"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.

Friday, July 19, 2019

Yet another attorney is in the cross-hairs of corrupt CPS, judiciary, police and prosecution - the case of attorney Conney Reguli, of Tennessee, Part I. The mortal sin

It has been noted by many researchers that the U.S. attorney regulation and justice system is structured as a religious order.

Judges are gods or, at the very least, "ministers of justice", attorneys are their missionaries, expected to do PR for judges before the voters, in exchange for the judge's good attitude, favorable decisions - well, in exchange for business and livelihood.

Consequently, criticism by an attorney of a judge, in this religious framework, is the equivalent of heresy, and a sanction for heresy - well, in the modern liberal times it is not burning the culprit at the stake, but it is an ex-communication of sorts, stripping the attorney of his or her profession.

The scenario to do it has been polished to perfection by the judiciary - usually it starts with small sanctions, then the amount of sanctions rise, if the attorney does not "take heed" and start behaving as the judiciary is expecting him/her to behave, more serious sanctions follow - and then the judiciary simply takes the attorney's right to work as an attorney.

Of course, attorney regulation is portrayed to the public as introduced to protect the public from bad attorneys, but usually bad attorneys remain in the profession because they have good relations with the right judges, and good attorneys who have usually bad relations with dishonest judges, are removed from the public's reach as providers of legal assistance.

The public does not realize that it is being robbed of the rare gems, attorneys who engage practically in self-sacrifice, daring to criticize judges, in full knowledge that such criticism may lead them to loss of profession, reputation and to starvation.

Of course, attorneys are not usually stripped of their license bluntly for catching a judge in misconduct, the wording is usually much more elaborate and opaque, and represents a PR-action for the public.  Usually, some reasons are found to discredit the target attorney in the eyes of the public, to make sure that the public does not support that attorney, and to discredit the attorney's account to the public as to what is going on in the judiciary.

As to media coverage - the media that has no compunction in discussing the size of the President's genitals or his marital relations with his wife - comes to a standstill in so much as mentioning a judge's name, if a judge is involved in a certain "juicy" case of disciplinary or, even more juicy, criminal sanctions pending against an attorney.

A judge has to commit an act of violence on camera in order to have the media to mention the judge's name, and even then, looking at the video, the media will say - an "alleged" act of violence.

And even then - here is what a mainstream media source will say:

See, no actual footage of this pre-eminent, polished, beautiful lady trying to - literally, physically - strangle a court employee, a man, for not preparing her court docket documents on time.

And, it took the State of Florida a month to suspend a violent judge.  For a month court employees and the public were exposed to the risk of being assaulted and possibly murdered by her.  

You realize that if the court employee, on the other hand, that if the court employee, the victim, tried to strangle the judge on camera, he would have been immediately arrested, handcuffed, put in jail and immediately indicted.

So, with that in mind, let's consider what happened two days ago in yet another Southern State, the State of Tennessee, where a female attorney, Connie Reguli, and her client Wendy Hancock were criminally charged, the attorney - for "custodial interference" and "accessory after the fact", for her professional activities in representing a client, an EXTREMELY rare case.

Of course, mainstream media jumped upon the juicy news - and in its coverage provided, among other things, the following account:


and this

So, instead of saying, as responsible media should in reporting on a just-initiated criminal case, that both defendants are presumed innocent under the federal and state constitutional law, the media conveniently pre-smeared attorney Reguli and her client, Wendy Hancock - and paid more attention to pre-smearing the attorney rather than the mother, her client.

The media MUST know that criminal defendants must have a right to a fair trial - and, therefore, the media should be careful in its reporting not to create a bias that interferes with such a right and not to taint the jury pool in the are.

Yet, the taint has been already created.  Information about Connie Reguli's arrest warrant, surrender and indictment went like a wildfire through many media sources and the social media.

At the same time, note that the mainstream media coverage, while practically putting a bull's eye on attorney Reguli by the insinuations of "history ... over complaints of misconduct" and especially over the judge's derogation of her in front of her client - it carefully avoids to mention two things:

1. the name of the judge who said it; and

2. the circumstances under which the judge has said what she has allegedly said about the attorney in front of the client.

Let me eliminate that little mystery.

The judge in question is judge Amy V. Hollars, 

a Democrat, daughter of longtime judge John Turnbull

and a treasurer of the Tennessee Bar Foundation, holding the purse string to the enormous amounts of interest accruing of mandatory trust accounts of attorneys registered in the state - a VERY powerful person in the State of Tennessee even before she has ascended to her judicial throne.

Imagine the connections, the power of her father, to have the State Governor to openly engage in nepotism by "selecting" out of applicants to Judge Turnbull's judicial position - his own daughter.  Moreover, Judge Turnbull did not even retire - he RESIGNED, voluntarily surrendered his judicial position as a judge - to promote his daughter's career, which the then Governor of the State of Tennessee Phil Bredesen wholly approved, allowed and endorsed by his appointment of Amy Hollars to take her father's throne, quite like heirs of monarchy are inheriting their parents' thrones.

Imagine now the combined power of these two judges - if they want attorney Reguli's head on a silver platter - which they appear to want all right, judging by the coverage.

Hence, the newspaper and the DA's office appear to be doing the judge's bidding in (1) hinting that the attorney and her client are being criminally prosecuted because a judge is displeased with them, with the attorney especially, but (2) spare the judge embarrassment of mentioning her - and preventing further digging of the public as to what may be possible retaliatory motives of the judge against Attorney Reguli in this situation.

The circumstances as to when Judge Hollars supposedly told attorney Reguli's client's this:

are also very … well, peculiar.

Judge Hollars said that during a hearing on attorney Reguli's motion to recuse Judge Hollars after attorney Reguli has caught Judge Hollars in misconduct:

1) in engaging in a political activity - prohibited to sitting Tennessee judges by the state Constitution; and

2) fraternizing, and possibly engaging in an ex parte (without presence of other attorneys, a type of bad judicial misconduct) communication, with the guardian ad litem (attorney for the children) in the very case where attorney Reguli represented Wendy Hancock and was fighting for her parental rights to her children and against the children's removal from the mother's custody by social services.

I have reviewed the motion to recuse, with names of the children redacted out.

The political activity mentioned was the speech of Judge Hollars at Democrats' "Reorganization Convention" where attorney Sarah Cripps, guardian ad litem in the case - appointed into the case by Judge Hollars - personally introduced Judge Hollars at that Democratic party as a speaker.

Now, an attorney has to have a lot of nerve and a very close social connection to a judge to be able to personally approach a judge with a suggestion that she will introduce a judge at a political rally.  A regular attorney without a personal relationship with that particular judge (friendship or otherwise) simply cannot pick up a phone and call a judge presiding over a case where the attorney is appearing, with a suggestion to come with that attorney to a party of any kind, much less a political party, and to be introduced there by that attorney.

In the U.S., any person who goes to court as a party is entitled to a fair and impartial judicial review, for a judge who is neutral, is not biased against that party and is not favoring any other party in that same case.

The right to a fair and impartial judicial review is guaranteed to every party in American courts by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Moreover, litigants have a right not only to an actually fair and impartial judge, but also to an APPEARANCE that the judge is fair and impartial.

Let's look what we have here.

Judge Hollars was in some kind of a close social relationship with attorney Sarah Cripps whom she appointed as guardian ad litem in a case (with compensation by from Tennessee taxpayers), in exchange for which Sarah Cripps invited Judge Hollars to be a speaker at a "Reorganization Convention" of a Democratic party with live music and free food and drinks 

Believe me, judges, no matter how well paid, are suckers for free food and booze, I observed it personally when I was studying in Albany Law School in New York.  Judges of trial and appellate courts, state and federal, were invited regularly by the law school administration to lavish catered parties with food and alcohol in the law school's foyer, that was called "networking".  Whole judicial panels - New York State Court of Appeals, Appellate Division 3rd Deparment, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York - appeared without fail for these freebies.

So, the judge had an exchange of favors with a guardian ad litem in the case (a bribe "in kind", in plain English) - and should have recused the moment she agreed to that exchange, but she, of course, didn't.  Judges never see appearances of improprieties.

So - attorney Reguli pointed those appearances out to Judge Hollars, actually not even in so many words as I am doing above.

Attorney Reguli, in her motion to recuse, just pointed out that there is an appearance of impropriety that the judge is participating in political activities prohibited by the State Constitution, and is doing it at the bidding and with assistance with the guardian ad litem in the case.

That was actually enough for Judge Hollars to grant the motion to recuse - but not before she has dumped a bucket of her bile upon attorney Reguli, the culprit who has made that motion to recuse, and upon her client.

Now, you need to understand, my dear readers, that in the U.S. making a motion to recuse may be already enough to for the judiciary to get so pissed off that the attorney's law license will be yanked.  It happened like that, let's say, to attorney Christina Mires from Lousiana - even though she has proven the judge's conflict of interest and criminal conduct (inserting, with the help of a specially hired digital editing firm, a piece into an audio file of a court hearing) with sworn testimony of the technician who was doing the insertion.

But, note once again what Judge Hollars told attorney Reguli's client at the motion-to-recuse hearing:

Judge Hollars was so upset that somebody dared to tell her, judge and daughter of a judge, treated as blue blood who is always above the law her entire life, that she committed misconduct - that she has crossed all possible ethical boundaries and, despite granting the motion to recuse and stepping off the case (an acknowledgement that she cannot remain impartial in the case), she berated an attorney to a client, publicly, in court, in front of judicial personnel and on record - and saying that attorney Reguli is allegedly "simply launching ANOTHER attack upon the judiciary and they /sic/ system".

"Another attack upon the judiciary", huh?

Here is what she means.

In 2010, attorney Reguli testified to the Tennessee State Senate about egregious misconduct of a judge, after which three more judges complained against attorney Reguli to the Board of Professional Discipline:

After that, in 2015, she was disciplined by the Board of Professional Discipline - which is PART of the same judiciary that she was publicly criticizing and exposing in the Tennessee State Senate.

Attorney Reguli did not take the hint and continued to expose judicial misconduct in family courts in the State of Tennessee - those same courts that "separate families", take children away from their biological parents and adopt them out to strangers in exchange for federal incentive money, I've written about the federal statute that provides an incentive for doing it 5 years ago, here, nothing has changed since then, the statute is still on the books, other than that I myself was stripped of my law license, "coincidentally", right when the federal civil rights case where I established a precedent against warrantless searches by CPS for parents in 32 New York State counties was scheduled for a jury trial in federal court.

In 2016, attorney Reguli sued Judge Sharon Guffee and her court clerk for denying her access to records that she was entitled to by state law.

In 2017, a complaint was filed against attorney Reguli by Judge Sharon Guffe because HER CLIENT went to the General Assembly to speak about judicial misconduct and to try to promote legislation that would put regular people on the boards dealing with judicial misconduct and judicial discipline:

You can look up on YouTube how many public appearances Connie Reguli has made from 2010 to 2019, always speaking about the ongoing crisis in the CPS system fabricating cases against parents, ripping children out of families, and about complicity and outright misconduct of the state judiciary helping CPS in those "efforts".

 And, note the most relevant date to Judge Hollars' outburst regarding "another attack on the judiciary" and to the criminal charges filed against Connie Regule - her testimony to the Tennessee legislature on February 26, 2019, two months before the hearing on the motion to recuse against Judge Amy Hollars in Wendy Hancock's case.   

Consider, WHAT EXACTLY Judge Hollars tells the mother - that, since her attorney "attacks the judiciary AND 'the system'" - meaning, social services - the mother should better get rid of her, OR ELSE, or her children will be taken - this threat is very thinly veiled, that continued representation of Wendy Hancock by Connie Reguli may affect "the interests of your children about reunification":

The judge is practically admitting that social services is a member, and a favored member, of the judge's own advocacy team - and, remember, the judge is saying this WHILE LEAVING the case, as a farewell kick.

Well, Connie Reguli disclosed that that was not all - apparently, the judge was so fumed up that she could not contain herself from 

1. going back to her chambers,
2. taking off her robe after that hearing,
3. coming back into the courtroom in her regular clothes (which she usually does not do, exiting from her chambers by another exit), 
4. sneaking behind Connie Reguli, and
5. hissing nasty words about Connie Reguli behind her back.

The judge acted like a fishwife - but, remember, she did not kill anybody, YET, and so, her name or misconduct is not even mentioned by mainstream media in connection with her case.

Consider, on top of everything, that the object of proceeding pending in front of Judge Hollars before she recused was misconduct of yet another couple of judges - 

1. the judge whose SECRETARY directed social services to file for an illegal ex parte order of removal of Wendy Hancock's children in another county, knowing full well that it was illegal; and
2. the judge in that other county who signed an illegal ex parte order after it landed on his desk at the end of the working day not only without territorial jurisdiction, but also not passing through the court clerk's office, the regular procedure.

No, of course, the local media cannot possibly do what honest journalists do - and actually report facts, with all the gory details, no matter how high are the people who are involved in misconduct.

And, consider, that Connie Reguli is a rare gem of an attorney.

She started practicing law late in life, entering the legal profession as a mature adult, not a star-crossed girl who would take any disrespect, any garbage from a man or woman sitting up high on the judicial bench.

She enters an emotional realm of CPS cases that where not many attorneys dare to venture - and not only because they are targeted, as I was, as Connie Reguli is now, by disciplinary and criminal authorities (in my case, CPS and judges "friendly" to CPS tried to fabricate a child neglect case and take my child, then to concoct criminal charges several times against me, and finally succeeded suspending my law license for making a motion to recuse a corrupt judge Carl F. Becker - who has since run from the bench in 2015, before my suspension, amid a triple investigation of the New York State Comproller, the New York State Judicial Commission and the FBI).

Many attorneys simply do not want the emotional turmoil of dealing with parents whose children are ripped out of their arms, sometimes literally, by social services and the police, often on fabricated charges.

It is very challenging emotionally to live on top of a power keg every minute, being not only an attorney, but also a grief counselor all the time - and being constantly up against people who have much more power than you do.

Connie Reguli has the guts and determination to do that for people - FOR YEARS.

Consider also that, in the United States, as an unwritten government policy, defense of parents against CPS is not taught in law schools.

There are no such courses, no such textbooks, this subject is not tested on bar exams - and, as a result, the public is deceived into believing that any attorney with a law license who they hire or who is assigned to them by court has been properly trained and tested in this subject and knows what he or she is doing, while the law license has no guarantee whatsoever that the attorney knows anything at all on the subject of defense of parents against CPS.

Laws in this area, on the opposite, are multi-layer, complex, technical, convoluted and require not just a knowledgeable attorney, but a super-knowledgeable, and super-assertive (aggressive) attorney, to break through the usual barricades of misconduct and corruption and money interests present in such cases and win for their clients their own constitutional right to have their children with them, not sold out to strangers by CPS as an adoption mill.

It is, thus, government policy to - not teach, and intimidate, and eliminate those attorneys who teach themselves and excel in representing parents in such cases.

This is not "crisis at the border" where everybody who is anybody flocks in mock outrage to "represent children, separated from their families".

Here, parents separated from their children get no good representation.  Assigned attorneys are usually those who feed off such cases and will not be assigned again if they do anything good for the parents and against CPS.

And, when the state is trying to convict and then disbar Connie Reguli, and discredit her in the eyes of the public - make not mistake, it is not Connie Reguli who is the main target here.

It is you, the public, you, parents and your children, from whom the government is trying to shamelessly and unlawfully steal a knowledgeable and courageous attorney who has been, for years, EFFECTIVELY fighting CPS and corrupt system of judges, prosecutors and police that have teamed up with CPS to get millions of dollars in federal grant money.

Fighting for you and on your behalf.

Not to mention that she has at least two lawsuits pending against the County that is prosecuting her now, an irreconcilable conflict of interest.

For further account of conflicts of interest and details of Attorney Reguli's lawsuits against the local (and now aggravated) judges, police and CPS, and about misconduct of public officials in this case - stay tuned for the next article in this series.


  1. Wow... All people need to take note! The corrupt folks need to be removed and held accountable. This happens all over. Not just in Tennessee. Laws need to be changed. And we need good legal representation such as Connie Reguli! I hope journalist across the country run this story exposing this corruptnenss!!