A New York town justice Paul Lamson was sentenced to jail after accepting sexual favors from reportedly TEN female litigants in exchange for favorable rulings.
TEN.
How could that possible happen?
Why wasn't the guy caught after the first such ruling? Were people who knew afraid to report it? Were people afraid to investigate or prosecute the judge until the number of victims grew so much that they could not longer ignore it?
And this is the second judge from the same locality who was convicted for the same crime?
The interesting part of it is not even that the judges were charged and convicted - that's a rarity in New York.
The interesting part is that both judges are "town justices" and not attorneys - so their conviction will not result in an automatic disbarment for either one of them.
Yet, no judge in New York for many years was convicted of a felony, saving them from disbarments, and even the judge who was convicted (in a federal court sitting in New Jersey), Sol Wachtler, was given his attorney license back.
I will not believe for one second that judges above the level of town justices do not commit crimes.
Yet, judges above the level of town justices, judges who are attorneys, are regulators of the NYS AG's and county prosecutors' own law licenses.
And, for that reason, their criminal prosecution, no matter how bad their crimes, will not result in a felony conviction and disbarment.
No matter how the NYS AG pounds his chest in claiming that he is the defender of human rights.
He is a coward.
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
On Masterpiece Cakeshop, discretionary enforcement of the U.S. Constitution and the right of every individual to have their constitutional rights enforced
I wrote today about two U.S. Supreme Court cases, which the court chose out of 8,000 petitions, 99% of which the court tosses (it decides about 70 cases out of over 8,000 filed each year).
One of the cases chosen by the U.S. Supreme Court was decided in favor of debt collectors.
There, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it has no power to amend an Act of Congress.
The other case was against the Trump administration where the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review jurisdictional threshold issues and instead amended (without authority) another Act of Congress, after its justices received multiple benefits over the years from one of Trump's opponents, the State of Hawaii University School of Law, and after Justice Ginsburg has actually made a trip while one of the related cases was being decided by the lower appellate courts and had "meetings with faculty" of that state law school (part of the party in litigation in front of her), while the "faculty" included 3 law clerks of the judge of the federal appellate court deciding the case.
The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled in June on LGBT rights of same-sex couples, continuing the line of cases started by its decision in 2015 in Obergefell v Hodges, just one precedent so far on the issue of gay rights.
The issue in Pavan v Smith decided on June 26, 2017 was that a male spouse is considered by default a parent and is included on the child's birth certificate, whether the child is or is not the male spouse's biological child, but a female same-sex spouse is not so included on the birth certificate of the child by default.
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has announced that, out of the 8,000 petitions filed, it has chosen yet another gay-rights case, verifying whether a cake-shop owner had a right to refuse to decorate a cake for a same-sex wedding.
Yet, the same U.S. Supreme Court, while paying lip service to prohibiting the government to regulate speech based on its content, stubbornly refuses to take up any whistleblower cases against the government - and thus refuses to uphold a long string of its own precedents.
There are PLENTY of U.S. Supreme Court precedents indicating that the government cannot regulate speech based on its content - yet, this year, the U.S. Supreme Court chose to apply this principle not to whistleblower/retaliation cases, but to cases of credit card companies charging extra fees, and, lately, the right to trademark derogatory names.
It comes to the point that many people in the whistleblower community who have suffered retaliation from the government for criticism of misconduct of government officials expressed (even though discreetly) in their communications that, unless you are gay or transgender, nowadays it is impossible to get a review from the U.S. Supreme Court.
And such a resentment is understandable.
Nobody - nobody - should be given a free right to choose whose constitutional rights are to be enforced, and whose to be ignored.
Yet, that is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court is doing, based on the 1925 Judiciary Act.
Choosing cases favoring debt collectors, credit card companies, "Wonder Doodles", birth certificates for gay rights, have much less impact on society than establishing, once and for all, access to justice for all by prohibiting the government to yank occupational licenses of attorneys who criticize judges IN MOTIONS TO RECUSE - yet, that is happening left and right, such attorneys are left without jobs, without money, without opportunities of employment, while the public is left without independent representation, because attorneys that remain license are intimidated that the same will happen to them if they do their job properly.
And, of course, ruling in favor of attorneys - or other whistleblowers against the government - will require honest, integrity, courage, and neutrality, while the U.S. Supreme Court, very apparently, lacks all of the above.
People, including same sex couples, will continue to get into situations where judicial bias and corruption will require to file a motion to recuse.
Yet, people will continue to run into reluctance of attorneys to do that because judges are both regulators of their livelihoods and decision-makers in court cases, which creates an untenable situation where attorneys cannot dare do their jobs and ensure for their clients their constitutional right to impartial judicial review, for fear of losing their own livelihoods.
That is a countrywide human rights problem, which the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to address.
Instead, it addresses issues whether it is constitutional when an artist is being punished for refusing to create a piece of art on a certain topic - a clear case of politically-correct compulsion of artistic expression.
It may be a violation of the artists' 1st Amendment rights. And, it is an obviously frivolous lawsuit.
An artist may refuse to create a work of art for you for any reason, including lack of inspiration, which cannot be commanded.
Think about it. Will you sue an artist for lack of inspiration regarding you?
With the current amount of political unrest in our society, it will be for everyone's benefit to abolish the 1925 Judiciary Act and make ALL petitions for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court mandatory, so that people would not feel resentment that a gay couple - yet again - is given review while a whistleblower against the government - yet again - is denied review of glaring violations of constitutional rights.
Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court, whose judges are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, should not be given a free reign as to which constitutional violation to address and which to ignore.
Not to mention that if the Court wants any kind of respect for upholding its own precedents, it should actually do that in all cases.
Not only for those who can afford to pay (taxpayer money) for the judges' vacations, for those represented by the judges' former law clerks, or for those whose cases will get the most publicity for the judges, and thus more opportunities for judges' paid speeches and readership for their books.
Let us make the U.S. Supreme Court actually work.
One of the cases chosen by the U.S. Supreme Court was decided in favor of debt collectors.
There, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it has no power to amend an Act of Congress.
The other case was against the Trump administration where the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review jurisdictional threshold issues and instead amended (without authority) another Act of Congress, after its justices received multiple benefits over the years from one of Trump's opponents, the State of Hawaii University School of Law, and after Justice Ginsburg has actually made a trip while one of the related cases was being decided by the lower appellate courts and had "meetings with faculty" of that state law school (part of the party in litigation in front of her), while the "faculty" included 3 law clerks of the judge of the federal appellate court deciding the case.
The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled in June on LGBT rights of same-sex couples, continuing the line of cases started by its decision in 2015 in Obergefell v Hodges, just one precedent so far on the issue of gay rights.
The issue in Pavan v Smith decided on June 26, 2017 was that a male spouse is considered by default a parent and is included on the child's birth certificate, whether the child is or is not the male spouse's biological child, but a female same-sex spouse is not so included on the birth certificate of the child by default.
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has announced that, out of the 8,000 petitions filed, it has chosen yet another gay-rights case, verifying whether a cake-shop owner had a right to refuse to decorate a cake for a same-sex wedding.
Yet, the same U.S. Supreme Court, while paying lip service to prohibiting the government to regulate speech based on its content, stubbornly refuses to take up any whistleblower cases against the government - and thus refuses to uphold a long string of its own precedents.
There are PLENTY of U.S. Supreme Court precedents indicating that the government cannot regulate speech based on its content - yet, this year, the U.S. Supreme Court chose to apply this principle not to whistleblower/retaliation cases, but to cases of credit card companies charging extra fees, and, lately, the right to trademark derogatory names.
It comes to the point that many people in the whistleblower community who have suffered retaliation from the government for criticism of misconduct of government officials expressed (even though discreetly) in their communications that, unless you are gay or transgender, nowadays it is impossible to get a review from the U.S. Supreme Court.
And such a resentment is understandable.
Nobody - nobody - should be given a free right to choose whose constitutional rights are to be enforced, and whose to be ignored.
Yet, that is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court is doing, based on the 1925 Judiciary Act.
Choosing cases favoring debt collectors, credit card companies, "Wonder Doodles", birth certificates for gay rights, have much less impact on society than establishing, once and for all, access to justice for all by prohibiting the government to yank occupational licenses of attorneys who criticize judges IN MOTIONS TO RECUSE - yet, that is happening left and right, such attorneys are left without jobs, without money, without opportunities of employment, while the public is left without independent representation, because attorneys that remain license are intimidated that the same will happen to them if they do their job properly.
And, of course, ruling in favor of attorneys - or other whistleblowers against the government - will require honest, integrity, courage, and neutrality, while the U.S. Supreme Court, very apparently, lacks all of the above.
People, including same sex couples, will continue to get into situations where judicial bias and corruption will require to file a motion to recuse.
Yet, people will continue to run into reluctance of attorneys to do that because judges are both regulators of their livelihoods and decision-makers in court cases, which creates an untenable situation where attorneys cannot dare do their jobs and ensure for their clients their constitutional right to impartial judicial review, for fear of losing their own livelihoods.
That is a countrywide human rights problem, which the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to address.
Instead, it addresses issues whether it is constitutional when an artist is being punished for refusing to create a piece of art on a certain topic - a clear case of politically-correct compulsion of artistic expression.
It may be a violation of the artists' 1st Amendment rights. And, it is an obviously frivolous lawsuit.
An artist may refuse to create a work of art for you for any reason, including lack of inspiration, which cannot be commanded.
Think about it. Will you sue an artist for lack of inspiration regarding you?
With the current amount of political unrest in our society, it will be for everyone's benefit to abolish the 1925 Judiciary Act and make ALL petitions for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court mandatory, so that people would not feel resentment that a gay couple - yet again - is given review while a whistleblower against the government - yet again - is denied review of glaring violations of constitutional rights.
Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court, whose judges are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, should not be given a free reign as to which constitutional violation to address and which to ignore.
Not to mention that if the Court wants any kind of respect for upholding its own precedents, it should actually do that in all cases.
Not only for those who can afford to pay (taxpayer money) for the judges' vacations, for those represented by the judges' former law clerks, or for those whose cases will get the most publicity for the judges, and thus more opportunities for judges' paid speeches and readership for their books.
Let us make the U.S. Supreme Court actually work.
New York partially upholds its right to underfund public schools - while suing the federal government to fund those same public schools. 10th Amendment, full speed
After Donald Trump became President of the U.S., the so-called "resistance" swamped federal courts with various lawsuits against him - not because the President was doing something wrong (the "wrongs" alleged were the same "wrongs" that the Obama administration was doing all along), but because the backers of the "resistance" did not get to the trough - oops, the wheel.
One of the type of lawsuits currently litigated across the country against Donald Trump, is for denying discretionary federal funds to states, including for public education that must be financed by states, not by the federal government.
Amazingly, these frivolous lawsuits are asserted under the 10th Amendment - which actually gives the state the right to act on their own in deciding issues of care and safety of their residents, and with the right comes an obligation to financially provide for such care.
But, anyway, the states are suing the feds under the 10th Amendment claiming that denial of discretionary federal funds will cripple state efforts to fund public education.
Great.
The interesting wrinkle on this argument in New York though is that recently some parents in New York City sued New York State, under the State Constitution, for failing to properly fund public schools.
The case reached all the way to the top court of the state, the New York Court of Appeals, which heard it and, while having dismissed two causes of action, remanded (allowed to proceed) a cause of action challenging "the adequacy of defendant State's education funding accountability mechanisms”.
That's the "education funding accountability mechanisms" of the same State that claims, like a leech, an entitlement to get federal funds to put into the same hole.
Will New York now lose its federal lawsuit regarding its alleged "entitlement" to put more federal money down that same hole without trying to device "education funding accountability mechanisms"?
One of the type of lawsuits currently litigated across the country against Donald Trump, is for denying discretionary federal funds to states, including for public education that must be financed by states, not by the federal government.
Amazingly, these frivolous lawsuits are asserted under the 10th Amendment - which actually gives the state the right to act on their own in deciding issues of care and safety of their residents, and with the right comes an obligation to financially provide for such care.
But, anyway, the states are suing the feds under the 10th Amendment claiming that denial of discretionary federal funds will cripple state efforts to fund public education.
Great.
The interesting wrinkle on this argument in New York though is that recently some parents in New York City sued New York State, under the State Constitution, for failing to properly fund public schools.
The case reached all the way to the top court of the state, the New York Court of Appeals, which heard it and, while having dismissed two causes of action, remanded (allowed to proceed) a cause of action challenging "the adequacy of defendant State's education funding accountability mechanisms”.
That's the "education funding accountability mechanisms" of the same State that claims, like a leech, an entitlement to get federal funds to put into the same hole.
Will New York now lose its federal lawsuit regarding its alleged "entitlement" to put more federal money down that same hole without trying to device "education funding accountability mechanisms"?
Oneida County Judge Louis Gigliotti denied a civilly committed individual a right to pro se representation and to a change of counsel
An attorney is supposedly in a "fiduciary" relationship (relationship of trust) with a client.
And, if a client wants to get rid of an attorney because the attorney does not respond to his phone calls and letters, in other words, the client no longer trusts his own attorney to represent his interests in court, the client has an absolute right to get rid of that attorney.
And, in any case, a client must have an absolute right to self-representation.
Right?
Wrong.
Not in the blessed State of New York.
There, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office, while "not opposing" a motion of a civilly committed man to either change his assigned counsel because he did not file a petition on his behalf and did not respond to his letters and phone calls, still asked the court to "search the record and case law" in order to respond to the man's request.
And boy did the judge do that.
After doing that, the judge came up with these two "rules":
And, if a client wants to get rid of an attorney because the attorney does not respond to his phone calls and letters, in other words, the client no longer trusts his own attorney to represent his interests in court, the client has an absolute right to get rid of that attorney.
And, in any case, a client must have an absolute right to self-representation.
Right?
Wrong.
Not in the blessed State of New York.
There, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office, while "not opposing" a motion of a civilly committed man to either change his assigned counsel because he did not file a petition on his behalf and did not respond to his letters and phone calls, still asked the court to "search the record and case law" in order to respond to the man's request.
And boy did the judge do that.
After doing that, the judge came up with these two "rules":
- the man did not show "good cause" to fire his own counsel whom he no longer trusted;
- the man, being a civilly committed individual, was not entitled to represent himself.
So, the government at the same time:
- ordered a man civilly committed (locked up without a criminal sentence);
- assigns to that obviously indigent man an attorney that the man claims does not do his job - by the interesting name of Coffin, no offense;
- and now denies the man the right to replace or straight-out get rid of government-assigned representation and to represent himself.
Convenient case law.
Good job, the supporter of civil rights (who represents the government in fighting civil rights lawsuits in court) NYS AG Schneiderman.
Good job, New York.
Good job, Judge Gigliotti of Oneida County.
The heavenly state of Hawaii bribed the shameless Ginsburg, and other judges of the U.S. Supreme Court to change the Immigration and Nationality Act - a call for reform of the U.S. Supreme Court and impeachment of its judges
Back in February, 2017, I wrote about the interesting trip of SCOTUS judge Ruth Ginsburg to the State University of Hawaii - complete with speeches, dances, dining on the ocean, and even a mural painted by the time of her arrival by the university's art students on a fence concealing the blight of construction on campus, not to offend Ginsburg's tender sensibilities.
I wrote that Ginsburg's trip was during her work time in her busy court, was at the expense of the State of Hawaii School of Law, was one of Ginsubrg's and other SCOTUS judges (and their families') routine vacation all-expenses-paid trips to this resort destination over the years, that the State University School of Law of Hawaii employed as professors THREE law clerks of a federal appellate judge who was deciding a request of the Trump administration to stay an injunction imposed upon the President's immigration executive order.
It is no secret that Ginsburg made public statements indicating her dislike of President Trump, to the point of promising at one point that she will emigrate if he is elected.
He was elected.
Instead of emigrating to New Zealand, as she promised, Ginsburg is skipping work to fly to vacation spots, all expenses paid by the President's opponents in litigation, in order to fix court cases for them.
In February, 2017, Ginsburg flew to Hawaii to have "meetings with faculty" of its school of law employing 3 law clerks of a judge of a federal appellate court (located within 7 minutes drive from the law school) who was deciding the motion of the Trump administration to stay the injunction on the Executive Order's temporary restriction on immigration right at that time.
That is called corruption, ladies and gentlemen, pure and simple.
And, such corruption calls for impeachment of Justice Ginsburg.
But - how can anybody touch a U.S. Supreme Court justice?
By the way - the University of Hawaii School of Law stalled my Freedom of Information request for records of who paid expenses of Ginsburg, her husband (before his death) and for other judges and members of their families on their trips to the school over the years, by claiming that it is too difficult to provide the records for me unless I pay over $10,000 for their excruciating search work.
Voila - now, Ginsburg and other SCOTUS judges who accept speaking, teaching and other engagements from state universities all over the country, and specifically from the State University School of Law of Hawaii - rule in favor of the State of Hawaii, upholding the illegal injunction on the President's immigration executive order.
No recusal because of her multiple statements spewing hatred against President Trump, before and dafter his elections.
No recusal because of her interesting, Hawaii State-paid trip to the State University of Hawaii School of Law, to meet in private with the "faculty" that included 3 law clerks of a judge who was deciding a case in favor of state universities benefiting from higher tuition from enrolled foreign students.
Instead, a ruling hailed as positive by the press, which was obviously corrupt and bought by YEARS of free wining-and-dining all expenses paid trips to the resorts of Hawaii, by nearly ALL judges of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Now, the unanimous ruling of the corrupt court did throw a bone to the president, by allowing him to do his job under the Immigration and Nationality Act in all cases where people whose travel to the U.S. the President restricts do not have a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity with the United States". And continued the injunction in favor of those individuals where there is such a "bona fide relationship".
Consider this - the case that the U.S. Supreme Court chose "in its discretion" to hear has as a party - coincidentally, of course - the State of Hawaii that has been paying, out of taxpayer pockets, for all-expenses-paid trips to Hawaii and vacationing on the ocean in grand style of all U.S. Supreme Court justices, for decades.
And, consider this - that this same court, as of June 12, 2017, has ruled unanimously that it has no authority to amend an Act of Congress - remember the "revolutionary" decision of Judge Gorsuch in favor of debt collectors?
Now, follow their hands in how they actually DO amend the Act of Congress in favor of those who pay them "in kind" bribes - as well as direct monetary bribes, such as universities across the country regularly paying US Supreme Court justices money for additional "teaching" or "speaking" jobs.
First, the elephant in the room was STANDING - a jurisdictional issue.
Standing of foreigners outside of the United States to contest not being allowed into the United States.
The Immigration and Nationality Act allows the President an unlimited discretion to exclude people from the U.S. borders based on assessment of their security risk, including a country security risk - same as the U.S. Supreme Court, through an Act of Congress, obtained for itself in 1925 an unlimited discretion to hear or not to hear appeals (in order not to address its entire caseload, but only to use their job to help friends, in exchange for benefits).
According to multiple rulings of the same U.S. Supreme Court, there is no standing of non-citizens located outside of the U.S. to contest a denial of entry into the U.S.
The Immigration and Nationality Act has no exemption for people who have "a bona fide relationship with a person or entity within the U.S."
And, the rule of no standing to foreigners outside of the U.S. cannot be miraculously changed by giving standing to the same people on the basis of their connection to people within the U.S., or by giving standing to people within the U.S. to contest restrictions on entry of foreigners outside of the U.S.
Not that the SCOTUS judges, obviously aspiring for new expenses-paid trips to Hawaii and other places, care about the law.
They had a job to do, the job they were bribed - oops, paid - oops, you understand - to do.
So, they created this interesting rule about the injunction applying not only to petitioners (who themselves had no standing, because they were not foreigners outside of the U.S. seeking entry), but also to all "similarly situated individuals" - even though cases in question were not certified as a class action.
But, again, who cares about the rule of law when you have a job to do to secure future all expenses paid trips, speeches, engagements, free book advertisements, additional teaching jobs, etc.?
You know how the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the threshold, central, focal, fundamental, jurisdictional issue of standing?
Guess.
It didn't address the issue at all, it ignored the issue.
I encourage my readers to word-search the text of the U.S. Supreme Court for the word "standing".
I did.
The word "standing" is used there twice, in both cases when the U.S. Supreme Court mentions that the government raised the issue of standing.
Once the word standing is used here:
And once here:
That's it.
The court does not even attempt to discuss or resolve that threshold issue - like it does not exist.
Because, had it addressed the issue of standing, it would have had to dismiss the case, with sanctions against attorneys who brought it, for frivolous conduct.
The Immigration and Nationality Act gives no standing to states to contest denial of entry to foreign nationals - whether they are state universities' prospective students, employees or relatives of state residents.
Neither does the Immigration and Nationality Act give such standing to individuals within the country to contest denial of visas to competent foreign relatives outside the country.
As an example, try doing something on behalf of your relative in court - on behalf of a mother-in-law (as the U.S. Supreme Court allowed to Dr. Elshikh):
There is no such thing in the U.S. jurisprudence as a standing to sue on behalf of an in-law - when the in-law in question does not a standing of her own.
In fact, representation of a relative in court without a power of attorney (and there is no indication that Dr Elshikh sued on behalf of his mother in law on any kind of a power of attorney, not to mention that suing on the basis of a POA can be done only when the person on whose behalf you are suing has her own standing to sue) is considered a crime of unlawful practice of law. PRACTICING LAW.
So, did Dr Elshikh and "similarly situated individuals" engage, under the current laws of all jurisdictions in the U.S., in the crime of unauthorized practice of law when they sue on behalf of their relatives?
Apparently, yes.
And, apparently, the U.S. Supreme Court, the top regulator of the practice of law in the country, does not care.
Because, when your palm is well greased and you have an unlimited power, you will invent the law that the greasers needed. Right?
And that's what was done.
Now Dr Elshikh and "similarly situated individuals" now, according to the ruling of the corrupt U.S. Supreme Court, in exchange for all-expenses-paid trips to the Hawaii Oceanside by justices and their families, now has a right to sue on behalf of their relatives, no matter how such a "right" violates the existing law.
So, the court gave third parties without standing to sue on behalf of foreigners outside of the U.S., who also do not have standing, the right to contest authority of the President of the U.S. clearly delineated by an Act of Congress, in order to secure its own freebies from state universities and colleges.
And that was done without ANY discussion and without ANY resolution of the issue of standing.
So, standing was invented where no standing existed, without discussion of standing.
And, an exemption as to "bona fide relationship with an individual or entity within the U.S." - an extremely vague and overbroad concept - was created by the court as an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act exactly 2 weeks after the court, in a previous case, acknowledged that it has no authority to amend an act of Congress (and that is true, according to the Article I and III of the U.S. Constitution that EVERY SINGLE U.S. Supreme Court "justice" is sworn to uphold).
A unanimous decision that the press is drooling over.
It is apparent that the U.S. Supreme Court, the way it exists today, in its "discretionary" capacity, is a corrupt and useless/harmful organization that needs to be dissolved and re-instituted with a mandatory caseload, enough judges to handle it, and strict prohibitions on corrupting such judges into making decisions that make no sense - but favor those who greased the judges' palms.
I wrote that Ginsburg's trip was during her work time in her busy court, was at the expense of the State of Hawaii School of Law, was one of Ginsubrg's and other SCOTUS judges (and their families') routine vacation all-expenses-paid trips to this resort destination over the years, that the State University School of Law of Hawaii employed as professors THREE law clerks of a federal appellate judge who was deciding a request of the Trump administration to stay an injunction imposed upon the President's immigration executive order.
It is no secret that Ginsburg made public statements indicating her dislike of President Trump, to the point of promising at one point that she will emigrate if he is elected.
He was elected.
Instead of emigrating to New Zealand, as she promised, Ginsburg is skipping work to fly to vacation spots, all expenses paid by the President's opponents in litigation, in order to fix court cases for them.
In February, 2017, Ginsburg flew to Hawaii to have "meetings with faculty" of its school of law employing 3 law clerks of a judge of a federal appellate court (located within 7 minutes drive from the law school) who was deciding the motion of the Trump administration to stay the injunction on the Executive Order's temporary restriction on immigration right at that time.
That is called corruption, ladies and gentlemen, pure and simple.
And, such corruption calls for impeachment of Justice Ginsburg.
But - how can anybody touch a U.S. Supreme Court justice?
By the way - the University of Hawaii School of Law stalled my Freedom of Information request for records of who paid expenses of Ginsburg, her husband (before his death) and for other judges and members of their families on their trips to the school over the years, by claiming that it is too difficult to provide the records for me unless I pay over $10,000 for their excruciating search work.
Voila - now, Ginsburg and other SCOTUS judges who accept speaking, teaching and other engagements from state universities all over the country, and specifically from the State University School of Law of Hawaii - rule in favor of the State of Hawaii, upholding the illegal injunction on the President's immigration executive order.
No recusal because of her multiple statements spewing hatred against President Trump, before and dafter his elections.
No recusal because of her interesting, Hawaii State-paid trip to the State University of Hawaii School of Law, to meet in private with the "faculty" that included 3 law clerks of a judge who was deciding a case in favor of state universities benefiting from higher tuition from enrolled foreign students.
Instead, a ruling hailed as positive by the press, which was obviously corrupt and bought by YEARS of free wining-and-dining all expenses paid trips to the resorts of Hawaii, by nearly ALL judges of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Now, the unanimous ruling of the corrupt court did throw a bone to the president, by allowing him to do his job under the Immigration and Nationality Act in all cases where people whose travel to the U.S. the President restricts do not have a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity with the United States". And continued the injunction in favor of those individuals where there is such a "bona fide relationship".
Consider this - the case that the U.S. Supreme Court chose "in its discretion" to hear has as a party - coincidentally, of course - the State of Hawaii that has been paying, out of taxpayer pockets, for all-expenses-paid trips to Hawaii and vacationing on the ocean in grand style of all U.S. Supreme Court justices, for decades.
And, consider this - that this same court, as of June 12, 2017, has ruled unanimously that it has no authority to amend an Act of Congress - remember the "revolutionary" decision of Judge Gorsuch in favor of debt collectors?
Now, follow their hands in how they actually DO amend the Act of Congress in favor of those who pay them "in kind" bribes - as well as direct monetary bribes, such as universities across the country regularly paying US Supreme Court justices money for additional "teaching" or "speaking" jobs.
First, the elephant in the room was STANDING - a jurisdictional issue.
Standing of foreigners outside of the United States to contest not being allowed into the United States.
The Immigration and Nationality Act allows the President an unlimited discretion to exclude people from the U.S. borders based on assessment of their security risk, including a country security risk - same as the U.S. Supreme Court, through an Act of Congress, obtained for itself in 1925 an unlimited discretion to hear or not to hear appeals (in order not to address its entire caseload, but only to use their job to help friends, in exchange for benefits).
According to multiple rulings of the same U.S. Supreme Court, there is no standing of non-citizens located outside of the U.S. to contest a denial of entry into the U.S.
The Immigration and Nationality Act has no exemption for people who have "a bona fide relationship with a person or entity within the U.S."
And, the rule of no standing to foreigners outside of the U.S. cannot be miraculously changed by giving standing to the same people on the basis of their connection to people within the U.S., or by giving standing to people within the U.S. to contest restrictions on entry of foreigners outside of the U.S.
Not that the SCOTUS judges, obviously aspiring for new expenses-paid trips to Hawaii and other places, care about the law.
They had a job to do, the job they were bribed - oops, paid - oops, you understand - to do.
So, they created this interesting rule about the injunction applying not only to petitioners (who themselves had no standing, because they were not foreigners outside of the U.S. seeking entry), but also to all "similarly situated individuals" - even though cases in question were not certified as a class action.
But, again, who cares about the rule of law when you have a job to do to secure future all expenses paid trips, speeches, engagements, free book advertisements, additional teaching jobs, etc.?
You know how the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the threshold, central, focal, fundamental, jurisdictional issue of standing?
Guess.
It didn't address the issue at all, it ignored the issue.
I encourage my readers to word-search the text of the U.S. Supreme Court for the word "standing".
I did.
The word "standing" is used there twice, in both cases when the U.S. Supreme Court mentions that the government raised the issue of standing.
Once the word standing is used here:
And once here:
That's it.
The court does not even attempt to discuss or resolve that threshold issue - like it does not exist.
Because, had it addressed the issue of standing, it would have had to dismiss the case, with sanctions against attorneys who brought it, for frivolous conduct.
The Immigration and Nationality Act gives no standing to states to contest denial of entry to foreign nationals - whether they are state universities' prospective students, employees or relatives of state residents.
Neither does the Immigration and Nationality Act give such standing to individuals within the country to contest denial of visas to competent foreign relatives outside the country.
As an example, try doing something on behalf of your relative in court - on behalf of a mother-in-law (as the U.S. Supreme Court allowed to Dr. Elshikh):
There is no such thing in the U.S. jurisprudence as a standing to sue on behalf of an in-law - when the in-law in question does not a standing of her own.
In fact, representation of a relative in court without a power of attorney (and there is no indication that Dr Elshikh sued on behalf of his mother in law on any kind of a power of attorney, not to mention that suing on the basis of a POA can be done only when the person on whose behalf you are suing has her own standing to sue) is considered a crime of unlawful practice of law. PRACTICING LAW.
So, did Dr Elshikh and "similarly situated individuals" engage, under the current laws of all jurisdictions in the U.S., in the crime of unauthorized practice of law when they sue on behalf of their relatives?
Apparently, yes.
And, apparently, the U.S. Supreme Court, the top regulator of the practice of law in the country, does not care.
Because, when your palm is well greased and you have an unlimited power, you will invent the law that the greasers needed. Right?
And that's what was done.
Now Dr Elshikh and "similarly situated individuals" now, according to the ruling of the corrupt U.S. Supreme Court, in exchange for all-expenses-paid trips to the Hawaii Oceanside by justices and their families, now has a right to sue on behalf of their relatives, no matter how such a "right" violates the existing law.
So, the court gave third parties without standing to sue on behalf of foreigners outside of the U.S., who also do not have standing, the right to contest authority of the President of the U.S. clearly delineated by an Act of Congress, in order to secure its own freebies from state universities and colleges.
And that was done without ANY discussion and without ANY resolution of the issue of standing.
So, standing was invented where no standing existed, without discussion of standing.
And, an exemption as to "bona fide relationship with an individual or entity within the U.S." - an extremely vague and overbroad concept - was created by the court as an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act exactly 2 weeks after the court, in a previous case, acknowledged that it has no authority to amend an act of Congress (and that is true, according to the Article I and III of the U.S. Constitution that EVERY SINGLE U.S. Supreme Court "justice" is sworn to uphold).
A unanimous decision that the press is drooling over.
It is apparent that the U.S. Supreme Court, the way it exists today, in its "discretionary" capacity, is a corrupt and useless/harmful organization that needs to be dissolved and re-instituted with a mandatory caseload, enough judges to handle it, and strict prohibitions on corrupting such judges into making decisions that make no sense - but favor those who greased the judges' palms.
The discretionary US Supreme Court - via Gorsuch - announced that its job (as the US Constitution, Article III requires) is not to change statutory law, but only to apply it. What a fresh idea!
The new SCOTUS judge Neil Gorsuch is lauded by the press for authoring the unanimous opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court claiming, among other things, that it is not the job of that court to change statutory law, but only to apply it.
While that is exactly what the U.S. Constitution, Article III and Article I say - Article I giving exclusive authority to legislate (create and amend federal laws) only to the U.S. Congress, Article III not giving similar authority to federal courts, including to the U.S. Supreme Court - the U.S. Supreme Court justices usually never follow what they were sworn and are paid to do.
First, the choice of cases.
You may not be aware that the "discretionary right" of the U.S. Supreme Court to take only cases they deem "worthy" for their pre-eminent review did not always exist.
It was given to the U.S. Supreme Court by the U.S. Congress only in 1925, on the request of the U.S. Supreme Court complaining that they have too many cases to review - too hard a job to do.
Instead of expanding the court to be able to handle all cases that come their way, or impeach justices who, in response to a growing caseload, asked to allow them NOT to give people an opportunity to be heard, the U.S. Congress condoned the justices claim for their right to be lazy and gave them the right for "discretionary" picking and choosing which cases they want or not want to hear on a final appeal.
And do they pick since then.
Imagine a completely discretionary job.
On the one hand, all SCOTUS judges are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution - which, by the way, does not include in it Supremacy Clause precedents of that same SCOTUS.
On the other hand, by the Supreme Court Act of 1925, SCOTUS judges are at liberty not to do their job - not to take any required number of cases per year.
The 9 of them occupy a huge marble palace, are paid royal upkeep and are given a royal crowd of servants, but are not required to do a damned thing. Literally.
All of their job is discretionary.
They can pick to hear one case per year if they want to - or not to find any one case worthy of their review in any given year at all.
They routinely toss meritorious cases, citing multiple violations of the U.S. Constitution by civil rights plaintiffs, and especially by pro se plaintiffs.
Yet, they routinely take cases of corporations - and I wonder how many of those fund their wining and dining, their and their families' trips, "scholarships", speaking engagements and careers.
So, let's look at the very "principled" decision of Justice Gorsuch.
The case the "discretionary court" has picked is of an auto debt collector.
You must agree that the non-payment of loans to people who lend money for consumers to buy cars is the most important constitutional problem in this country to tackle.
So, out of 8000 of petitions, most of which (99%) are not given any review, this one was picked, reviewed and decided, in favor of the debt collectors.
And in this case, Justice Gorsuch, getting in the high horse of the "rule of law", has stated that, once again,
While that is exactly what the U.S. Constitution, Article III and Article I say - Article I giving exclusive authority to legislate (create and amend federal laws) only to the U.S. Congress, Article III not giving similar authority to federal courts, including to the U.S. Supreme Court - the U.S. Supreme Court justices usually never follow what they were sworn and are paid to do.
First, the choice of cases.
You may not be aware that the "discretionary right" of the U.S. Supreme Court to take only cases they deem "worthy" for their pre-eminent review did not always exist.
It was given to the U.S. Supreme Court by the U.S. Congress only in 1925, on the request of the U.S. Supreme Court complaining that they have too many cases to review - too hard a job to do.
Instead of expanding the court to be able to handle all cases that come their way, or impeach justices who, in response to a growing caseload, asked to allow them NOT to give people an opportunity to be heard, the U.S. Congress condoned the justices claim for their right to be lazy and gave them the right for "discretionary" picking and choosing which cases they want or not want to hear on a final appeal.
And do they pick since then.
Imagine a completely discretionary job.
On the one hand, all SCOTUS judges are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution - which, by the way, does not include in it Supremacy Clause precedents of that same SCOTUS.
On the other hand, by the Supreme Court Act of 1925, SCOTUS judges are at liberty not to do their job - not to take any required number of cases per year.
The 9 of them occupy a huge marble palace, are paid royal upkeep and are given a royal crowd of servants, but are not required to do a damned thing. Literally.
All of their job is discretionary.
They can pick to hear one case per year if they want to - or not to find any one case worthy of their review in any given year at all.
They routinely toss meritorious cases, citing multiple violations of the U.S. Constitution by civil rights plaintiffs, and especially by pro se plaintiffs.
Yet, they routinely take cases of corporations - and I wonder how many of those fund their wining and dining, their and their families' trips, "scholarships", speaking engagements and careers.
So, let's look at the very "principled" decision of Justice Gorsuch.
The case the "discretionary court" has picked is of an auto debt collector.
You must agree that the non-payment of loans to people who lend money for consumers to buy cars is the most important constitutional problem in this country to tackle.
So, out of 8000 of petitions, most of which (99%) are not given any review, this one was picked, reviewed and decided, in favor of the debt collectors.
And in this case, Justice Gorsuch, getting in the high horse of the "rule of law", has stated that, once again,
- it is not for the Court to amend statutory law enacted by the U.S. Congress, and
- if the U.S. Congress wanted to include or exempt certain entities from the reach of a statute, it would have done it.
Great job.
But - wait a second, didn't the same U.S. Supreme Court find judicial, prosecutorial, "official", "sovereign", "qualified" and a zillion other types of "immunities" which the U.S. Congress DID NOT include into the Civil Rights Act.
Doesn't the same principle apply?
If the U.S. Congress wanted to include something into the statute, it would have?
No, for their own benefit, to give THEMSELVES, and other members of the government a free walk out of a liability under an act of Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court found that it is impossible to even thing that the U.S. Congress could have forgotten to give out such immunities, so, if it didn't give such immunities in the text of the Civil Rights Act, it means a completely different thing in the immunity context than what Gorsuch said as applying to any other Act of Congress.
So, if it is an Act of Congress dealing with debt collectors - if the U.S. Congress did not include something into the statute, it is not court's business or authority to change that act of Congress.
Yet, if the Act of Congress did not include something that the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court (or other members of the government) crave for themselves, such as being above the law and immune from the reach of the same U.S. Constitution judges are allegedly protecting - then, the rule is completely different: the U.S. Supreme Court will insert, through interpretation, that the U.S. Congress could not possibly NOT imply what it clearly did not include into the text of the statute.
There is no reason to treat with adoration or awe the "discretionary" U.S. Supreme Court and its decisions - decisions that follow the law only when, in their "discretion", the Court "chooses" to help corporation against individuals.
In the absolute majority of cases the U.S. Supreme Court either refuses to deal with enforcement of the U.S. Constitution, tossing 99% of constitutional violations coming its way, or "sets the law for the whole country", openly usurping the exclusive right of the U.S. Congress to legislate under the U.S. Constitution.
And, in June of 2017, after SCOTUS announced, in a unanimous opinion issued on June 12, 2017 (in favor of debt collectors) that it has no authority to amend an Act of Congress, it did just that - and did it after judges of the court were vulgarly paid off to rule the way they did.
How it was done, I will describe in my next blog.
Stay tuned.
Thursday, June 22, 2017
A politically charged criminal contempt proceeding continues against a defense attorney for questioning the judge's integrity in a DWI trial - and an arrest warrant is issued. Time to take attorney regulation, and criminal contempt powers, from the hands of the judiciary
In yet another case proving that regulation of the legal profession should be taken out of the hands of the judiciary, an attorney in Texas has been charged with criminal contempt for telling the jury that he is going to prove how hard it is to get a fair trial in court before Judge Nancy Hohengarten in Travis County, Texas.
This judge.
The targeted attorney is also a political opponent, running on a Green Party ticket for the Senate and previously running for a Criminal Appeals court seat.
The court actually issued an arrest warrant against the attorney because he did not appear at his own criminal trial because he was sick (and had documents from a doctor about it).
But, of course, judges nowadays are such good diagnosticians - without medical licenses of course (which is illegal, but who cares), and the judge "did not buy the ploy" of a documented medical illness of a criminal defense attorney.
I bet that if a prosecutor was ill, only her word, no medical documentation, would be needed to postpone the trial.
This case is certainly a 1st amendment case and a case where judges should be prohibited from bringing criminal charges against attorneys questioning their own impartiality.
Such tactics not only are obviously used for political ends, but undermine independence of representation in criminal (and civil) cases.
American men, and fathers, under the axe of a danger of fabricated sex abuse charges - at all times
Here is an interesting (and eerie) case from Oregon.
Prosecutors made a motion to recuse a judge from a sex abuse criminal case citing "a laundry list" of her alleged indiscretion, predominantly that she is allegedly "soft on criminals" and gives super-light sentences.
The prosecutors hold a grudge against the judge, because the judge acquitted a man charged with a nonsense sex abuse case against his own daughter:
To be charged for sexual abuse of your own child because:
Prosecutors made a motion to recuse a judge from a sex abuse criminal case citing "a laundry list" of her alleged indiscretion, predominantly that she is allegedly "soft on criminals" and gives super-light sentences.
The prosecutors hold a grudge against the judge, because the judge acquitted a man charged with a nonsense sex abuse case against his own daughter:
To be charged for sexual abuse of your own child because:
- the father allegedly kissed the daughter's neck; and
- the father allegedly "grabbed the child's buttock underneath her shorts"
is a nonsense charge to begin with, because reasonable doubt is spelled all over it.
There are a variety of circumstances when a parent can do both of these things without any criminal intent to commit a sex act on their own child.
A parent can grab the child either accidentally, or to prevent the child from falling, for example.
It is horrible how easily sex abuse cases may be manufactured in this country.
And, it is understandable (not in a good way) why prosecutors sought recusal of a judge "soft on criminals" - or who, apparently, may be requiring prosecutors to prosecute real charges instead of the horrible nonsense that they are making up, to the detriment of the people.
Is it ethical for a prosecutor to solicit a guilty plea from an exonerated prisoner in order to save their ass and prevent the state from being sued?
In Nevada, a man spent 29 years ON DEATH ROW - luckily, the state did not expedite his execution, as two recent cases with likely claims of innocence were.
Charles Robins, of Arizona, was arrested and went to prison, on death row, at the age of 19.
Of course, Charles Robins is black - African Americans predominate the death row population in the United States.
Charles Robins was convicted and sentenced to death for allegedly beating to death a 6-month-old child of his girlfriend.
Now new evidence emerged that the child may have died of childhood scurvy, a disease with symptoms mimicking symptoms of child abuse.
Since there is a question whether a child has died, in a 29-year-old case, where the body has long been buried and evidence destroyed - of a natural death, that is "reasonable doubt" that must prevent a criminal conviction.
But, that is not so in Charles Robins case.
He did not come out a free and exonerated person.
He came out a convicted murderer with time served.
Because prosecutors in the case considered it ethically possible to play on emotions of a person who was on death row for 29 years - obviously wrongfully - by re-charging him after the conviction was overturned, and offering him a plea bargain that he could not turn down: still plead to an unlawful killing and time served.
I wonder what Arizona State Bar has to say about behavior of prosecutors in this case?
Anything?
Is it suddenly ethical in Arizona to solicit a guilty plea to a murder in a case where reasonable doubt is spelled out by the new evidence - using the defendant's desire to get out of prison after nearly 30 years on death row?
Charles Robins, of Arizona, was arrested and went to prison, on death row, at the age of 19.
Of course, Charles Robins is black - African Americans predominate the death row population in the United States.
Charles Robins was convicted and sentenced to death for allegedly beating to death a 6-month-old child of his girlfriend.
Now new evidence emerged that the child may have died of childhood scurvy, a disease with symptoms mimicking symptoms of child abuse.
Since there is a question whether a child has died, in a 29-year-old case, where the body has long been buried and evidence destroyed - of a natural death, that is "reasonable doubt" that must prevent a criminal conviction.
But, that is not so in Charles Robins case.
He did not come out a free and exonerated person.
He came out a convicted murderer with time served.
Because prosecutors in the case considered it ethically possible to play on emotions of a person who was on death row for 29 years - obviously wrongfully - by re-charging him after the conviction was overturned, and offering him a plea bargain that he could not turn down: still plead to an unlawful killing and time served.
I wonder what Arizona State Bar has to say about behavior of prosecutors in this case?
Anything?
Is it suddenly ethical in Arizona to solicit a guilty plea to a murder in a case where reasonable doubt is spelled out by the new evidence - using the defendant's desire to get out of prison after nearly 30 years on death row?
The super-Democratic California's double-take on for profit prisons - forced labor for the poor and lavish paid accomodations for the rich prisoners
Oh, California, the land of the free!
The state suing President Trump for its right to defy federal immigration law, including criminal federal immigration law, while keeping discretionary federal funds.
The state disbarring attorneys for catching judges in corrupt schemes - like it was repeatedly done by California State Bar to:
This state has one more "access-to-justice" soft spot - for-profit prisons.
No, not only THOSE kinds of for-profit prisons where indigent prisoners are exploited as slave labor by well-known corporations, to the delight of American consumers "enjoying" the resulting "competitive" low prices.
California also has a different kind of for-profit prisons - for richer prisoners, providing for them accommodations that other prisoners do not have - for a fee.
If you want a "smaller, quieter jail", "away from prison population" - in other words, if you want to spend your time like a human being, not in an overpopulated, overcrowded and unsafe conditions - you need to pay, up to $155 a night (and those were 2013 prices).
Now the price per night is reportedly $250.
So, we have not only a for-profit prison system in the U.S. and in the "democratic" state of California, but a two-tier for-profit prison system - slavery for the poor and comfort-for-pay for the rich.
The state suing President Trump for its right to defy federal immigration law, including criminal federal immigration law, while keeping discretionary federal funds.
The state disbarring attorneys for catching judges in corrupt schemes - like it was repeatedly done by California State Bar to:
- Dr Richard Fine, PhD, JD who was thrown in jail for nearly 2 years for correctly pointing out - and suing - Los Angeles judges for padding their state salaries with additional money from the Los Angeles County that appeared in front of them as a party, which was a clear bribe;
- Patricia Barry, the trailblazer who won in court for all American women a case protecting them against sexual harassment in employment;
- Henry James Koehler IV who has won for American fathers a right to be considered for joint custody of their children in custody proceedings by default.
This state has one more "access-to-justice" soft spot - for-profit prisons.
No, not only THOSE kinds of for-profit prisons where indigent prisoners are exploited as slave labor by well-known corporations, to the delight of American consumers "enjoying" the resulting "competitive" low prices.
California also has a different kind of for-profit prisons - for richer prisoners, providing for them accommodations that other prisoners do not have - for a fee.
If you want a "smaller, quieter jail", "away from prison population" - in other words, if you want to spend your time like a human being, not in an overpopulated, overcrowded and unsafe conditions - you need to pay, up to $155 a night (and those were 2013 prices).
Now the price per night is reportedly $250.
So, we have not only a for-profit prison system in the U.S. and in the "democratic" state of California, but a two-tier for-profit prison system - slavery for the poor and comfort-for-pay for the rich.
Intimidation of lawyers to not represent unpopular clients now affects President's attorney?
There have been interesting reports, from the point of view of independence of legal representation, in the context of legal representation of President Trump.
Many things have been inadvertently exposed in the legal profession and the judiciary with the election of Donald Trump.
For example:
(by the way, the link leads to Gillibrand's re-election/ fundraising campaign site).
It is suddenly "in vogue" for judges to block rules of attorney discipline based on frivolous lawsuits of "in vogue" people - even if such rules are identical to the rules the same judges maintain in their own courts.
And, finally, recently the President's attorney was intimidated with disciplinary complaints in DC and NY because he allegedly gave advice to White House employees who he did not represent.
Of course, many prosecutors and judges do just the same, "advising" litigants and defendants left and right, as to which criminal defendants (that the prosecutors and judges in question do not like) not to choose.
But, nobody ever considers that a problem.
Disciplinary complaints against Marc Kasowitz appear to be clearly political - because now it has been reported that representation of the President whom the legal profession is filibustering in droves because, apparently, he upset the apple cart of seats already distributed by Clinton - at a hefty price to the "donors" - puts the entire law firm of the President's attorney "at crossroads".
Now, why is that?
Why should representation of a particular client subject an attorney to ostracism? Aren't all people in the U.S. equal under the law?
Aren't all people entitled to legal counsel and defense?
Is not the legal profession "honorable"?
Is not attorney regulation and discipline exist only to protect consumers from attorneys who are dishonest or incompetent - which Marc Kasowitz is obviously neither?
At least, nobody tried to do anything to him until he started to do the unthinkable - represent the President of the United States.
So, now hints are heavily dropped that the law firm will be boycotted, and the "lead rainmaker" Marc Kasowitz will be "out of the picture" because of representation of the President?
Again - why is that?
Many things have been inadvertently exposed in the legal profession and the judiciary with the election of Donald Trump.
For example:
- federal courts can now defy the U.S. Constitution each judge is sworn to uphold by disregarding the text of the U.S. Constitution and the statute and by not only filibustering federal immigration laws, but ordering the President to obey such unlawful filibustering - and the apparent corruption in such cases goes as high as to the U.S. Supreme Court;
- committing a federal felony of harboring illegal aliens has become heralded and encouraged by state attorneys general (also sworn to protect and uphold both federal and state statutory law, as well as the U.S. Constitution and powers received under it) as some kind of heroism;
- U.S. Senators incite the public against the President by asking them what is their opinion of the President while discussing unrelated topics - like legislative debates of a statute in federal legislature, which the president cannot control:
It is suddenly "in vogue" for judges to block rules of attorney discipline based on frivolous lawsuits of "in vogue" people - even if such rules are identical to the rules the same judges maintain in their own courts.
And, finally, recently the President's attorney was intimidated with disciplinary complaints in DC and NY because he allegedly gave advice to White House employees who he did not represent.
Of course, many prosecutors and judges do just the same, "advising" litigants and defendants left and right, as to which criminal defendants (that the prosecutors and judges in question do not like) not to choose.
But, nobody ever considers that a problem.
Disciplinary complaints against Marc Kasowitz appear to be clearly political - because now it has been reported that representation of the President whom the legal profession is filibustering in droves because, apparently, he upset the apple cart of seats already distributed by Clinton - at a hefty price to the "donors" - puts the entire law firm of the President's attorney "at crossroads".
Now, why is that?
Why should representation of a particular client subject an attorney to ostracism? Aren't all people in the U.S. equal under the law?
Aren't all people entitled to legal counsel and defense?
Is not the legal profession "honorable"?
Is not attorney regulation and discipline exist only to protect consumers from attorneys who are dishonest or incompetent - which Marc Kasowitz is obviously neither?
At least, nobody tried to do anything to him until he started to do the unthinkable - represent the President of the United States.
So, now hints are heavily dropped that the law firm will be boycotted, and the "lead rainmaker" Marc Kasowitz will be "out of the picture" because of representation of the President?
Again - why is that?
Federal Judge Margo Brodie strikes at an indigent civil rights litigant - again
I recently wrote a blog about a federal #judgeMargoBrodie, a favorite of Senator Schumer, who dismissed, without disclosure of her conflict of interest (she represented New York City, the defendant in the action, in the past), a civil rights case of an indigent taxi driver because, as the judge arrogantly stated, a "state law procedure" was available for the driver - while 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Civil Rights Act, gives civil rights plaintiffs the right to choose federal court as their forum of choice, and gives a federal judge no authority whatsoever to force upon a civil rights plaintiff the choice of state court to bring his civil rights action.
Yet another case where Judge Brodie screwed an indigent civil rights plaintiff of her day in court was reported in June of 2017.
In the case Hennsler v DEC decided this month, Judge Brodie had outdone herself in incompetence and arrogant abuse of power against he poor.
An indigent woman asked DEC to approve building a residence on her inherited property in order to generate income to feed her two children.
DEC denied the request.
The woman sued for a constitutional violation.
Judge Brodie tossed out the lawsuit because she found that:
Yet another case where Judge Brodie screwed an indigent civil rights plaintiff of her day in court was reported in June of 2017.
In the case Hennsler v DEC decided this month, Judge Brodie had outdone herself in incompetence and arrogant abuse of power against he poor.
An indigent woman asked DEC to approve building a residence on her inherited property in order to generate income to feed her two children.
DEC denied the request.
The woman sued for a constitutional violation.
Judge Brodie tossed out the lawsuit because she found that:
- the woman should have pled more facts (before discovery) indicating how her constitutional rights were violated, while all records related to violations were in possession of DEC, and while Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require notice pleading and not factual pleading - which the judge has no authority to change;
- DEC has "sovereign immunity secured by the 11th Amendment, while, of course,
- 11th Amendment has nothing to do with sovereign immunity - as the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized 18 years ago, of which Judge Brodie is seemingly unaware;
- 11th Amendment, by its text, does not bar lawsuits of citizens of a state against their own state, and the text of the constitutional amendment controls over any incorrect interpretation of that text;
- New York specifically waived sovereign immunity in 1925 through the Court of Claims Act.
- The plaintiff had available to her a "process" of contesting the denial of building permit before the DEC - thus amending the Civil Rights Act and imposing forum choice and exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement upon the plaintiff, for which the judge had no Article III constitutional authority.
It appears that abuse of power against the poor is becoming Judge Brodie's penchant.
New York Court system found 3 million dollars for summer retreats - oops, "seminars" - for judges, to teach them how to give people their "day in court"
Ok, so New York state has an ever expanding "justice gap" where majority of New Yorkers cannot afford an attorney.
For that reason, New York invents various alternatives to attorneys (like "court navigators", "Legal Hand" and the like), while refusing to abolish attorney regulation that causes the justice gap in the first place.
And, recently, New York's very Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo vetoed bipartisan bicamerally approved legislation for additional funding of criminal defense.
Yet, at the same time New York State raised salaries to judges - dramatically so, last year, while one of the reasons for raising such salaries was to reimburse the judges for their trouble of having to deal with indigent pro se defendants.
And now, New York State Unified Court system, in a completely shameless "gesture", found 3 million dollars (!!!) to fund "summer seminars" for its judges.
The 3 million dollars were suddenly found after these same seminars were discontinued for 8 years (under Chief Judge Lippman) because of budget constraints.
There are no budget constraints under Chief Judge DiFiore, the one who yelled at reporters of her corruption threatening them that her husband has personal numbers of all U.S. Supreme Court Justices.
So, the shameless "initiative" to yank judges off their "crushing caseloads" in order to lavish themselves in a Hudson Valley hotel for 4 days - to be taught how to manage those same "crushing caseloads" and give people "their day in court".
Of course, neither raising salaries for judges, not taking time out of their super-busy (allegedly) schedule to wine and dine them and teach them how to manage that schedule to work miracles like Jesus Christ and feeding 5,000 people with 5 loaves of bread, will not stretch the hours or help a situation where there are more cases than the existing number of judges can ETHICALLY handle, giving all litigants as much opportunity to be heard, as is constitutionally required.
There is no way around expanding court systems and simply having more judges to handle "crushing caseloads". 3 mln of taxpayer dollars spent on "summer seminars" could fund salaries of 15 new judges, significantly relieving the caseload.
Instead, DiFiore's court system chose to pour taxpayer money down the drain and teach judges how to cut their time short to create an illusion that people had "their day in court" - by having a rushed minute in court without proper representation before a frustrated and yelling judge, case finished.
All of that to pursue "excellence".
So, now New York judges will be entitled not only to their nearly $200,000 salaries, but to additional vacation time paid by taxpayers, to be spent at luxury resorts in order to be "educated" - how to be more professional, competent and ethical.
And this feast in time of plague is, of course, done, at taxpayers' expense, to further DiFiore's "Excellence Initiative".
New York taxpayers should have no doubt where their money is going and why people are fleeing the State of New York.
For that reason, New York invents various alternatives to attorneys (like "court navigators", "Legal Hand" and the like), while refusing to abolish attorney regulation that causes the justice gap in the first place.
And, recently, New York's very Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo vetoed bipartisan bicamerally approved legislation for additional funding of criminal defense.
Yet, at the same time New York State raised salaries to judges - dramatically so, last year, while one of the reasons for raising such salaries was to reimburse the judges for their trouble of having to deal with indigent pro se defendants.
And now, New York State Unified Court system, in a completely shameless "gesture", found 3 million dollars (!!!) to fund "summer seminars" for its judges.
The 3 million dollars were suddenly found after these same seminars were discontinued for 8 years (under Chief Judge Lippman) because of budget constraints.
There are no budget constraints under Chief Judge DiFiore, the one who yelled at reporters of her corruption threatening them that her husband has personal numbers of all U.S. Supreme Court Justices.
So, the shameless "initiative" to yank judges off their "crushing caseloads" in order to lavish themselves in a Hudson Valley hotel for 4 days - to be taught how to manage those same "crushing caseloads" and give people "their day in court".
Of course, neither raising salaries for judges, not taking time out of their super-busy (allegedly) schedule to wine and dine them and teach them how to manage that schedule to work miracles like Jesus Christ and feeding 5,000 people with 5 loaves of bread, will not stretch the hours or help a situation where there are more cases than the existing number of judges can ETHICALLY handle, giving all litigants as much opportunity to be heard, as is constitutionally required.
There is no way around expanding court systems and simply having more judges to handle "crushing caseloads". 3 mln of taxpayer dollars spent on "summer seminars" could fund salaries of 15 new judges, significantly relieving the caseload.
Instead, DiFiore's court system chose to pour taxpayer money down the drain and teach judges how to cut their time short to create an illusion that people had "their day in court" - by having a rushed minute in court without proper representation before a frustrated and yelling judge, case finished.
All of that to pursue "excellence".
So, now New York judges will be entitled not only to their nearly $200,000 salaries, but to additional vacation time paid by taxpayers, to be spent at luxury resorts in order to be "educated" - how to be more professional, competent and ethical.
And this feast in time of plague is, of course, done, at taxpayers' expense, to further DiFiore's "Excellence Initiative".
New York taxpayers should have no doubt where their money is going and why people are fleeing the State of New York.
Occupational licensing and the government as a con artist, or the myth of professional regulation as deterrent of self-serving professional misconduct
My common topic on this blog is occupational regulation (including attorney regulation) and conceptual inconsistencies in such regulation by the government.
Regulation of all licensed/regulated professions is declared to be done for purposes of consumer protection.
Yet, various prohibitions on regulation very often do little to protect consumers, if not outright hurt consumers, by restricting competition while providing no quality protection.
One of such prohibitions is the so-called prohibition on "mixed practice".
For example, a lawyer cannot have a joint firm with an accountant - even if it is a tax lawyer, and even if an accountant may know certain aspect of, obviously, accounting, better than a lawyer, and a consumer may benefit from such a joint practice - from its versatility and, likely, lower prices.
Also, in many states statutory laws are introduced (obviously lobbied by the already-entrenched professional elites) to prohibit "mixed services" in the medical profession, too.
One of such a prohibition has recently resulted in a multimillion verdict against a New York attorney whose offense was that he taught chiropractors how to open businesses with doctors employed or on the board of directors, while the sole ownership of the firm belonged to a chiropractor, not a doctor.
Of course, what difference would it make to a consumer other than good?
A consumer coming to a chiropractor who also employs a doctor, wins from versatility of practice and lower prices.
Not so - says the New Jersey legislature (lobbied by doctors, obviously) and now the New Jersey Supreme Court, which has a self-serving interest to uphold such a scheme as a legislator of regulation for attorneys, and of similar "mixed service" prohibitions for attorneys.
The legislative purpose of the prohibition, as the court explains, is that a chiropractor, as the sole owner and employer of a doctor, cannot be allowed to influence medical decisions - that would constitute insurance fraud per se.
The decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court, which came out after long years of litigation on May 4, 2017, may very well be a retaliative knee-jerk reaction of the court against a New York attorney, simply because he was a New York attorney, for the simple reason that New York declared its right to discriminate against New Jersey attorneys (who may live closer to Manhattan than the majority of New York-residing attorneys), and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a lawsuit challenging constitutionality of that discrimination. On April 17, 2017, by the way, 17 days before the New Jersey Supreme Court retaliated against a New York State attorney.
This exchange of slaps, obviously, did not help consumers.
New York consumers of legal services, where the justice gap is a re-iterating lamentation by the NYS Court system, are only hurt by discriminatory laws against out-of-state attorneys, reducing the number of providers.
Similarly, New Jersey consumers of chiropractor and medical services are only hurt when chiropractors are prohibited to hire willing doctors to work in their offices.
Moreover, the New Jersey Supreme Court missed the obvious 1st Amendment implications where an attorney, on a lawsuit of an insurance company no less, is ordered to pay for the alleged fraudulent content of lectures about business structure aimed to provide better, cheaper and more versatile services by willing licensed providers to willing competent consumers of such services.
When this whole country is in uproar about who was elected as President and what is going to happen with healthcare, this case, brought by an insurance company, somehow fell through the cracks and is overlooked, yet, it has a drastic impact on the end prices and quality and scope of services for consumers - and, as to prices, both paid by insurance and out-of-pocket.
Yet, the whole prosecution, from the standpoint of the declared purpose of occupational regulation by the government in order to protect consumers, makes absolutely no sense, and, more, exposes the sham of occupational licensing as lobbying privileges for privileged professions.
First of all, nowhere in the court decision is there any proof that such schemes hurt consumers and lead to providing substandard services.
The whole statutory scheme of insurance fraud through "mixed services", or "doctor in a box", as it is often called, are based on a presumption - that a chiropractor, a person with a "lesser license" and training than a doctor, will improperly influence a doctor in his employ.
The lawsuit involves THREE licensed occupations:
Regulation of all licensed/regulated professions is declared to be done for purposes of consumer protection.
Yet, various prohibitions on regulation very often do little to protect consumers, if not outright hurt consumers, by restricting competition while providing no quality protection.
One of such prohibitions is the so-called prohibition on "mixed practice".
For example, a lawyer cannot have a joint firm with an accountant - even if it is a tax lawyer, and even if an accountant may know certain aspect of, obviously, accounting, better than a lawyer, and a consumer may benefit from such a joint practice - from its versatility and, likely, lower prices.
Also, in many states statutory laws are introduced (obviously lobbied by the already-entrenched professional elites) to prohibit "mixed services" in the medical profession, too.
One of such a prohibition has recently resulted in a multimillion verdict against a New York attorney whose offense was that he taught chiropractors how to open businesses with doctors employed or on the board of directors, while the sole ownership of the firm belonged to a chiropractor, not a doctor.
Of course, what difference would it make to a consumer other than good?
A consumer coming to a chiropractor who also employs a doctor, wins from versatility of practice and lower prices.
Not so - says the New Jersey legislature (lobbied by doctors, obviously) and now the New Jersey Supreme Court, which has a self-serving interest to uphold such a scheme as a legislator of regulation for attorneys, and of similar "mixed service" prohibitions for attorneys.
The legislative purpose of the prohibition, as the court explains, is that a chiropractor, as the sole owner and employer of a doctor, cannot be allowed to influence medical decisions - that would constitute insurance fraud per se.
The decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court, which came out after long years of litigation on May 4, 2017, may very well be a retaliative knee-jerk reaction of the court against a New York attorney, simply because he was a New York attorney, for the simple reason that New York declared its right to discriminate against New Jersey attorneys (who may live closer to Manhattan than the majority of New York-residing attorneys), and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a lawsuit challenging constitutionality of that discrimination. On April 17, 2017, by the way, 17 days before the New Jersey Supreme Court retaliated against a New York State attorney.
This exchange of slaps, obviously, did not help consumers.
New York consumers of legal services, where the justice gap is a re-iterating lamentation by the NYS Court system, are only hurt by discriminatory laws against out-of-state attorneys, reducing the number of providers.
Similarly, New Jersey consumers of chiropractor and medical services are only hurt when chiropractors are prohibited to hire willing doctors to work in their offices.
Moreover, the New Jersey Supreme Court missed the obvious 1st Amendment implications where an attorney, on a lawsuit of an insurance company no less, is ordered to pay for the alleged fraudulent content of lectures about business structure aimed to provide better, cheaper and more versatile services by willing licensed providers to willing competent consumers of such services.
When this whole country is in uproar about who was elected as President and what is going to happen with healthcare, this case, brought by an insurance company, somehow fell through the cracks and is overlooked, yet, it has a drastic impact on the end prices and quality and scope of services for consumers - and, as to prices, both paid by insurance and out-of-pocket.
Yet, the whole prosecution, from the standpoint of the declared purpose of occupational regulation by the government in order to protect consumers, makes absolutely no sense, and, more, exposes the sham of occupational licensing as lobbying privileges for privileged professions.
First of all, nowhere in the court decision is there any proof that such schemes hurt consumers and lead to providing substandard services.
The whole statutory scheme of insurance fraud through "mixed services", or "doctor in a box", as it is often called, are based on a presumption - that a chiropractor, a person with a "lesser license" and training than a doctor, will improperly influence a doctor in his employ.
The lawsuit involves THREE licensed occupations:
- lawyers;
- chiropractors; and
- medical doctors.
All of these professions are regulated by the government in order to protect consumers.
All of these professions have their own ethical codes and disciplinary procedures.
All of ethical codes prohibit unethical conduct.
All of ethical codes prohibit to act outside of the licensed professional's competency.
Thus, the PRESUMPTION that a licensed chiropractor will necessarily:
- act outside of his competence in influencing medical decisions of a doctor, and
- will actually influence a licensed medical doctor who will violate his own ethical rules in order to cave to a chiropractor who is his employer -
defies the whole need for licensing regulations.
If individual licensed doctors are presumed (by the insurance fraud statute) to readily cave to influence by AN employer (no matter, a chiropractor or not), what difference does it make, what license, if any, that employer has?
Is it better that an individual medical doctor is FINANCIALLY influenced in his MEDICAL decisions by another doctor? By a whole bunch of medical doctor - a hospital board?
Because, if the law PRESUMES that doctors will be easily sways by those who pay them in their medical decisions, in violation of their licenses, we do not need to license doctors, because such licensing is useless and only raise the cost of medical services, which is already sky-high and unaffordable to many Americans.
But, the law does so presume.
Same as it presumes that a lawyer may not engage in a "mixed practice" with an accountant, for example, for the same reason that it will be then presumed that the lawyer will violate his ethical rules and provide services not in accordance with his INDIVIDUAL licensing obligations, but looking only at the bottom line.
And so will do the certified accountant - who is also a member of a profession regulated by the government, and is also governed by his own individual ethical rules.
As it often happens, the desire of the government to deliver a quick slap to a "sister state" - or for any other political reason - reveals more than the government wanted to.
New survival tricks of law schools expose the sham of attorney regulation - a new suggestion, from a law school dean, to defy ABA authority to certify law schools: the end of attorney licensing is coming from money-hungry law schools?
I wrote today a blog about a new trick a law school professor from Charlotte Law School that faces yanking of its license in August unless it proves its financial stability to teach its remaining 100 students to graduation - to allow law schools to be owned, straight out owned, by law firms.
Graduation from ABA-approved law schools is, in all states of the U.S., a pre-requisite to obtaining a license to practice law.
Licensing the practice of law is declared to be in order to protect consumers, and all rules pertaining to licensing, including educational requirements of lawyers, should be governed by that declared goal.
In other words, mandated education of lawyers must be necessary to protect consumers.
Yet, a law professor openly claimed, apparently, that he deliberately DOES NOT teach about deficiencies of regulation of the legal profession, in order, allegedly, for law students not to use such deficiencies as loopholes, and not to act unethically. Which says a lot about law ethics professors' trust in the integrity of the legal profession. Imagine - you, as a member of the public, should not be taught, as a matter of public policy, about deficiencies in criminal law (which you are presumed to know anyway, same as law students are presumed to know attorney regulatory law anyway, under the principle that ignorance of the law is not a defense for breaking it), because if you know of such deficiencies, you will immediately go out and start committing crimes?
And, a law professor openly claimed, apparently, that regulation of the practice of law (by judges, which amounts, in the professor's view, to "self-regulation" - implying that judges are treating lawyers more favorably than another branch of the government would) is just a smoke screen to prevent the "real regulation" of lawyers by the government.
Now yet another law educator, an associate dean at Faulkner University's Thomas Goode Jones School of Law Allen Mendenhall, went so far as to claiming that the American Bar Association as an accrediting institution "stifles legal education" - his exact words.
Associate Dean Mendenhall explains that ABA is a non-profit organization (with foreign capital now, I might add) that has been founded, and evolved, as an equivalent of a professional guild.
It is improper to begin with to charge a professional corporation with foreign capital to regulate constitutional access to justice in a huge country to begin with - where professional interests of lawyers, providers of legal services and members of the ABA:
are at stark conflict with interests of consumers to have:
Graduation from ABA-approved law schools is, in all states of the U.S., a pre-requisite to obtaining a license to practice law.
Licensing the practice of law is declared to be in order to protect consumers, and all rules pertaining to licensing, including educational requirements of lawyers, should be governed by that declared goal.
In other words, mandated education of lawyers must be necessary to protect consumers.
Yet, a law professor openly claimed, apparently, that he deliberately DOES NOT teach about deficiencies of regulation of the legal profession, in order, allegedly, for law students not to use such deficiencies as loopholes, and not to act unethically. Which says a lot about law ethics professors' trust in the integrity of the legal profession. Imagine - you, as a member of the public, should not be taught, as a matter of public policy, about deficiencies in criminal law (which you are presumed to know anyway, same as law students are presumed to know attorney regulatory law anyway, under the principle that ignorance of the law is not a defense for breaking it), because if you know of such deficiencies, you will immediately go out and start committing crimes?
And, a law professor openly claimed, apparently, that regulation of the practice of law (by judges, which amounts, in the professor's view, to "self-regulation" - implying that judges are treating lawyers more favorably than another branch of the government would) is just a smoke screen to prevent the "real regulation" of lawyers by the government.
Now yet another law educator, an associate dean at Faulkner University's Thomas Goode Jones School of Law Allen Mendenhall, went so far as to claiming that the American Bar Association as an accrediting institution "stifles legal education" - his exact words.
Associate Dean Mendenhall explains that ABA is a non-profit organization (with foreign capital now, I might add) that has been founded, and evolved, as an equivalent of a professional guild.
It is improper to begin with to charge a professional corporation with foreign capital to regulate constitutional access to justice in a huge country to begin with - where professional interests of lawyers, providers of legal services and members of the ABA:
- the narrowest scope of service,
- with the least innovation and effort,
- at the highest price possible, and
- while restricting competition
are at stark conflict with interests of consumers to have:
- the most versatile services;
- with the best innovation available
- at the lowest price - which is achievable only by the
- widest possible competition among providers of legal services, so that consumers could choose for themselves.
That is even more so when, as Associate Dean Mendenhall now acknowledges, the ABA (whose accreditation to his law school he did not question until the accreditation started to hurt enrollment and finances of the school) has a history of quashing competition, and especially quashing competition from immigrants, indigents and minorities.
In other words, Associate Dean Mendenhall acknowledges, with references to reputable sources, that ABA started out as a professional anticompetitive racist organization.
The problem though is that Associate Dean mentions ABA's racism not in connection with failing to protect consumers (the declared reason for attorney regulation that mandatory ABA-accredited law education is part of), but as a claim to defy the ABA accreditation so that law schools could lower the bar in order to have minority students pass the bar easier.
That is, of course, a politically correct thing to say - even though such claims must be offensive and even insulting to well-performing minority students who, upon graduation, would be presumed to have been given lower standards in order to receive their diplomas.
For example, New York state already cancelled a literacy test to future teachers - claiming higher failure rates of that test by minorities.
Which, of course, defies the purpose of such tests - to ensure quality of education for service providers in order to protect consumers.
In the legal profession, claims of California law school deans blaming the rigor of the bar examination on higher failing rates by students, and the claim of Associate Dean Mendenhall that ABA certification of law schools and required minimum curriculum and number of credit hours predominantly hurts minority students.
That may well be, because minority law students may still be from less economically advantaged, or, to put it bluntly, from poorer parents, and, unlike children of rich-in-generations white attorneys and judges, they would have a harder time to stay in school for 3 years, and to pay off student loans in the future.
But, it is very obvious that the test score should not be lowered (as law school deans demand) or canceled altogether (as New York did by canceling the literacy test for future teachers) simply because more people started to fail it.
Because lowering the educational bar in a regulated occupation defies the declared purpose of licensing that occupation altogether - protection of consumers.
Unfortunately, Associate Dean Mendenhall, while pointing out the example of two prominent schools of journalism to defy what he calls a "similar authority", an accreditation council - and obviously urges law schools to now defy ABA approval of law schools - makes no attempt to even review how canceling ABA approval of law schools will affect quality of services for consumers.
Because, if regulation of education as the starting point of providing government protection of the level of legal services to customers, is not needed, regulation itself is not needed.
But, self-serving as it is, it is obvious that the legal profession (and the BUSINESS of legal education) is governed not by the profession's alleged honor, and not by the declared goal of regulation - protection of the consumer, but by down-to-earth financial considerations.
And, for survival of his job, law schools may just as well defy the ABA - and, undermine and end regulation of the legal profession as it exists.
Who would think the end of attorney licensing would be coming from money-hungry law schools...