Task Force/Lobby by the Supreme Court of Ohio: we need extension of immunity to non-judicial acts, because our liability insurance costs too much - Part 2

Recently I started analyzing the 2006 Report of a "Task Force" between an Ohio Supreme Court and a non-profit judicial trade association which asked to expand judicial immunity because of raising insurance premiums for judges.  Ohio is one of three states that cover judicial misconduct with a liability insurance.  Ohio pays for legal defense and payouts in lawsuits against judges made by:

• civil rights plaintiffs in litigation-related matters;
• civil rights plaintiffs in employment-related matters;
• disciplinary proceedings against judges.

This post is Part II of the analysis.

As I wrote previously, the very first recommendation of the "Joint Task Force" was to expand the concept of judicial immunity to cover non-judicial acts by qualified immunity.  I wrote in Part I about impropriety of such a grant.

Here is recommendation 2.

The report states the following as a basis for the recommendation:

I repeat once again the question - why judges, people who earn in all states close to $200,000 per year in salary, cannot pay a thousand dollars a year for their own liability insurance?  Why it is such a gigantic problem that the law of immunity must be changed to extend coverages of judges, at taxpayers' expense, for misconduct in office?

Here is recommendation No. 3.

In New York, NYS Attorney General already represents all state judges sued for misconduct in office, and even for misconduct that judges committed out of office, which is, consequently, not related to their duties.

Such representation creates unique conflicts of interest for the Attorney General who is also charged by separate legislation with duties to:

• protect people of the State of New York from crimes, no matter who commits them;
• investigation and prosecution of crimes, such as corruption of public office;
• oust usurpers of public office by initiating writs of quo warranto 

At the same time, the NYS Attorney General continues to appear in court in front of judges whom he represents in litigation, while representing other clients, and such representation is irreversibly tainted by the conflict of interest of a judge ruling for his or her own attorney appearing in front of her.

Ohio judges, obviously, wanted far back in 2006 to endow the Ohio State Attorney General with the same set of conflicts of interest as the New York State Attorney General has.

Here is recommendation No. 4.

Now, why judges have to be provided with taxpayer-paid legal representation in a DISCIPLINARY action is a mystery.

Yet, the judicial lobby in Ohio insisted in their entitlement to free legal representation in disciplinary actions against judges, at the expense of taxpayers, whether with or without insurance, when so many of those same Ohioans, the taxpayers who fund judicial liability insurance, cannot afford their own legal representation.

Legal representation of judges becomes fraught with conflicts of interests to begin with because judiciary in Ohio (as in all other states of the United States) also licenses all lawyers, and thus controls livelihood of all attorneys.

Imagine being opponent of a judge in litigation and what that judge can do to your license.

Imagine not suiting your judge's needs in litigation, and what that judge can do to your license.

Here is the substantiation of the demand for taxpayer-backed legal representation of judges in disciplinary proceedings:

So, out of 608 disciplinary complaints filed in 2005, only in 4 cases formal charges were brought.  That is a whopping 0.66% of complaints against judges are prosecuted after initial investigation.

Of course, judges claim that it was because "the vast majority of these dismissed grievances are filed by dissatisfied litigants who are invoking the grievance process as a substitute for an appeal".  

Of course, there is no way of verifying that claim, because dismissed grievances are sealed, and it is unclear how the "Joint Task Force" got its collective hands on those grievances in order to make that bold claim in their report.

Of course, if 0.66% of police complaints are prosecuted, it will be blamed on inefficiency and corruption in the police and prosecution, not on the fact that the quality of complaints was bad.

In the situation where judges in Ohio (the same Supreme Court of Ohio that participates in the Joint Task Force) appoint the Board that handles complaints against judges, the number of prosecuted complaints, 0.66% (remember, I put the number at 1.3% when I calculated the comparative cost of litigation in disciplinary proceedings in Part I of the analysis, so I will have to go back and recalculate that) indicates the appearance of the influence of the judiciary on the disciplinary board, and a policy of non-prosecution of judges, not the quality of complaints. 

Also, under the law of the State of Ohio, once a formal charge is filed against the judge, the proceeding remains public.

So, the Board spared 99.34% of judges against whom complaints were filed in 2005 from being exposed as judges complained about for misconduct.

Since 99.34% of complaints against judges remained sealed, the Ohio Supreme Court, or, and especially, a private organization of judges called the Ohio Judicial Conference, same as everybody else in Ohio, should have had no access to the sealed information in order to claim that the vast majority of the 99.34% of the complaints were from "disgruntled litigants".

When judges claimed that the "disgruntled litigants" used grievance process instead of an appeal, that only shows how deep is the judicial bias and how prepared are judges to serve themselves in protecting themselves from any liability, because it is the Supreme Court of Ohio who not only 

• appoints the Board that rejects 99.34% of complaints against judges, and 
• appoints it in such a way that the majority of members of the Board are attorneys licensed by the Ohio Supreme Court and dependent on it for their livelihood (24 out of 28 members of the Board are attorneys and judges who are also attorneys), but also it is the Ohio Supreme Court that hears - and mostly rejects - appeals.

The Ohio Supreme Court calls rejection of complaints against judges by the supermajority of lawyers licensed by judges at the rate of 99.34% as the result of the quality of the complaint, and, based on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission decided in February of 2015, it can be called as a result of operation of the Board as a criminal antitrust cartel, by the members of the regulated profession - 17 attorneys who are dependent for their livelihood upon the good grace of the investigated and prosecuted judges, and 7 judges (acting or retired) who will not say anything against their own brethren.

The voice of the public, 4 lay members in a 28-member disciplinary board, is drowned by the voices of the industry, and the claim of protection of the public by such a Board from misconduct of judges is an astounding monument of hypocrisy of the judiciary and the legal profession.

As to "disgruntled litigants" using complaints against judges as an improper alternative to appeal, these two avenues are not mutually exclusive.

Since judges 

• precluded suing themselves by giving themselves absolute judicial immunity for MALICIOUS and CORRUPT acts on the bench, 
• disregard issues of judicial bias on appeals and sanction attorneys and parties who raise those issues, attorneys are sanctioned by up to revoking their licenses and livelihoods; and
• shape the disciplinary boards in such a way that they dismiss 99.34% of complaints against judges - it is clear that judicial remedies and access to TRUE IMPARTIAL courts is non-existent in Ohio - as it is in New York, and many other states where the judiciary operates with the legal elite as an anticompetitive cartel.

Elena Sassower, director of the Center of Judicial Accountability in New York, has written a brilliant article several years ago about the myth of judicial remedies in the American Justice system, called "The Empty Promise of Judicial Discipline".  It remains true today, as on the day it was written.

The subsections of Elena Sassower's article are called:

1. Intellectual dishonesty - the frequent misapplication of laws and misrepresentations of the law and the record in judicial decisions;  intellectual dishonesty of the Ohio judges is also shown by the fact that they first appoint 17 puppets into the disciplinary board whose livelihood depends on the Ohio judiciary, and then claim that the 99.34% rate of dismissal by those puppets of complaints against judges is explained by the quality of complaints;
2. The Myth of Recusal, where the process must be objective and not dangerous for the challenger of judicial bias, in order to insure litigants' constitutional rights to access to court and to an impartial judicial review, but instead the process is dominated by the challenged judge, who most often retaliates against challengers and their attorneys, see also here;  Elena Sassower describes the virtual unavailability of recusals in federal courts, but the same happens in state courts;
3. The Chimera of Judicial Discipline - Elena Sassower describes judicial discipline in federal court, but the process or results are not much different than in the Ohio State court system;
4. The Illusory remedy of appeal - where all issues of judicial bias  and judicial decisions motivated by bias are collectively rejected as either not preserved for appellate review (because the litigant and his attorney were afraid to raise the issue by a motion to recuse or objection in the court below), or do not have "merits" (without any explanation why), or because to recuse or not to recuse is now considered by judges as a matter of absolute discretion of the presiding judge, not as a constitutional right of a litigant to access to court and to impartial judicial review.

The Ohio judges complain that in 1999 coverage in disciplinary matters was made contingent on exoneration of judges:

Then, in 2002 judges were given a gift of $20,000 cap and $25,000 "outside limit" on insurance payments, even if judicial misconduct was found:

For some inexplicable reason, the Supreme Court of Ohio claims that judges are entitled to be protected from all financial costs of defending themselves in disciplinary actions, no matter what the outcome - and while the same Supreme Court of Ohio appoints the Board that investigates and prosecutes those same judges, and populates the supermajority of the Board by people completely dependent with their livelihoods on the good grace of the judges they investigate and prosecute.

One cannot get a more corrupt scheme to begin with, but even that scheme is not enough for the Ohio judges, and they want to be absolved of any liability, and any costs of legal representation, even if they did commit disciplinary misconduct that even the puppet board could not swallow.

And, of course, the report concludes with some chest-pounding that the outrageous self-serving entitlements that the Ohio judiciary claimed for themselves in the report, on top of the corrupt way in which the Ohio judiciary handles complaints against itself, is somehow needed to ensure, for the benefit of the public, independence of the Ohio judiciary.  

Judges must start realizing that the public is not a bunch of idiots to buy such cheap tricks.

The corrupt process of magistrate selection in the Northern District of New York - David Peebles should not be allowed to stay on the bench

David Peebles, the Chief Magistrate for the Northern District of New York, is apparently, running for a re-appointment.

I, as a practitioner appearing in front of him, was not given a notice and was not invited for comments, and the deadline for comments expired on October 2, 2015.

So, I am using this forum to call upon the public to write petitions to request not to re-appoint David Peebles for the position of a magistrate.

I just wrote a blog about inherent conflicts of interests in appointments of magistrate in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

The Order to appoint the so-called "merit panel" to "select" David Peebles for re-appointment for his position as a magistrate is appointed along the same fraternity and "captive audience" lines.

The "merit selection panel" to reappoint magistrate Peebles includes:

1. As a Chairperson - Attorney Kimberly Zimmer, a former federal prosecutor, and an attorney practicing before Judge Peebles and his court;
2. Attorney J.Scott Porter, practicing before Judge Peebles now and who can suffer repercussions before the end of the judge's term, or by other judges who favor Judge Peebles, if he does not re-appoint him.
3. Attorney John G. McGowan, also an attorney practicing in front of the court - an attorney for Bond, Schoeneck and King, a huge law firm employing a former law clerk for the just-retired New York Court of Appeals judge Victoria Graffeo, a former two law clerk for a judge of the Bankruptcy court of the same Northern District of New York, see also here;  a former assistant counsel to NYS Governor Andrew Cuomo;   former law clerk for a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, appellate jurisdiction for the NDNY; two former law clerk for a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, see also here; a former law intern for another magistrate of the same court, NDNY;  Attorney McGowan himself has a long list of connections with the court system:  "served two terms as a trustee of the Federal Court Bar Association for the United States District Court, Northern District of New York and currently serves as treasurer of that organization. John has also served two three year terms on the Grievance Committee for the Appellate Division, Fourth Department Fifth Judicial District where he was part of a committee that reviewed and passed on attorney discipline matters. He has also served on a select committee formed by the New York Court of Appeals for improvement of the jury system in New York Courts."
4. Attorney Albert J. Millus, an attorney from Hinman, Howard and Kattel, a law firm who was recently a defendant in litigation in NDNY in Neroni v Coccoma, 3:13-cv-1340 where Magistrate Peebles was assigned, so now the successful defendant in litigation (the case was dismissed without reaching the merits) is supposed to reappoint the judge from the team who granted him the relief he sought?  And awarded attorney fees in his favor, even for activities in representing a NON-CLIENT, advocating for her representation, at taxpayers' expense, by the NYS Attorney General.  Sweet deal.  Attorney Millus himself boasts of having being appointed by that same court as a federal prosecutor in a death penalty case where he "secured a conviction" - much to be proud of.
5. Attorney John Orilio - a corporation counsel for the City of Utica, an attorney practicing in front of the court whose fee status is currently "due".
6. Jay Kianka, a lay member, a certified public accountant working for a corporation. 
7. David W. Murphy, a lay member, a College Board Chairman of the Onondaga Community College Board, with a salary of $180,000 a year.

So, the decision whether to approve or not to approve David Peebles for his reappointment as a magistrate will be made by a supermajority of attorneys over lay individuals, and all attorneys are practicing in front of the judge they vote to "select".

Perfect.  You cannot select a better bunch of "captive voters", or rich voters - because not ONE person on the selected "merit panel" is poor, is a prospective civil rights litigant, or a civil rights poor plaintiffs' attorney.   

Here are the scans of NDNY registration for attorney members of the "merit panel":

Corruption in magistrate appointments and interactions with the courts. NDNY-FCBA and other attorney-sponsored organizations - the tails that wag the court: a federal probe of this affiliation between the court and a private interest group is overdue

Appointment of federal magistrates is governed by 28 U.S.C. 631, which provides for "merit selection panels" by "district residents".

"District residents" are turned by many courts into practitioners practicing in that court, even though attorneys admitted to practice in a particular district do not have to reside in that district, and thus, their "service" on the "merits panel" may not be appropriate.

Yet, in the U.S. District Court, merit selection panels, instead of being composed of "district residents", which is a strict requirement of 28 U.S.C. 631, are composed of "attorneys and other members of the community", 

which means, some or all of members of such "merit selection panels" may not be "district residents", and selection and the ultimate appointment of magistrates by such "district residents" may not be legitimate.

Moreover, when attorneys who are practicing before the court select magistrates presiding over their cases, that raises unique conflict of interest issues.

When an attorney gave the magistrate a gift of $1,480,096 (salary of $182,500 over an 8-year term), and that's without benefits and pension, a magistrate may feel indebted to rule that attorney's (and his client's and his firm's) way, and MANY issues in federal litigation are decided by magistrates, whether you agree to that or not.  I never agree, as part of the General Order in civil rights cases at the beginning of a civil rights case, for a magistrate to decided issues in my litigation, and magistrates still handle discovery issues anyway, no matter what I say and no matter what the law says.

Here is the official judicial biography of magistrate David Peebles:

It shows that, before he was "selected" by a "merit panel" to his position of a judge on May 22, 2000, he worked:

• as an Onondaga County Assistant District Attorney;
• a partner in Hancock & Eastabrook, LLP where he served as "chair of the Labor ad Intellectual Property Law", and
• as a law clerk to a NDNY judge

Magistrate Peebles also "serves" as an officer of American Inns of Court - Intellectual Property Chapter in Albany, NY, where his organization intermittently shows and hides his status as an officer depending on whether Judge Peebles is sued for his participation in the organization or not.

Other officers of the organization are members of Hiscock & Barclays, LLP, now Barclay Damon.

Partners from HB were on the merit selection committee appointing magistrates, and likely, appointing, Judge Peebles, too.

Partners from HB are also members of the "Local Rules" committee of the same court.

So, partners from HB (now Barclay Damon) have their finger in every pie:

• they selected/appointed Judge Peebles to his lucrative position which now transformed into a Chief Magistrate judge of the Northern District of New York;
• they likely wine and dine the judge through the American Inns of Court monthly receptions;
• they participate in "Local Rules" committees and continue to reinstate Judge Peebles after his 8-year term expired in 2008, and may be influential in his reinstatement in 2016.

At this time, Barclay Damon and Judge Peeble's former law firm Hancock & Eastabrook are "coincidentally" both on the court's "Standing Committee":

The recently sued by my husband in that particular court law firm Hinman, Howard and Kattel are actually advisors of the court:

same as the son of the recently sued John Casey, member of the disciplinary committee who disbarred my husband while accepting a bribe of private representation from two powerful attorneys, retired judge Robert Harlem and his son Richard Harlem, at the time when he was asked by my husband as a complainant to investigate them.

I sued John Casey in Neroni v Peebles recently, and Peebles was actually assigned to the case where he was a defendant, and then the case was tossed, even though the Casey family and its various law firms were part of the fabric of the NDNY court.

Barclay Damon continues to be part of the Standing Committee on Local Rules of practice:

as well as of the "Pro Bono Committee":

Nothing like attorneys for your opponents, or attorneys you are suing sitting on various committees of the presiding court, including on committees including employees of the court and having ample opportunities to discuss your case and form the court's opinion against you.

And, while I continue to litigate Neroni v Zayas case, where my husband challenges constitutionality of the entire system of attorney regulation in New York, and where former disciplinary attorney Steven Zayas (who resigned amid investigation into filing false time sheets) is a defendant sued for money damages, his current employer:

is part of the court's federal bar's "Public relations and membership committee":

Nothing like just a little appearance of impropriety here.

And - as an example of "wisdom" of choices of attorneys for these merit selection panels, here is the "merit panel" for the selection of a magistrate judge in 2014:

Please, note the date of the order, March 7, 2014.

As of March 7, 2014 Judge Sharpe considered Lori Cantwell as a worthy individual to serve on a magistrate selection panel.

At the same time, Lori Cantwell practiced before the same court, and there is no indication whether she is the "resident of the district", as required by 28 U.S.C. 631, nor does the order indicates whether she is.

Moreover, Lori Cantwell, as of June of 2013, was sued by the Plattsburgh Housing Authority for:

“breach of fiduciary duty; rescission (the right to have a contract set aside if it has been entered into mistakenly); fraud and deceit; breach of contract and unjust enrichment.”

Instead of being investigated and, possibly, criminally prosecuted, Cantwell was put on a "merit selecting panel" and was charged with a duty to select magistrates for a huge federal district court.

Another member of the "merit selection panel" was attorney Daniel Stewart of Queensbury, NY.

Apparently, his "merit selection" was so successful that he himself was "selected" in the following year as a magistrate for the same court - a perfect reward of nearly $1.5 million over 8 years in salary alone (out of taxpayers'  pockets, of course) for the "right" selection decision.

Stewart claims he "did not expect" that he will win and claimed he won in a "competitive process" where he was "chosen" by a "merit panel" out of 90 applicants.

Stewart is a "godson" of "venerable Dick Bartlett" and a son of Bartlett's law partner, where "venerable Dick Bartlett" is actually a powerful Supreme Court justice Richard Bartlett who died in May of 2015. 

Too many coincidences for a "merits" win.

Looks like Stewart got as an insider ON that "merit selection panel" and got something out of "serving" on that panel.  

Stewart inherits the magistrateship from Magistrate Treece who, thankfully, will not seek a second term as a magistrate - I will never forget his decision that failure to give pain medication for a week to a prisoner with a bone fracture was NOT a constitutional violation.

The NDNY court never discloses their conflicts of interest in the cases I or my husband litigated in front of that court, so I made it a part of my public service to the people and my duty of an officer of the court to make these conflicts of interests known to the public, right after I found about them.

NDNY-FCBA, Inc., a corporation, announces, as a benefit for its members, the following:

Of course, the benefit in itself is not an opportunity to "serve", but an opportunity to be close to the judicial ear, to be able to communicate with the judge or the judge's personnel, through those "committees" and to influence the court through behind-the-scenes ex parte communications, and through "recommendations to the Board of Judges regarding court policies and procedures".

I just think that, same as the U.S. Attorney General is investigating Connecticut State judiciary's affiliation with Association of Family and Conciliation Courts through a corruption probe, a similar probe should be launched as to activities of NDNY-FCBA, 

a "resource" where judicial personnel "serves" along with litigants, witnesses in litigation and attorneys appearing before the court on various "committees" that make the court not a public entity, but a tool of private interests.

A federal probe into the Connecticut judiciary echoes across the country

In February of 2015, the U.S. Attorney General has launched a "task force" into the claims of corruption in the State of Connecticut Family Courts, see also here.

One of the aspects of the federal investigation is, reportedly, judicial decisions made in favor of attorneys - members of an organization where the deciding judge was also a member, the so-called "Association of Family and Conciliation Court", or AFCC, a non-profit with chapters in many states, including Connecticut.

For my New York readers (I am a New York attorney), AFCC has a chapter in New York, too.

This is how the New York AFCC chapter describes its goals:

The board of AFCC-NY is a mix-up of judges, attorneys and experts in psychology, where attorneys and experts may have a potential to appear in courts of judge-members.

Even though AFCC-NY claims to be a do-gooder non-profit:

the feds have a grimmer view of the organization.

The article about the Connecticut probe into judges' ties with AFCC calls AFCC "a controversial trade association and vendor to the judicial branch" and reports:

"On January 23, Rep. Gonzalez questioned Judge Frazzini about his membership in the state chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Court. The controversial trade association and vendor to the judicial branch was founded by Connecticut family court administrators, judges, and the professionals who appear before them in court.

Specifically, Rep. Gonzalez asked Frazzini whether he should have recused himself from hearing a controversial case during which he issued a gag order against the Connecticut Law Tribune. He did this at the request of the mother’s attorney, AFCC member Stephen Dembo, and at the recommendation of CT AFCC founding board member Susan Cousineau, the guardian ad litem assigned to the case."

Judge Frazzini even sent a letter to the Legislature - after his testimony - apologizing that he allegedly "did not fully understand the status of his membership" with AFCC at the time of testimony, and argument that Judge Frazzini, as a judge, would have laughed out of his own courtroom with sanctions, if anybody would claim that they paid membership dues to an organization, but did not really know they were a member of that organization, while testifying under oath.

I wonder whether any perjury charges will be brought against Judge Frazzini for lying under oath.

Judge Frazzini, reportedly, lied even in his "good faith" letter, because in the letter he claimed he contacted the national center of AFCC in Chicago, Illinois, while in reality that center is located in Madison, Wisconsin.

The beauty of this joint "task force" probe is:

• apparently, participation of judges in the "do-gooder" non-profits, such as AFCC - or American Inns of Court, about which I wrote on this blog extensively - may cast doubt to judge's impartiality and may require disclosure of such participation and recusal from certain cases.

The article further reports that

"last year, Nowacki [contributor to the article - TN] was one of nearly 100 parents with open family court cases who courageously testified before the legislature that they were victimized by predatory court professionals, many of whom were AFCC affiliates allegedly engaged in case rigging, healthcare scams, false billing scams, mortgage fraud, extortion, and other types of misconduct through the State’s publicly funded programs and services".

Here is a fuller account of that testimony.

And this is a published testimony, an official record of the government of the State of Connecticut, which paints a picture of how members of AFCC - attorneys and judges - self-deal in billing hours while deciding cases and dumping appeals.

For now, U.S. Attorney Daly is crediting “dogged journalists,” as well as courageous politicians and members of the public for coming forward with valuable information about the corruption in the state, and has encouraged citizens to report corrupt activity by calling into a hotline that was recently established by the agency for this purpose."

I wonder if the hotline was established only to report corruption in Connecticut Family Courts, or in other state Family Courts, too.

Beginning of federal investigations into judiciary of at least one state for its affiliation with an attorney-judge trade organization that may have affected impartiality of judicial decisions (case rigging and judicial corruption, to be more direct), opens doors for similar investigations in other states.

I will follow and report on investigations in Connecticut related to AFCC.

Stay tuned.

Will the judicial candidate Porter Kirkwood be prosecuted for fraud in foregoing bidding of public contracts?

On September 18, 2015 the feds issued a grand jury subpoena probing into Governor Andrew Cuomo's potential involvement with real estate developers and into the public bidding of contracts by the State.

In May of this year, the New York State Comptroller has issued a report about Delaware County indicating that over $129 million in public contracts were awarded without public bidding, and the Delaware County is at this time stalling my FOIL request as to copies of those contracts which were awarded without public bidding.

The federal grand jury subpoena into Cuomo's public bidding practices indicates that the same subpoena is possible for Porter Kirkwood (a judicial candidate for Delaware County Family Court judge) for the bidding practices of Delaware County approved by him as a County Attorney.

It is unthinkable to put on the bench an individual who has a potential to be dragged away in shackles for public financial fraud.

Vote for Gary Rosa.

Who are our judges - law clerks as judges and judges as courtiers

I mean this question literally - WHO ARE these people who are and have been actually making the judicial decisions?

According to the papers of some U.S. Supreme Court justices released into the public domain by the Library of the U.S. Congress somehow only after the justices' deaths, some of the judicial decisions by the highest court in the country were made by law clerk who were never appointed by President or confirmed by Congress.

There was reportedly a symposium held in 2014 on the role of law clerks in judicial decision making, and that symposium was reportedly the first of its kind, even though law clerks as a class of supposedly auxiliary personnel of courts, were around for a very long time.

The above linked law review article shows the evolution of law clerks for Supreme Court justices, and their increasing control over the decisions.

Yet, 15 years prior to that law review, in a law review article written in 1999, a frank idea of the law clerk as a "hot commodity" and the "10th justice" was revealed.

How does a person become a clerk for a U.S. Supreme Court Justice?

The 2014 article claims that such a law clerk nearly always first serves as a law clerk of a "feeder judge" on a federal court of appeals, and that

“Feeder judges” are those lower court judges who consistently place clerks on the Court due to the relationship they have forged with specific Justices."

This is a most interesting proposition, given the fact that:

• law clerks are increasingly considered as ADVISORS of judges;
• "feeder judges" are judges of lower jurisdiction from which decisions are appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which raises a lot of interesting questions if a law clerk/advisor of such a "feeder judge" becomes a law clerk/advisor of a U.S. Supreme Court justice

If that happens, how much of loyalty of the law clerk to the "feeder judge" will be preserved in the law clerk's new job?

How much the law clerk for a U.S. Supreme Court justice be influenced in his or her research and decisions to influence "his" or "her" U.S. Supreme Court justice:

• to take or not to take a petition for a writ of certiorari from the "feeder judge's" court;
• how to decide that petition;
• to take or not take petitions for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, asking the U.S. Supreme Court, as a court of original jurisdiction, to make or prohibit the "feeder judge's" court to do something, and
• how to decide such petitions.

Judges of federal appeals court reportedly take pride of being "feeder" judges and carefully pick and groom law students to be able to "send them upstairs", raising yet additional issues that a U.S. Supreme Court that receives such a valuable gift from the court of lower jurisdiction, a "feeder judge", will not have the heart to overrule such a judge and thus damage his/ her reputation.

The interlinked 2011 article openly claims that the position of a law clerk involves, among other tasks, "ghostwriting" for the recruiting judges:

"The judges compete aggressively each year to recruit the best law students to work for them as clerks, prestigious positions that involve research, counsel and ghostwriting."

In 1999 a book was written by a former law clerk for a U.S. Supreme Court Justice depicting how law clerk influence justices to make politically driven decisions, and where the author wrote that:

"the justices 'resort to transparently deceitful and hypocritical arguments and factual distortions as they discard judicial philosophy . . . in favor of bottom-line results'".

That is an accusation of blatant political decision-making and the so-called "results-oriented jurisprudence", an unconstitutional practice of pre-judging cases before reviewing them on the basis of results desired by a judge on a certain topic.

A reviewer of the same book on Amazon.com reports that the U.S. Supreme Court allegedly "tightened its rules" in response to the book, here is the relevant portion of that review:

Interaction of certain U.S. Supreme Court justices with federal appellate court judges, such as Steven Breyer's and his brother-judge's attendance of 9th Circuit Alex Kozinski's "parties-with-booze-at-the-courthouse" raises issues whether Alex Kozinski is one of the "feeder judges", and is subject to a supreme deference (bias) of the judges whom he courts.

Notes of U.S. Supreme Court justice Blackmun became available at his death after he donated them to the Library of Congress.   Such notes from other justices are unavailable, since they may not be making similar "gifts".

Justice Blackmun's notes reflect revealing interactions with the law clerks showing the law clerks' influencing the judge and ghostwriting for the judge.

Which raises a whole new host of issues - why the so-called "judicial deliberation" MUST be secret?  What is the value of the secrecy if that secrecy may involve evidence of judicial disability.

When U.S. Supreme Court justices "serve" on the bench for life, and while the U.S. Supreme Court decides last-minute death penalty appeals, wouldn't it be more valuable to open those notes immediately after making them, in order for people whose life depends on the judge's decision, may see if the judge is biased, or if, instead of a judge, a young law clerk - never appointed by the President, never confirmed by he Senate - is making the decisions for and instead of the judge?

The influence of law clerks upon judges they "serve" becomes even more sinister when you consider the fact that such law clerks are "sponsored" by private attorney capital and by foreign capital for all-expenses-paid trips abroad.

Whenever a law clerk makes a decision FOR and INSTEAD OF the judge the law clerk supposedly "serves", you do not know who exactly that law clerk "serves":

• his own political views, or views of his influential family (I doubt that anybody but people from influential families get those positions);
• the views of those attorneys who, through non-profit organizations, sponsored the law clerk's trips abroad and want "return on investment";
• the views of those who lobbied the law clerk in any other way;
• the views of the future employer of the law clerk

When law clerks celebrate with champagne (as they did after Ted Bundy's execution) an execution of a person who asked to overturn his death penalty on an appeal - and got denied that relief BY THOSE LAW CLERKS, no matter who that person was, that is bias, and that is illegal.

And you will never know whether denying you relief is also celebrated with champagne, as a personal victory, by the bunch of young spoiled brats who deem themselves the "10th justices".

The way it is going, the number of judges must be changed to reflect the changes in the caseloads, to increase that number by the number of law clerks currently "serving" justices of the U.S. Supreme Court - and all other federal courts, and law clerk positions should be eliminated.

If judges cannot do their caseloads without law clerks, then the number of judges should be increased, and restrictions on judicial terms should be introduced.  "Serving" well into Alzheimer's is not acceptable.

Ceding control of judicial decisions to youngsters who are not judges, is not acceptable.

If this country has money to pay clerks who influence judges, this country has money to pay for additional judges, at least, this country will then know that justice is not bought through the back doors of law clerks.

Only this way we can ensure that the judge who was confirmed by the Senate is actually the judge who authored your decision.

Otherwise, all of the so-called "judicial review" in this country, where judicial decisions are ghostwritten by unelected and unappointed and unconfirmed unknown people who are not judges, is a fake.

"I am not here as a potted plant. I am here to represent my client".

That is what attorney Gerald Shargel reportedly told the judge in a preliminary hearing where he tried to weed out some charges against his client, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

And that is exactly what an attorney should have a right to do - not to be a "potted plant", be able to speak up on behalf of his or her client, and not have any fear of repercussions, sanctions or financial fines.

When attorneys are relegated, as they are now, by sanctions and fines, and disciplinary actions, into position of "potted plants", by the very courts that "regulate" their livelihood, the very courts that they must at times challenge for impropriety, and appeal, and embarrass by their statements - the public cannot expect any effective service for their money.

And that should change.