#LoveYourLawyerDay - the desperation sets in

The American Bar Association called for a #LoveMyLawyerDay to be celebrated on the first Friday of November - that was yesterday.

Many bar associations and law schools followed.

There is, of course, a fury of Tweets and Facebook postings on the subject, some of them pretty interesting.

Here they are.

By the way, this particular lawyer joke came from a real judge from Texas whose wife served in the U.S. Senate and in the White house.  In answer to a day established by the ABA to fight lawyer jokes, the judge posts a lawyer joke that says that the only people who need that day are lawyers themselves.

Great support.

This one comes from the NYS Assistant Attorney General Andrew Ayers, by the way.

By the way, I am not the only one who is questioning "the wisdom", as the Wall Street Journal politically-correctly put it, of this "plaintive plea" to "love me and my profession".

The whole idea of the #LoveYourLawyerDay was spawned by the American Bar Association, through this so-called document. 

So, the public thinks that lawyers' contribution to society is low - based on opinion polls.  The solution?  #LoveYourLawyerDay.

The public perception of lawyers "on honesty and ethics" is at 21%, which is "unsatisfactory" to the ABA.  Not because of whether public perception of lawyers is reasonable and based on facts of self-dealing and corruption by the legal profession, lawyers, prosecutors and judges, who block access to justice for the overwhelming majority of Americans by keeping access to the profession restricted, by fixing the rules favoring the profession and disfavoring pro se representation in litigation, by buying judges through campaign contributions and out-of-court boons like paid trips, speccing engagements and free drinks and meals at receptions, among others.

So, where public perception of a certain profession is that the profession is DIRTY and UNETHICAL, the solution for it is:

1. not to investigate whether the perception is right, but
2. paint a big pink heart upon the legal profession and tell everybody to just love those rascals for one day.

Because - you know what - they do pro bono hours.  Well, at least, some of them do.  Some hours.  Not many hours all in all.  Not as many hours as needed to close the "access to justice gap", which would not have existed in the first place if the legal profession would simply be deregulated.

Of course, those pro bono hours are like a band aid upon a ship wreckage.

Of course, those pro bono hours would not be needed if the legal profession is simply deregulated - and the public can then choose cheaper providers of legal services on their own.

Look at how arrogant the American Bar Association is in their little "make the public to love lawyers even if it has no reason for it" resolution.

Remember the polls?

That the perception of the public is quite opposite?  That the public believes the legal profession as a whole is dishonest and unethical - with plenty of evidence to support it.

So, the solution is to jam the love out of the public and to make the public celebrate the people the public distrusts and considers dishonest and unethical.

The solution is to make the public "express their gratitude" for the "affirmative contribution to the public good and the administration of justice" of those very people that the public considers dishonest and unethical.

Pro bono services are good, but they are a drop in the bucket of legal services which are overpriced and corrupt and they will never fulfill the unmet need of legal services that could be easily met by lower-priced service providers if deregulation occurs.

Moreover, I remember how my contracts law professor (a very good CONTRACTS law professor) was mentioning casually in a lecture that he was doing pro bono work in a criminal case.

I wanted to kill him.

Criminal procedure in New York, as in every state, is something you cannot casually walk in, do it and walk away.

In fact, a person who has no legal training, but is dedicated to this particular issue and reads on this particular issue, can provide a good representation, but I doubted that the busy contracts law professor was interested in criminal law to the degree of providing true expert representation in a criminal case.

People need in court not just a warm body with a license.  They know somebody who knows what is going on and whom they can trust not to sell them out, and, unfortunately, pro bono people usually do not go to trial, are there to get a limited number of hours under their belt and report it, and thus, often a person is better of on his or her own or represented by a knowledgeable neighbor who he can trust and who cares, rather than by such "pro bono" lawyers.

Supporting "charitable causes" is good, even though it is an optional activity for a lawyer as a citizen and is not part of the lawyer's duty to a client, so it should be celebrated as a trait of the legal profession, because it is not part of the job of a lawyer.

It is the same as celebrating the plumbers' profession for doing charitable things in your community. 

Now, plumbers is a profession as good as any, and plumbers can engage in charitable work as well as anybody else, yet, plumbers are not trying to promote their profession by a #LoveYourPlumberDay asking the public to celebrate charitable contributions of plumbers to society, because - guess what - it is business advertising.

As well as the #LoveYourLawyerDay.

It is a business advertising.

Of a sinking business overall.

Of a business that hurts the economy, prevents people from obtaining true remedies for real injuries, and advances corruption of public officials.

And, promoting the administration of justice that ABA calls for through #LoveYourLawyerDay is extremely problematic.  

Regulation of the legal profession by a branch of the government whose misconduct the legal profession must bring up in defense of their clients prevents proper discharge of duties by the legal profession and makes "promoting the administration of justice" impossible.

So, as NY Assistant Attorney General Andrew Ayers said in his tweet, the whole #LoveYourLawyerDay feels "a bit like a cry for help".

No, not "a bit".

This cry for help came at the time when occupational deregulation in general - and deregulation of the legal profession specifically - is seriously coming from the fringes into the mainstream of ideas.

And a plea for love by the rich-but-sinking ship of legal elite appears not just "a bit" like a cry for help.

It is a cry of desperation.

And - remember - regulation was done in the first place (allegedly) for the benefit of the public, for the benefit of consumers.

Of course, an offer of help to consumers should not come with strings attached, prohibiting at the same time free choice of service providers - which happened in the market of legal services.

And, the regulation is done actually by supermajorities of attorneys, and legal consumers are not allowed near that regulation, so the regulation is actually all a sham and federal antitrust criminal activity to quash competition and hurt consumers.

The quashing of competition is against small lower-cost service providers who actually cater for poorer people and more vulnerable populations, and attorneys for the rich and for large business habitually escape discipline through their political connections.

The best solution for the justice gap, to vastly expand the market of legal services, will be deregulation.  

And the only cost of such deregulation will be a cost to attorneys who went to expensive law schools and want a quick return on their investment expensive tuition.

Which is not a good reason for the consumers not to push for deregulation - because the regulation was meant to protect them, the consumers, not the lawyers' markets and high prices. 

So, love your lawyer, if you want.  Today, or every day of the year.

But, let's still deregulate the legal profession.

"Good judge" stories are few and far-between nowadays. Back to the new "normal": a New Mexico judge runs amok in advising a young defendant to be prepared for rapes and beatings in prison

A New Mexico female judge by the name of Christina Argyres reportedly told 20-year-old first time offender that, as an act of mercy, she is putting him on 5-year one-slip-and-you-are-behind-bars-for-15-years probation.

Before she announced her act of mercy - and that is in a courtroom where video cameras are not allowed, so the source I quote indicated it was reporting from a transcript - the judge told the teenager the following:

Quote
--------

“You would probably be raped every day, number one,” she said to Gay.

“You would be beat up every other day.”

Unquote
----------

According to the same source,  "[t]he judge then proceeded to tell him that if she sentenced him to prison he would be someone’s bitch, so in an act of mercy she put him on five year probation instead.
“He’s going to be somebody’s – I hate to use the word bitch, but that’s exactly what he’s going to be, and I don’t want to destroy Mr. Gay’s life.”"

Wow.

So, she recognizes that in prison the young man will await cruel and unusual punishment by uncontrolled mobs of prisoners - uncontrolled by the government that is "carrying out justice" against him and is supposed to follow the law all the way doing it, becuase the government is supposedly on the high horse and is doing the right thing, and is rightfully punishing the young man, on behalf of all people of the State of New Mexico, for his wrongdoing (doesn't matter, what it was).

So, it is legal in New Mexico now to imply that the prison sentence will include everyday rape and every-other-day beatings?  And authorities look the other way to make this "implied sentence" being carried out?

Ok, Mr. Gay escaped jail through the "mercy" of Judge Argyres - very possibly, not for long, because, the same government that allows prisoners to be raped every day and beaten up every other day when the only thing that the government is entitled to do is carry out a court sentence depriving convicted individuals of their liberty - not dignity, not safety, not harm to health or life - that same government can very easily falsify charges and entrap the boy into "tripping up" and going to that prison for 15 years.

Especially when, as it was reported in January of 2015, for-profit prisons in New Mexico get higher profit from their captive labor force than other states.

In Pennsylvania we had a "kids-for-cash" scandal, but the two judges caught and convicted were still not convicted for selling children into slavery, only for receiving kickbacks.

And even then, in a civil lawsuit, the judge was given absolute judicial immunity, in this disgusting wording from his brother judge (that is running on top of this blog):

What will happen to this judge?

Will she - and other judges in New Mexico who fill so profitable "for-profit" prisons, be finally investigated?

Because the "act of mercy" of Judge Argyres could very well be an act of greed.  And it certainly looked like an act of sadism.

I wonder when they will take this woman off the bench?  Will they?

There are good judges out there - at least, there is one

There has been a report that a California judge refused to approve a contract of Bindi Irwin, the daughter of Steve Irwin, without proof that her father is dead.

A media frenzy resulted.

The judge was mocked and insulted in comments on Facebook pointing out that why, stupid, do you need to see a certificate of death of Steve Irwin when "everybody knows" that he has been dead these past 9 years - because the media and his daughter said so.

Yet, the judge stuck to the law and continued to require the death certificate.

Whose mistake is it that in a proceeding approving the contract of a minor, the death certificate of one of the parents was not presented by the minor's lawyers?  Certainly, not the judge's.

The judge did what he would have done in similar contract-approving proceedings for any minor.

Because - the law is the law - and the Lady justice is (or is supposed to be) blind to status of the parties appearing before the judge - and there is equal protection of laws, going both ways, for the good and for the bad.

And you know what lawyers for the show are saying:

"We're told lawyers for the show will do what it takes to get the judge to sign off."

What does that mean?

The are going to bribe the judge?

Intimidate the judge?

Submit the judge to the media frenzy?

And they will do "anything it takes" to do what - make the judge NOT follow the law?

Why?

Why is Bindi Irwin different from you and me, the mere mortals?

Because she stands to earn over $230,000 in 8 weeks?

If money explains-away not following the law, then we are not the country based on the rule of law.

The judge is right.

And the judge should not sign off.

Because the only thing Bindi Irwin should do is to have her Dad's birth certificate FedEx-ed to the court, for the judge to be able to follow the law and approve her contract.

So, the rule of law is not dead yet?

Does Judge Lambert's clerk Mark Oursler have a drinking problem?

I just ran two blogs about two potential drinkers in high positions - Otsego County DA John Muehl and the former Chief Judge and now an "ordinary" judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York Gary L. Sharpe.

I also wrote that Otsego County Judge John Lambert, as part of his judicial duties, should not condone drinking among people who are practicing before him.

But the problem is that not only Judge Lambert (former subordinate of John Muehl) would not report Muehl, but he employs as his own law clerk a man, Mark Oursler, whose face is just like Muehl's and suggests the same problem.

Oursler handles the endless conferences for Judge Lambert in civil courts - and talks and talks and talks on issues unrelated to litigation, keeping attorneys as sitting ducks, not able to object the waste of their time - at the expense of their clients, for fear that they and their clients will become targets of Oursler's and Lambert's retaliation.

I wonder whether Oursler's extreme talkativeness on irrelevant issues is caused by his likely drinking problem.

Once again - will authorities dare to investigate this?

Steven Zayas booted again - after I blogged about his employment

I wrote on this blog about the disciplinary attorney who committed fraud upon the court by charging me with neglect of clients (not appearing at a deposition and not answering a motion) at the time I was not an attorney - and insisting upon the charges when I provided to him court documents, the transcript of the deposition and the motion, dated 2008, when I was admitted to the bar in 2009.

Zayas stubbornly insisted on prosecuting me for this fraudulent charge.

Up until he was booted from the disciplinary committee for falsifying time sheets.

No discipline has befallen him, though.

On the opposite, he was picked up by a powerful law firm that employees senators, former judges and law clerks and that "serves" in multiple organizations that organize backroom meetings with judges to discuss, no doubt, how to promote the excellence of the legal profession.

In 2013, before his disgraceful departure from the disciplinary committee, my husband Frederick J. Neroni sued Zayas.

The court, Judges Kahn and Peebles, first allowed the litigation against Zayas to proceed, and then, when the potential drinker Gary Sharpe (the then Chief Judge) interfered and imposed an anti-filing injunction upon my husband based on the still pending Zayas case, Kahn "changed his mind" and dismissed the claims against Zayas.

Then, things got messed up.

A Commission for Attorney Discipline was created and made a report that was tracking the very same complaint in my husband's case that was dismissed as "incoherent".

A New York court made a decision exactly tracking what Mr. Neroni (and I on his behalf) said in the lawsuit and Judge Kahn claimed it was unreasonable to say that.

I filed a motion to vacate the dismissal of the lawsuit against Mr. Zayas on October 1, 2015.

On October 11, 2015 I posted a blog about Mr. Zayas' interesting employment with a powerful law firm that hires public officials as live shields - by the way, a criminal trial against one of such live shields is going on in Albany as we speak (the Sheldon Silver trial).

Then, at the end of October 2015, I requested and was granted by the court an extension of time to file a Rule 11 (sanctions) motion against Mr. Zayas.

Today, I checked out Mr. Zayas' attorney registration.

Guess what - Zayas is no longer with the "live shield firm".  The firm got rid of the ballast.

He is now toiling in the New York State Department of Temporary & Disability Services, possibly, falsifying his time sheets there now, so instead of the partners of the "live shield" firm, us the taxpayers are now saddled, once again, with the upkeep of Mr. Zayas.

But my question is - why was Zayas booted so quickly after I filed the motion and ran a blog?  Because exposure was hurting his employer's reputation?  Or, because the court that favors the employer by having it sitting on various out-of-court "committees" and other organizations where judges of the court and court personnel are participating as "officers" made a direct order to boot him?

And when will the disciplinary committee finally permanently disable Zayas' law license for his fraudulent investigations and prosecutions - fulfilling the promise of the 3rd Department's disciplinary attorney Monica Duffy to the NYS Statewide Commission of Attorney Discipline that her committee does not engage in selective non-prosecutions of prosecutors...

I am waiting.

Is Judge Gary L. Sharpe of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of New York a drinker?

I just posed a question on a blog post, whether the Otsego County District Attorney John Muehl has a drinking problem.

And posted his picture.

I would like to state that the same or worse facial color, plus glassy eyes, plus unnatural laughter unbecoming the occasion of the court proceedings, I heard from Judge Gary Sharpe during my appearance in front of him in the spring of 2015.

I was shocked when I saw the judge.  At that time, he was the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.  He was Chief Judge of that court for several years.

The court handles death penalty cases.

I understand that the economy is bad, that attorneys depend upon judges for their licensing and reputation and may be afraid to report Sharpe if he was indeed drinking.

But doesn't somebody, anybody, any independent authority, monitor whether judges are drunk on the job?

Federal employers randomly drug-check their employees.

Shouldn't the same be done with judges? 

I already raised the issue of drug use by judges on this blog.  See here and here.

The use of alcohol is not less serious.  These people hold in their hands our lives - Sharpe does literally, he handles death penalty cases.  WHO checks whether he is drinking?

The Conduct Commission of the 2nd Circuit certainly doesn't.  They will dismiss any complaint about Judge Sharpe's possible drinking during court proceedings based on the exemption in the Judicial Disability Act that does not allow to review judge's misconduct if it happened during court proceedings.

So, WHO will look into whether Sharpe has a drinking problem?

Moreover, judges may have a tendency to acquire a drinking problem, what with all the receptions attorney associations are inviting them to.

Once again - WHO will be checking on the potential drinking problem of this particular judge?

One more question of public concern - is Otsego County DA a drinker?

I wrote in two previous blogs (here and here) about the outrageous reversal in the People v Michaels case - outrageous because the case was not supposed to ever see the insides of the court, it was legally insufficient to begin with and was never to be brought.

I also wrote on this blog about John Muehl's and Otsego County Judge John Lambert's tactics to coerce criminal defendants into pleas on legally insufficient cases - by dragging them to unnecessary conferences (where they were not allowed into the chambers, where John Muehl and his crew of witnesses already sat inside the chambers when defense attorneys enter the chambers, and never leave those chambers when defense attorneys leave it, conferences held off record), by denying all motions without pre-trial hearings, by harassing and intimidating defense attorneys.

I also wrote on this blog that Judge John Lambert, before coming to the bench, was DA John Muehl's deputy, the Chief Assistant District Attorney of Otsego County.

What I did not write about was John Muehl's apparent habits that John Lambert as John Muehl's subordinate cannot claim he did not know.

I appeared in Otsego County court since 1999 when I came into this country - first, accompanying my husband-attorney, and then as an attorney myself.

I remember John Muehl since he became a DA.  I remember his ruddy face with the facial color that I normally saw on my husband's DWI clients.

It was previously reported by a blogger that John Muehl, before he became a DA, left the scene of an accident because he was drunk.  John Muehl, as far as I know, did not sue that person for defamation.

And whether a DA has a drinking problem or not is a BIG issue of public concern.  

First, if John Muehl does have a drinking problem, he should not be investigating and/or prosecuting cases because his judgment may be clouded by alcohol.

Second, he has no moral right to prosecute felony DWIs where he himself is absolved from such investigations and prosecutions, being put by his position above the law.

And here is John Muehl's picture, a close-up.  A ruddy blotchy face, blood-shot clouded eyes.  The question is, how can such a man be trusted with prosecutions of people, putting people away for years?

The public has a right to know - does DA Muehl or not have a problem with alcohol?

You know who should be asked about it?

Judge Lambert.

First, he should know from his experience in the DA's office.

Second, Judge Lambert regularly sits in close proximity to DA Muehl during the back-room court conferences.  It is a closed space.  He must be able to see - and, possibly, smell - alcohol.

If he knew as an attorney and did not report DA Muehl's drinking - that's attorney misconduct.

If he knows as a judge and does not report DA Muehl's drinking - that's judicial misconduct.

And third, an investigation of John Muehl's possible drinking habit can be easily done based on review of his purchasing history.  I doubt that, if he has a drinking problem, he always pays for his drinks in cash.  There should be tracks.  There should be witnesses, abundance of witnesses. 

But a public authority with a power to investigate the powerful DA should do that.  Because, otherwise, he will lash against citizen investigators as stalkers.

So, will authorities in New York finally take their heads out of where they are and investigate John Muehl?