Of course, prosecutors are a touchy bunch, they can prosecute judges for crimes, right? For that reason, it is better to appease them - with prosecutorial immunity, for example, or with support as a breeding pool for judiciary.
But a law license of a prosecutor in the hands of a judge as "regulator" of the legal profession can be a handy tool at times.
Think Pennsylvania's former Attorney General Kathleen Kane, elected by 4 million of voters, who was:
- first suspended and then disbarred by judges who she criticized and investigated;
- turned into a grand jury by an "obedient" prosecutor whose license was in the hands of the judges she criticized and investigated;
- convicted "by jury" when an obedient judge (also a law license holder whose license was controlled by the judges who Kathleen Kane criticized) blocked jury's access to information that criminal proceedings against Kathleen Kane were politically fabricated by the powerful subjects of her investigation.
Think Kathleen Kane, PA.
Think prosecutor George Westfall in Missouri
Think prosecutors Elizabeth Holtzman and Paul David Soares in New York.
The only condition for a contribution was that the contribution should have quotes and not contain defamatory statements - false statements of fact.
Nothing in the review is defamatory, as all my statements are based on public records and long-published sources, including self-reporting by judges through court cases, memoirs and law review articles.
Let us consider what Elizabeth Holtzmann was disciplined for once in connection with the #MeToo movement and the recent "Women's March" - where her name was not even mentioned, despite the price she paid for her personal courage in protecting the victim of rape from humiliation by a male judge which surely discouraged many more victims of rape from coming forward.
She was disciplined for "defaming a judge".
Judges are regulators of the legal profession in the United States and in New York - which means in plain English that judges control every lawyer's ability to work and earn money for his family.
Coincidentally, all other witnesses present in the chambers and who refused to support Holtzman's story were people whose livelihood was controlled by the judge:
- a defense attorney whose license the judge could easily revoke through sanctions for criticism (as it was done to attorney John Aretakis in 2008, for criticism of a judge in a motion to recuse in a criminal case) and
- two court employees who the judge could fire at any time.
The witnesses preferred self-preservation.
No independent record (a videotape or an audiotape) existed to verify Elizabeth Hotlzmann's words.
Now, what usually happens if anybody thinks he is defamed?
The "aggrieved" person who thinks he was defamed can sue the person who he thinks defamed him.
And, such a lawsuit in New York involves a "special pleading" standard - if that "elevated" pleading standard is not met, the complaint is dismissed before discovery or trial.
And, such a lawsuit in New York would require to be proven - to a jury no less (trial by jury in New York is provided as a matter of right by New York Constitution for all issues of fact) - by preponderance of the evidence.
And, where the plaintiff is a public official, the public official faces a nearly impossible task of claiming that not only the statements against him were false, but they were made with a malicious intent.
And, in such a trial, the victim of rape would surely be able to testify under oath, in public, and describe what is being done to her in the judicial chambers.
And, Elizabeth Holtzmann, a defendant in such an action where Judge Irving Levine would have been a plaintiff - who would have had to:
- draft a complaint - meeting the elevated pleading standard;
- file it publicly in court, subjecting himself to discovery, written interrogatories under oath, out-of-court depositions under oath
- public exposure; and
- pleading standards;
- standards of proof before an impartial jury of people whose livelihood does not depend on whether the judiciary gives or does not give them permission to work (like they do with attorneys and court employees)
- "being a good girl",
- bowing to the Old Boys' Club in browbeating a female prosecutor simply because she protected a victim of rape from vile misconduct of a male judge and
- blocking the path of so many victims of rape to a legal remedy - who would want to subject themselves to humiliation the kind of which the victim of Judge Levine's misconduct suffered -
- without ANY fact-finding hearing
- based solely and exclusively on sanctions imposed upon me by the corrupt Delaware County judge Carl Becker (whose pictures with bears he killed Walton Reporter regularly posted in the past) FOR making a motion to recuse Becker because of his misconduct and corruption (he recused from my cases in 2009, then got himself reassigned to my cases in order to be able to get me, got me in 2011 and immediately put his sanctions into the "disciplinary pipeline", same as Judge Levine did with Elizabeth Holtzmann).