"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, February 28, 2017

Massachusetts to judges: it is unethical to reveal to the public the judge's true feelings and biases

Over the last three months, the Massachusets judicial ethics board have made history twice.

First, in December of 2016, it issued an "ethical" opinion for state judges advising them that they cannot really attend the so-called "Women's March" (which as in reality an anti-Trump march, the next day after the new President's inauguration) - because that will reveal the judge's political preferences.

So, even on the judge's free time (it was a Sunday), not wearing the black robe, the judge cannot reveal his or her true feelings.

Massachusetts judges are, thus, given an unmistakeable message - if you have biases, hide them.

Displaying your biases is unethical.

On the same day, December 9, 2016, Massachusetts ethical advisory board issued yet another astounding "ethical" opinion - in an intricate situation.

Massachusetts, unlike other states, apparently does not require that suspended or disbarred attorneys are prohibited to work in a law office as paralegals.

So, the judge, before coming to the bench, employed a disbarred attorney as a paralegal, at the direct permission of the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

Now the judge wanted, as the disbarred attorney's former employer, to testify for the attorney in his reinstatement proceedings voluntarily.

The advisory opinion said - "no", you can't do that.

A judge, in the opinion of the State of Massachusetts, can only testify at such a proceeding about his own experience as an employer BEFORE he came to the bench, if he is subpoenaed.

While the rationale of the opinion is that the judge, by voluntarily testifying for an attorney, is "lending the prestige of judicial office" to his testimony, of course, that's bullshit.

The judge actually wants to testify, he is actually friendly to the former employee, friendly to the point of agreeing to sacrifice his time to testify for him in his reinstatement proceedings.

There must be no difference for the reinstatement commission whether a witness is testifying voluntarily or on a subpoena - and whether he is a judge or not a judge.

But, it DOES matter in the future if the same attorney, once reinstated, appears in front of the same judge, and the issue of bias is raised because the judge volunteered to testify for the attorney in his reinstateme proceedings.

What the advisory opinion does is it protects the judge of future motions to recuse, pointing out a way of how to duck such a possible future motion by saying - oh, now, I did not really want to testify there, but it was outside of my control, I was subpoenaed.

Of course, that would be a lie, but - advisory opinions are clear.

Appearances matter.

Common sense or showing actual judicial biases to the public do not.

Wisconsin Commission of Judicial Conduct is to be subordinated to the court it is supposed to investigate

It has been reported that attempts are made to subordinate the Wisconsin Commission for Judicial Conduct to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Of course, that would be a major conflict of interest, because the bosses will be those who are to be investigated and prosecuted by the Commission.

I wonder whose bright head or heads is behind that wonderful idea.

I will continue to monitor the news about this attempt to let the fox guard the fox-hunter and will report it on the blog.

Stay tuned.

Monday, February 27, 2017

What is in common between college football players and attorneys

I was reading an article on unionization of NFL college football players by George Leef, and one phrase really struck me:

"In no other job does a worker's ability to remain on the job depend on a factor having nothing to do with his or her job performance".

That was about football players, and that was about academic performance of those same football players.

I would disagree that "ability to remain on the job depend[s] on a factor having nothing to do with his or her job performance" for college football players - or for any other college athletes.

After all, they are students who were admitted into college on an athletic scholarship, and the scholarship requires them to maintain a certain academic standing to remain students. 

If they drop out of college, not being able to maintain their academic standing, they drop out of the job.

Because, otherwise, if it is simply "a job", it should be a separate job, with hiring and firing process, not a "kind of a job" acquired through application for an athletic scholarship.

Apparently, student athletes are in college to get not only to play football, but also to receive college education, so the phrase about their remaining on the job depends on a factor (academic performance) unrelated to the actual performance on the job is somewhat stretched.

But, what drew my attention to that particular phrase was also that the "no other job" argument seems to be even more incorrect.

Lawyers are yet another such job. 

In this blessed profession, and especially in civil rights litigation, the better you are, the more your are eligible to be kicked out on some contrived disciplinary charge - and the better you dig for evidence of governmental misconduct - like, for example, attorney Christina Mire from Louisiana did - the more you are prone to be kicked out for actions "interfering with proper administration of justice".

Just another paradox of the profession.

And, by the way, while the ABA paid lip service to the fact that attorneys must be entitled to the same 1st Amendment rights as anybody else, and to a right to do their job criticizing a judge in motions to recuse - even though there are hints dropped that attorney Mire's criticism of a judge - who, as I described before in a blog:
  1. did not disclose a disqualifying conflict of interest;
  2. had the court stenographer fight and even sue Christine Mire in order not to give her minutes from a hearing where such conflict of interest was supposed to be, but was not disclosed;
  3. and, when the court did order disclosure of the minutes,
  4. the audio file was sent to a professional technician to "splice" (add, glue in) a piece of audio file, and the judge's disclosure of conflict of interest (that Christine Mire who was present at the hearing says was never mentioned by the judge) was put into the audio file and into the minutes.
That was major league fraud on behalf of the judge and everybody who was helping her.

The judge was supposed to be taken off the bench and criminally prosecuted for this.

Yet, the judge was elevated to an appellate court, and, instead, attorney Mire was suspended for a year - and made to pay for "costs" of the fabricated disciplinary proceedings against her, on the shameless complaint of that same judge.  The government made Christine Mire, as a measure of "protection of consumers" (because that's the declared reason for existence of attorney licensing in the first place) to pay around $30,000 for being right when the judge was wrong, exactly as Judge Andrew Napolitano describes in this book:

So, being kicked off the job FOR BEING RIGHT is, same as George Leef says about football players, a "factor having nothing to do with his or her job performance".

In fact, being kicked off the job for doing the job well is counter-intuitive.

And, in this case, illegal.

But who cares, right?

The ABA ran a lip-service piece about Christine Mire's case, ran it only after Christine Mire was reinstated as an attorney.

At the very same time as the ABA ran the piece on Christine Mire's fate, my certiorari on the very same subject - punishment of an attorney for making a motion to recuse a judge while the attorney was right, punishment that is being increasingly imposed on civil rights attorneys and is widening the justice gap in the U.S. - was pending with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Had the U.S. Supreme Court taken the case, it then would have had to decide in my favor - its own precedents were on my side.

But, the ABA did not consider it worth its time to support the certiorari, and the U.S. Supreme Court, including Justice Sonya Sotomayor whose personal statements about the justice gap I quoted in the certiorari petition, refused to review the petition without an explanation.

Instead, the ABA continues to treat wrongfully suspended and disbarred attorneys, suspended and disbarred for being right when the government is wrong as not worthy to be part of the ABA, and that applies to civil rights attorneys subject to persecution by courts within the U.S. and by foreign governments - in other words, the ABA distances from wrongful suspensions and disbarments in order not to put itself into a situation when it has to criticize judges, as a matter of cowardly and self-serving self-preservation.

Because, the ABA's president recently produced a formula in connection with President Trump's criticism of a wrong and corrupt decision of the 9th Circuit and of the underlying district court decision:

to criticize a judge = to attack the U.S. Constitution.

No, we cannot have that.

We cannot "attack the U.S. Constitution" by criticizing those who violate it.

Especially when it can hit us in the pocket - as it is in the case of the ABA.

So, as things are now, since the ABA did not consider it important to support a certiorari about the use of disciplinary proceedings to remove from the reach of consumers a civil rights attorney for doing their job and making a motion to recuse for an indigent client where the case so required - and since the U.S. Supreme Court similarly refused to uphold its own "mandatory" precedent - the country's litigants' rights to impartial judicial review will continue to be illusory and resting upon the unlikely chance that an attorney will sacrifice himself or herself in order to help their client.

I will quote from my certiorari petition:

"Litigants cannot seriously rely upon a federal right that can be secured only by an attorney willing to sacrifice his or her entire investment into his law education and career, and his own and his family's lifetime's well-being for one client".

But that, ladies and gentlemen, is now "the law" in the U.S.

And being good is a "factor" qualifying a lawyer in this country for being deprived of a right to work.

So, college football players are not the only ones whose "ability to remain on the job depends on a factor having nothing to do with his or her job performance".

For lawyers the "law" is even worse.

Here it is, once again:

Attorney #AndrewLavoottBluestone's "Attorney Malpractice" blog makes false claims about Neroni v Follender case

I have extensively covered the case Neroni v Follender on this blog and thought I knew everything about it - after all, I've litigated it.

Apparently, I didn't.

An attorney who specializes in legal malpractice, revealed on his blog that allegedly I was sued by Follender and lost before I "turned around and sued the plaintiffs".

Using a case you obviously did not read and do not have a clue what it was about, as an advertisement of your alleged abilities to represent people is kind of stupid.

Andrew Lavoot Bluestone, an attorney with 38 years of experience, should know better than to make claims about cases without reading them.

And, attorney #AndrewLavoottBluestone who, without reading the case, falsely alleged that:
  • I was sued, as a party, by Follender or his client before suing in Neroni v Follender; and that
  • I lost in that prior single lawsuit

Apparently, a couple of things were omitted - elementary due diligence and ability to read.

What is interesting is that this misrepresentation is made during the pendency of a criminal investigation into my criminal complaint against Jonathan Follender who tried to further enrich himself in this case by filing a false multi-thousand dollar judgement with the court - making me wonder if this misrepresentation was made on request from Follender or his friends.

Here is, once again, a short description of the controversy underlying Neroni v Follender case:

Underlying case No. 1
M & C Brothers, Inc. v. Torum
Delaware County Index No. 2007-280

Underlying Case No. 2
M & C Brothers, Inc. v. Torum
Delaware County
Index No. 2011-884

Nature of the case
Civil action for breach of contract/fraud

Nature of the case
Homestead petition

Case started
I was not admitted to the bar at the time the case started, was not an attorney or attorney of record in the case and was not a defendant in the action

Case started
Filed in 2011, a couple of weeks before Case No. 1 was concluded and jurisdiction in Case No. 2 was lost
I NEVER stepped into that case and was NEVER an attorney of record in that case

Parties and attorneys:

Parties and attorneys:

M & C Brothers, Inc.
Represented by Jonathan S. Follender

M & C Brothers, Inc.
Represented by Jonathan S. Follender

(an HGTV host and designer)

Represented by Gregory Kottmeier

In the underlying real estate transaction represented by former  Delaware County Attorney Richard Spinney, friend, colleague and former boss of 27 years of presiding judge Carl Becker


Brad Torum,
Samme Chittum
Represented by Frederick J. Neroni

In the underlying real estate transaction represented by Delaware County District Attorney John Hubbard, friend and former undisclosed law partner of presiding judge Carl Becker

Brad Torum,
Samme Chittum,
Pro Se (I am listed in the case as an attorney on the NYS Court website, because Follender claimed I am an attorney of record, for his convenience, while I never appeared in the case, there is no notice of appearance or any other evidence that I am attorney of record, and Respondents appeared pro seTHAT was the misrepresentation that was the underlying part of the lawsuit, that Follender was fraudulently claiming I abandoned my clients in a case where I was not even an attorney of record
I understand that everybody wants to distance away from this dirty case - dirty because:

  • Delaware County Attorney Richard Spinney and then ADA (and former law partner of a judge) John Hubbard were the real culprits in the action their clients were sued for;
  • The case was settled by the two TV celebrities, Tyler Harcott and Genevieve Gorder, because Follender was harassing them, and their attorney Gregory Kottmeier pointed out Follender's misconduct and misrepresentations in court pleadings, and in private to me;
  • The judgment was rendered in favor of incompetent and corrupt Follender in Case No. 1 by Eugene Peckham who later allowed his law firm to appear in the same case where he previously presided as a judge, so Peckham had no clue what judicial integrity is about - and Peckham granted the judgment to Follender, without any legal basis, only because he was also a judge in Ulster County;
  • I stepped into the case only after the judgment was already rendered, after I was admitted to the bar in 2009;
  • My motions to vacate were denied and I was sanctioned by Judge Becker who was trying hard to save his two friends, Richard Spinney and John Hubbard, from malpractice and disbarment for their actions;
  • then everybody was pretending that I was the culprit in everything that everybody else did - and Follender continued to badmouth me for allegedly abandoning my "clients" in Case No. 2 where I:
    • never appeared - and an attorney cannot be simply 'included' into a case as an attorney of record without being HIRED for that case by the clients and without APPEARING in that case - neither of which happened in Case No. 2.
I finally lost patience with Follender continuously lying about me to the court in Case No. 2 and asking to punish me for "abandoning my clients" where I was not even an attorney of record.

THAT is why I sued Follender.

The assigned Judge Tormey would not acknowledge that there were TWO underlying cases, not one.

Instead, he conflated TWO above cases into one and punished me without reading the record - simply because it was about me.

And, attorney and law professor Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, with all around star ratings, considered it possible in reporting on the case to simply jump on the bandwagon and continue misrepresentaions about the case further:

that now I WAS THE DEFENDANT in ONE case where Follender SUED ME, and where I, personally, as a party, lost - all of which was false, because:

1) I was never a defendant in any lawsuits filed by Follender;

2) There were 2 underlying court cases in Neroni v Follender, not one, in none of them I was a party, in the 1st one I was not a licensed attorney or attorney of record during the main part of litigation, I was an attorney only on post-judgment motions to vacate; in the 2nd underlying case I was NEITHER a party, NOR an attorney of record, I was only a victim of Follender's defamation and fraud upon the court which was exactly why I sued Follender.

All of the above, apparently, does not matter to the all-around star attorney Andrew Lavoot Bluestone,

who is also a law professor.

I bet, Professor Bluestone requires more diligence from his law students then he requires from himself.

One more important issue that Professor Bluestone "forgot" to mention - that in 3 Appellate Divisions (1st, 2nd and 4th Departments) I would have won the lawsuit in Neroni v Follender because Follender defaulted by serving his and his client's pre-answer motion to dismiss and all of his other pleadings himself, while being a party in the action.

The 3rd Department alone - as an "exception" for me and Follender (who is a judge in a town justice court in Ulster County while remaining a practicing attorney) - decided that disregarding that clear statute is a "mere irregularity" and not a jurisdictional defect.

Yet, in three quarters of New York courts service of a pre-answer motion to dismiss by a party, like Follender did in Neroni v Follender would have resulted in a DEFAULT AGAINST Follender and his client.

The 3rd Department though, in order to block vacating of my disciplinary decision (where Neroni v Follender was, without disclosure, considered because the trial judge sent his decision to the disciplinary court), disregarded clear statutory law by an attorney-judge against an attorney-critic of judges, as it does often in favor of politically connected parties, and considered disregarding clear statutory law that its 3 sister courts consider a jurisdictional defect - "a mere irregularity".

Of course, such a nuance was not important for Professor Bluestone who allegedly specializes in Judiciary Law 487 cases, to consider and report in his blog.

Yet, for consumers considering to hire Andrew Bluestone as their attorney, it is a clear warning. 

Consumers beware:  if Professor Bluestone can so misread a case where all underlying facts are reflected in multiple court records, does it with complete indifference to the truth of what is in the record, and invents things to make up for his lack of knowledge of the case - anybody should think twice before putting his own litigation case and livelihood into Andrew Bluestone's careless hands.

One more interesting thing: I've left a comment on Andrew Bluestone's blog, pointing out his misrepresentation.  It was never published - Andrew Bluestone, unlike me, carefully weeds out comments unfavorable to him.

I wonder, how many other people posted comments like mine, about misrepresenting their cases that Attorney Bluestone became so wary of public opinion as to hide from it behind moderation?

Saturday, February 25, 2017

The #GoldendoodleWonder, or political correctness as the new legal standard of review in disability cases

In the U.S., every person is guaranteed freedom from discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Congress enacted multiple antidiscrimination statutes enforcing the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Yet, in "deference" to the state governments in their ability to handle their responsibilities to enact and enforce laws protecting health and safety of its residents, the U.S. Supreme Court created various "levels of scrutiny" in review of discrimination cases.

Duties and rights of states in that relation are guaranteed by the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states are increasingly using in lawsuits against President Trump, for example, asserting their right "to be left alone" in such decisions - in all aspects but federal aid, then they use the 10th Amendment to force the federal government to "voluntarily" give money to states who defy federal laws claiming their exclusive authority to act for protection of health of safety of their residents under the 10th Amendment - great examples of that inconsistent invocation of the 10th Amendment by the state is:

  • claims of the states against President Trump asking the courts to recognize their 10th Amendment right to prevent the federal government from interfering with how states:

Yet, at the same time, the same state entities that can take care of health and safety of their residents so well,

  • sue the federal government (as the City of San Francisco did) for withholding voluntary federal aid for those same programs that the states assert is their exclusive right under the 10th Amendment to control and enforce - and, if so, to finance also;
  • condemn appointment of Betsy DeVos to the position of minister of the federal Department of Education that has no control whatsoever over schools - which are within the 10th Amendment right and duty for the states to control and finance; and
  • condemn President Trump for deferring to the states in deciding trangender bathroom issues for state schools - which is also within state 10th Amendment authority to do. 

Yet, at the same time as President Trump's enforcement of federal law in areas of his exclusive control (immigration policy), and his deference to the states in the states' area of exclusive control under the 10th Amendment (transgender bathroom policy in schools) meets with condemnation of the public - a condemnation not expressed with such vigor that similar or identical measures of President Obama or presidents before him - changes in the usual deference to the states by the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts are not that prominent in the public's eye because court decisions are less discussed and less understood by the public.

Well, here enters the adorable Goldendoodle Wonder and the now 12-year-old girl #EhlenaFry whose parents sued her first school for refusal to allow her "service dog" upon the school premises because they already provided, as a reasonable accommodation to Ehlena Fry, a quadriplegic with cerebral palsy, a human aide. 

Wonder's appearance before the watchful eye of the U.S. Supreme Court, a court that only takes 70 cases out of 8,000 filed per year, so the cases the court takes must be really, really important
  • cancelled all previously existing precedents and legal standards of the U.S. Supreme Court on disability discrimination,
  • created a dangerous precedent for 
    • public safety in school,
    • rights of children other than those "served" by service dogs to be provided free and appropriate public education in a healthy environment,
    • school liability for injuries of disabled and non-disabled children and school employees;
    • a logistical nightmare for schools as to how now to accommodate not only disabled children, but also their "service animals", and
    • and an increase in taxpayer financing of schools
In return, the only "legal standards" that can be discerned through the forest of legalese in the "Goldendoodle Wonder" decision, heavy with block abbreviations and citations of mile-long statutes and administrative provisions which would prevent any average reader untrained in reading such cases from even trying to read this whole case, much less review it critically  - political correctness and the U.S. Supreme Court's sympathy - and those are not legal standards, of course.

So, let's look at the case which made the U.S. Supreme Court, the court that rejects the overwhelming majority of cases and usually uses its time more on trips and speeches than on actual work, pick this case for review while rejecting other cases, put the law on the back shelf and decide a case for a dog, a girl and her parents on the basis of sympathy and publicity alone.

I will start with the U.S. Supreme Court's usual standard of review in disability discrimination cases -  the so-called "rational basis" standard of review.

The rational basis of review was recently explained in a claimed immigration discrimination case - in the decision of federal judge Nathaniel Gorton, the only judge so far who was loyal to his oath of office and adhered to the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes and mandatory precedent among the PC galore over bashing Trump on any issue and sabotaging his actions at every turn.

Under the rational basis of review, if the court can find any "reasonably conceivable" justification for denial of a certain benefit, the claim of discrimination is dismissed.

Disability discrimination cases, once again, are reviewed, according the U.S. Supreme Court precedent, under rational basis scrutiny.

Let's apply the rational basis scrutiny test to the case of Ehlena Fry (who is now 12, so this frivolous case has been litigated in courts for 7 years, while there was no case to begin with),

her parents' Goldendoodle Wonder that the parents tried to foist upon the school as a "service animal" for their  5-year-old daughter who has cerebral palsy.  By the way, I also wonder, why the girl's name had to be carefully protected and taken out of the caption of the case when her full name and face was paraded for the media anyway.

First of all, according to the U.S. Supreme Court's recitation of facts in the case, the school DID provide a reasonable accommodation to the girl - the same as the school provided to all other disabled children in her situation - a HUMAN aide.

Once again, this was the school's actual reasoning to deny Ehlena Fry's parents desire to have a large dog accompany their daughter in school: that "the human aide provided as part of E.F.'s individualized education program rendered the dog superfluous".

So, there was an IEP (individualized education plan) which included provision of a human aide at all times for the girl.

Such accommodation was a reasonable accommodation required by American with Disabilities Act and by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Provision of such reasonable accommodations should have, in and of itself, rendered this whole 7-year litigation frivolous and should have had the court impose sanctions and attorney fees upon the girl's parents and attorneys involved in litigation - as courts liberally do in civil rights cases that they find to be without basis.

There is, simply put, NO CASE.

A reasonable accommodation was provided for the girl, which withstood rational basis review, case closed.

That another school DID allow the use of the "service dog" on the school grounds is the decision made by that school's principal, who agreed to incur the additional liability, logistical and health problems for the school and the school's children and personnel - that was the personal decision of the principal and not the law.

The U.S. Supreme Court did not ask a lot of pertinent questions which, whether they were or were not actually provided as a reason for the school's decision denying permission to use the service dog on the school premises, could nevertheless be considered by the court and used to dismiss the case with sanctions, as frivolous:

  1. is the human aide the same accommodation as provided to other children?  If it is, and "service dog" accommodation was not usual for that school to provide - which is obvious in this case - the rational basis review once again would prevail: the school did what it usually did for all children with similar disabilities, and there is no actionable equal protection or discrimination claim at all;
  2. is the service dog provided in addition or instead of human aide accommodation (and especially in the case of a "spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy" making the dog insufficient as a sole provider of care)? - apparently, that was the case claimed because the dog supposedly was to pick up items from the floor, open doors, and help the girl maintain balance, including the transfer on and off the toilet seat - replacement of the human aide with the dog in carrying out such tasks presented:
    1. a safety issue for the child who could nevertheless fall off the toilet seat and get hurt, and
    2. a liability issue for the school that would be sued for the child's injury;
  3. would the presence of a dog on the school grounds be prohibited by the school's insurance policy? - if it was, that is a rational basis, and the case is, once again, closed;
  4. who was going to provide and actually give to the dog food, water and take the dog out to go to the bathroom? - if it was an extra duty for the school personnel, it was reasonable for the school to deny such an accommodation; 
  5. a dog may suffer from dehydration and become antsy and/or aggressive if he does not get water or if the dog was not fed that day, or not walked that day, another safety concern passing the rational basis review;
  6. where was the dog supposed to go to the bathroom - where other children play, in the schoolyard?
  7. are dogs allowed into the school cafeteria by public health laws? - if not, the case is closed.
  8. What is the guarantee that the dog will not:
    1. scare;
    2. bite;
    3. slobber upon;
    4. knock down causing injuries - it is a large dog;
    5. trigger an allergic reaction;
    6. distract from studies
other children or members of the school personnel?
9. Were the parents simply expecting the school personnel to take care of their dog for free, as an alternative to a pet boarding service?
10.  Was the dog allowed to babysit a disabled child under existing state laws?  If not, the dog could not be allowed to assist the child in the bathroom or anywhere else in the school without human supervision, and with human supervision the dog was unnecessary - the human could do what the dog was supposed to be doing, and a human would be doing it better than a dog.

Ii had a case where a school denied a right to hire an additional human aide to protect the child's safety in a situation where the school refused to watch out for the child and protect the child from other children bullying him.  The basis of denial was that allowing a human being who is not a school employee increases the school's liability and will not be allowed by the insurance carrier.  Here, we are talking about a dog, not a human being, with a lot more and  different additional liability issues than an additional human aide would provide.

If any of that happens, the school will incur enhanced liability - and that alone may provide a rational basis to refuse the use of a service dog while a human aide was available and provided.

So, the case was frivolous based on recited facts alone, and the U.S. Supreme Court failed to apply the rational basis review and properly affirm dismissal of the case by the two courts below, based on the U.S. Supreme Court's own precedent.

But, the U.S. .Supreme Court violated the rule of law and ruled in a way defying logic and common sense in two other areas.

The case hinged not only on issues going to the merit - a denial of what the parents claimed to be a reasonable accommodation, and what the school claimed to be "superfluous", and which was an unreasonable accommodation in view of provision of a human aide, and of health, safety, logistical and liability problems for the school created by presence of service dogs.

Once again, if the other school, the parents of other children, the school's liability carrier and the taxpayers financing the school's liability insurance and payouts in lawsuits against the school, and  voluntarily agreed to incur such problems and such liability, that does not mean that all schools, and all parents, and all insurance carriers, and all taxpayers must do it - it is not the requirement of the law.

The U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case for a factual determination and further development of the record - but, instead of remanding it to the district court for such purpose, remanded it to the lower appellate, Circuit court - which makes absolutely no sense, because the Circuit court does not have jurisdiction to develop the factual record of the case, it only has authority to rule on legal issues raised by the existing record.

The Circuit court is unable to decide through "legal analysis" of the record already in front of it, what was the "gravamen" of a case that was imperfectly pled - and the court below already decided it, by dismissing the case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, thus implying that that "gravamen" of the claim was charging discrimination against the right for free and appropriate public education (FAPE).

If it was imperfectly pled, it should be dismissed with a leave to amend.

If the Circuit court is supposed to be able to decide that LEGAL issue upon EXISTING record, there was no need for a remand from the U.S. Supreme Court to decide that issue - the U.S. Supreme Court was equally authorized to do that.

Moreover, since the U.S. Supreme Court suggested that on remand the history of administrative proceedings should be delved into more deeply, that clearly means development of the factual record f the case - something that the Circuit court has no jurisdiction to do.

So, the U.S. Supreme Court, by its remand to the Circuit and the order as to what the Circuit court must do on that remand, created a conundrum for the Circuit court:
  • whether to disobey the order of what it must do on remand, because the U.S. Supreme Court usurped authority of the U.S. Congress to define jurisdiction of the Circuit court and ordered the Circuit Court to do what it cannot do within its jurisdiction; or
  • to follow the U.S. Supreme Court as a mandatory precedent, but then violate the statute enacted by the U.S. Congress under Article I of the U.S. Constitution defining jurisdiction of the Circuit Court.

The third issue is the procedural/substantive issue that the court remanded the case for.

First, the court could not even go into such details after having seen that a reasonable accommodation was already provided to the child in the form of a human aide, making the case meritless, no matter whether administrative remedies were or were not exhausted, or did or did not have to be exhausted.

Second, let's ask a no-brainer blunt question - however the complaint was "framed", pled, drafted, charged, written or whatever other words used to describe it:

  1. what is the purpose of parents sending their children to school other than getting the free and appropriate public education (FAPE); and
  2. if that is the only reason why children go to school, what else can a discrimination claim against the school be about in denial of "comfort accommodation" in educational process (where gender, sex or racial discrimination was not invoked) OTHER than tied in with educational process?

The parents actually DID charge that during educational process, the dog was not allowed to sit next to the girl, but was relegated to the back of the classroom during the brief time when the school allowed the dog in the school for a trial period (and it did not work).

If I would be a parent of a child who would go to school with Ehlena Fry, with all my lifetime love to dogs

(and I have never been without a dog in my household since early childhood to present time)

I would be concerned that my child (and 5-year-old are very distractable) is spending time at school hugging a dog and not learning, which is what the child is in school for.

If I would be a parent of a child who fears dogs, who has a life-threatening allergy triggered by dog hair - I would be concerned for my child's safety, mental and medical health and life. 

Once again - a human aide was provided by the school.

Under the rational basis review, that was enough under the current law and U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

And, sympathy to a disabled child, her dog, and their situation is not enough basis to cancel a whole body of precedents and to create a huge liability, public health and safety issue by creating such a dangerous precedent.

That said, I hope that the 6th Circuit, the court where the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case, does the right thing and dismisses it again - as it did previously, as is proper to do in this case under the existing law.

We are talking the rule of law here, and, no matter how sympathetic to a disabled girl we may be, and how cute Wonder is, the law in this case is clear - the school provided all accommodations it could, and should not be subjected to a lawsuit, and especially one to force extra liability and public safety concerns upon it, as well as making taxpayers pony up money for non-existing damages in a case where reasonable accommodations were already provided.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

The interesting occupational licensing case of the first illegal alien admitted in California to practice law, attorney #SergioGarcia who tried to work illegally but refused to get it documented, after his admission to the bar

This is California attorney Sergio C. Garcia - and also an illegal alien.

Here is the sum and substance of attorney licensing proceedings in California.
  1. Sergio C. Garcia applied while illegal alien, no DACA exemption
  2. California character committee supported, but for status, turned over to the court - check
  3. Obama administration - U.S. DOJ Loretta Lynch - opposed giving a license because of non-compliance with federal statutory law 8 USC 1601, California did not legislatively opt out
  4. California legislatively opted out - check if just for attorne
  5. Obama/DOJ still opposed - there is no point to give a professional license when the federal government did not give a work authorization
  6. the license was still given, but attorney Garcia cannot work as an illegal alien without work authorization
  7. Taxpayer money wasted on:
    1. character committee
    2. US DOJ opposition
    3. on California AG support of the petition
    4. Court work
    5. Legislative work - to result in a license given to an illegal alien who still cannot use it because he cannot work.

Here is the chronicle of this astounding waste of time and taxpayer money - the court docket of Sergio Garcia admission-to-the-bar court case in California:

There is even a brief by a center fighting for lesbian rights - even though Mr. Garcia appears to be very male.

Here is their claimed interest in the case:

So, the LGBT right groups want illegal immigrants who are LGBT to gain professional licenses IN ORDER TO WORK - even if that is prohibited to them as illegal aliens without work authorization by federal law.

And California taxpayers had no other urgent uses for their money - like, for example, mending their dam that nearly broke drowning thousands upon thousands of people - but to have its highest court read and make a decision on this nonsense.

Mr. Garcia was represented in these proceedings by a large 800-attorney law firm out of New York City, Wilson Elser, a "professional liability" and "product liability" law firm - and I am wondering, what was their professional interest in promoting this case?

By the way, one of the filers of an amicus curiae brief is the other "trailblazer" illegal alien attorney Cesar Vargas from New York - here is a preliminary blog about his and his "coalition"'s background, and I will run a separate blog, in detail, about how it happened that Cesar Vargas was admitted to the bar.

The decision of California Supreme Court allowing Sergio Garcia to practice law came in January of 2014.

In the same "early 2014" Garcia, reportedly, was invited as a "speaker" and "role model" for students (as many other schools have done, likely as a paid speaker with all expenses paid - and I will FOIL schools who did invite him for any benefits they may have provided to him) by a private college preparatory school in San Antonio Texas.

Here is a W-9 form.

And you know why signing of that W-9 form was even necessary?

Because Garcia, knowing that he has no right to work in the U.S. - that's what the Obama administration's brief in his attorney admission proceedings explained to him in minute details, in addition to him being an attorney and having to know the law applicable to at least himself - ASKED to be paid for his speech, as an "independent contractor", so his speeches all around the country likely WERE cases of work in violation of federal law - which must trigger his deportation AND disbarment, but yet did not.

Talking about competence, honesty and integrity of attorney Sergio Garcia.

And talking about honesty and integrity of other colleges and institutions inviting Garcia - once again, I will FOIL all of those colleges for W-9, W-8ECI and W-8BEN forms signed by Garcia.

Additionally, attorney Garcia reportedly announced that he is opening a law office in Chico, California, and is planning to open another law office in Los Angeles, California.

And, California's other city, San-Francisco, fights with President Trump in a lawsuit where it asserts that, while it has a 10th Amendment right to defy federal government and harbor illegal aliens (that's a federal felony) in violation of federal criminal law, President Trump does not have a right to withhold discretionary (voluntary) federal aid to such cities, because that will be, too, a violation of the 10th Amendment.

With so many intellectuals living in California - they still created an abominable mess when they mixed illegal immigration and politics, and especially when they added to that mixture professional licensing, like with attorney Sergio Garcia.

By the way, when interviewed in 2016, attorney Sergio Gracia quoted his "former undocumented status", said that his green card application is still "pending" - but that he is "hiring people" to work for his law firm, meaning that Sergio Garcia may be avoiding accusations of illegal work by hiring others to do work in his law firm, while sharing in their profits.

I am sending a FOIA request as to the true immigration status and work authorization of Sergio Garcia and will report about it on this blog.

#NewYorkattorneyCesarVargas and his girlfriend #ErikaAndiola, both illegal aliens, should be deported for violation of criminal law, despite their political connections

This is New York attorney Cesar Adrian Vargas

who in 2016 has become the first illegal alien to have received a law license in New York.

Attorney Cesar Vargas' way to the bar was long, difficult and stealthy.

He has come to this country as a 5-year-old child - his illegal alien mother Teresa Golando has brought him and his siblings into the U.S. in 1989, according to a court case.

Cesar Vargas then used public money in the following way:

  1. he went to a public school in Brooklyn - by coincidence, to the same one from which U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders has graduated;
  2. he then went to St. Francis College in Brooklyn; then
  3. he went to CUNY Law School, a state school, using a scholarship from the school's "private fund".
He interned with:

  1. a provider of legal services to the poor;
  2. Kings County District Attorney's office - I wonder how an organization with a duty to prosecute crimes agreed to have an illegal alien to help prosecuting crimes;
  3. an unnamed New York Supreme Court judge - I am going to verify the name through a FOIL request;
  4. an unnamed U.S. Senator - I am going to verify the name through a FOIA request.
Cesar Vargas graduated from law school in 2011, and passed the bar in the same year.

He then applied for admission to the bar, was cleared by the Character Committee of the 2nd Department on all points but that he is an illegal alien.

By the way, reportedly, multiple "politically prominent" individuals supported his admission to the bar - I am verifying their names now through a FOIL request.

The Character Committee transferred the case to be decided by the court, the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division 2nd Department.

Cesar Vargas, date of birth September 1983, admittedly got into the United States as an innocent child in 1989.

Yet, he became an adult in 2001, and from then on he violated immigration law for years while continuing to receive public benefit from various organizations - public school, college, law school, internships.

Only after he received all of those benefits, and when he was turned down for bar admission because he was an illegal alien, did he apply to the federal government for the deferred deportation status, as a DREAMer child.

The court has ruled in his favor in 2015    

Yet, the DREAMer act does not create an immigration status - as the court recognized in 2015 - but only delays deportation by 2 years, with subsequent 2 year extensions, as a matter of federal prosecutorial discretion that can be revoked at any time.

While ruling in favor of Cesar Vargas

  • that his illegal alien status, and
  • violating immigration law for 11 years since he turned 18 and still remained, as an adult, illegally in the country, and
  • that he applied for a deferred deportation status only because continuing to be an illegal alien without such a deferred deportation status hurt his career, making him an unscrupulous opportunist, 
does not make him unfit to be a lawyer and to uphold the law as an officer of the court,

the court obviously overlooked that New York Legislature already made a choice on that issue - whether a professional license in New York may be given to an illegal alien - by clearly indicating that realtor licenses can only be issued to a U.S. citizen or a green-card holder:


Thus, the 2nd Department practically invited lawsuits from
  • illegal aliens,
  • illegal aliens with deferred deportation status, like Cesar Vargas, and
  • legal aliens who are not legal permanent residents and who want to obtain professional real estate licenses for denial equal protection of laws, as compared to a lawyers, a privileged group, because law licenses are regulated and issued by courts, the same courts who issue licenses as administrative agencies and adjudicate issues relating to their own authority as courts.

By the way, Vargas' court case was litigated and decided in 2015, under the Obama administration, and the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief which reflected President Obama's policy - OPPOSING Mr. Vargas' admission to the bar.

The only reason why the court decided in Vargas' favor - and decided, interestingly, not for ALL professional licenses (because, I bet, they knew that they cannot amend the existing statute about realtor licenses), but only narrowly, for law licenses - because the court was pissed that the federal law required specifically the legislature to opt-out of federal law prohibiting states to give public benefits to illegal aliens.

The court ruled that, since New York Legislature delegated the rule-making (not statutory) authority to courts in regulating law licenses, federal government, under the 10th Amendment, may not "commandeer" which branch of the government would express the opting out for a particular law license.

So, for all other professional law licenses in New York, a Legislative action will be required to allow them to possess professional licenses, and for lawyers - courts conveniently, and quickly, provided such an opting out, in excess of delegated authority.

The rule-making authority in attorney admission matters that the 2nd Department court was so proudly speaking of was given only to the New York State Court of Appeals, not to its subordinate 2nd Department, that was somehow overlooked by the 2nd Department in its zeal.

By the way, one of the judges on the deciding panel for Cesar Vargas was Judge Peter Skelos, brother of Dean Skelos, the former Majority Leader of New York State Senate who quickly disappeared from the bench after that ruling in search of a cozier position, while his brother was convicted for fraud in federal court.

So, some of the "insight" of that panel can be understood by the presence of this figure of questionable integrity - if he measured Cesar Vargas taking himself as a model of integrity, one can understand why he allowed Cesar Vargas to get licensed as an attorney, while Cesar Vargas has proven to the court that he has a history of disregarding the law, including his conviction for trespassing in Iowa. 

It is interesting what happened after attorney Vargas was admitted to the bar in 2016:

First, attorney Vargas joined the presidential campaign of U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders as a "National Outreach Latino Strategist", raising the question whether U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, who graduated from the same high school as Vargas, helped attorney Vargas in his admission to the bar to then use him as a banner in his election campaign - an opportunistic tit-for-tat arrangement for both of them.

Sanders' sudden opportunistic warming up to the issue of loosening all restrictions on illegal immigration into the U.S. is actually contrary to his own vote record back in 2007:

Second, when Bernie Sanders did not make it even as a Democratic nominee for President, and especially when President Trump got elected, attorney #CesarVargas became an instigator of the #UndocumentedUnafraid "movement" - provoking illegal aliens to parade their illegal alien status and claim their non-existing "right" to remain in the U.S., the country where they came illegally.

While himself being neither undocumented - he has at least a deferred deportation status as a "DREAMer" - nor "unafraid" - look at his attorney registration, Vargas did not even indicate any contact address on it:

I had to FOIL the New York State Court administration for his registration address, here it is:

Here is attorney Vargas contact address that he is NOT showing on his attorney registration website, as required by attorney disciplinary rules:

Here is what Zillow has to say about that address:

Apparently, attorney Vargas shares that 2,000 square feet single family home - by some sources - with 12 other "current residents", and, judging by New York State attorney registration website, with at least one other attorney, also admitted in 2016, who is not afraid to put his registration address into his online information - as required by law:

It is interesting that Google search of attorney Campbell's "DRM Capitol Group" leads to this organization - the brainchild of attorney Vargas:

While the website is obviously frozen in time as of pre-President Trump's election, it gives an interesting insight as to role distribution in the "coalition" "led" by Vargas:

Vargas is "in coalition with" his own two brothers, his own girlfriend, his classmate and current roommate and two friends, and presents that "coalition" as a national force to be reckoned with.

The "coalition" includes:

1) Himself, whom he modestly characterizes as "a nationally recognized leader and innovator at the forefront of the groundbreaking DREAM movement" - whose "groundbreaking" "leadership" did not allow his presidential candidate even to make to Democratic nomination;

2) his own brother Carlos Vargas - also an illegal alien who also reportedly has a deferred deportation status

3) His brother John Carlo Vargas

whose immigration status is unknown, but who also reportedly availed himself of the benefit of education in a New York public state college:

"Mr. Vargas has been behind DRM’s creative media. He will oversee a team in coordinating state and national marketing campaigns.  He has launched successful campaigns for NYC small businesses enabling them to grow in new markets. He has extensive marketing and new media experience and is well versed in managing online marketing campaigns. Mr. Vargas is a graduate of the City University of New York obtaining a double major in Marketing Design & Econometrics".

4) Another #UndocumentedUnafraid instigator - Cesar Vargas' girlfriend Erika Andiola, who, same as Cesar Vargas himself, has a criminal record:

"Erika Andiola is a former Congressional Staffer for Arizona Congresswoman, Kyrsten Sinema and co-founder of the DRM Action Coalition. Erika started her community organizing experience when she co-founded the Arizona Dream Act Coalition. She then served in the National Coordinating Committee and the Board of Directors for the United We Dream Network. Her personal struggle as an undocumented woman herself, with an undocumented family, has given her the drive and the passion to keep fighting for immigrant rights".

Here is where it is mentioned that Andiola is Cesar Vargas's girlfriend:

who mother, also an illegal alien, faced deportation in 2013.

5) Another member of the Vargas "coalition" Cesar Vargas law school classmate and current roommate Ryan Campbell:

Ryan Campbell appears to be a hard-core supporter of Cesar Vargas - to the point that, after graduating from law school in 2011, he only got admitted to practice law in 2016, same as Vargas, apparently deferring his admission by 5 years to wait for his friend, while writing these kind of pieces for "The Huntington Post":

"Obama Caves On Crazies On Immigration" - prominently starting with a quote from Erika Andiola who admitted that she has been participating in not simply peaceful protests, but in impeding the administration of federal laws, stopping deportation buses.

Of course, giving the requested "relief for our families" was the equivalent of President Obama's legitimizing presence in the country and right to work of 11 million people who got their illegally, which would have been a betrayal of his voters.

Ryan Campbell also authored this piece:

"Obama’s Legacy: #GoBigObama vs. #DeporterInChief"

In this particular article, Campbell supported yet another Vargas - I was unable to verify whether he was a relative of Cesar Vargas since his country of origin (Philippines) and the story of coming to the U.S. is different from Cesar Vargas's:

So, while the push for DACA - an exercise of federal prosecutorial discretion, not an Act of Congress, there is no such act at present - was to spare innocent children who could not be blamed for their parents coming into the country illegally and bringing them in illegally - DACA then was used by "activists" like Ryan Campbell and his illegal alien friends to justify further expansion of "exemption" to their parents, adults who consciously violated federal immigration laws and illegally crossed the border into this country - of course, "to give a better life" to themselves and their children, but still in violation of federal laws.

As to Jose Antonio Vargas, the man Ryan Campbell advocates in his article, his situation is not the same as the situation of illegal alien parents coming to the country and bringing with them illegal alien children, who then got breaks through DACA and continue to push for breaks for their illegal alien parents while violating criminal law - like attorney Cesar Vargas and his girlfriend Erika Andiola, even though #RyanCampbell tries to link Jose Antonio Vargas with DACA in his piece. 

Jose Antonio Vargas he appears to be the victim of his own family's neglect, I do not know the story as to why his immigration status was not properly adjusted by adults - he came into the country in 1993 at the age of 12 to stay with his U.S. citizen grandparents.

In my personal view, Jose Antonio Vargas would be entitled to a break simply because his grandparents were U.S. citizens and could, but did not, properly adjust his immigration status when he came to live with them as a child.

Yet, Jose Antonio Vargas reportedly used false documents - that is a crime of identity fraud - "to help him avoid deportation", and that is already a violation of the law, which is, possibly, why immigration authorities do not have sympathy to him.

In an identical situation, President Obama did not have much sympathy to a man who was adopted out of South Korea by U.S. citizen parents at the age of 3, but whose parents did not adjust his status to a U.S. citizen, and who have been convicted of a crime.

I don't believe that Jose Antonio Vargas will get sympathy from the Trump administration after he, reportedly, used fraudulent papers "to avoid deportation" back to the Philippines and his parents, in view of the just-announced policy of the Trump administration to make it a priority to deport ANY illegal aliens (DREAMers or not) who have committed a crime:

6) another illegal alien member of the Vargas "coalition" with an - alleged - deferred deportation status is a "DREAMer" Hina Naveed to whom the State of New York Department of Education issued a professional nursing license in violation of federal law 8 USC 1601 requiring that only a legislative act of the state government is enough to opt out of federal prohibition to the states to give to illegal aliens any benefits

Hina Naveed was able to receive a professional license/certification of registered nurse despite her undocumented status:

Obviously, the Board of the Department of Education violated federal statutory law by allowing Naveed to have a professional nursing license without a proper opting-out procedure through the Legislature - same as the 2nd Department court did for Cesar Vargas.

Naveed once said this about President Obama:

7) Erick Garcia

"Mr. Garcia is the DREAM Action Coalition’s Webmaster and Technology Coordinator. His responsibilities vary from maintaining DREAM Action’s master website, implementing new technologies, develop microsites; coordinate the use of technology to connect DREAM Action with the community. He is in charge of moving the DREAM Action Coalition forward in this fast pace tech environment to fulfill the needs of our movement. He graduated from Arizona State University with a B.S.E in Computer Systems Engineering."

Erick Garcia appeared to have stopped moving the DREAM Action Coalition forward at any pace when President Trump was elected - judging by the contents of the website today, or have dropped out of the "coalition".

Here is the picture of the "DRM Coalition" from its Twitter account:

featuring the illegal alien Teresa Golando and her two illegal alien sons, Carlos Vargas and attorney Cesar Vargas.

As to the fearless allegedly undocumented and allegedly unafraid attorney Cesar Vargas, why does attorney #RyanThomasCampbell put their common address on his registration website and attorney Vargas doesn't, even though it is kept on file by the New York State Court Administration and is released to inquirers on FOIL requests - but not listed for all to see on his attorney registration page?

Might it be because there may be more illegal aliens in that house than Mr. Vargas, whose deferred deportation status may have been prolonged - by the way, I filed a FOIA request with USCIS about his current immigration benefits, as well as all the history of obtaining and prolonging deferred deportation statuses.

It is obvious, nevertheless that, despite claiming that he is #UndocumentedUnafraid,

Mr. Vargas knows that he is neither strictly undocumented, nor unafraid when he gets on virtual barricades to safely instigate fellow illegal aliens into trouble that can get them deported.

But, he does not publish even his official attorney registration address, because he apparently IS afraid - at the very least, for his mother who is likely still an "undocumented immigrant", or, in the language of the law, an illegal alien.

Understandable fear, but then
  • why Attorney Vargas, who is also an illegal alien with a deferred deportation status, and
  • who very well knows that
  • when President Trump announced a policy of enhanced immigration enforcement,
  • it is dangerous for any illegal alien to publicly describe themselves as #UndocumentedUnafraid - it is an invitation to immigration authorities to come, seize and deport that person
why attorney Vargas so irresponsibly "inspires" people with his false claim of being undocumented and unafraid to do the same - and get into trouble that can get them deported?

Why is he inviting other people to do that - while knowing that he himself is protected - by his attorney status, by his deferred deportation status, by his connections in the government up to the top?

Doesn't he understand that he will be unable to represent all people who he so cavalierly called to reveal their status - and who will then be seized and deported?

Doesn't he understand, as a lawyer, that calling upon people to take pride in violation of immigration law is, for him as an attorney, a violation of his oath of office where he claimed he will be upholding the law, not calling upon people to continue to proudly violate it (as he did I the past, for years)?

In 2015, based on assurances of Cesar Vargas and his prominent political supporters, Attorney Vargas was given a tremendous advance in trust by the New York court:

The court believed Mr. Vargas's and his "politically prominent" supporters that Mr. Vargas, as an attorney, will be able to:
  • defend his clients' interests within the bounds of the law; and
  • protect, as an officer of the court, the rule of law and the administration of justice.
Instead, after being elevated into the position of an attorney and officer of the court, Mr. Vargas:

  • violates disciplinary rules by not publishing his contact address, thus indicating that he is not practicing law; and
  • instead of protecting the rule of law, as an officer of the court, he calls upon people from rooftops - his Twitter account - to continue to openly violate federal immigration law, as he himself did for years before his career required him to acquire at least some status allowing him to at least stay and work in the U.S., for some time.
Isn't such behavior, calling upon people who are already violating immigration law, to continue to do that, openly and proudly - a violation of rules of professional conduct as an attorney and violation of Mr. Vargas' oath of office to help UPHOLD the rule of law, not to take it down, as he is trying to do now?

My opinion - Mr. Vargas should be disbarred.

And deported.

Because no matter what oaths he takes, he breaks them, and calls upon others to break the law.

By the way, his call to break the law, and proudly so, was heard - his girlfriend and colleague on #BernieSanders' presidential campaign, #ErikaAndiola also proudly announces her #UndocumentedUnafraid status to others - I wonder if she, same as attorney Vargas, is concealing her address and whereabouts, as well as has at least some documented status while calling upon people to get into trouble and get deported - so that Vargas and Andiola will be able to stage an outcry about that:

As I said, provocateurs and unscrupulous opportunists.

And an insolent provocateur at that, look what Vargas says on his Twitter account:

Attorney Vargas is teaching President Trump that he is not above the law - while calling upon illegal aliens to proudly and openly violate the law.

Yet, while Vargas is spreading his false #UndocumentedUnafraid provocations and teaches the President of the United States (who can yank his own deferred deportation status at any time, by the way, which the President should consider doing in Vargas' case), "undocumented immigrants", illegal aliens are actually taking cover.

Not that good at "outreach", is he?

Young people want a better life - I understand that.

They want education and advancement in life - I understand that.

But, there are a lot of people born in this country and who came to this country legally who do not get opportunities that illegal aliens with deferred deportation status get - they cannot get the "DREAMER" scholarships to go to good state schools with reduced tuition rate, they do not get to be advanced in their career by politicians who use them as a banner for self-promotion.

The deferral of deportation program for people who came into the U.S. illegally as children is not an act of Congress.

It is simply an executive order by President Obama, one that President Trump did not cancel yet.

And, while President Trump is being accused of being too tough o illegal immigration, here is an article about President Obama's stance on illegal immigration, the article was published before inauguration of President Trump and before his own executive orders on immigration:

DACA ("DREAMer" exemptions, deferred deportations for young people who came to the U.S. illegally as children) remains an executive order, and, as the court in Cesar Vargas's case mentioned, an exercise of federal prosecutorial discretion.

The deferred deportation status must be renewed every two years.

People should not really complain that their lives are "on hold", like Hina Naveed does.

They remained in the country illegally, and are given multiple gifts, some at taxpayers' expense:

  • to remain in the country;
  • to be given, at least temporarily, right to work - what many other illegal immigrants are not allowed;
  • to receive free education at public expense;
  •  to receive higher education paid by scholarships.

They should be grateful for these gifts.

If they are not, if they call upon other illegal aliens to proudly flaunt their illegal immigration status, there is one remedy for it - next time their deferred deportation status is up for renewal, simply deny it.  As a matter of prosecutorial discretion.  On a case by case basis.

We have enough problems in this country to have illegal aliens who were granted a reprieve considering that they have come to this country illegally as children stir up in all illegal aliens a sense of entitlement to remain in this country.

Such attitude encourages illegal immigration, encourages people to disrespect and disregard federal laws, and then any laws.

That is unacceptable.

And, I have the last question.

This is Erika Andiola's story about her initial education, and struggle to find work in Arizona:

So, "Arizona passed laws affecting immigrants", and, "with employers afraid to hire the undocumented, she hasn't been able to find a job" - and Andiola also had an illegal alien brother and mother.

By the way, Arizona's state laws were not only affecting Andiola's possibility to get a job - Arizona made it a misdemeanor for an alien to even BE within the state without legal immigration papers.

But, she disregarded that law and somehow engaged in "activism" risking arrest, criminal record and deportation? 

She does not have a job, but she has time, opportunity and money for transportation, food and shelter to show up at different places to protest?  Block deportation buses - thus impeding immigration law?

First in Arizona, now in New York where she obviously moved to escape Arizona state laws prohibiting to BE within the state while being an illegal immigrant?

My question is - was her participation in protests a paid job?

With Vargas not practicing law (at least, that is what his attorney registration shows), who pays for his travels and activism?

Are these all paid protesters?

Once again - who pays for one group of young illegal aliens, educated at public expense in the U.S., to stir up trouble and make all illegal aliens believe they are entitled to stay in the country where they have come across the border illegally?

President Obama introduced DACA as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, but, while deporting millions (see Hani Naveen complaining about it above), and opposing the giving of professional licenses to illegal aliens who have no federal authorization to work anywhere in the U.S. (as the Obama administration did in opposition to giving a law license to an illegal alien Sergio Garcia who illegally remained in the country for 19 years while his father's application for immigrant visa was pending), President Obama's administration did nothing to those who violated the law after being given a generous break by the federal government and allowed to stay in the country.

Moreover, President Obama's administration has repeatedly given extensions of DACA (deferred deportation) exemptions to people who broke criminal law, such as former staffers of presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, attorney Cesar Vargas who has gotten a criminal conviction and probation sentence in Iowa, and such as his girlfriend and "coalition" member Erika Andiola who has a misdemeanor conviction.

That is about to change under President Trump whose announced policy is to deport all illegal aliens who have committed crimes - and that would include attorney Cesar Vargas and his girlfriend Erika Andiola who both have criminal records.

Naturally, Cesar Vargas is not happy about that.

And, naturally, he omitted to mention his personal interest and grudge against the three presidents he has criticized yesterday, calling President Trump's deportation police of illegal aliens as "deportation force on steroids".

Watch how he switches topics - first, he acknowledges that President Trump gave a deportation priority to those illegal aliens who committed crimes - and that would include attorney Cesar Vargas himself and his girlfriend Erika Andiola.

But Cesar Vargas does not mention that sticky situation and instead goes on an attack accusing the President of, basically, lying in his policy announcement and of having instead a bad faith purpose of "deporting veterans and families of those veterans".

Do we need in this country an illegal alien who
  • came here illegally (even though as a child);
  • stayed here illegally, for years, after he became an adult;
  • obtained multiple free benefits at the expense of taxpayers (including those taxpayers who paid school taxes for his public school at the threat of losing their homes if they could not or did not pay);
  • repeatedly obtained leniency from deportation from the federal government, and yet
  • committed a crime, and
  • continues to lie and, likely, commit federal felonies of harboring or transporting an illegal alien - his mother - in order to avoid her deportation?
Or, will he now claim an attorney privilege as to his  against such reporting?

Yes, it is his mother.

It is horrible to have such a burden on your hands as to having to decide whether to keep a law license or subject your own mother who brought you into the country to deportation.

But, nobody cancelled criminal laws in this country, and Cesar Vargas is flaunting the "rule of law" into the President's face while himself committing crimes.

And, nobody made Cesar Vargas to take that oath of office to uphold all laws, state and federal, when he became an attorney. 

He fought for that right in court, together with his illegal alien mother.  He won.  He knew the consequences.

Those lawyers who commit felonies should be automatically disbarred.

And those who commit crimes while being illegal aliens should also be deported.

Without exception for political connections.