"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

#NBC12 joins The Economist in fabricating a false picture of what public opinion in the country is

I wrote an article yesterday about the supposedly respectable "mainstream" "expert" source, The Economist censuring out (as "spam", no less) on-point polite and reasoned comments to its articles posted on Facebook by deleting comments that do not fit its obvious political agenda - to pin violence in Charlottesville, VA not on those people who committed violence, or failed to protect the public from that violence, but President Trump.

In that blog article, I pointed out the two U.S. Supreme Court precedents that legitimized (at the judges' "discretion" - meaning, that the judges willingly accepted those cases out of the absolute majority of case that they rejected, and ruled in favor of the Nazis and the racists, bending the law):

  1. a Nazi march in a village populated by Holocaust survivors; and
  2. cross-burning on the lawn in front of a residence of African-Americans.

Today, NBC12 joined the fray, now marking as spam - gasp! - references to these two U.S. Supreme Court precedents.

My bad was that, in a comment to an article about a white supremacist who participated in a court-approved rally fired from his job, I asked a question - is it legitimate for an employer to fire an employee for his off-hours political expression.

Here is the thread that followed, where I was called (for asking that question):

  • a troll,
  • a Nazi sympathizer,
  • a white supremacist,
  • a rapist and rape sympathizer, and
  • where it was pointed out that I am all things bad because I am from Russia etc. - and NBC12 did not consider it necessary to erase any of that as spam, even though these personal attacks were certainly not answers to my question, this question:

So, in answer to that question, I've got this torrent:

And, after I posted the links to the US Supreme Court precedents allowing Nazi marches and cross-burning, and asking people, why they attack me for asking a legal question instead of protesting court decisions legitimizing racism and hatred, NBC12 started to block practically all my comments, even those answering what was really spam, like this exchange:

My question asking #RebeccaJamarillo to answer to the question I actually asked in my comment, was marked and deleted as spam:

The next comment marked as spam was - no, not this one, accusing me out of the blue of supporting a rapist or rape:

No, NBC12 shut me down and prevented me from ANSWERING the abusive comment, after the author did not like that I put a laughing emoji on that comment:

The next comment that NBC12 marked as spam was actually agreeing with a commentator who supported my question:

 The next "spam" comment was my announcement that I am leaving the thread because NBC12 is deleting references to U.S. Supreme Court precedents - which was true.

So, it is clear that for #NBC12, same as for #TheEconomis, "spam" is an attempt at reasoned discussion of legal issues involved, and personal attacks on people who try to maintain that discussion is legit and proper.

The same attitude was demonstrated by NBC12 when it did not delete as spam personal attacks and threats directed at a woman who commented (in agreement with my critics' logic, by the way), that on the same grounds ("at will" no-reasons-stated firing) any employer can also fire anybody else, including a BLM member, here is part of that thread:


What can I say?

In my country, the United States of America, apparently, you can only have a job if you conceal your legally held political views and not express them publicly.

Because, had that guy kept his mouth shut and had he not gone to that rally (while continuing to hold white supremacist views anyway), he would still have had that job.

What is sad is that a supposedly honest media source stifles honest discussion of legal issues involved, and stifles revealing as to who exactly is responsible for legitimizing racial and anti-Semitic hatred - while allowing personal attacks on those whose only "fault" is that they squarely ask questions pertaining to ALL OF US.

Because Loretta Smith, a disabled individual who was threatened to be reported to her employer in order to have her fired, too, FOR ASKING A QUESTION, no less, asked the same question, in essence, that I was asking - will it be ok when members of BLM (or an environmental group, or freedom-of-speech group) be fired because of what they do, or views they express during their personal time and in their personal capacity, off-hours?

If that is true, there is no democracy in this country.

Because, if people will keep their mouths shut fearing loss of livelihood - there cannot be free exchange of ideas, and without free exchange of ideas democracy cannot function.

Remember what they said about me?  I am from Russia - or, rather, USSR - I know how people, for fear of their jobs, remained silent for a long time.  And what came out of that silence.


Is that what people really want by adamantly support firing for off-hours political expression and by attacking anybody who dares to ask questions about legitimacy of that firing?

As to NBC12, same as The Economist, the media source has failed the litmus test.

If it marked my legitimate comments as spam, how many more legitimate comments that did not fit into its political agenda did it delete, too?

It has sure lost credibility this way, and cannot now say that comments on its page are reflective of public opinion.

But, when public opinion polls are skewed this way, don't be surprised when elections, economic and social trends do not go the way those polls "predicted".


  1. Hey! Just wanted to say I respect what you do. Standing against the wave is not easy. I have not lived through it, but I was always interested in the USSR throughout my graduate studies. I had (have) Russian teachers who escaped it during the 80's.

    Even in the economics profession, lessons of the USSR have not been learned, so it's not surprising it's also like that in society at large. Past the shock of gulags, you can see slivers of things now that were common then: interpreting science for ideological purposes, using psychiatry to turn dissent into a symptom, and an absurd quest to make a perfect, irreprehensible individual.

    Also, if you're going to pick facebook fights, make sure to tweak your privacy settings. A lot of these people are in some sort of fear/anger driven frenzy, and just looking for an occasion to lash out

    1. I am not afraid of threats. Been there. But - thank you.