Did you only annoy a judge or did you vex him? It is time for a legislative overhaul of the law of judicial recusal, otherwise courts as we have it now is just a waste of our money, and a harmful waste, too

The word "annoy" is described by the Webster dictionary as:

The word "vex" is described as:

As dictionary definitions of these two words show, "vex" may mean "annoy", so it is the same.

Yet, 5 judges-"linguists" from the New York State Appellate Division 1st Judicial Department Renwick, J.P., Andrias, Kapnick, Gesmer, Moulton, JJ.  recently made law - not that they are allowed to make law, that is the exclusive authority of New York State Legislature, but why would they care - regarding their own recusals.

The brand new spanking law of judicial recusals in New York is now that if the judge is "annoyed" by a party or the party's attorney, but not "vexed", he does not have to recuse from a court case.

They also said that "[t]he court also acted within its discretion in ordering a sanctions hearing to ascertain whether the recusal motion was frivolous (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a], [c]; see also 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a][b])", paving the way for possible proceedings - now as regulators of attorney John O'Kelly's license to discipline attorney John O'Kelly for making a motion to recuse a judge protecting his clients' constitutional right to impartial judicial review.

After all, the 3rd Department had already suspended an attorney - John Aretakis - in 2008 for criticizing a judge in a motion to recuse without a hearing, based on sanctions of "annoyed but not vexed" judge whose was annoyed enough to sanction an attorney for daring to criticize him, and his colleagues in the Appellate Division 3rd Department agreed that criticism by an attorney of a judge is a no-no offense.

And, the 4th Department has done the same, too - suspending me in 2015 - also for criticizing a judge in a motion to recuse and for " additional complaints, filings and charges of “gross continuing judicial misconduct” against the court", and also I was denied a hearing, since I already had all the "process due me" in having a "frivolous conduct" proceedings instituted and decided by an "annoyed, but not vexed" judge sanctioning me for criticizing his own precious self.

Here is how a judge "tries" a proceeding for sanctions the judge institutes for criticizing the judge's own self - note that the judge is at the same time 

• the alleged victim;
• an unsworn witness;
• a prosecutor;
• a judge - 
• and even marks his own exhibits at that "trial" that was all the "process due" that an attorney in New York deserved before he was stripped of his license and livelihood.

Also note that after that the judge was elevated to the position of a federal magistrate, where he is now continuing to toil, "with no record of public discipline".

Why the 1st Department should be any different?  They may also now pursue attorney John O'Kelly so that he would not dare criticize the supposed cousin of Sheldon Silver for being biased against tenants in favor of landlords - surprise, surprise!

Of course, the trial judge, #Judge ShlomoHagler who was "annoyed" enough to hold a sanctions hearing against attorney John O'Kelly for criticizing the judge's precious self for his supposed cozy relationship with landlords and bias and hostility towards tenants and their attorneys, recently himself got sued for a supposed illegal sale of a lucrative real property lot as a president of a synagogue in violation of a ruling of a rabbinical court - sued by board members of his own synagogue, and the lot is adjoining an institution that was run by NYS Assembly leader (resigned and prosecuted for corruption ) Sheldon Silver.

Given that I was sanctioned by a judge who, before I was suspended based on his sanctions for criticism of his precious self, ran from the bench during a triple investigation:

• by the New York State Comptroller;
• by the New York State Judicial Conduct Commission, and
• by the FBI

the ire of Judge Shlomo Hagler may be of the kind characterized back by William Shakespear as "the lady doth protest too much, methinks".

After all, Silver is not out of the woods with the criminal prosecution for corruption yet, and who knows what can be dug up by the investigation of his ties, including his familial ties.  Striking at a critic who comes close to explore those familial ties does look like "protesting too much".

It does raise the issue of Sheldon Silver's looming presence (and influence?) as to why Judge Shlomo Hagler is still a judge, after his atrocious behavior in John O'Kelly's proceedings, why the 1st Department glossed over Judge Hagler's misconduct, why Judge Shlomo Hagler was dropped as a defendant from the lawsuit that he illegally sold a lot belonging to his synagogue, reportedly without revealing to the members of the synagogue board that the synagogue will not be able to use the proceeds for its needs because of some stipulation regarding resale of the property.

Now, John O'Kelly alleged in his motion to recuse that Judge Hagler was actually Sheldon Silver's cousin - and Judge Hagler could not have it.

Judge Hagler commenced a sanctions hearing against John O'Kelly for "frivolous conduct", for his supposed failure to properly investigate his allegations - even though the constitutional standard for a motion to recuse is APPEARANCE of impropriety, and appearances are based on REASONABLE PERSONAL PERCEPTIONS  and not on hard proof, especially that judges do not necessarily trumpet about their misconduct and bias at every corner.

More and more people going public regarding impropriety of the current "law" of recusal, which has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with the judiciary usurping the power to decide whether to step down from a case or not - no matter how conflicted they are.

Recently:

• a California attorney Linda Shao gave a video interview to a journalist about her efforts to recuse 8 justices of the U.S. Supreme Court for financial conflicts of interest in a case, and about shameful (Linda Shao said - "felonious", and she is right) tricks the U.S. Supreme Court clerk's office played not to even file her motion to recuse or not to file the most relevant portions of her motion into the docket; and
• "Law and Liberty" published an article questioning propriety of behavior of the "notorious RGB", the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg who makes repeated statements about the U.S. President, a party in litigation in front of her, makes trips to Hawaii at the expense of Hawaii State Law School, a part in interest in a litigation against President Trump while a judge whose three law clerks are professors in that same law school is "deciding" the case within 7 miles from where Ruth Ginsburg is gallivanting at the State of Hawaii's expense - but continues to stick to his cases like glue and refuses to recuse - as well as refuses to recuse from Linda Shao's case involving as an issue a judge's connection with American Inns of Court while RGB has an American Inn of Court named after herself and has American Inns of Court "sponsor" trips of her law clerks to England.

It is interesting to compare

• what the law of recusal and criticism of judges should be in a constitutional democracy, based on the structure of power in a constitutional democracy and constitutional rights involved in such judicial recusals - let's call it "Model C";
• what the law of criticism of judges was in medieval England, "the Old Country" - let's call it "Model K"; and
• to try and place the "law" of recusal as it exists in the U.S. and in the State of New York today based on these models.

	Issue	Model C	Model K	Model used in NY
1.	Who is the sovereign	The People (Constitution, Preamble “We the People”, the Dredd Scott case – People are the sovereign, there are no subjects in the U.S.)	The King
2.	Who are the subjects	None	The people
3.	What is the government	Servant to the sovereign – the people	Servant to the sovereign – the King
4.	What is criticism of the government	People’s way to check on their servant, the government	A challenge by the subjects of the divine power of the sovereign, the King
5.	The place of criticism of the government	Theoretically – a good thing, the way allowing the democracy to work and cleanse itself	A criminal offense, seditious libel
6.	Standard of proof to criticize the government	Protected by the 1st Amendment, strict scrutiny (a judicial invention) to punish for criticism	The critic is never right.  Later on – “you need to have iron clad proof” to win a seditious libel case.	K
7.	Constitutional threshold of recusal	Appearance of partiality of the judge – the public must have, as a matter of due process, not only impartial adjudication, but also the appearance of impartial adjudication	The judge is the reflection of the King and is always right	De facto – K
8.	Burden of proof based on the threshold	Reasonable perception of partiality	Judges require ironclad proof that the judge did something wrong, and when such proof is provided (Christine Mire's case in Louisiana), the attorney is punished for providing that proof	K
9.	Due diligence to prepare the motion	Judicial collusion, corruption and ex parte communications are not exactly announced from rooftops, so what attorneys can judge upon can only be the reasonable perception and the breadcrumbs picked up from circumstantial evidence, “connecting the dots”.  Circumstantial evidence is good enough even to convict of murder in NY.	Judge Hagler: 1.       Required ironclad proof against himself; 2.       Was upset about criticism of himself by an attorney for doing his due diligence and investigating the judge Same as Christine Mire's case in Louisiana Same as John Aretakis' and my case in New York Two diametrically opposite “standards of due diligence” + I am the King standard	De facto K
10.	Who gets to try the motion to recuse	Should be – somebody other than the object of criticism, common sense and due process Judge sitting in judgment of himself problem; Potential of retaliation – accuser/adjudicator problem	Until 1792 in England – The Star Chamber, a judge sitting in judgment of himself	K
11.	Right to a jury to review accusations of criticism of the government	Should be, as with trial of any other issue of fact relevant to the party’s adjudication	Introduced in Star Chamber by Act of Parliament in 1792 (the Fox Act). The bill was prepared by the former Star Chamber judge Sir Edward Coke who knew from his own adjudications how biased a judge reviewing such cases can be. Seditious libel cases were removed from judges and placed with the jury	K
12.	Defamation of judges as a separate lawsuit to be brought by judges (idea belongs to Russian attorney Vitaliy Burkin recently stripped of his "advocate" status for criticism of corruption in the Russian judiciary)	If a judge considers himself “defamed” by criticism, as for any other citizen, the path to a remedy for that defamation lies through a separate defamation lawsuit against the party the judge thinks is defaming him. That requires that: ·         The judge prepares a lawsuit, satisfying enhanced pleading standards for defamation; ·         Files it, with a filing fee; ·         Properly serves it upon the opponent, the critic; ·         Hopes to survive an immediate motion to dismiss for failing to meet elevated pleading standards and on 1st Amendment grounds that the critic will likely win because of high standards – New York Times v Sullivan (deliberate falsehood + malice) + strict scrutiny for content-based regulation of speech ·         Hopes not to be slapped with frivolous conduct sanctions and attorney fees to be paid to the critic; If the judge survives a motion to dismiss, he still faces exposure through paper discovery, interrogatories, notices to admit under oath, out-of-court depositions and in-court trial by jury and cross-examination	The King is above the law and can have his servants summarily punish the critic or institute criminal proceedings against the critic instead trying his luck in a civil defamation case A subject cannot call the King to testify	K

Judges should not be above the law.  If they think anybody made false statements about them, their remedy is the same as for everybody else - a separate lawsuit for defamation in a court of law where the judge will have to:

• pay his own way for representing himself in this private legal matter - personal defamation of a judge, like everybody else has to do;
• put together a non-frivolous lawsuit satisfying the very rigorous special pleading standard, like everybody else has to do;
• pay all the filing and judicial assignment fees, like everybody else has to do;
• properly serve the lawsuit upon his critic, his opponent in litigation, like everybody else has to do;
• expose himself to the rigors of paper discovery and oral depositions, including questions that the judge must answer his critic (defendant in a defamation lawsuit) under oath regarding information in exclusive possession of the judge;
• expose himself to the rigors of a jury trial in open court before the public and to public cross-examination of himself by his critic;

satisfying all the requirements of the law, as everybody else has to.

If judges are afraid to submit their own personal claims to adjudication by their peers in the judicial system and to the jury - which is what it appears to be with

• Judges Carl Becker (my case),
• Cristian Hummel (John Aretakis' case),
• Phyllis Keaty (Christine Mire's case), and now with
• Shlomo Hagler (John O'Kelly's case) - and instead try to invent "rules", like the "rule of frivolous conduct" allowing themselves to turn constitutional courts into medieval courts and try cases against themselves by themselves - that IS the best proof that judges do not believe in impartiality of any judges at all, and that anybody can obtain effective and fair legal remedy from the American judicial system.

By the way, the New York State Court of Appeals has struck as unconstitutional, in 2014, "harassment by speech" criminal statute - on 1st Amendment grounds, with a dissent by the then-Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman dissenting only on the grounds that the majority opinion was not far reaching enough and did not dismiss all criminal charges on 1st Amendment grounds.

That did not prevent the same New York State Court of Appeals from dismissing in 2016 my 1st Amendment appeal from suspension for "harassment by speech" and "defamation" of Judge Becker (as decided by Judge Becker in a "frivolous conduct" proceeding instituted and tried by Judge Becker) as lacking a "substantial constitutional question".

That did not prevent the 1st Department in 2018 to rule that it is perfectly hunky-dory for judge Shlomo Hagler who was "annoyed, but not vexed", to start sanctions proceedings for "frivolous conduct" for harassment of his precious self by speech (which was deemed unconstitutional by NYS Court of Appeals in 2014) and, obviously, for making false statements against his precious self - instead of bringing a lawsuit in defamation against attorney John O'Kelly which Judge Shlomo Hagler knows very well he will lose if he files it - with sanctions for frivolous conduct against Shlomo Hagler and attorney fees for such a frivolous defamation lawsuit to be paid by Judge Shlomo Hagler to attorney John O'Kelly.

That is - if the law is to be applied as it exists for every one of us, mere mortals.

That judges do not trust their own court system to provide a fair and effective legal remedy for them in a defamation lawsuit and thus invent shortcuts for themselves turning court proceedings into medieval pre-1792 Star Chamber trials of the Old Country is a litmus test of impartiality of the American judiciary - requiring that legislatures MUST take what is going on in courts seriously, MUST address the crisis in access to justice CAUSED by the judiciary "regulating" itself and the profession it belongs to, attorneys.

When attorneys cannot establish for their clients the clients' constitutional right to impartial judicial review because that would involve breaching the supposed personal pledge of fealty to the likes of judges Becker, Hummel, Keaty and now Hagler, because doing your duty for your clients results in loss of reputation and livelihood for an attorney - it is proof that courts turned into a useless and harmful waste of public money.

Laws of recusal must be set in stone, and fast - by impartial members of legislatures having no connection with the judicial system and over whom judiciary has no control, and that will exclude any legislators who are attorneys with licenses regulated by the judiciary, "officers of the court".

What we have now as a "law" of recusal and "law" of sanctions for motions of recusal - based on judges setting their own "rules of procedure", rules of "judicial ethics", and trying their own cases by themselves in their own favor - has nothing to do with the law or the Constitution each of the American judges, including Becker, Hummel, Keaty and Hagler were sworn to uphold and protect.

Judges should be given a strong legislative kick in the butt to wake up and smell the coffee - it ain't the King's Bench any more.

Why is it that attorneys in the U.S. are regulated by the judiciary? What impact does this model of regulation has on consumers? On attorneys? My first English-language law review article seeks to provide some answers

For both consumers and attorneys this answer to this question is a given - the American judiciary regulates American attorneys because they just do.  

I took that question a little further and explored how the judiciary across the United States bases its power over both attorneys (by regulating their law licenses), and with them, their reputation and livelihood, and, through attorneys, how the judiciary regulates access to court by every person in America.

The claimed goal of such regulation is universally "protection of consumers", in this respect, regulation of attorneys is no different than regulation of any other of over 1000 regulated professions in the United States.

Yet, since the regulator is the judiciary, and the regulation usually (with the exception of the State of New York) happens at the level of the top court of the state, peculiarities of such occupational regulation affects both the rights of the regulated attorneys and the rights of consumers for the choice of their providers of legal services.

In December of 2017 and January of 2017 I've published several law review articles in the Russian language - because in Russia a very interesting thing is emerging right now - attempts to saddle consumers with attorney monopoly of the American type, even though not quite.  In Russia they did not come yet to even consider to have attorneys be regulated and controlled directly by the government, and especially by the judiciary.

Yet, in the U.S. the presently living attorneys and consumers of legal services have missed the moment when the regulation of the legal profession has started the way it exists today (more than a 100 years ago, by the way), and in Russia the process - together with vigorous public discussion of the issue - is going on just now.

And, since in Russia there is no attorney monopoly at this time, providers of legal services are versatile and there are several competing fractions within the legal profession itself, all united into their own associations, and attorneys are not regulated by the government, the proposal to introduce an American-type attorney monopoly, give one group of lawyers control over others and make it impossible to work unless you are vetted through attorney quasi-licensing, is causing an uproar in the Russian legal community.

Recently, one of the group of Russian lawyers, the Association of court representatives, have filed a complaint with antitrust authorities, the Federal Antimonopoly Service (the Russian sister of the American Federal Trade Commission) - against attorneys trying to sneak their monopoly upon other lawyers and upon consumers.

The public debate that is ongoing in Russia regarding introduction of attorney monopoly - in the Russian legal community and in the government at many levels, including the Ministry of Justice, the Russian "Public Chamber", the Russian Legislature (Duma) - is, quite unfortunately, unparalleled in the U.S. history, where absolute attorney monopoly was grabbed by both the judiciary and the legal community and saddled upon consumers by stealth, without much, if any, public debate, and lobbied through by state senators who are themselves attorneys and members of the benefited profession.

How strong is the feeling of entitlement in the American legal community that it is them, and not he consumers who are the beneficiaries of the regulation that pretends that the beneficiaries are the consumers, I demonstrated in my previous blog article - attorneys who love that slavery viciously attack their colleagues who dare to claim that they actually have a constitutional right of free speech left after obtaining a law license.

In contrast, in the American legal community, American lawyers are stifled into silence as to whether regulation of lawyers through monopoly is healthy - for lawyers and for consumers.

The debate about attorney monopoly in Russia is invigorating for both American lawyers and especially for American consumers.  It shows that regulation of consumers' access to court the way it exists in the U.S., through strict regulation of the legal profession, including the de facto prohibition on criticism of the regulator, the judiciary, is not set in stone, that there are alternative models, and alternative ways of dealing with regulation that is already in place.

To invigorate public debate of propriety of the current form of regulation of attorneys and the impact of such regulation upon access to court by all Americans, I offer to the American reader my first English-language law review article: about the claimed bases of power of the American judiciary over the legal profession, with a vast bibliography showing how that power is used, whether in regulating its own profession (judges are licensed attorneys themselves) judges comply with existing constitutional precedents that they created for everybody else - and, most importantly, what are effects of the regulation upon consumers.

There is interesting case law that I uncovered during my research, from across the United States, and interesting aspects of regulation that was unexpected even for me as a researcher.  And, every point I make there is substantiated by evidence "from the horse's mouth" - admissions of the regulator of the legal profession, the judiciary, through court rules, court precedents and through direct statements of judges in the press.

Here is the link to the article, at this time I decided to make the article in public access.  It is only a portion of the research I am doing and continuing to do, which I plan in the future, circumstances permitting, to publish as a book.

Readers - welcome.

On "lawyers looking like assholes" - New York attorney Joseph Anthony Patrice and his pranks on Above the Law

There is a lawyer licensed to practice in the State of New York.

His name is #JosephAnthonyPatrice.

Joseph Anthony Patrice, or #JoePatrice, as he signs his writings on the blog Above the Law where he is a staff writer since 2012, is a former litigation attorney, and is still a licensed attorney in New York. 

Joe Patrice was litigating in very large and powerful law firms, so, consumers would expect a lot of expertise and competence from such a lawyer - especially that he advertises his employment with Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, and with Lankler Siffert & Wohl, as his accomplishments as a law blogger.

And, the main declared reason for attorney regulation in the United States at all and in New York State in particular is to ensure - for consumers - competence of licensed attorneys.

So, by giving Joe Patrice a law license and stating to the public that he has "no record of public discipline", the State of New York assures the public that attorney Joe Patrice possesses a minimum level of competence safe for the public.

Now let's look at what attorney Joe Patrice says in his blawg article that he writes as a staff writer, for pay.

I actually wrote about Joe Patrice's pranks on this blawgs before, and both times I noted lack of attention to detail and lack of competence on key issues of law he was discussing.

In May of 2017 I wrote about two of such pranks:

• about Joe Patrice's praise and encouragement of an 86-year-old long-time bully-judge for his "contempt of court" sanctions against a public defender for an indigent defendant for trying to provide an effective representation of his client. and
• about Joe Patrice's incompetent analysis - without reviewing the details of the lawsuit he was analyzing - of a challenge by a bunch of non-profit attorneys claiming (on behalf and allegedly for the benefit of indigent immigrants no less, who the non-profit lawyers did not include as plaintiffs in the lawsuit) that they have a right NOT to represent them fully in immigration proceedings.

But, Joe Patrice outdid himself in his recent blawg under the rubric of "Legal Ethics".

In this "legal ethics" blog Joe Patrice promotes rules of civil behavior of the Idaho State Bar by calling a colleague, an Idaho lawyer, an asshole for making a valid constitutional argument and arguing with that lawyer in terms like this: "suck it up, buttercup".

Let's see who is the asshole in the situation described.

On January 21, 2018 an attorney from the State of Idaho James Harris published an opinion in "Idaho Statesman" under the name:  "First, they came for the lawyers: Beware the Idaho Bar’s proposed limits on free speech". 

http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article195896544.html
Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article195896544.html#storylink=cpy

Here is what attorney James Harris said in the first three paragraphs of the article:

The essence of the statement is that attorney Harris asserts that the new "ethical" rule of the Idaho State Bar punishing attorneys for "harassment-by-speech" violates the 1st Amendment.

And attorney Harris is correct on that.  Punishing for speech-as-harassment does violate the 1st Amendment.

Now, here is the "argument" offered by James Harris' colleague from New York, attorney Joseph Anthony Patrice - who opposes James Harris' opinion and promotes, let's not forget, rules of civility supposedly supported by the Idaho State Bar rules.

First, the headline.

Attorney Patrice

1. mocks attorney Harris' constitutional arguments portraying them as insane and putting words in the mouth of attorney Harris, portraying attorney Harris' constitutional 1st Amendment argument as an accusation against the Idaho State Bar of fascism;
2. calls him 'this guy' and claims that attorney Harris is "sliding down his own slippery slope",
3. in a sentence devoid of any grammar constraints, claims that "lawyers shouldn't make lawyers look like assholes is not a step removed from quartering troops" - which is true as to lawyers not making lawyers look like assholes, but there Joe Patrice missed his own point.

First of all, attorney Patrice fails to provide a link to the piece of attorney Harris that he so aggressively mocks - which is an elementary way to ensure a journalist's courtesy to his readers and his own credibility.   

Apparently, it is easier to fight a shadow, without giving the reader access to the full piece being criticized, in order to be able to judge for themselves, which is not an ethical method in the first place.

Then comes this magnificent piece:

"Suck it up buttercup" (without a comma) is, apparently, the new ethical mode of address invented for lawyers admitted to practice in the State of New York.

What is even more interesting is the purpose of attorney regulation in New York that is so adamantly asserted by licensed attorney Joe Patrice.

While attorney regulation was introduced across the country, including in New York for the declared purpose of PROTECTING CONSUMERS from INCOMPETENT and DISHONEST attorneys, and not to protect the market of attorneys from their competitors,

attorney Joseph Anthony Patrice, New York attorney registration No. 4091955, with no record of public discipline, a staff writer on legal ethics for a prominent blawg Above the Law proudly and publicly promotes as ethical what a smart individual would have hidden with shame:

that the legal profession claims to be ITSELF a "beneficiary of the privilege" of the regulation (its own monopoly).

That's called "bait-and-shift", luring people into something by claiming it is beneficial for them, but then switching the arrangement to the one beneficial to the fraudster, by holding some kind of leverage over the people.  Bait-and-switch is a well-known fraud trick.

But wait - if 

1. the practice of law is a privilege;
2. lawyers are beneficiaries of that privilege;
3. and the privilege is so big that a lawyer is supposed to pay for it with forfeiture/implied waiver of a fundamental constitutional right of free speech,

then introduction of the same regulation as if it was for the benefit of the consumer was fraud, right?

And should be repealed because it was introduced under false pretenses, right?

Especially because what constitutes the object of regulation, the "practice of law", is not clearly defined anywhere in the Untied States, ABA's attempt to define it ended up in 2002 with a threat from the Federal Trade Commission and the ABA withdrew that definition.

By the way, according to the ABA's own survey conducted in 2015, none of jurisdictions in the U.S. have a clear STATUTORY definition of what the hell the subject of attorney monopoly and regulation, practice of law, is.

There is no such clear STATUTORY definition in attorney Joe Patrice's licensing jurisdiction - New York.

And, there is no such clear STATUTORY definition in attorney James Harris' licensing jurisdiction - Idaho. 

In Idaho, what constitutes the practice of law, according to the State of Idaho's own report to the ABA in a survey, is defined by "case law" (by courts on a case by case basis), and by a "rule" of Idaho Supreme Court (without any input by consumers/voters to the legislature).

That is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court has prohibited as unconstitutional back in 1972, fearing arbitrary enforcement by courts in the absence of clear STATUTORY definition AND infringement on people's constitutional rights.

In the licensing jurisdiction of Joe Patrice, the State of New York, it is no better.

In the same survey, the State of New York, reported regarding the definition of the object of attorney regulation, the practice of law:

So, according to the most credible evidence, admissions, self-reporting by both Idaho (the source jurisdiction that New York attorney Joe Patrice is protecting and Idaho attorney James Harris is criticizing) and New York (attorney Joe Patrice's own licensing jurisdiction), attorney regulation schemes in both of these jurisdictions are unconstitutional, according to existing U.S. Supreme Court case law.

So much for "sucking it up, buttercup".

It is obvious that New York and Idaho (and all other jurisdictions in the U.S.) are adamantly violating constitutional law set by the top court of the country - while both the regulator of that unconstitutional scheme and the profession regulated by that unconstitutional scheme are sworn to protect the U.S. Constitution.  Hypocrisy in the extreme.

And, by the way, violation of the U.S. Constitution is a federal crime.

Such a bait-and-switch arrangement is, of course, impossible for a consumer , voter and taxpayer to "suck up" - especially because this unconstitutional scheme has already caused in the United States such an access-to-justice crisis that the majority of Americans cannot afford a lawyer, and have as a result to represent themselves pro se or forgo legal remedies at all.

But, that is not what attorney Joe Patrice stresses, or even mentions about attorney regulation - that it is not just constitutional protections of free speech that are violated by attorney regulation, but that the entire regulatory scheme is unconstitutional because of lack of clear definition and obvious self-interest of the members/regulators of the profession - because if he does publicly state the truth about attorney regulation, he will no longer be either the staff writer in Above the Law or a licensed attorney anywhere in the United States.

What attorney Joe Patrice stresses is, once again, this:

That the attorneys, and not consumers, are the beneficiaries of regulation.

And that attorneys have an interest, through regulation, to maintain their image by:

• dictating the rules by which the STATE GOVERNMENT issues OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES as if those are the rules FOR THEM to set and not for consumers or for the legislatures/the government - so the regulated profession dictates the rules of its own regulation TO the government, not the other way around, go figure;
• and that those rules should protect attorney's "privilege" as a "beneficiary" of the regulation, and, in order to protect that "privilege", it is permissible to violate constitutional rights of attorneys (including Joe Patrice's own constitutional rights) by introducing the rule prohibiting "harassment-by-speech" (which in itself violates BOTH the 1st Amendment AND the requirement for STATUTORY clarity of any law).

A person who celebrates forfeiture of his own constitutional rights in return for a privilege to earn a living and who, moreover, viciously attacks those who insist on those constitutional rights is a slave, and a slave of the worst kind - an enthusiastic slave.  

And the unconstitutional, medieval, guild-like claim of "privilege" (a monopoly to quash competitors) in exchange for forfeiture of rights is, I remind my readers, made by a two-headed "honorable" profession, where the regulator of the profession (judges, also members of the profession) are also entrusted by the public to finally resolve all public disputes. 

So who is going to resolve disputes AGAINST THEMSELVES as regulators of THEIR OWN profession?

And who is going to violate in such cases where their own power as regulators of the legal profession is challenged the main rule of an impartial adjudication - DO NOT SIT AS A JUDGE IN YOUR OWN CASE?

You guess - and that is the reason why this unconstitutional scheme has been saddling the American consumers, voters and taxpayers for over a century.

Yet, the enthusiastic slave of his own privilege Joe Patrice, while sitting on his high and privileged horse and mouthing out vulgarities towards his colleague for making a constitutional argument, in his zeal to uphold his slavery arrangement somehow overlooked to follow the main rule of any occupational licensing, and of attorney licensing in his own jurisdiction - maintain your competence.

That is the declared reason why regulation of attorneys even exists - to ensure for consumers that licensed attorneys are presumed-competent and knowledgeable.

There is a problem with Joe Patrice in that respect - because 4 years before his "suck it up, buttercup" outburst that a prohibition of speech as harassment is perfectly good and dandy and colleagues challenging the rule on constitutional grounds are crazy assholes, the top court of his own licensing jurisdiction, the New York State Court of Appeals struck a criminal statute punishing for harassment-by-speech - because it violated the 1st Amendment.

Now, who is the asshole?