extension, into the category of "disgusting human beings" (as he called Moshe for making a motion to recuse him and for allegedly "impugning his integrity") in Dowd's perception, with a plan to retaliate against us, which Dowd carried out to a "t".

As to Moshe's attorney (me) (and my husband), Dowd retaliated by:

  1. refusing an adjournment of my husband's trial where I represented him, despite my medically documented spinal injury and medical leave presented to the court;
  2. dismissing the jury I asked her (and paid for) twice when I did not come because I was on a documented medical leave;
  3. threatening me with an arrest and forcible bringing me to court despite my documented medical injury and medical leave;
  4. holding a bench trial in my husband's case behind closed doors;
  5. misleading members of the public who wanted to observe the proceedings into believing that the case was adjourned while the trial was ongoing;
  6. granting an over $300,000 judgment against my husband while the plaintiffs never came to the proceedings and never testified, and while the evidence was insufficient for such a judgment as a matter of law;
  7. after the trial, denying me, as my husband's attorney at the time, access to the exhibits submitted to court that should have been, and
  8. allowing the opponents to steal the exhibits, which were part of the appellate record, from the court file, in order to later allow dismissal of the appeal specifically because my husband did not provide as part of the appeal exhibits that Dowd prohibited my husband to see and then allowed to be stolen from the record by opponents; and
  9. commenced a proceeding to sanction me for not appearing in court for trial while having on file a documented medical leave, and
  10. sanctioning me over $1,000 for remaining home while on a documented medical leave with a spinal injury.
To read all my blogs about this situation (there are many) you can put the word "Mokay" in the word-search window and read blogs about the Mokay case from March 2015 to date, I put a lot of documentary evidence there, including my telephone recordings of my interactions with the court personnel who told me about Dowd's illegal orders in my case.

Moreover, I, Moshe's attorney in the lawsuit against Dowd for Anti-Semitism, was later stripped of her law license for undisclosed "frivolous conduct" (recently, in an unrelated proceeding, an attorney who I never saw or talked to, filed a pleading claiming that my law license was suspended because of my own and even my husband's professional activities as civil rights attorneys - a claim I am going to follow up in separate blogs and legal actions).

As to Moshe, upon my information, after Moshe filed his complaint about the Hitler sympathizer to Mulvey

(Mulvey was since promoted to become an appellate judge and helped Dowd block my husband's appeal at that point, after assigning Dowd in the court below and claiming that it was a judicial function, that disqualified him from being also an appellate judge in the same case),

after his motion to recuse #KevinDowd because of misconduct of his law clerk #ClaudetteNewman, and after his lawsuit for Anti-Semitism against Dowd, Moshe started to be treated by Chenango County courts as if the laws of the State of New York and the U.S. Constitution was written with an exception for him personally.

His access to court files to work on pro se appeals was denied.

Multiple applicable statutes and case law in his custody and divorce cases were violated.

Moshe was stripped, unlawfully, of property, and efforts were made to hold him in contempt of court and put in jail.

I wrote multiple blogs about Moshe's case, raising questions:

That, ladies and gentlemen, IS real, unadulterated, government-endorsed Anti-Semitism.

Denying a statutory right in a criminal proceeding to a Hebrew speaking citizen of the State of Israel because his attorney dared to record inadequate interpreting for his client IS Anti-Semitism

Very recently, I wrote a blog about yet another litigant, a non-native speaker of English and a citizen of the State of Israel, to whom a New York State judge denied his statutory right to testify in front of the grand jury - only because the judge (who, likely, did not know Hebrew, and whose education was in agriculture and law, not linguistics) decided that:

1) the defendant did not need a Hebrew interpreter; and

2) that defendant "waived" his right to testify because of his attorney's "gamesmanship" - an attempt to audiotape inadequate interpretation in Hebrew for his client, in order to preserve that record before his client's testimony in the grand jury (through the interpreter, as I understand), while New York does not provide stenographers to record BOTH the original foreign language testimony, recording only its English (and, possibly, inadequate, translation), while New York courts reporters are in-famous for cooking the transcripts, and while New York creates audio recordings of testimony in Family Court, but not in any other courts.

Denying an Israeli litigant a statutory right to testify in the grand jury:

  1. in his own language;
  2. with a qualified interpreter, and
  3. with an adequate record of BOTH the testimony and its interpretation, and interpretation to the litigant of questions from the grand jurors -

because his attorney insisted on preserving the record of inadequate translation for his client of a vital document - IS Anti-Semitism.

And, I do not see any massive protests online about the real Anti-Semitism.  No public officials chest-pounding to eradicate it.

The country has reached a point where it is suitably intimidated in never criticizing a judge, or trying to roll into the ground those who dare to.

*  *  *

I am currently preparing a series of reviews for a very important book, translated into English from German: "Hitler's Justice":

In that book, on a meticulously collected and analyzed vast documentary evidence, the author comes to a disheartening conclusion - that the German judiciary and legal profession facilitated and enabled Hitler's extermination of political opponents, "non-Arian races" (Jews, Slavs and Gypsies) and people with disabilities.

The list of jurists who opposed Hitler's order of "euthanasia" of people counts the grant total of ONE judge in the entire German - one who was forced into retirement.

The others remained on the bench, and continued to be on the bench after Hitler's Germany was no more - because otherwise there was nobody to handle court cases, all the German judiciary was equally tainted.

The jurists did not kill people themselves.

They only did not oppose such killing.

They only did not stand up against turning the law on its head and advancing Anti-Semitism in the courtroom.

In my series of reviews I plan to show the LANGUAGE of how that was done - it was not done in frank terms, calling what Hitler courts were doing - sending people to their deaths simply for being Jewish, or physically or mentally disabled. 


Elaborate language was used showing "lawfulness" of such actions, and that such actions served the country's "well being", and being done "for the benefit of the people", including those killed.

When I read court decisions in this country, where judges engage in mental gymnastic to justify the unjustifiable, when the New York State Attorney General, who is Jewish himself, defends Anti-Semitic conduct of a judge and obtains a dismissal of a victim of Anti-Semitism in court because that is his alleged "duty" to do so, and when I see that nobody is protesting in the streets against THIS type of Anti-Semitism, and that the legal profession knows only self-advancement, advancement of their careers no matter what rights and how badly are violated by the courts - I see clearly:  this country is ready.

It is ready for fascism.

Because it is very clear that, if fascism happens in our country and extermination of people starts, we cannot hope to have even a "grand total of one" judge opposing it.

Judges and lawyers will help fascism progress.

As they already helped in the Skokie case.

As they are helping in quashing civil rights cases and punishing those who bring them.

They will further advance their careers on executions of the innocent, as they are already doing now.

Claiming that it is the rule of law.

Read that book.

It is an eye-opener.

No comments:

Post a Comment