"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.

Thursday, September 26, 2019

How Russia is copycatting a big American disaster - perfectly. A tale of American foxies and chickens, and how to shit another planet after you have thoroughly shitted your own.

We have in the United States what economists call "absolute attorney monopoly".

Lawyers have clinched the market of legal services for themselves and do not allow anybody else to do anything in it.

Does not matter that "the practice of law" - the subject of regulation is not clearly defined by statute in any of the 255+ court jurisdictions across the United States, and that such regulation, under a standing and, supposedly, binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent, is unconstitutional based not on just one, but on several points.

Does not matter that it is non-sensical to allow the fox to regulate themselves for the benefit of the chickens (consumers) - without letting chickens have a say in the regulation, that is, supposedly, for their benefit.

Does not matter that the chickens may want to choose their own foxy to represent themselves in court - and, possibly, not from the pack approved by big bad foxes (the government).

Does not matter that there are - in abundance - situations when the "outside foxies" are knowledgeable in how to defend chickens against the big bad fox, while the "inside foxies" are not.  The big bad fox still tells the chickens then - you must choose the dumb inside foxies to represent yourself against me in my court, rather than the outside smart foxies, because I said so.

Does not matter that big bad foxes have long ruled that lack of a law license (not being a member of the monopoly) does not mean that services of such a person are ineffective 

- making such a regulation/monopoly nonsensical.

Does not matter that big bad foxes have long been punishing the outside foxies, for doing HIGH QUALITY, GOOD work for indigent chickens - because they were doing that GOOD work for the indigent chickens that no inside foxies wanted to do, but without permission from the big bad fox, and without paying their ways through the required "golden path" (see below).

That is a criminal offense in the United States, doing good work ("practice of law") without permission of the big bad fox - who cannot define what the practice of law is in the first place, but will put you in jail if you practice it without its permission.

Does not matter that it makes no sense, when the big bad fox (the government) sues the chicken, that the chicken's rights (the big bad fox says) are protected in the best way only (supposedly) if their own opponent, the big bad fox, chooses a foxy for the chicken, out of a list of foxies pre-approved by the big bad fox.

Does not matter that it makes no sense to allow the big bad fox (courts) to regulate all foxies while the absolute majority of foxies do not litigate (do not work in courts).

Does not matter that any monopoly - and attorney monopoly is no exception:

  • increases prices for consumer;
  • cuts diversity of products and services;
  • cuts quality of products and services - all by reducing competition,
  • stifles innovation,
  • stifles social progress by putting a high price on entry into the monopoly by requiring every new foxy to pay his way through a "golden path":

1/ graduate from high school;
2/ pay for and stay out of the job market for 4 years of college (does not matter what degree - it is useless, its role is to make candidates to enter the monopoly WAIT for 4 more years and pay for it through their noses - the poor will fall off the wagon of candidates on their own 
3/ pay for and stay out of the job market for 3 more years of law school (200,000 dollars all in all for not the best of law schools nowadays - on to of college student loans);
4/ pay for an "ethics" exam 
5/ pay a Board licensing fee
6/ pay for a super-expensive bar exam preparation fee
7/ pay a bar exam fee;
8/ regularly pay the ever-increasing biennial licensing fees and
9/ Continued Legal education - not cheap, but mandatory amount of hours to maintain a license
10/ it is very advisable for foxies (individually and as firms and associations) to make "contributions" to election campaign of judges - to win cases in front of them.

All of the above - inevitably - has led to the current situation (and it has been for some time this way) in the United States where the absolute majority of American chickens cannot afford legal services of foxies, and where the majority of inside foxies do not even want to represent the American chickens, instead preferring to work for big chicken farms ( less than 0.6% of American attorneys work for the poor, while 75% of American attorneys work for corporations) - since all foxies must necessarily put into their prices the cost of the "golden path".

But, we have long passed that point - and the poor STILL cannot hire outside foxies, cannot make a choice any legally competent adult must be able to make for himself - who is going to be his trusted person to represent him in court.

Meanwhile, the same justice Sotomayor (and her brothers and sisters) STILL continued to reject petitions of attorneys for the poor disbarred or suspended and taken out of the rich of their indigent clients, thus broadening the justice gap over which this "Democratic" justice has shed her crocodile tears.


Attorney monopoly in the United States DID start to give way - albeit slowly.

1. has introduced an AI (artificial intelligence)-assisted legal research, available to anyone, for 65 bucks a month.  That's 18 cents an hour, folks, 1667 TIMES cheaper than to pay a fee to an attorney who may not even know the subject, but will take your money anyway.

You scan in and upload your legal document, the software, assisted by artificial intelligence, spots legal issues in it and pops up for you statutes and court decisions on points of those decisions - you can read it and form your own impression what are your chances in a particular court proceeding.

2.  5 states so far (California, Utah, Arizona, Maine, and Illinois) at the moment are contemplating deregulation, allowing non-lawyers to practice law.  A month ago it was only California.  So, the snowball of deregulation has started rolling.  Slowly, imperfectly, but it did start rolling.

But, foxes are called foxes because they are tricky.

And, American foxes (attorneys) have seen the writing of deregulation on the wall a wrong time ago.  And made precautionary arrangements.

Tell me, what do you do if you bomb and poison and burn your own planet into extinction?

You try to find another one to bomb and poison and burn into extinction, of course.

And that's what the American legal profession has done.

It has founded a project - funded by American taxpayers, mind, those same taxpayers who the American legal profession has caused not to be able to afford a lawyer, so they go without legal help.  The project started at the fall of the Berlin wall, and, of course, is called "The Rule of Law".    

The essence of the project is, of course, nothing close to spreading the Rule of Law over the welcoming world.  

It is a project transplanting all that is bad in the U.S. - its corrupt and ineffective court system, its attorney monopoly that has caused a dire crises of access to justice - to the so-called 3rd world and post-Soviet countries, including Russia.

To transplant their home Armageddon overseas to be able to operate under homelike conditions, the American legal profession did not spare millions over millions - of taxpayer money, of course, they work through and with USAID - which keeps contracts with the ABA on this project secret, blocking Freedom of Information requests from the likes of me.

But, judging by certain tax returns of certain organizations available on, the ABA works on the global shit-spreading project the same way as they work at home.

They bribed the necessary people, brought them on world and U.S. tours, educated them in Harvard, employed their friends and relatives - and, thus, changed country Constitutions and legislations, and instilled American-type attorney monopolies across the world.

Russia has fallen into this trap, too.

It was not easy to instill attorney monopoly in Russia.  Well, it was not easy to do that in the U.S. either.  It required nearly a century to do that - but it was done.  And so it was - nearly completely now - in Russia.

In 1993 American lawyers have "helped" Russia re-write its Constitution, putting into it an "Article 48" that provided a guarantee to Russians not for just legal "help", but for "qualified legal help".  That was later used as a pretext to restrict those who are allowed to provide "legal help" to the population - because they need to be "qualified", and their qualifications are to be determined by - guess who - members of the monopoly, of course, not the public.

In 9 years, in 2002 - a group of attorneys called "advocates" (about 80 000 out of the current 1-2 mln of Russian attorneys, nobody counted them, it is an educated guess), have gained monopoly in criminal cases, through a statute.

17 years further down the road, in less than a week, on October 1, 2019 - a yet another new statute goes into effect in Russia, by which all attorneys gained monopoly for court representation in civil cases.

On September 30, 2019 - the third and final stage of instilling American-type attorney monopoly starts, when the Russian Legislature, Gosduma, starts to discuss - behind closed doors, in a "working group" of unknown membership - how to put the final nail into Russian people's access to justice and how to gain submission of all Russian attorneys to government-controlled rich attorney elites. 

Just like we have it in our United States of America.

And we are saying that Russia has interfered into our elections.  

It's not even funny, foxies.

But - well, now indigent Americans can hope that the aurora is arising for them with the slowly coming deregulation of the rule of foxies in the US - while indigent Russians get plunged upon the conveniently offered American rake.