When employment market plummets for law students, law schools continue to pump in tuition from less qualified students - with predictable results

A reader pointed out to me a recent article regarding the disaster of the 2014 bar exam.

Of course, as it usually happens in the legal profession, the messenger was blamed for failing test scores of law students - failing on a national scale.

Law schools turned their ire against the examiner of tests who pointed out to the schools that, since they are accepting less qualified students to law schools, at graduation the students fail bar exams more.

The poor woman was rolled into asphalt by criticism such as "how can a person who has never taken a bar exam herself, is in charge of administering a bar exam"?

Such a question never arose in the past, during "that woman"'s 20-some years of career doing the same thing.  By the way "that woman" has a Juris Doctor degree herself and is, thus, properly trained in the law for her job.

Yet, law schools, despite further plummeting job prospects for law students, continue to try to lure students with more marketing tricks:

• they lower admission scores;
• they offer tuition discounts - kind of;
• New York recently changed the bar exam to suit the less qualified student body;
• and, legal ethics professors make it their "policy" not to tell law students what disciplinary proceedings entail (with their unfairness, unconstitutionality, corruption, antitrust issues and quashing competition and critics of misconduct under the guise of discipline while allowing "blue blood" attorneys to get away with murder) - allegedly, for the purpose of discouraging students from committing ethical violations (!), while a more apparent reason appears to be to prevent future investors in the increasingly volatile investment of legal education and law license from knowing how exactly fragile and volatile the investment is...

Law school administrations definitely do not show much integrity in handling the real problem of declining interest in the legal profession.

In fact, legal education is MUCH needed in this country - and not private, but public, and not for some students, but for everybody, as part of high school/ GED education.

Only by educating the public will we close the "justice gap" that courts, states and legal elites recognize, but have vested interest not to mend.

Would law professors want to re-qualify as high school teachers?

Apologies to my readers, and promised analysis of cases will be posted shortly

I recently promised to post analysis of three court cases:

1/ dissents in the same-sex marriage case in the U.S. Supreme Court;
2/ concurring opinion of Judge Willett in the "eyebrow threading" licensing case in the Texas Supreme Court, and
3/ the petition for a writ of certiorari recently filed in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging judicial immunity

I did not forget, analysis takes time, I have had intervening events and topics that made my work on analyzing these cases longer, but I will post the analysis shortly.

Stay tuned.

Your voting records as a target of marketing campaigns - be an SELF-informed voter

It is a crime of misdemeanor to try to obtain information as to who you voted for.

Yet, it is not a crime to obtain records showing WHETHER you voted.

In a recent controversy, New York Democratic party was reportedly threatening its voters to "out" those of them who did not vote.

And, in the recent audio interview a successful judicial candidate, now judge Lisa M. Fisher clearly admitted that she and her husband purposely made their financial investment into advertising and "marketing" Lisa Fisher to voters by getting access to e-mails of female Democratic voters (Lisa Fisher ran on a Republican ticket) and sending them Facebook ads and targeted newsletters.

When you get sales ads for soap - or other stuff - you usually toss the sales ad in the garbage without looking.

When such a sales ad comes from a pretty female judicial candidate panhandling to you her gender and her children 

- female voters were swayed to the point that Lisa Fisher won the judicial seat with (she claims) 18,000 votes over her "competition" (her words, not mine).

In the upcoming judicial elections - and I mainly mean it for voters in Delaware County where the mid-term judicial elections are going to happen this coming November, please, do your own research and do not vote with your own and everybody else's tax dollars based on a sales ad.

Do not count on attorneys to publicly inform you (as they should, as citizens) about qualifications or lack thereof of judicial candidates they know - because the judiciary that "regulates", or rather, controls the licenses and livelihoods of attorneys, invented a self-serving "gag" rule preventing attorneys from discussing judicial candidates at the threat of disciplinary penalty.  

I am one of attorneys who spoke against misrepresentations of a bad judge, Carl F. Becker in his upcoming re-election campaign of 2012.  

The only other attorney who spoke in the judicial campaign of Carl Becker was praising him.  That attorney was not disciplined, even though, in my opinion, he was making false statements to the public about a judicial candidate's qualifications (that he was qualified).  I, on the other hand, was immediately turned into the disciplinary committee for my comments which were (a) based on personal experience and documents, facts in public record and (b) constituted an opinion on a matter of public concern.  

The judge was "eked out" an election victory (with the help of fraudulent testimonials from buddies who appeared in front of the judge while being his personal friends and who got favors from him), but now ran from office claiming "early retirement" - coincidentally when lawsuits, complaints and audit of Delaware County and Becker's friends, likely, started to make him look too bad for even the New York State Judicial system to keep him on the bench.

Becker, same as Fisher admits in her interview, presented to the public a lot of "testimonials" from various "opinion leaders" - including his buddies in the Delaware Counties, including buddies who appeared in front of him in cases as parties.  

Becker was well known to have no shame on issues of self-dealing and dealing for his friends through his public office, conflicts of interest, concealing such conflicts of interest and retaliating against challengers of his misconduct.

I know it is difficult to judge for yourself about a judicial candidate and his or her integrity record, especially when people with knowledge of such record, attorneys who may be in daily contact with such judicial candidate and know him or her through and through, are intentionally gagged by attorney disciplinary rules from revealing qualification flaws of such candidates to the voting public.

Yet, electing a qualified judge should not be a matter of inferior priority for people, no matter whether they have court cases pending or not. They can have such court cases in the future, and it is critical that people who judge such cases are (1) qualified and (2) fair and impartial.

For that reason, I appeal to future voters in judicial elections, in this country and in the State of New York - do you research, do you legwork, ask the candidates "sensitive" questions about their connections, about what they are going to do if in their case a high-ranking attorney, a friend or relative of another judge, or an attorney or party working for the government, commits misconduct. 

Watch their reaction.  Record their answer on audio or video tape.  Videotaping of judicial candidates is permitted by the Open Meetings Law.  Keep that record after elections.  Make such pledges public.  Post your videos to YouTube.  Be a truly informed voter and inform others.

Don't be duped by marketing campaigns of judicial candidates who want a nice salary, unlimited power over people, enhanced connections, good career for their children and a taxpayer-backed high pension.  They do not want to serve you.  They want to serve themselves and their families.

Vote not to put self-serving "entrepreneurs" on the bench.

"I ran for a judge for my children!" Sons-of-a-judge in the making - not on my dime

One mysterious phrase in the recent post-election audio interview of the Greene County Supreme Court Judge Lisa M. Fisher is that she ran for office for her children who are two young boys in high school (I believe, from memory).

That phrase got me going and got my readers who listened to the interview and gave me feedback, going.

WHY running for a judicial office is done for Lisa Fisher's children?

Is it because being "son-of-a-judge" is a sure career path in the State of New York and in this country? And a sure guarantee that NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING that you can do, no matter how wrong, will garner you any punishment?

I wrote a lot about sons-of-judges on this blog.  My blog is word-searchable, just enter "son of a judge" or "sons of judges" in the search window on the right of the blog posts.  I wrote extensively on this blog, with documentary evidence and references to the applicable law, about the horrible, fraudulent things that sons-of-judges and their friends do in court, without any reaction from the court and without any reaction from any prosecutorial or disciplinary authorities that must pay attention, but prefer to be selectively blind when offspring of judges are involved.

I wrote a lot about law firms employing sons-of-judges and then appearing before parents of their employees, gaining favors from such parents-on-the-bench - like the New York State Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney General from Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York who has put his two sons, Michael Aaron Sharpe and Robert Alan Sharpe, respectively, in the described offices which appear in front of their employee's father's court regularly - and, overwhelmingly, win.  I was punished by judges for even raising this taboo issue in court pleadings.

Look at faces of Judge Lisa M. Fisher's children, faces that Judge Fisher publicly flaunted and continues to flaunt on her Facebook page as marketing tools for her successful judicial election campaign, making her children's pictures public records - don't tell me that I am invading anybody's privacy by publishing their faces, their own mother made their faces public, in order to get to that bench "for them".

"Fisher" is a common name.

Remember these two Fishers.  They may be not bad people by themselves.  I have nothing personal against them - or Judge Fisher.

But I do not tolerate, as a taxpayer, when children and gender are used to get into public office for reasons that have nothing to do with public service.

Not on my dime.

See if in the future these two boys will get any benefit, or job, or career advancement that they were not qualified for and did not deserve.  

If that happens, look no further than to their mother's determination to get to the bench for the answers as to why.  

And do what you legally can to prevent them from getting benefits they do not deserve, simply because of who their mother is.

Do what you can legally so that our government officials, operating on your dime, on our dime, should not be allowed to create dynasties of aristocracies for personal gain, their own and their families and friends - under the guise of public service.

What is more important for you in a candidate for public office, what is below the waist or what is above the neck?

The question in the heading of this blog is not rhetorical.

In the recent audio interview of the Greene County Supreme Court Justice Lisa M. Fisher, Judge Fisher and her husband openly stated that their "marketing"  (their words, not mine) of Lisa Fisher to the voters, mainly female voters, was on the line that there are not many female judges on the bench.

Well, coincidentally I conducted a statistical survey, just for myself, of New York State judges, obtaining their information from the State judicial directory (information is in open access).  My private survey showed that there are actually not so few women in the judiciary, about 1/3.  It is not that bad, and the number is increasing.

That said, when reviewing qualifications for public office, consideration as to what is below the waist of the candidate for such office should be of no importance to the voters whatsoever.

Yet, Lisa Fisher and her husband, an attorney, and her husband's friends, attorneys, who financed her campaign, put her to the task, and "marketed" her specifically based on her gender, both Lisa Fisher and her husband admitted that much in an after-election audio interview available here (if the podcast is taken off the Internet because of my blogs, contact me at tatiana.neroni@gmail.com, I have a copy, it's a public statement of a public official on a matter of public concern and, thus, a public record).

Lisa Fisher and her husband meant for her message to the voters to be gender based and was meant to stir emotions of gender discrimination in female voters.

Lisa Fisher won by 18,000 votes on her "marketing" Facebook campaign based on her gender.

Yet, her qualifications and her integrity, judging by her "local rules" that she immediately adopted, judging by her rulings that make no sense (I have evidence that I am turning into the Judicial Conduct Commission) and judging by her audio interview where she was happy as a child that she won the judicial seat "beating the odds" by flaunting her gender to the voters, should make voters to start thinking:  what am I voting for, is it a pretty face?  Is it a male/female/transgender/lesbian/gay candidate?

Or is it what above that candidate's neck and what is the candidate's record of integrity?

Do we need to choose between donkeys and elephants on the bench?

I had an outpouring of feedback overnight to my blogs about the audio interview of Judge Lisa M. Fisher of the Greene County Supreme Court speaking about methods she and her husband used in her recent judicial election campaign.  Wow.  And thank you for reading.

My readers are understandably concerned about methods used by Judge Fisher and her husband in Judge Fisher's election campaign, they are understandably upset about Judge Fisher enthusiastically discussing her methods in an article called "Business Challenge".  Running for public office, a judicial office as a business challenge was not perceived well by my readers - and rightfully so.

Law students are taught that considering even the practice of law as a "business" is unethical because lawyers prefer to consider it as a "service" to the people by sworn officers of the court.

When a judge admits that for her, judicial elections was a "business challenge", such a question raises all kinds of ethical questions.

Based on the feedback, I will run several other blogs, covering separately the issues raised.

The first is partisanship of judicial elections.

Judge Lisa M. Fisher lamented in the interview that there were no Republican judges elected to the Supreme Court bench in the 3rd Judicial District of New York in 18 years.

Now, tell me, why the tears and what difference does it make if the judge on the bench is a donkey or an elephant?  To me, the judge should not be any of these animals and should be a neutral adjudicator.

So why parties are so eager to put "their own" on the bench?  Is it because, with all the lip service as to the "duty of impartiality", everybody "in the game" understands that there is no such thing as judicial impartiality and that whoever helped get the judge on the bench, as well as the party members belonging to the same pack as the judge, will get a preferential treatment for years to come?  Supreme Court terms in New York are very long - 14 years, and usually, once a judge got on that bench, he or she sticks to it until mandatory retirement at 70.

Lisa Fisher was elected at 47, so whoever contributed to her campaign, were contributed to 23 years of favors?

Lisa Fisher actually hinted that she did not have to offer contributors "as much" as candidates for a Senator's seat.  

First, voters, take notice not to EVER allow Lisa Fisher into a Senator's seat, with such views that she has a lot to "offer" her campaign contributors.

Second, the first thing that Lisa Fisher did when she was elected to office was to create and enforce an extremely pro-plaintiff (pro-corporation?) set of "local rules" which can have an appearance of reimbursing contributors - most of them attorneys, her attorney-husband's friends.  By the way, one of the readers noted that in the interview the husband was taking the lead over Judge Fisher all the time.  I wonder if he is going to take the invisible lead in her cases and her rulings the same way...

So, the question remains - WHY do we even allow judicial elections to "run" on party lines instead of simply the merits of qualified candidates?

In the upcoming elections, please, don't let yourself be swayed by the "party appeal" - or other issues unrelated to qualifications for the office.

That can be deadly to yourself and your loved ones when an unqualified individual, once elected, starts giving out "reimbursements".

The pervasive problem of institutional bias in courts and invisible evidence in favor of "their own" and its perpetrators

A couple of days ago I ran a blog post on the sidewalk video footage of statements from people who were not allowed to testify at the secret public hearings of the New York State Statewide Commission for Attorney discipline.  

It was a sidewalk footage because the Commission's representative, contrary to the requirements of the Open Meetings Law (to expect from a bunch of high-ranking lawyers to abide by the law is too much to expect, I guess), asked the reporter to leave not only the room, he did not even get there, but even the building where the "public" hearing was scheduled to be held, and to disappear even from the sidewalk.

Good for the reporter that he did not disappear from the sidewalk and instead suggested that the Commission can try to call the police to remove him - which, of course, did not happen.  High-ranking attorneys know the law they are breaking and know when they are breaking too much, when their breaking the law is against people who have no recourse and when they are asking for a civil rights lawsuit for a 1st Amendment violation, with money damages.

I already covered a lot of statements made in that video footage.

One statement that I did not cover keeps coming back to me, and I decided to run a separate blog post on it.

A lady, an attorney's wife, was speaking about her divorce proceedings (from that attorney) that is lasting for 6 years where the court does not seem to see evidence of her husband's income (for purposes of equitable distribution), while the husband is an attorney practicing in New York State Supreme Court and his cases generating income (that should be joint income for both of them, to be distributed) documented in the E-track system of New York courts.

Many readers who are not married to attorneys were writing and calling me, as a feedback to my blogs about intellectual dishonesty of judges (with documentary evidence), to complain that certain evidence submitted by them to courts was either not taken into account or misrepresented by the courts.  

One judge featured in the interlinked blog already retired from the bench 3.5 years before his term (looks like running to me) and the other is still on the bench but is defending against a 2nd lawsuit by a female court employee for discrimination and retaliation, so maybe the NYS Commission will finally take its head from where it is and make sure he leaves the bench or is taken off the bench (the second one a more preferable scenario, to be fair to Judge Tormey's victims).

Here is the list from Pacer.gov of all lawsuits against Judge James C. Tormey, by the way - most are "closed", dismissed based on the concept of "absolute judicial immunity" which should not preclude a disciplinary investigation - but in New York State, nothing is done to a judge if the judge is high enough and has good enough connections.

In the remaining pending lawsuit by Nancy Rodriguez Walker against Judge Tormey, where you, my dear New Yorkers, are footing the bill for legal defense of Judge Tormey against claims of intentional misconduct in office and where Judge Tormey is represented, instead of prosecuted, by the New York State Attorney General's office at your expense, and where the plaintiff conspicously is represented by attorneys outside of the area of Judge Tormey's administrative reach (Tormey is the Chief Administrative Judge of the 5th Judicial District), Judge Tormey's motion to dismiss "for failure to state a claim" is pending.  At the taxpayers' expense, remember.  Since the presiding judge is the "closer" Lawrence Kahn, and since courts habitually extend judicial immunity far beyond its breaking point, I will hold my breath on that.  

I also note that one of the attorneys representing the plaintiff left during the pendence of the motion.  I wonder whether any intimidation behind the scenes was taking place, like it was taking place with me when I was litigating federal lawsuits against judges.

Judge Tormey is a master when invisible evidence is concerned.  He managed not to notice an entire court proceeding reflected in the court's record when ruling in a case based on comparison of two lawsuits - between the two of them, Judge Tormey saw only one, and adamantly refused to correct his obvious mistakes.

Such things happened to me also, on a systematic basis, with the following slant:

• usually evidence was ignored or misrepresented when a party or attorney affiliated with the judiciary or other branch of the government (usually a high-ranking official) was on the other side.

Do I recognize that the problem exists?  I do.

Does the system recognize that such a problem of the so-called institutional judicial bias to "their own" and against "their own" exists?

Not that I heard of, not in court decisions and not in "findings" of any Commissions.

What should be done about it?  A reform of the court system which WILL NOT happen through any "statewide commissions" and will not happen even through the Legislature, because the Legislature is run by elite lawyers who benefit from the "hidden evidence" and slanted rulings of judges.  They will not allow through any laws that will hurt them.

Changes can be obtained only through direct voting at a Constitutional referendum.  A Constitutional convention for such a referendum is coming up in 2017.  Be an active voter.  Advance issues for that convention and the ensuing referendum (I will).

We need to finally recall who is the sovereign in this country and in the State of New York 

(I was punished by Chief Judge Gary Sharpe of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York for quoting to him the law stating that the People and not the government is the sovereign in the U.S. and in New York, the appellate court affirmed the sanction) - 

and we need to act like we are sovereigns and bad judges are bad servants subject to booting and replacement, and make sure that efficient laws efficiently enforced are in place to make that happen.