"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.

Monday, October 29, 2018

Attorney speech criticizing the judiciary between 1880 and 2018. What has changed?

On November 6, 2018 people across the United States will be electing judges, and it is important to understand what exactly are the powers that voters are vesting those judges with and why it is important for the voters to DISREGARD what attorneys or attorney organizations, or attorneys - members of non-attorney organizations, "screening" or "qualifications" committees, say about judicial candidates.

Because licenses and livelihoods of attorneys are controlled by the American judiciary, and the judiciary demand from attorneys, as a condition of being able to earn a living in their profession, to either praise judges and judicial candidate and misrepresent them to voters as "qualified" for the judicial office, or shut up.  The third option, criticizing judges and judicial candidates and telling voters the truth about fitness of judges is, as the judiciary repeatedly proves in disciplinary cases, amounts for attorneys to a professional suicide.

Lying to the voters about fitness of judges when attorneys publicly endorse a judicial candidate either by words or by money, paying into election campaigns of judges and judicial candidates to help them getting elected is, on the opposite, a behavior accepted by judges from lawyers, and even the highest court in the country strikes only the most outrageous cases of judges ruling in favor of the biggest contributors to their election campaigns.  But, there is no statistics as to whether judges favor smaller contributors - and the lack of such statistics is in itself a problem.  A problem of fear of researchers to even conduct such a nation-wide research.

In 1880, the Pennsylvania top state court made a decision identifying attorneys as the best witnesses of judicial misconduct and unfitness to inform the public, members of the popular sovereign, taxpayers and voters as to fitness or unfitness of judges.

“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).

In 2018, 138 years later, a panel of 5 judges declared that those same best witnesses of judicial fitness are forbidden to tell the public about their thoughts (conveniently and self-servingly called by judges "speculations") about cases attorneys witness when judges make decisions based on what attorneys perceive, as legal experts, as political corruption.

"As to charges 4-6, respondent accused the court of blatant political bias and corruption and disparaged his adversaries. As the Referee found, "[n]either the Code nor the Rules obligates,' much less permits, a lawyer to chastise a judge for what the lawyer speculates is corrupt political behavior on that judge's part in presiding over a matter or to effectively threaten the judge that he would be investigated by the Office of Judicial Conduct and the Department of Justice unless he reversed his opinion. Yet Respondent did so repeatedly. . . .".

There was no defamation lawsuit against the attorney by his "adversaries" or by the judge, no discovery, no jury trial as to the accusations, and thus no right for the disciplinary "court" to claim that such accusations were without merit.

Moreover, the statute of limitations for a defamation lawsuit is 1 year, which, since 2008, is long gone, the judge and the unnamed "adversaries" of attorney Gino Giorgini were time-barred to file any defamation charges against him, and he has an absolute defense to a defamation lawsuit - the 1st Amendment right of his client to criticize the government and litigation immunity as to anything said during litigation.

And, litigation immunity is, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, and important common law policy promoting the truth-finding function of the court.

"  It is precisely the function of a judicial proceeding to determine where the truth lies. The ability of courts, under carefully developed procedures, to separate truth from falsity, and the importance of accurately resolving factual disputes in criminal (and civil) cases are such that those involved in judicial proceedings should be "given every encouragement to make a full disclosure of all pertinent information within their knowledge."

Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that regulation of attorney speech based on its content is subject to the so-called "strict scrutiny" under the 1st Amendment, which the court in Gino Giorgini's case did not even attempt to do.

And, the same U.S. Supreme Court

But, the U.S. Supreme Court did not take, for decades, a case of an attorney disciplined for exercising his client's 1st Amendment right to criticize the judiciary and his 14th Amendment right to impartial judicial review - which emboldens state courts into becoming petty tyrants considering their power divine, criticism of their corruption  as treason, and behaving as petty tyrants towards witnesses of their misconduct whose destiny judges control - attorneys.

There are no exceptions in the 1st Amendment protecting the judicial branch of the government from criticism of any member of the public, including an attorney or his client in litigation on whose behalf the attorney speaks to the court.

So - what has changed since 1880?

Why courts valued attorney speech criticizing themselves for the benefit of informing the public in 1880 and forbid and punish that same behavior with starvation/forbidding to work in the chosen profession in 2018?

Well, here is what has changed.

Rich attorneys teamed up with the judiciary to institute the so-called "attorney monopoly" for "the practice of law", without defining what the "practice of law" is - which is unconstitutional, but has been regulated, through civil and criminal proceedings, for 100 years nevertheless.

The noble principles of solo and small-firm attorneys who do not brown-nose the judiciary were used by the rich attorneys as a banner to
  • create attorney guilds (bar associations), 
  • incorporate them into the judiciary, attorneys' "own" branch of the government, 
  • invent "rules of attorney ethics", the main rule being "praise your benefactor, the judiciary, and never criticize it, or else you will be forbidden to practice the profession and your family will starve", 
  • dictate to the public that they choose their judges only from attorneys;
  • dictate to the public that they only choose their legal advisers, drafters of contracts and title documents and representatives in court only from the guild, approved by the guild's "own branch" of the government.
The only weak spot in perpetuating this grab of power by attorneys and judges are judicial elections, the only time when voters can choose to say "no" to this or that judicial candidate.

And, for that, the "guild" prepared by forbidding criticism by members of the guild of other members of the guild who are running for judicial elections, who are trying to get "elected" to rule the guild through regulation of "the practice of law" (remember, and undefined concept).

In other words, the attorney guild and its member and ruler, the judiciary, deliberately and systematically conspire to block voters from the most pertinent information about unfitness of judges and judicial candidates running for election/re-election or being considered for appointment - by intimidating attorneys, the best expert witnesses on the subject.

I will show in the next blog that how that prohibition on criticism violates federal criminal laws.

But, voters still have their own options.

First, to seek your own information about judicial candidates and never to trust licensed attorneys praising a judge - since such praise may be forced, coerced or aimed at getting a favor from that judge and promoting the attorney's business.

Second, to seek out the legislative representative and to demand to end the rule of the guild by
  • removing the requirement that judges be licensed attorneys;
  • removing the requirement that judges regulate attorneys;
  • removing the requirement that attorneys be licensed or regulated by the government - while opposing the government in court (in criminal, administrative and some "civil" proceedings, like proceedings in Family Courts against parents brought by CPS, and in civil rights lawsuits brought by private parties against the government);
  • removing the requirement of ever regulating attorneys before the subject of regulation, "the practice of law" is clearly defined by statute -
and thus unclogging the block that the judiciary put, through punishments like the one imposed upon attorney Gino Giorgini,  during a judicial election campaign, upon criticism of the judiciary - and on using such "disciplinary" cases to intimidate the profession into brown-nosing its self-imposed "regulator" regulating what it cannot even define, but "regulating" nevertheless.

You will see how many things in this country will change to the better once these simple changes are introduced.

And yes, you, the voters, can do it.

If your legislative representatives refuse to comply with such demands, such changes can be introduced through state Constitutions, based on statewide referendums.

Voters can prove to judges and the attorney guilds that voters are not cattle whose voice is duped and manipulated in order to perpetuate the guild's power over the people.

Can't they?


Sunday, October 21, 2018

Why voters should not believe judicial candidates "pre-screened" and approved by attorney associations. The case of #GinoGiorgini, Part II. The composition of the "firing squad".

Voting, including voting for judicial candidates, is just about 2 weeks away, and voters need to make up their minds who to vote for.

In New York, voting for a candidate for the seat of a Supreme Court Justice is giving somebody the power to take away your property, split your family, take away your kids and/or put you or your loved one in jail for a very long time - and that power you give to that person for 14 years, if it is a County/Surrogate's/Family Court seat, then you give that same power for 10 years.

People who vote for just about anybody on the ballot thinking that nothing will happen to them because they are never going to be facing a court proceedings, should think again.  That can happen out of the blue, and then, again, your liberty, family integrity, children, good name, job, right to get a treatment or not to be forced into mental health evaluations or treatments - will be in the hands of the person you are voting for.

Usually, judicial candidates are "pre-screened" by "Independent committees" - consisting of mostly of attorneys and being part of appellate courts, or by "bar associations", organizations of attorneys.

Such "pre-screening" must create in the public eye the perception that the particular candidate approved by attorneys is qualified, competent and honest.

That, in reality, may be, and most likely, is, diametrically opposite from the truth.

Attorneys in this country, and in the State of New York, are regulated by judges, in a very direct way.  Judge give or revoke attorneys' licenses to work as attorneys ("practice law"), and the biggest misstep that an attorney may commit in this country - which usually leads to losing his license and livelihood - is to criticize a judge or judicial candidate, no matter whether it is fair or not.

That means that attorneys approving a judicial candidate as eligible most likely LIE to the voters in order to 1. preserve their own licenses and livelihoods, and 2.

Those few attorneys who do not succumb to the rule of fear by judges and continue to do their jobs and criticize judges, are severely and inevitably punished by monetary sanctions and/or by their law licenses being taken away.

On this blog, I collect the names of such courageous attorneys.

In 2018, the election year, New York has increased its onslaught on attorney speech and sanctioned several attorneys for criticism of the judiciary.

The most egregious case, right in the middle of the judicial election campaign, is the case of attorney Gino Giorgini, whose license was suspended, without a right to reinstatement (which means, the 3-months suspension may result in a permanent disbarment if attorney Giorgini continues to criticize judges for misconduct and does not bow his head and does not acknowledge that criticizing judges for misconduct was wrong) on September 25, 2018, effective October 25, 2018, 4 days away from now.

I have given an overview of that case in my previous blog article about this year's judicial election campaign.

In this blog, I will provide a the background of judges who decided the fate of attorney Giorgini and sent the intimidating message to other New York attorneys, in the middle of a judicial election campaign, not to criticize judges, and thus, to misinform the voters through their silence or praise of judges who do not deserve that praise.

In the article I plan to publish after this one, there will be a more thorough and in-depth analysis of constitutional violations (federal crimes under 18 U.S.C. 242) that the judges who decided Gino Giorgini's case committed (judges of New York's intermediate appellate court that handle attorney licensing call themselves "Justices", presuming about themselves that whatever comes from under their pens is "just", which is, as this case will show, far from being so).

Here are the "heroes" that suspended the law license of the attorney who practiced for 27 years, Gino Giorgini, for criticism of 3 judges:

  1. David Friedman, Justice Presiding, who has not worked a single day in private practice as an attorney, but has always been a student law clerk to a judge, a law clerk to a judge, and then a judge;

2. Rosalyn H. Richter, a former prosecutor,

3. Richard T. Andrias, a 75-year old "Justice" who is 5 years past the New York mandatory retirement age for judges and who must be "serving" on a certification about his good mental health - which I will try to obtain from the New York State Governor's office on a Freedom of Information request.  "Justice" Andrias reportedly 
admitted to the bar in 1971, see the scan from NYS attorney registration site from today, but reportedly practiced for a year before the admission for a private firm,Gilbert, Segall & Young,  committing a crime of unauthorized practice of law (by the way, Justice Andrias is a licensed attorney and there is no statute of limitations for attorney misconduct in NY, but who is going to discipline Justice Andrias for UPL - Justice Andrias himself? or a criminal prosecutor whose license he controls?);

"Justice" Andrias has ruled in February of this year regarding one other New York State-licensed attorney, John O'Kelly, confirming the trial judge's right to sanction John O'Kelly for the same as he suspended attorney Giorgini, criticism of a judge, see the decision here and the analysis of the decision here.

4.  Barbara R. Kapnick - yet another member of the panel that supported punishment of attorney John O'Kelly for criticism of a judge;

Barbara Kapnick is a second "justice" on this panel who has not worked a single day as an attorney in private practice.  

Here is the today's scan of her attorney licensing history:

So, she was issued her law license in August of 1981.

And here is her official biography from the Appellate Division:

"Between 1980 and 1991, Justice Kapnick worked as a Law Clerk to both the Hon. Ethel B. Danzig and the Hon. Michael J. Dontzin in the Civil and Supreme Courts of New York County.

Justice Kapnick was elected to the Civil Court in 1991, appointed an Acting Supreme Court Justice in April 1994, and was elected to the Supreme Court, New York County in 2001. She was assigned to the Commercial Division in 2008, where she handled many high profile cases, and was appointed to the Appellate Division, First Department by Governor Andrew M. Cuomo in January 2014. She was a member of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics from June 2008 - June 2018, and now serves on its Ethics Faculty."

So, judge Kapnick started to work as a law clerk for two judges before she was admitted to the bar, and worked as a law clerk for these two judges until she was herself elected a judge.

Her biography indicates that she has never worked in private practice, not a single day, and yet she "regulates" attorneys in private practice and tells them what is proper and what is not proper for them to do.  Having worked for judges her entire life, since 1980, for 38 years, "Justice" Kapnick, naturally, has a bias against attorneys daring to criticize their holinesses, judges.

Note also that being able to be assigned to a Commercial Division, and in Kings County no less, signals BIG connections this judge has, such appointments are not done without a lot of graft passing through a lot of hands.  Yet, this judge now "advises" on judicial ethics and is teaches about judicial ethics - which is important in review of her own decision in both John O'Kelly's case, and in Gino Giorgini's case.  The constitutional violations and violations of judicial ethics that this judge committed in both cases were done deliberately, as the judge is a teaching expert in the area of both attorney regulation and judicial ethics, and is sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution - the text of which the judge presumably must know in order to be able to uphold it.

5.  Troy K. Webber, a new appointment to this court (2016) and a former career prosecutor

committed in suspending attorney Giorgini's law license in the middle of judicial election campaign in order to send an intimidating message to other New York State attorneys and force them to give to voters only their praises of judges and judicial candidates, in other words, forcing attorneys to misinform voters in order to prolong the reign of crooked judges and judicial candidates.

So, the panel that suspended the license of attorney Gino Giorgini consisted of 5 judges, out of them:

  • 2 judges who never practiced a day as private attorneys and have always been either assistants to judges or judges for scores of years (Friedman, Kapnick);
  • 2 former career prosecutors (Richter, Webber); and
  • 1 past-retirement age judge who practiced law without a license for a year before being admitted to the bar and never punished for that.
Moreover, 2 out of 5 judges (Kapnick and Friedman) were members of the "firing squad" for another attorney, also for criticism of a judge, and also this year - that attorney was not subjected to attorney discipline, but the decision against him set a precedent to do that to him and to any other attorney who would dare to criticize a judge within the jurisdiction of the 1st Department, including attorney Giorgini.

So, at the very outset, the judicial panel formed to review and decide the fate of attorney Giorgini did not promise anything good to that attorney, as it was biased on the issue of attorney criticism of the judiciary at the very outset.

Let's see how the panel arrived at its decision to suspend attorney Giorgini for 3 months, but "until further order of the court" (which means "indefinitely", like in a "disbarment") - and during a judicial election campaign.

I will also dedicate a separate article to whether these Justices were properly authorized to "serve" on this court - which may affect validity of their decisions.

Stay tuned.

Sunday, October 14, 2018

Voters, do not allow yourself to be duped in judicial elections. The cases of #BrettKavanuagh and #GinoGiorgini. The rules of the honorable American judiciary for the honorable American legal profession: lie about judges you are allowed to lie about, but don't you dare inform voters about true judicial misconduct of politically connected judges

Since February of 2016 and until this day a show has been going on in the U.S. where the leaders of the American legal profession and both parties, Democratic and Republican, have been showing its true colors, showing the public what REALLY is the so-called "rule of law" in America.

The true role of the U.S. Supreme Court in the U.S. "democracy"

Why since February of 2016?

The U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died on or around Valentine's Day (the true date of death could not be determined because of the circumstances of his death).

Since that day, the American people had an opportunity to observe games played by both parties, Democratic and Republican, in the war as to who will replace the seat of the departed judge.

That happened with the death of Antonin Scalia.

That happened again with the retirement of the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in July of 2018.

After the death of Antonin Scalia, the Republican majority of the Senate precluded the Democratic President Barack Obama from having the candidate he lawfully nominated during his presidency confirmed for the court.

The Democrats responded "in kind", trying to block two candidates for the U.S. Supreme Court nominated by the supposedly Republican President Donald Trump - Neil Gorsuch, in the place of the same deceased Antonin Scalia and instead of President Obama's nominee Merrick Garland, and Brett Kavanaugh.

While the attempt at mud-slinging at Judge Gorsuch were undertaken by Democrats, they were mild as compared to the smear campaign aimed at Brett Kavanaugh, an already-confirmed federal appellate judge with pristine reputation before he had the misfortune to be nominated by the "wrong" President.

What did the circus around nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court showed to the American people.

The importance of the identity of U.S. Supreme Court justices and who appoints them.

And why are those things so important?

Judges are supposed to be neutral and impartial, no matter to which party the President who nominated the particular judge belonged.

And judges are supposed to rule based on the written law - and not make law, this is (based on Article I of the U.S. Constitution) the exclusive right of the U.S. Congress - and not on their personal or political views or affiliations.

Well, that concept goes out the door given the open partisan fight over which party appoints a judge to the highest court in the country and when supporters and opponents of each party and each party's judicial nominee openly claim that one (1) person nominated by the "wrong" party and sitting for life will change the law of a supposedly democratic country with a 348 000 000 population for decades, for as long as that nominee sits on the country's highest court.

The reason is that, while U.S. legal scholars, professors, who are afraid for their law licenses and ability to teach at prestigious law schools controlled through accreditation by the American Bar Association, an Illinois non-profit corporation with secret, including foreign, membership, are afraid to call things like they are,

 foreign legal scholars - I read law reviews article by English, Nigerian and Russian legal scholars - openly state that in the U.S. the highest court in the country MAKES LAW, and CHANGES THE CONSTITUITON through their interpretation, even though there is no such power in the U.S. Constitution given to the U.S. Supreme Court, moreover, even though the lawmaking power is given exclusively to the U.S. Congress (Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution) and even though the Law of the Land, contrary to the routinely expressed "beliefs" of American law professors, lawyers, judges and many non-lawyer members of the American public, does not include decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court interpreting federal and state laws and the U.S. Constitution.  The Law of the Land includes exclusively 3 things, none of which are decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court:

  1. The text of the U.S. Constitution;
  2. The text of federal statutory laws made (by the U.S. Congress) in accordance with the U.S. Constitution; and
  3. International treaties ratified by the United States.
That's all.

In other words, legal scholars who are not afraid that their law licenses will be revoked and that they will be booted into the street from the ABA-controlled American law schools, plainly state that the U.S. Supreme Court usurped legislative powers from the U.S. Congress and acts as a super-legislative body, making its decisions "binding" on the country INSTEAD of the constitutional Law of the Land - and making itself a sort of a collective 9-people monarchy.

The circus around who is going to take the seat of a deceased or a retired U.S. Supreme Court justice only confirms that proposition.

The U.S. Constitution as a sacred text, the U.S. Supreme Court as the only oracle that can read and discern the meaning of that sacred text, the divine power of the U.S. Supreme Court judges (and other judges), the taboo to criticize that divine power and exceptions from that taboo

The circus about who will take the seat of a deceased or a retired U.S. Supreme Court judge was not the only show displaying for the American public the true colors of the American legal profession - which the American judiciary is regulating and is, at the same time, a part of (every American judge, including federal judges, is an attorney licensed by a state intermediate appellate (State of New York) or by the state highest (all other states) court).

Imagine a setup where you are appointed by the people to regulate a certain profession.  Let's say, you are appointed to regulate plumbers.

How will you handle the regulation?  Wouldn't you say that one of the main requirements to such regulation is that the regulator must be impartial, fair, regulate only for the purposes benefiting the people and not himself?

Now let's look at how the judiciary (part of the legal profession) regulates the legal profession.

Here are the rules that the judiciary, the U.S. Supreme Court, to be more precise, followed by other courts, created for all American judges:

1.  judges can violate their own Constitutional oath of office and people's constitutional (human) rights with impunity - the victims may not sue them and may not obtain any legal remedy, inside or outside the country, for the wrongs inflicted upon them by judicial corruption or misconduct.  That "rule" was set by two "policies" of the U.S. Supreme Court, policies not only making law (which the judicial branch of the federal government does not have authority to do under Article III of the U.S. Constitution), but also changing the U.S. Constitution and rendering the judges' own oath to support, defend and maintain the U.S. Constitution into a cruel joke:

  • absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts - "on the bench" (in office), but stretched by courts far outside acts by judges in their judicial capacity, see e.g. cases from New York federal courts 
  • judges refuse to recognize part of the "law of the land", international treaties ratified by the U.S. as "self-executing", directly applicable and binding upon American national courts - I have recently presented a law review article at a conference "Seeking Justice Beyond Our Shores: Americans and International Human Rights"  on that subject, with a large bibliography listing cases decided by the U.S. Supreme court honoring international treaties where property rights were concerned and refusing to do that when individual liberties were concerned, and showing how the U.S. Congress took the hint from the U.S. Supreme Court and now ratifies all international treaties protecting human rights as "non-self-executing" for Americans, denying Americans out-of-the-country judicial review that citizens, residents and visitors of over 100 countries, including countries that the U.S. considers non-democratic, have.
2. judges may accept gifts - in money and in kind - from parties in litigation and attorneys appearing in front of them.  Recall Justice Scalia hunting trips, where he was found dead, recall that the U.S. Supreme Court allows money gifts for judges, and that SCOTUS judges accept all-expenses-paid trips and speaking and lecture fees from law schools, bar associations and foreign governments.

3. despite giving themselves absolute immunity for corruption and engaging in corruption, accepting gifts, judges also declare that their honesty and integrity is presumed.

4.  Moreover, as the chief ethicist (at this time) of the American Bar Association Margaret Tarkington announced recently in her book "The Voice of Justice", the judiciary, the regulator of the legal profession, use arguments of medieval English kings that king's (and the King's Court's) power is divine and that criticizing it in any way is treason - and created the ultimate taboo for the profession the judiciary regulate, attorneys, against speaking in the criticism of the judiciary.

So, we have:

1. the 1st Amendment prohibiting restriction of speech;
2. multiple precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court based on the 1st Amendment that the U.S. Supreme Court claims to be binding on all courts in the country - that prohibits regulation of speech based on its content, and especially when it is criticism of the government; but
3. that does not apply to attorney speech in criticism of their own regulator, the judiciary.

For attorneys criticizing judges is an ultimate taboo, and criticism of judges even with the most iron-clad proof inevitably leads to retaliatory suspension of the attorney's law license and to destruction of the attorney's livelihood.

Moreover, judges have invented theories of quid pro quo, that attorneys supposedly lay down their 1st Amendment rights in exchange of permission from the judiciary to earn a living by "practicing law".

And, the judiciary includes into rules of attorneys they regulate the requirement that the attorneys praise judges and judicial candidates to voters, "maintaining public trust" in the integrity of the judiciary, and not "spread false information" about judges AND judicial candidates during elections, while what is false is defined not in defamation lawsuits of judges and judicial candidates against lawyers, but in secret disciplinary proceedings without strict evidentiary rules and standards.

And, the judiciary, on top of everything else, never clearly defined what the "practice of law" is making the whole regulation illegal under the U.S. Supreme Court own precedents, but made it a crime to practice law without the judiciary's permission, and define what WAS the practice of law backwards, on a case by case basis, violating constitutional prohibitions on bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.

And, the judiciary defines as "practice of law" much more actions for people who have lost their law license than for the people who have never had it.  As an example, anybody, with any level of education, can work as a secretary or assistant in a law office, but it is the crime of the "unauthorized practice of law" for a suspended or disbarred attorney.

Let's go back to our hypothetical appointment of a regulator of plumbers.

Imagine that you, as a regulator, issue rules that:

1. you define what plumbing is, and define it in arrears, backwards;
2. you say that unauthorized practice of plumbing is a crime;
3. you say that, if a person lost your permit for plumbing, and then helps a plumber, he is guilty of a crime - while a person who had never had your permit for plumbing, can do the same, and it will not be a crime for him;
4. you give yourself immunity in your actions in regulating plumbers, for corruption and misconduct;
5. you allow yourself to accept gifts from plumbers for whom you issue permits to work and can revoke them at your whim;
6. you impose a code of silence, a taboo, as to criticism of yourself by people whose livelihood you control, the plumbers;
7. morever, you demand plumbers who are forced into silence about your shortcomings and misconduct to praise to the public your honesty and integrity, allowing to perpetuate your power as a regulator and be re-appointed (re-elected).

That is what the judiciary is doing.

And the taboo to criticize it for attorneys is so strong that criticizing a judge, for any reason, is normally considered - as Professor Tarkington acknowledged - a professional suicide for an attorney.

The American legal profession tried to spread that taboo, now "applicable" only to attorneys, to Donald Trump when he was still running for President and when nobody really believed that he will become President.  When he criticized a judge for bias and appearance of impropriety, there was a lot of mud-slinging aimed against Trump claiming that it was improper for him to exercise his 1st Amendment rights in criticizing a judge.

Yet, when Trump became President and nominated first one, then another judge to the U.S. Supreme Court, the rules of engagement for the legal profession have changed.

Suddenly, the taboo on criticism by attorneys, law students and law professors of the judiciary have lifted and the legal profession engaged in a collective, organized, mud-slinging against Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Yet, if you think for one second that, because of Judge Kavanaugh's case, the taboo for attorneys to criticize judges, was lifted forever, think again.


You know for what?

For the attorney's written pleadings in 2005 (!), 13 years ago, and in 2008, 10 years ago, criticizing two judges for their apparent incompetence and dishonesty in deciding cases.

One of the two judges, Thomas Whelan, has a wife who is also a judge, Teresa Whelan, and who, "coincidentally", is running a re-election campaign at this very time.

Note that the article names Teresa Whelan's mother as a prominent figure in the local government, specifically she played a big role in choosing who is and who is not going to be elected in Suffolk County:

"Whelan is the scion of a prominent Democratic family — her mother, Joan Bryant, is a former deputy Suffolk elections commissioner and was a major party fundraiser for the late party chair Dominic Baranello."

And, both the daughter, and the son-in-law, of the "former deputy Suffolk elections commissioner" and of the "major party fundraiser for the late party chair Dominic Baranello" "coincidentally" became judges in that same county.

Nothing too crooked.

And,  the daughter of that "major fundraiser" "coincidentally" became also a president of the Suffolk County Women's Bar Association.

And, "coincidentally", an attorney was suspended for criticism of one of the Whelan judges - for criticism that occurred 13 years ago - during the re-election campaign of the other Whelan judge, as a point of intimidation to that attorney and to all other attorneys.

And suspended for three months - until December 25, 2018, and "until further order of the court", as a warning - peep a word of criticism during the re-election campaign, and your law license will not be reinstated.

Not too crooked either.

And you know what pro-democratic legal blogs are doing?  Are they adamant that the attorney's suspension for criticism of judges, and for well-deserved criticism, too, was unconstitutional?

Far from it.

Same as the mud-slinging of Judge Kavanaugh, for which the ABA has lifted the strict taboo of criticism on the judiciary, kicking attorneys who have violated that taboo by criticizing judges supported by "party fundraiser" connections is also allowed by the regulators.

So, to hell with the Gino Giorgini's 1st Amendment right to say what he said in his 13-year-old and 10-year-old criticisms of judges.

To hell as to the fact that "Above the Law" does not even know which cases attorney Giorgini was punished for - because the disciplinary court, and the court system of the State of New York and of the Suffolk county HID those cases, misidentifying them, and hiding their index numbers from the disciplinary case, and from the e-docket of the New York State Supreme Court.

To hell that the whole disciplinary proceeding was jurisdictionally defective, because it was started in the 2nd Department, while one of the judges of the court that filed the charges was the object of attorney Giorgini's criticism.

And to hell with the fact that criticism by attorney Giorgini of Judge Whelan - at least, judging by other publications in the mainstream press - was RICHLY deserved, and was baby talk as compared to what kind of criticism Judge Thomas Whelan should have been subjected to.

See what Judge Whelan did reported and acknowledged here, by the top judge of the State of New York, and here, and here, where the top state court reversed Judge Whelan's decision appointing his friends and political allies to control (and drain) lucrative foreclosed properties.

Judging by the listing of what Judge Whelan did - the listing by courts and by the press - Judge Whelan should have been taken off the bench, disbarred and criminally prosecuted.

Instead, his critic is wrongfully suspended - and the legal profession is vulgarly and with vile, celebrates it, by kicking their colleague who was WRONGFULLY suspended  - which only adds to the "honorable" portray of the American legal profession that obediently kicks or supports who it is told by the government to kick or support, while the government holds the legal profession hostage through controlling attorneys' law licenses.

Remember, attorneys is YOUR tool of access to justice, and if that tool is in the iron grasp of the government and prohibited to give you TRUE information about who you are voting for, your hopes of access to true and fair remedies are … well, they are pooped.

And, judges are also your tools of obtaining effective remedies for your legal wrong, members of the public, and when judges get elected and re-elected through fraud, through intimidation of attorneys, the best and most expert witnesses as to judicial misconduct and unfitness, you are even more pooped.

It is interesting to mention that the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, where Judge Thomas Whelan was turned in for cronyism, refused to prosecute him claiming, despite obvious evidence of his misconduct, acknowledged by higher courts - you know what?

Which was a screamingly false ground for dismissal, since there were rules in place for centuries that a judge should avoid impropriety and even an appearance of impropriety which is embedded in the New York Judicial Code of Conduct for a very long time.

As well as the rule that a judge must recuse from the case when a reasonable person would believe that the judge cannot be impartial in the case - and appointing personal friends and political contributors to lucrative fiduciary positions does just that.

So, most likely, the impolite language of the attorney's pleadings was just the top of the iceberg when the attorney simply lost it and could not be civil any longer when dealing with rampant judicial corruption affecting his clients.

The only thing he was "guilty" of was incivility, but not the essence of his accusations against Judge Whelan.

As to accusations against other judges, the disciplinary decision makes it impossible to verify whether attorney Giorgini's accusations were true or not, since the decision purged the index No. of the case and the name of the Appellate judge involved in the second group of charges, hiding from the public the true reason for the punishment and making it impossible to verify whether the discipline imposed was fair or not.

But why, at the same time, such a delay and such a hurry in punishing an attorney?

Why punish an attorney for something he wrote 13 and 10 years ago, respectively, drag the case for years and finalize it at the height of a judicial election campaign?

The answer is very clear - the disciplinary decision is to be used to intimidate other attorneys and deter them from criticizing judges, any judges, especially "the other Whelan judge", Teresa Whelan, and to block the flow of truthful information to the voters about dishonesty and unfitness of judicial candidates.

While professional regulation of attorneys was introduced not to maintain the "divine power" of judges, and not to prevent attorneys from ever gaining for their clients the clients' constitutional right to impartial judicial review.

On the very opposite.

The regulation of attorneys was introduced under a pretext of protecting the public from dishonest and incompetent lawyers.

There is not a word in the decision suspending the law license of attorney Gino Giorgini about his dishonesty or incompetence.

There is not a word in that decision that the two judges he criticized filed and won a defamation lawsuit against him, proving to a jury in their respective defamation cases that attorney Giorgini falsely criticized and defamed them.

No, the disciplinary proceedings were a backroom deal continuing the unconstitutional taboo that exists only to continue to dupe the voters by gagging attorneys and preventing them, by the rule of fear, the fear to lose their livelihood and to starve, from giving the voters truthful information about who they vote for in judicial elections.

Consider that when going to the polls come November.

Consider that the supposedly "honorable" legal profession that "screens" candidates for judicial office "for you" is a paid PR-firm of the judicial candidates.

Consider that licensed attorneys are paid by the judiciary through "permission" to earn a living with a law license and held hostage by the same judiciary if they give voters true information about unfitness or dishonesty of their regulator, the judiciary, including candidates for judicial office.

Read financial disclosure reports about your judicial candidates on the site of the New York State Board of Elections.

Run the background of donors, including on the New York State Attorney directory, see if any donors are attorneys or large corporations.

Inform yourself as to how justice is bought in the State of New York and in the U.S. in general.

Do not allow yourself to be duped.