A supplemental complaint was filed with the Federal Trade Commission pertaining to attorney disciplinary authorities in New York defying the antitrust law

I posted the text of the supplemental complaint to the Federal Trade Commission asking to investigate and prosecute continued violations of federal antitrust by New York courts and attorney disciplinary committees created by such courts, in the Facebook group Independence of Civil Rights Defenders.

The text of the original complaint, together with documentary attachments, is also posted there.

I am publishing the texts of the e-mails only on this blog.  Attachments to the April 24, 2015 e-mail are too voluminous to be published here, please, download them from the Facebook page for review.

The supplemental complaint covers defiance by NYS courts and disciplinary committees of federal criminal and civil antitrust laws and the recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the sham of the Commission for the Statewide Attorney discipline that was created to hide the problem from the public, and the fact that the regulatory scheme of the legal profession through private cartels of market participants has a potential, and is already used (in Pennsylvania against PA Attorney General Kathleen Kane, that's the latest and brightest example) to remove from office an elected public official to further private interests of legal elites, thus undermining enforcement of state and federal laws and endangering the public.

My readers are invited to join the Facebook group, Independence of Civil Rights Defenders.

Here is the original e-mail complaint to the FTC of April 24, 2015.

Here is the initial response of the FTC of April 30, 2015.

Here is the supplemental complaint to the FTC on September 2, 2015.

For any responses from the FTC, stay tuned.

The NYS Appellate Division 4th Department as a private cartel promoting violations of federal antitrust laws in attorney regulation

I've written on this blog at the end of August and yesterday about defiance by state governments of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission of February 25, 2015 which declared as a federal antitrust violation not subject to "state exception" immunities the regulatory scheme where super-majorities of private professionals regulate their own profession in a manner quashing competition and without state oversight. 

Here is the example of such defiance by the Appellate Division 4th Judicial Department.

Appellate courts are at the core of the problem because they issue rules that require the attorney disciplinary committees to be structured as super-majority of private market players, an arrangement that, after the U.S. Supreme Court decision became nothing more or less than a private criminal cartel running to quash competition in violation of federal antitrust civil and criminal laws - with appellate courts as the criminal cartel's organizers and participants, because "adjudication" of attorney disciplinary proceedings brought by criminal cartel by creators of criminal cartel, all themselves licensed attorneys (all appellate judges are) cannot be seriously considered a neutral state oversight.

Now, the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission (the one that state bar associations fought tooth and claw, without success) was issued on February 26, 2015.

As of that date, the State of New York had to:

EITHER

(1) change the super-majorities of private attorneys to super-majority of legal consumers not tied to the legal profession;

OR

(2) establish statutory oversight over the market players by a NEUTRAL state body with a veto and modification power - which, of course, is not a court where all judges for whom the law license is a pre-requisite of holding their well-paid position, and thus market players subject to regulation

None of that was done, and the Attorney Disciplinary committee of the 4th Department remains an anti-competition cartel comprised of super-majorities of market players, licensed attorneys, acting without any oversight required by the U.S. Supreme Court decision.  

Now, half a year after the U.S. Supreme Court decision, the 4th Department continues to condone the antitrust activity that it created - disciplinary proceedings against attorneys brought by private cartels of private attorneys acting under the color of state law in violation of federal antitrust laws.

Below is a scan from the 4th Department's list of decisions in attorney disciplinary matters for this year.

The list clearly shows that after February of 2015 when the U.S. Supreme Court has made its anti-cartel decision pertaining to occupational regulation scheme, the 4th Department did not halt disciplinary proceedings by private cartels/attorney disciplinary committees acting in violation of federal antitrust laws (both civil and criminal) and issued a series of decisions in such cartel-generated and cartel-run proceedings.

The composition of attorney disciplinary committees of the 4th Department, regulated exclusively by the 4th Department itself, remained the same - a super-majority of market players, acting without any oversight.

Here are the lists of such decisions and the names of attorneys affected by them.

I do not object to restoration of attorney licenses which were revoked by in violation of federal antitrust laws to begin with.

I do object as to revocation of attorney licenses and to any kind of discipline imposed upon attorneys through prosecution by such private cartels.

I know from my experience as an attorney representing a client in disciplinary proceedings and representing myself in such proceedings (I wrote a lot about fabrication of the case and transcripts in these proceeding) that courts which are creators of the private regulating cartels conceal the true reasons for their decisions, presenting to the public smoke screens claiming that the public is actually protected by the orders of suspension and disbarment.

Yet, since the courts are part of the problem, and since, in my experience, courts conceal records of disciplinary proceedings even when release of the records is required by law, I have no trust, nor should the public, in the integrity of such proceedings.

Here are the lists of cases that the 4th Department issued in attorney disciplinary proceedings, after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in February of 2015, without making any changes in the attorney disciplinary regime, without halting attorney disciplinary proceedings pending at the time of the U.S. Supreme Court decision that were conducted in violation of antitrust laws.

By the way, before the U.S. Supreme Court decision in February of 2015, in fact, nearly a year before that, in March of 2014, I raised the issue of such antitrust violations in the attorney regulatory scheme in my own disciplinary proceedings.

The argument was rejected without an explanation by the 4th Department.

When I asked for a reasoned decision in October of 2014, the 4th Department, once again, denied the motion to renew and re-argue without an explanation, sealed the proceedings and punished me, imposing upon me an anti-filing injunction in December of 2014.

When the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court came out in February of 2015, indicating that I was right in my arguments back in March of 2014, the 4th Department did not revise its rejection of my arguments in September of 2014, did not revise its anti-filing injunction imposed upon me in December of 2014, and allowed me to be harassed by the private cartel from January to May of 2015 with criminal charges for allegedly violating the sealing order that was made under a statute that was designed to protect MY privacy rights - which I expressly waived in writing.

I understand that when an attorney says the same thing as the U.S. Supreme Court says, one year earlier than the U.S. Supreme Court, that is in itself a disciplinary violation - in the cartel's collective eyes.

But back to the lists.  Here they  are, and each one of the decisions disciplining an attorney under the existing regulatory regime is, most likely, a federal antitrust violation, a violation even more blatant since it is done by a court and by a private cartel established and maintained by that court:

 

 
Will the FBI investigate violations of federal law by the Appellate Courts of the State of New York and members of New York attorney disciplinary committees?

I will hold my breath.

Is the Director of the FBI a licensed attorney?  That would be the decisive point as to whether to investigate or not, I guess.  Right?

Courts as criminal enterprises as a matter of law

It is very difficult to prove participation of courts in a criminal activity.

Yet, at this time New York courts are in violation of FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS - yet nobody is trying to stop their operation as criminal enterprises, and I wonder why.

Judges in all courts but New York village courts are lawyers, members of the "regulated profession".

Judges' law licenses are pre-requisites for them to hold their positions, without the law license they may not sit on the bench - that's how lawyer-dominated Legislatures structures the applicable laws.

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that regulating any profession or occupation through super-majorities of market players and without active oversight by the state by neutral bodies with modification and veto power is a violation of federal antitrust law.

A former federal antitrust prosecutor recently authored a letter to all Attorneys General of all states in the United States pointing out that disciplinary committees, because of the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission are in violation of not only civil, but also of criminal antitrust laws.  In other words, the disciplinary committees are committing felonies when they are engaged - as they are daily - in antitrust activities in "regulating" the legal profession.

Four intermediate appellate courts in New York State created supermajorities of market players without any oversight over attorney disciplinary committees.

Courts DID NOT HALT attorney disciplinary proceedings pending as of the time when the U.S. Supreme Court decision was made, but continued full speed.

Many attorneys were disciplined and lost their livelihoods and licenses since the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.

On the other hand, many complaints filed with the disciplinary committees by consumers of legal services, were tossed by the private cartels of lawyers sitting on the committees without the state oversight.

Both eliminating competition from the market by prosecuting attorneys whose services are necessary to the public, and refusing to prosecute meritorious complaints against high-standing lawyers whose favor the private attorney members of the disciplinary committees want to get, are antitrust activities, in other words, crimes.  And those crimes are ongoing.

Judges whose law licenses may be lost to consumer panel investigations and prosecutions simply WOULD NOT acknowledge existence of the U.S. Supreme Court precedent and WOULD NOT abide by it - and this is happening in all states, throughout the country.

By filibustering the U.S. Supreme Court decision that directly affects the legal profession, and judges as licensed attorneys, courts that establish disciplinary schemes that knowingly violate federal trust laws, may be considered criminals.

By the way, state immunity always existed from CIVIL prosecution.  There is no immunity in this country, on state or federal level, from CRIMINAL prosecution, and yet, nobody attempted to pursue members of disciplinary committees - or judges who are complicit in establishing disciplinary regimes that violate federal antitrust laws.

And I wonder, why.

Who will be the first brave prosecutor who will prosecute a disciplinary prosecutor and judges who established disciplinary committees and allow them to function in vilation of antitrust laws?

I will hold my breath.

The amusing part is that - in Kentucky the county clerk who at this time continues to defy the U.S. Supreme Court, at least cites God as authority to deny gay couples marriage licenses.

For courts who defy the U.S. Supreme Court decision indicating that the way attorney disciplinary committees operate in the entire country, violates federal antitrust law, has only one god to pray to - money.  

Their own livelihood is at stake, and when that happens, the dishonorable Honorables prefer to commit federal crimes (in the expectation of entitlement, that nobody will ever charge them for it) and defy whatever laws there are, because to comply will mean to lose too much power, and too much money that comes with that power.

 

Out with Porter Kirkwood, a judicial candidate who, like Judge Carl Becker before him, already claims he will have no conflict of interest presiding over cases of his own clients

Delaware County coroner Dr. Ucci has placed a "letter to the editor" in the Walton Reporter supporting judicial candidate Porter Kirkwood, lauding him for his experience in dealing with child neglect and abuse cases.

I posted a comment to that letter, but it is under review, and I am not sure whether the politically correct and Republican-run newspaper will publish it.

Therefore, I repeat my comment to Dr. Ucci's letter here, with some edits and additions.

Experience does matter.  

Yet, Porter Kirkwood has not only experience in dealing with child neglect and abuse cases -AS A PROSECUTOR.

Porter Kirkwood also has a record of:

* ex parte communications with Judge Becker;
* lying about not having a child neglect file that he had, and thus preventing timely discovery of Judge Becker's disqualification arising from his actions before he came to the bench, something that could not be discovered through public records;
* fabricating child neglect prosecution of parents who reported Porter Kirkwood's child for a serious fight on school grounds;
* retaliation against his own workers for expressing opinions that he did not like;
* having a private practice during taxpayer-paid time as an Assistant County Attorney, and representing in that private practice individuals on claims that ran directly contrary to his obligations as a prosecutor, DEFENDING elder abuse;
* Allowing the County Building to be used by private attorneys for free for depositions in paying cases;
* Approving contracts without bidding in violation of the law;
* Approving the financial arrangement for a new prosecutor, with benefits financed out of conviction fines, in violation of state and federal law, including constitutional law.

As to Porter Kirkwood's abilities as an attorney - only a completely incompetent lawyer can lose a trial in a case where the judge is heavily biased in his favor and where the opponents did not show up, after trying a case against empty seats.

Such a gem as Porter Kirkwood, with his record of "integrity", should not be allowed close to the bench - or even to the practice of law. 

In the meeting with potential voters, Porter Kirkwood claimed that he has no conflict of interest as a potential future judge presiding in a BENCH (non-jury) trial where he will be a FACT-FINDER, over cases brought in front of him by his former client of 20+ years, the Department of Social Services.

Let me start counting the problems here.

* Extrajudicial knowledge about witnesses.
* Extrajudicial knowledge about the case.
* Extrajudicial knowledge about respondents - remember that many cases of social services have a trail of years back, and Porter Kirkwood LED investigations about many people, without their knowledge, and now will be presiding over cases of those parents?

Knowing him as I do, over years of experience with him as an opposing counsel in child neglect and abuse cases, I have no doubt that Kirkwood will NEVER acknowledge his conflicts of interest, NEVER disclose that he has extrajudicial knowledge about the case, NEVER disclose the fact of ex parte communications with his former clients - and your children will be taken away from you simply because social services replaced one judge representing them instead of impartially ruling on cases (Carl Becker), by another, Porter Kirkwood, who learned at Becker's knee as his subordinate, for years.

Neither parties, nor attorneys appearing in front of Kirkwood as a judge, will know or have even an opportunity to verify the scope of Kirkwood's knowledge about testifying witnesses.

Kirkwoood-as-judge will have to assess credibility of witnesses.  Guess how he will assess credibility of social workers who were his clients for decades and with whom he closely associated? 

Child neglect and abuse proceedings with Kirkwood presiding will be decided only one way - and you know, which way it will be.

Experience in the hands of a person with negative integrity and vast connections is a disaster.

Becker just left.  But, having left, Becker have sprouted two heads - Kirkwood and Northrup.

Voters in the coming primaries and in the general election!

Don't allow the local establishment of the Delaware County to saddle you with two Beckers instead of the one that you had and that just ran from the bench.  

You've had enough of ruined lives by a biased and incompetent judge with undisclosed conflicts of interest.

You do not need another one - or two - low on integrity and knowledge, but quick on retaliation and ex parte communications.

Judicial misconduct in the state of New York can be dealt with only one way - by not voting bad apples into office.

Once they are there, they will not be disciplined for anything they commit, and, remember, they will be ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE for MALICIOUS AND CORRUPT acts on the bench, for most horrible violations of your constituitonal rights, the moment they pronounce the oath to UPHOLD your constitutional rights.

That's how the "law" of this country works.

So, do not put on the bench a person who is guaranteed to violate your consitutitonal rights - because that's what he has been doing as a social services prosecutor, he is not likely to change, and he already said he has no conflcit of interest presiding over cases of his own clients of several decades.

Out with Kirkwood. 

Criminal tricks serve to keep state Attorneys General in check

My previous blog described the mechanism of how state Attorneys General, elected public officials, are controlled by a select private group, which requires deregulation of the legal profession that serves many goals, but none of them is protecting any public interests, and many of them are downright criminal.

In addition to that post, I would like to point out the following string of logic:

1. any conflicted representation is a discipilnary violation that may ultimately cause (depending on the degree of conflict) sanctions against a licensed attorneys and revocation of the attorney's license;
2. all State Attorneys General are required by statutory law to be licensed attorneys;
3. all state legislatures are run by attorneys;
4. state legislatures enacted attorney licensing schemes that violate separation of power and antitrust laws, putting attorney regulation in the hands of private attorneys and judges who are also required to be licensed attorneys;
5. state legislatures enacted statutes governing duties of the State Attorneys General that require Attorneys General to both enforce laws and protect state actors from enforcement of laws against them by members of the public when such a private enforcement is allowed by state or federal statutory law (the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983);
6. so, the state legislatures, run by lawyers, require that State Attorney Generals be lawyers, that only lawyers regulate the law licenses of the State Attorneys General, and that the State Attorney General must engage in a conflicted representation that at any time may become the subject of a discipinary prosecution and lead to revocation of the law license of the State Attorney General - and removal of the AG from office as not fulfilling the requirement of being a licensed attorney.

So, in other words, a statutory scheme is in place - in all states - to undermine the will of voters to elect certain people to the position of the Attorney Generals and to allow private interests to control State Attorneys General from their first second in office.

With such an axe over their heads, there is no wonder that no state Attorney General as yet even tried to raise the issue that they SHOULD NOT, ethically, represent state actors against private citizens in civil rights actions alleging violations of constitutional rights, because the AG was elected to protect people, not protect those who violate people's constitutional rights.

Yet, such a statutory scheme that puts an elected public official in constant apprehension of suspension of her or his livelihood of a lifetime if she steps out of line with private interests is nothing less than a criminal trick.

And I wonder when the People, the true sovereigns of their states, change their state Constitutions prohibiting attorney licensing BECAUSE of the problems with

• undermining democracy,
• blocking access to court,
• preventing independence representation in court,
• undermining the will of voters to elect individuals of their choice to public office, and
• interfering with proper investigation and prosecution of crimes in states, and especially the most heinous crimes that do the most damage to the public, the crimes of corruption in public office

It's high time to do that.

Attorney regulation must be extinguished as not only violating antitrust laws, but cancelling the will of voters and interfering in investigation and prosecution of criminal laws

In May of 2015 the following letter was written by a Consumers'  Union to the National Association of Attorneys General.

 

 

In plain English, the letter stated that states continue to violate federal antitrust laws in ignoring the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that held in February of 2015 that licensing/disciplinary boards run by supermajority of market participants and without proper state oversight are in violation of federal antitrust laws - in other words, are committing felonies on a large scale and exposing their states to lawsuits that can bankrupt those states.

 

The letter points out what changes the states were supposed to make in their licensing regimes (that they did not make) to bring them into compliance with antitrust laws:

 

• either establish supermajorities of public members not connected with the regulated trade on the regulation boards; or
• establish oversight an active from a neutral state agency that will have a veto and modification power and that will ensure that members of regulatory board are advancing the state interest and not their own private interests in making their anticompetitive decisions

 

The letter contains a paragraph that is absolutely precious and is worth quoting:

 

"You are the chief law enforcement official of the State.  You also advise state agencies.  As such, your predominant obligation is not to arrange or excuse violations of law, but to prevent them and, where that fails, to enforce that law.  That function may place you at odds with the political and institutional prerogatives of these agencies, but we respectfully contend that your duty is not to them as clients receiving blind fealty, but to compliance with applicable Supreme Court decisions warranting your respect".

 

The paragraph is a monument to political correctness, yet, it correctly hits the bull right in the eye, politely.

 

It says, in plain English - dear Attorneys General!  You represent agencies whose members violate federal laws and commit felonies.  You also represent people of your state and have a duty to enforce laws, not condone violations of laws.  That is an IRRECONCILABLE conflict of interest.  And in the balance of those interests you need to choose to enforce the laws and not to represent a client.

 

First of all, that will not and cannot happen.

 

An attorney MAY NOT act contrary to his or her client's interests.

 

If the Attorney General represents those suckers who violate federal antitrust laws, he will represent them 100%, without ifs or buts (excluding violations of the law by the Attorney General himself during such representation).

 

Also, if the Attorney General represents those suckers who pay his salary (us, taxpayers), he must ALSO do that 100%, without ifs or buts.

 

Those two overlapping 100%s are the problem.

 

Both of them are ordered by the state laws in most states, imposing upon state Attorney  Generals duties BOTH to uphold the laws, prevent and prosecute violations of laws AND be the representative of state agencies and its members in lawsuits for violations of those laws that the Attorneys General are supposed to enforce.

 

Until this changes, only the feds (if they do not have their own conflicts of interest - like employing judicial offspring) are neutral enough to provide oversight, investigate and prosecute antitrust violations in the state regulating agencies.

 

One additional problem with Attorneys General handling compliance with antitrust laws - it concerns them not only in the attorney-client situation where members of licensing boards committing antitrust felonies are AGs' clients.

 

AG are THEMSELVES licensed attorneys subject to THEIR CLIENTS' regulation of THEIR OWN licenses.

 

As the case of Kathleen Kane, the currently embattled Attorney General in the State of Pennsylvania shows, battling misconduct in the close ranks of state prosecutors and even in her own office can cost the Attorney General dearly - right now Kathleen Kane, for exposure of misconduct in the "old boys' club" was:

 

1) charged with multiple crimes;

2) referred to the disciplinary authorities - her own clients, THOSE SAME PEOPLE who she is supposed to:

 

(a) represent in lawsuits against them;

(b) verify their compliance with federal law, as the letter from the Consumer Union requests of her, and as is her duty.

 

"Coincidentally", the disciplinary referral was made right after a court decision allowing release of porn e-mails of the "old boys' club" using their office time paid by taxpayers for ribald entertainment.

 

That is - when Kathleen Kane was starting to win in asserting her claim that criminal charges against her was part of political conspiracy to get her out of office and retaliate against her for properly doing her job, her own clients - the disciplinary board - jumped on the bandwagon and lended a helping hand to the "old boys' club" to finish Kathleen Kane without much ado, because suspension of her license will automatically remove her from office as an ELECTED public official, elected by MILLIONS of voters of the state of Pennsylvania.

 

An awesome power of "market participants" to remove an elected public official from office behind closed doors, without any public input and without any procedure that would ensure fairness to the public, isn't it?

 

So - when the elected public official is REQUIRED to ALSO be a licensed attorney, the elections are a FARCE and a waste of taxpayer money.

 

Now, Kathleen Kane's own clients/active market participants in Pennsylvania will decide whether Kathleen Kane will keep her license or not - and if they decide - in their absolute discretion, behind closed doors, without any public input, that Kathleen Kane's law license "must be" suspended, then Kathleen Kane will lose her position as the Attorney General that REQUIRES her to hold a law license from the very people whom she must :

 

(1) represent in lawsuits for misconduct, and

(2) investigate and prosecute if they are in violation of the law

 

By the way, there is a petition currently pending on Change.org against disciplinary prosecution of Kathleen Kane - filed by consumers and by members of the public who want Kathleen Kane to do exactly what the "politically correct" paragraph I cited from the above letter asked her (among other state AGs) to do - disregard corrupt state actors as "clients receiving blind fealty" and enforce laws against them, which is what this courageous woman is doing. 

 

So - as much as the Consumer Union's letter wanted to be politically correct, life itself requires that we put political correctness aside and call a spade a spade.

 

Attorneys General, especially looking at the example of what is being done to Kathleen Kane, WILL NEVER try to "step out of line" and prosecute their own clients or even try to verify their powerful clients' compliance with federal antitrust laws - for as long as those clients hold the AGs' own law licenses, reputations and livelihoods for a lifetime to come, tightly in hand.

 

In order for anything to move, it is necessary to:

 

(1) FREE the state Attorneys General from their obligation to represent and advise state agencies, and

 

(2) REQUIRE that the state Attorneys General MUST NOT be licensed attorneys - because otherwise their independence in assuring that it is public interest and public right to effective legal representation in court that is protected by the states and NOT private interests of board members is NON-EXISTENT.

 

And, for as long as Attorneys General continue to represent members of the state licensing boards - or any state actors - ALL INFORMATION about them violating any laws, including criminal laws, fall under attorney-client privilege and CANNOT be disclosed by the very same elected official who MUST investate and prosecute his own clients for the crimes, information about which is covered by the absolute attorney-client privilege because of the statutory scheme created by a legislature overpowered by licensed attorneys.

 

Nice job, isn't it?

 

You can't frame the Attorney General into a conflict-of-interest quagmire any better and cannot create a better criminal cartel to run your own interests under the guise of the law.  No political correctness is needed here.

 

And, you can remove a public official elected by millions of voters because several market players gathering in a Star Chamber-like proceedings behind closed doors and without any public input, wanted it.

 

That's exactly why the legal profession as a whole must be deregulated.

 

No band-aids of "oversight" by governments that are controlled by attorneys.  Just deregulation.  Nothing else will help.

 

Otherwise we allow a bunch of private attorneys overrun the will of voters of sovereign states and interfere with investigation and proseuction of crimes and other misconduct in office of high-standing public officials.

 

So, the need to deregulate the legal profession, as Kathleen Kane's example shows, is bigger than just antitrust violations.

 

Such regulation undermines democracy, and must be extinguished. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 



 



 

 







On the undisclosed goal of the New York State Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline

I wrote on this blog several times about the newly created New York Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline:

• its creation out of market players;
• its inclusion of "engaged experts" as its members;
• its peculiar timing in scheduling "public" hearing;
• its actual "public" hearings where the public was not invited;
• that I filed a Freedom of Information request as to all statements asking for testimony,

as well as that the New York State Office of Court Administration, the same office that created the Commission and is holding the hearing, is at the same time blocking my Freedom of Information request regarding public records pertaining to:

• appointments to the disciplinary committees;
• statistics of attorney discipline by classes of disciplined attorneys 

I already wrote in my very first blog that the creation of the Commission was NOT motivated by protection of consumers - that was the declared purpose - but, rather, as a panic reaction of the legal profession to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court stripping members of attorney disciplinary committees of the "state immunity" for antitrust violations, in other words, for disciplining attorneys not for purposes of protection of the public, but to protect committee members' own market turfs, since the absolute supermajority of committee members are practicing attorneys with financial interest in disciplinary investigations.  

In other words, disciplinary proceedings in New York - as in other states - bear the definite attributes of quashing competition (that's along with quashing critics of misconduct in the judiciary and in any other branch and level of the government).

Of course, the Chief Judge Lippman, when creating the Commission to review how to save the market players from antitrust liability, did not tell the public that it is spending public money to save the market players from antitrust liability.  Of course, it was presented to the public that the Commission was created to:

• make attorney disciplinary proceedings uniform across the 4 Appellate Divisions, 
• fair and efficient to attorneys while
• making them also efficient in protection of the public

Well, the "public" hearing and how they were conducted showed to a lot of consumers just how they are being protected by the Statewide Commission.

As another illustrative point, I did not see anywhere on the Commission's website an announcement to the public - in the form of a disclaimer of a conflict of interest by the Commission's attorney-members and law professor-members who are breeding the "future lawyers of America" (while intentionally not teaching them about attorney disciplinary proceedings - according to the testimony of one of the esteemed "legal ethics" professors testified) - about a letter by a consumer union to the State Attorneys General to investigate antitrust violations by the disciplinary committees in all states of the United States.

The letter was reported by "The National Law Journal" back in May of this year.

The letter, as I stated above, requested State Attorneys General to bring the disciplinary committees within compliance with federal antitrust laws and the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission decided in February of 2015 and, before being decided, ardently opposed by bar associations from across the country - those same people who allegedly regulate the legal profession in order to protect the consumers of legal services.

The National Law Journal quotes a former antitrust prosecutor to say the following about the U.S. Supreme Court decision that applies not only to the dental examiners, but to any licensing board with a supermajority of regulated market participants and without strict and neutral supervision from the state:

        "The Supreme Court declared, in effect, that 

         a thousand agencies—most state regulatory boards 

         and commissions—are committing felony offenses, 

         said Robert Fellmeth, a former antitrust prosecutor 

         and director of the Center for Public Interest Law"

and that

       "The high court ruling was not limited to the North Carolina

         dental board, Fellmeth said. "This was a cosmic case 

         where the Supreme Court said any agency controlled by     

         active participants in the trade regulated does not have 

         sovereign protection," he said. "They are in same position 

         as a cartel of truckers, insurance agents and other 

         horizontal competitors meeting and deciding what to do. 

         And, by the way, lawyers are included here."

"Coincidentally", I wrote about that, both in this blog, and in the pleadings in my own and in my husband's disciplinary proceedings.

Moreover, at this time I filed a request with the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the New York State attorney disciplinary authorities for non-compliance with antitrust laws.

But - wait a minute.  If these people are "committing felony offenses", violations of criminal antitrust laws, where are federal investigators and prosecutors?

And, isn't a disciplinary investigation by panels of non-attorneys of ALL attorney-members of disciplinary committees are in order INSTEAD OF appointing them as members of the Statewide Commission?

As the National Law Journal further contends, the National Attorneys General Association "declined to comment" on the letter, but, as the National Law Journal reports, the former antitrust prosecutor recommended, back in May of this year, to make two changes, in the alternative, to AVOID ANTITRUST LIABILITY for members of attorney disciplinary proceedings - not for protection of the public:

• Either "get rid of a majority of the trade members, or" 
• "create some oversight that passes muster"
  
  Getting rid of majorities on the disciplinary committees?

What of hundreds of disciplined attorneys who ALREADY suffered from anti-competitive actions of their competitors on the committees who violated federal antitrust laws in prosecuting them, thus committing felonies - and were absolved BY FEDERAL COURTS who gave them absolute JUDICIAL IMMUNITY?

Courts will now claim that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision does not have a "retroactive effect"?

That issue aside, I wrote on this blog on June 25, 2014, 8 months before the U.S. Supreme Court made the decision that rattled the legal profession, that attorney disciplinary proceedings are necessary not to protect the public, but to quash competition, and that blog post remains in the 10 most read posts out of more than 500 blog posts in this blog (the 10 most read blogs are determined automatically by viewing statistics, I have no control over it).

Nevertheless - and quite predictably - I was never invited to speak to the Commission at its "public hearings".

Nor did I ask the Commission for an opportunity to testify.

First, what I wanted to say, I say regularly on my blog, without time or space restrictions, and the member of the Commission Christopher Lindquist, of the Appellate Division 4th Department, was notified of my blog because I was charged criminally (by the disciplinary prosecutor acting as a prosecutor and the main witness, a completely disqualifying combination) for telling the truth about fabrication of court transcripts in my disciplinary proceedings.

Second, for me, the purpose of why the Commission was convened was quite clear - and it was not to help attorneys get a fairer treatment in proceedings that are characterized with no procedural protections and gross separation of powers and conflicts of interest violations, and not to protect consumers.

It was, as I said above, a panic reaction of attorneys to protect themselves from AUTOMATIC DISBARMENT that will result if members of disciplinary committees (who sit there to do the bidding of judges to eliminate critics of judicial misconduct and to drum up their own business, quashing competition and rescuing high-standing attorneys from discipline) are convicted for antitrust felony violations.

As to the advise of the "former antitrust prosecutor", I don't believe that it is an "either - or" situation where the states should EITHER get rid of majority of trade members on the disciplinary committees OR create state oversight that passes muster, because the "oversight which passes muster" must be from NEUTRAL bodies and NEUTRAL actors, and ALL branches of New York State government are controlled by the "trade members", licensed attorneys.

And, of course, the creation of the Statewide Commission of trade members is an answer as to whether the legal elite wants to give up the controls of the disciplinary proceedings to the public that it claims it is protecting.

By the way, with all that said - as I also pointed out to the 4th Department in my pleadings - there is NOTHING in New York State statutory law giving authority to the now existing disciplinary committees to conduct disciplinary proceedings.  An attentive reader will search in vain the statute that governs regulation of the legal profession in New York, Judiciary Law 90, for existence or authority of anything other than "character and fitness committees", and for anything other than checking fitness of CANDIDATES for licensing, not disciplining licensed attorneys. 

That "little glitch" somehow escapes review of Appellate courts that created those committees and consider them "an arm of the court" (thus creating a separation-of-power, and conflict of interest/court-as-advocate and prosecutor-as-adjudicator/court issue).

So, while the Statewide Commission is presenting a smoke screen to the public that it is sitting out there to come up with ideas as to how to make attorney disciplinary proceedings more uniform, fair and at the same time protection of the public more efficient - the real reason is how to save attorney members of disciplinary committees from multi-million dollar lawsuits, felony convictions and automatic disbarments after such felony convictions.

And such purposes should have been squarely announced to the public - that would be honest and honorable to do, by the profession that self-appoints itself as honorable, wouldn't it be?

What I am very upset about that taxpayers of the State of New York were not notified that what NEEDS to be created - and was not - was a Statewide Commission of CONCERNED TAXPAYERS interested in protecting the state budget from indemnifying the potential felons who quash competition and drum their own business behind closed doors under the guise of protecting the public from bad attorneys - when lawsuits against them for antitrust liability will start raining in.

Actually, the letter of the Consumer Union - see the link below DOES point out the need to protect state budgets from "indemnifying" liability.

Not to mention that saving the hides of felons should NOT be a matter of public concern and should NOT be the matter upon which taxpayer money is expended - and I am sure, taxpayer money was expended on the running of the Commission.

 

That these concerns behind creation of the Commission and the Commission's hidden goals were not presented to the public - thus reducing importance of the Commission in the public eyes - reveals just how honorable our self-appointed "honorables" are.

By the way, here is the letter of consumer organizations to the associations of the Attorneys General.  

The detailed analysis of the letter and the reaction (or non-reaction, and reasons for non-reaction) of the Attorneys General - in my next blog post.

Stay tuned.