What is in common between lawyers not reporting judicial misconduct and social workers improperly taking away children?

I have written a lot on this blog about the one-sided enforcement of contradictory disciplinary rules against lawyers, where, at the same time, lawyers are:

• required to report judicial misconduct, but
• prohibited to "impugn" (make "false" statements) about integrity and competence of judges (and all statements of lawyers about competence and integrity of judges are considered false by disciplinary panels where the absolute majority of members depend on the same judiciary for success of their businesses and their well-being, even with evidence proving that the statements are true, not to mention that such rules against criticism of judges is unconstitutional).

So, when lawyers are required, at the same time, to do diametrically opposite things, and when lawyers know that they will not be disciplined for NOT reporting judicial misconduct, but that they will lose their licenses and livelihood (for a lifetime) for reporting it, as happened in numerous cases, and continues to happen across the country, lawyers, naturally, keep silent about judicial misconduct - and that silence misinforms the public, the voters, members of the popular sovereign

("The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. - Scott v Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856))

about the actual state of affairs in the judicial system.

That silence in the face of apparent judicial misconduct is also, more than anything else, undermines public trust in the integrity of both the judiciary that persecutes its own critics, and in the integrity of lawyers who would rather sell out their clients and fail to fulfil their contractual and constitutional duty to secure their clients' true access to court and their right to impartial judicial review than risk losing their own livelihoods.

In Pennsylvania, for example, lack of such reporting of judicial corruption in the court system of Luzerne County resulted in the "Kids for Cash" scandal where children suffered, the feds had to ultimately step in and have two judges criminally charged, convicted and incarcerated - but lawyers still kept silent, because Pennsylvania judiciary still continued to punish lawyers for criticism of judges.

After the Kids for Cash scandal, Pennsylvania did not revamp their attitude about holding judges accountable for their misconduct, and intimidation of witnesses of judicial misconduct, attorneys, continued - several lawyers were sanctioned for criticism or investigation of judicial corruption:

• Pennsylvania AG Kathleen Kane (suspended, criminally charged, convicted through a fabricated trial violating all possible rules, and disbarred);
• attorney Andrew Ostrowski - for criticizing judges, running a radio show "Justice Served with Andy Ostrowski" where attorneys disciplined for criticism of judges came and explained to the public what is happening, and for running for Congress on the platform of judicial reform;
• most recently, end of last month - attorney Joseph R. Reisinger was disbarred for criticizing in pleadings and lawsuits, and filing criminal complaints with state and federal prosecutors against judicial corruption in the same Luzerne County from where two judges were already taken by the feds in shackles, for judicial corruption.

A comparable double standard was revealed recently in another area of grave public concern: unnecessary taking children away by social services.

While it is obvious that taking a child away brings trauma both to the child, and to the family, and constitutes a waste of public resources, the reasons why social services try to err on the side of taking the child are usually not revealed, and social services are claiming that all takings of the children are appropriate.

Of course, social services are not revealing monetary interests (eligibility for federal funding for foster care and adoption out of foster care) that drives removal of children.

In June of 2016, in the same blessed state of Pennsylvania, in the City of Philadelphia, where public hearings were held as to why children were taken away from parents at inordinately high rates, at least some of the truth started to seep out when Vanessa Fields, vice president of District Council 47 of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees said the following:

So, lawyers, in order not to be disciplined, do not report judicial misconduct and corruption, letting judges do whatever they want until, in some (but far from all) cases the feds step in and criminally charge judges in most egregious (or most publicized) cases of corruption.

Of course, unspeakable damage is done to individual people and the public by that time.

Similarly, social services, fearing discipline for NOT taking the child away "if anything goes wrong", but not fearing discipline for taking the child away unlawfully, disrupting the family and traumatizing the child and the parents (and violating constitutional rights of both), do the "default thing", and the "default thing" is - according to the confession of the vice-president of labor union of social workers, to take the child away, so the social worker's back is covered.

And, similarly, unspeakable damage is done to individual people and the public because of this fear of discipline for one thing, but not another.

So, attorneys and social workers, fearing professional discipline through regulation that is supposed to protect the public, are jeopardizing the public.

Unfortunately, both tendencies will continue for a long time until:

1. regulation of lawyers by the government (and especially by the judiciary that invents rules to protect itself from criticism of lawyers, most knowledgeable and credible witnesses of their misconduct) is either discontinued altogether, or relegated to a public body that has no connections whatsoever to the legal system; and until
2. all financial incentives to take children away are removed from social services, and courts are prohibited to grant social services "immunity" for taking away children when it was done unlawfully - which is what protects them from discipline for such takings at this time.