The overwhelming majorities of honorable people - until the next arrest

I come across this phrase time and again, in public speeches, in law review articles and even in law books that pretend to be serious treatises.

"Of course, the overwhelming majority of judges are men and women of honor".

"Of course"?  Even though those same "men and women" allowed themselves to be free, with immunity, from the very constitutional oath of office that allows them to draw their salary and benefits?

And when judicial discipline is virtually non-existent, and what exists is secret and does not allow for any independent review of statistics of the actual number of complaints filed against judges and of validity of those complaints?

It is easy to brand people who complain about judicial conduct in litigation as "disgruntled litigants", and after branding them so, dismiss their complaints as incredible.

Yet, judicial immunity was given BECAUSE judicial discipline was (allegedly) available for improper conduct in court proceedings.

And, judicial discipline for judges' actions in the court proceedings is adamantly NOT available BECAUSE an appeal is available (a very expensive and technically complex endeavor that not many people can afford).

And during the appeal judicial misconduct is always endorsed or dismissed as "discretion" of the judge to do whatever he wants.  The circle came around.

Of course, the majority of men and women who come to the bench and know that they are protected by those rules, are honorable?  

As well as the majority of the prosecutors, similarly covered by absolute immunity and similarly unreachable by discipline, to the point that in New York the Legislature is trying to establish a whole separate disciplinary body to discipline prosecutors, separately - as a confirmation that the existing disciplinary bodies would not touch prosecutors for discipline, no matter what they do.

So, district attoney's offices, those people who 

• routinely put police officers on the stand and knowingly elicit perjury from them, to the point that lawyers invented a term "testilying" characterizing testimony of police witnesses;
• routinely withhold exculpatory evidence, even in death penalty cases;
• routinely prosecute in order to pursue personal and political interests, their own, their families', friend's or political or financial sponsors people - 

The majority of these people who, statistically, make the majority of judges, are honorable?

Where is the statistics of complaints, where are the REASONED decisions of disciplinary bodies as to the merits of those complaints, so that such a claim would have any basis?

The same applies to the "overwhelmingly honorable" legislatures, such as the New York Legislature where first the head of one chamber, and then the other, were charged with federal crimes of corruption, within months from one another, and yet, the new Speaker of the Assembly that replaced the arrested one claims that - again - the overwhelming majority of men and women in the Assembly are honorable people.  

But, rules of per diem travel must be changed because of those who are not that honorable, and right after the arrests of the leaders of both chambers of the New York legislature for federal crimes of fraud and corruption.

Given the fact that lawsuits against these honorable people are routinely dismissed on legislative immunity grounds covering, once again, malicious and corrupt acts, and discipline of legislators - other than efforts of the U.S. Attorney General's office - is unavailable, such claims of honor makes one clutch one's pocketbook closer.

But New York taxpayers will clutch their pocketbooks in vain.

This is what are the "revised" rules (makes me wondering what was before that).

Wait a second.

30 trips a year, when the Assembly is NOT in session, with reimbursement of transportation costs without ANY control, and trips over 30 under control of one person - the Speaker?

What is an "off-session trip"?

A vacation with family and friends?

A dinner party with a buddy pretending to be a meeting with the constituents?

Good job, legislators.

I will take out popcorn and watch who is going to be next on Preet Bharara's list of honorable men and women.

With all these honorable people doing all of those honorable things, what are my co-citizens, Americans, doing at this time - well, apart from fighting for survival, of course? 

They are, actually, doing something.

With great admiration I see that more and more people take a stand - in the social media, on the streets, in letters to the government, in petitions on Change.org, against misconduct on all levels of the government.

Change is actually coming, in some branches of the government quicker, in some - slower, but it is coming.

It is extremely sad to see people who are badly hurt by the government, being blocked from access to courts to get any remedies - by yet another bunch of "honorable men and women".

This has to change.

We the People - the sovereign of this country - should be able to make sure that we are able to discipline or get rid our "public servants" of any branch and any level ("servants" is the key word), if they err.

To make this happen - a suggestion.

If anybody claims that "the majority of men and women", members of the XYZ governmental entity, are allegedly honorable, demand from the claimers, statistics of misconduct amongst the ranks of those honorable men and women and proof that disciplinary processes are set that are transparent and handled by neutral citizen panels, and not by members of the same class as the disciplined "public servant".  

Otherwise reject those claims as a bad joke and continue to demand cleaning the stinking mess that this country's government has become.

A question about a law license

If the U.S. Supreme Court has established in February of 2015 that professional regulation boards run by regulated professionals without state oversight are in violation of antitrust laws - and attorney regulation in New York is exactly run by private attorneys without any oversight - are law licenses a kind of a devil's mark, a cattle brand showing that the attorneys who has a law license is in compliance of the rules of the criminal cartels?

And are then, orders of disbarment and suspension - especially those orders which are issued for criticism of judicial misconduct, and misconduct of any other public official, or of a well-connected attorneys - in fact, badges of honor?

It is an interesting world...

Alex Kozinski's litigation saga: the final choice of a judge for Kozinski's case, Judge # 4, an 80-year old A. Wallace Tashima. Will the judicial players in the Kozinski saga be impeached and removed from office or were members of Congress silenced by the movie nights with booze in the 9th Circuit courthouse?

In 2005, Judge Alex Kozinski, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, has authored an article on appearance of judicial impropriety.

Blogs I published in late August of 2015, with documentary evidence, show just how much propriety Judge Kozinski cares about himself.

This post covers the appointment and "service" of the last of the 4 judges (so far) who were appointed to the Kozinski litigation in the Central District of California.

Judges # 1, 2 and 3 recused for reasons I described in separate blogs, for each judge.

This is how judge A. Wallace Tashima was appointed, a judge who has first been appointed to the federal bench in 1980, to the 9th Circuit in 1996, and "assumed senior status" (cleared the path for appointment of another judge while keeping his full salary and benefits) in 2004.

At the time of appointment Judge A. Wallace Tashima was 80 (eighty) years of age.

A good choice and a proper level of energy to handle a class action.

Kozinski could not pick a judge for his case, out of his own subordinates, any better.

Alex Kozinski, as of January 29, 2014 the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, delegated his authority to appoint judges to district courts to his future successor (one must earn the succession, mustn't one?), his subordinate Judge Sidney Thomas, and Judge Sidney Thomas obediently appointed to Judge Kozinski's own case Judge Kozinski's own subordinate at that time, Judge A. Wallace Tashima.

Piece of cake.

Judge A. Wallace Tashima, who obviously did not want to irk his boss Alex Kozinski, did not squeak against such an appointment, which was contrary to the Code of Judicial Conduct - as was already cogently explained in the letter of recusal of the previous judge, and the letter from the Committee on Judicial Code of Conduct.

Instead, Judge A. Wallace Tashima, after Alex Kozinski dropped hints in a public "Key Note Speech" at a conference held for him by his buddy, Professor Arthur Miller's, law school, during the pendency of Alex Kozinski's own lawsuit - that district judges' discretion should not really be trusted with too much money, that plaintiffs' attorneys in class actions lawsuits should similarly not be trusted with too much money - after all of that, Judge A. Wallace Tashima obediently resumed proceedings after the "court-ordered mediation", and then approved the settlement that was agreeable for Kozinski and his wife, while rejecting objections of another objector as "untimely".

At this time, the decision of judge Tashima is being appealed by the rejected objector to - guess - the court where both Judge Kozinski (party to the litigation) and Judge Tashima (the judge who decided the case in the court below) are judges.

The 9th Circuit, headed by Kozinski's "earned" successor Sidney Thomas, did not recuse from the appeal, as it did not recuse previously from assigning judges to Kozinski's case in the court below, in violation of rules of judicial conduct.

Note that no attempts were made by attorneys or parties on appeal to have the case removed to another Circuit court, point out any appearances of impropriety, or have the Circuit court recused from the case.

Nope.  

Everybody is afraid for their law licenses which can fly out the door if they say a word.  So, they stay mum.

By the way, the "mediation order" mentioned in the docket as Docket entry # 5 does not list names of any judges

 - it is a "per curiam" decision of the entire court, which means that it is also the decision of:

• Alex Kozinski himself - as to his own case; and of
• A. Wallace Tahima - Kozinski's colleague and the judge in the court below dealing with an appeal from his own decision

Kozinski ceded Chief Judgeship as of December 1, 2014 to Judge Sidney Thomas who has earned his position by obediently keeping the case that had to be transferred out of the 9th Circuit, in the 9th Circuit, which Kozinski calls, in a juvenile fashion, "The Hollywood Circuit".

Yet, it is not Hollywood, ladies and gentlemen.  It is a circus, of the worse kind.  It is an insult to the position of trust that Kozinski, Thomas, Tashima and all judges on the 9th Circuit who allows this appeal to proceed in that Circuit are betraying.

Will Alex Kozinski, Sidney Thomas, A. Wallace Tashima and all other judges of the 9th Circuit (a court that deals with death penalty cases and where each and every judge must be squeaky clean) who condone this perversity of justice be impeached by Congress and removed from office for bad behavior?

Or did Alex Kozinski exercise shrewd foresight and invited Congressmen to his movie-nights-with-booze-in-the-courthouse, so that they are partners in crime and will not say a word?

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.