THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:

"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.

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Who is attorney #DanielGoldstein who reportedly badmouthed Ivanka Trump on the plane - an update

I posted a blog in December of 2016, which received several comments regarding the registration status of attorney Daniel Jennings Goldstein in New York that, in my view, deserve and require a special update article.

 In my initial article, I pointed out that the "Brooklyn" attorney Daniel Jennings Goldstein is not licensed to practice law in New York.

 A reader Jerry B from Arizona gave me a tip that Daniel Jennings Goldstein is registered in California State Bar:

 The California State Bar reports that attorney Daniel Jennings Goldstein, of Brooklyn, NY, was admitted to practice law in the State of California in 2002, was relegated to an inactive status in 2012, but is eligible to become active.  As of today, he is listed as "inactive status", meaning that at this time he is not admitted to practice law in California.


A reader "Loo Chee" with a restricted profile



reacted with a tip and pointed out to me the existence of a profile on LinkedIn of attorney "Dan Goldstein" (no middle name) who works for the federal government, in the Labor Relations Department.



While a LinkedIn profile with no middle name is not a positive ID for the same attorney, since reader Loo Chee's opinion was supported by a comment from an "Unknown" reader




who stated the following:


and since this opinion appear to be at cross-points with New York law, I decided to run an update article.

 The "Unknown" reader did not point out what are the rules of D.C. bar regarding in-house counsel.

 Moreover, that he or she was never prosecuted by the D.C. bar does not mean that he or she did not violate the rule of practice.

 And, a policy of a federal agency may well run afoul of the local state law, so I would not rely on it without extra verification of the state law.

 In New York, where attorney Daniel Jennings Goldstein lives, there are rules for licensing of attorneys who practice law in the state, and rules of "registration" for in-house counsel existing since April 20, 2011:

The requirement to register exists for those attorneys who "though not admitted to the New York bar, are employed full-time in this state as in-house counsel by a corporation, partnership, association, or other legal entity that is not itself engaged in the practice of law or the rendering of legal services outside such organization."

 Since Daniel Goldstein resides in Brooklyn, NY and claims to be a lawyer from Brooklyn, NY, he may be working in New York.  The U.S. Labor Department is a "legal entity", and "is not itself engaged in the practice of law or the rendering of legal services outside such organization".

 So, even if Daniel Jennings Goldstein may not have to be admitted to practice law in New York, IF his employment answers 22 NYCRR 522, he must, under New York law, nevertheless register as an "in-house counsel" of the U.S. Labor Department.

 I checked whether he is so registered.

 He is not, with or without a middle name.





So, once again, I do not know whether attorney Daniel Jennings Goldstein was at the time of the incident with Ivanka Trump, or is now working for the U.S. Labor Department - if he works while living in New York, New York law appears to require him to either get admitted to practice law, and I found no registration information on him as an admitted attorney, the list of "Daniel Goldsteins" admitted to practice in New York, as of today, is the same as when I initially research the case in December of 2016,



or at least register as an in-house counsel - which he did not do either.

 I found no exemptions in New York law for attorneys employed by federal agencies to work within the state without a full license to practice, or without a registration as an "in-house counsel".

 If any readers know of such laws, I welcome that information, which I will also research and publish.


Posted by at

5 comments:

  1. Chris Johnson, EAJanuary 20, 2017 at 5:07 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Chris Johnson, EAJanuary 20, 2017 at 5:10 PM

    Tatiana,
    I posted as unknown before because I couldn't get the blog to list my name. The rule you speak of doesn't apply to federal government attorneys. They are not the same as "in-house counsel", the rule you speak of applies to corporations and non-profits, not federal agencies. Again, if you are an attorney for the federal government, you just need to have the bar from a state, DC or another territory (i.e. Puerto Rico), but where you physically work for the federal government does not matter. When I worked for the IRS in DC, I did not run afoul of DC bar rules. Believe me, I would have been dismissed from my job pretty quickly if I did. I knew attorneys licensed in many different jurisdictions all over the country working at the IRS and other federal agencies, but NOT licensed in DC or whatever state the federal agency was located. The "in-house rule" you speak of does NOT apply to federal agencies and never has. You can be licensed in Guam and work as a lawyer at any federal agency, anywhere in the country, it doesn't matter and you will NOT have to register with the bar of the state you are working for that federal agency. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the Linkedin profile showing the attorney at the US Mint is the correct Dan Goldstein and he is NOT required to register with the New York bar. There is no mystery here and Dan Goldstein isn't breaking any state bar rules as far as I know. Not defending his conduct on the JetBlue flight, of course, that was about as low-class and rude as it gets, but I am certain he is a federal government attorney who will not be in trouble with the New York bar anytime soon.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tatiana NeroniJanuary 20, 2017 at 7:10 PM

    Mr. Johnson, please, provide the names of and links to statutes, regulations and/or policies that would confirm your opinion. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tatiana NeroniJanuary 22, 2017 at 10:55 AM

    I guess, there is no statute, regulation or policy to cite for the claim that an attorney working for the federal government does not have to be licensed or even registered as an in-house counsel in the state where he or she is practicing. And, I do not take as legal basis opinions from strangers that "we do it this way in our neck of woods". That is not what the rule of law is.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Chris JohnsonJanuary 28, 2017 at 12:02 PM

    Tatiana,

    I've explained as best I could, so believe what you want to believe. I'm not a federal attorney anymore, having gotten married and had a kid I had to go to the private sector, where I am licensed to practice in the state I practice now, so I don't readily know the statute, regulation or policy. What I can say is that the Linkedin profile sent before is probably the correct Dan Goldstein; if he's running afoul of New York State bar rules, then I guess you've just exposed him.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)