Yet another judge arrested for a DWI. Will she escape with a slap on the wrist?

Rochester City Court judge #LeticiaAstacio was reportedly arrested on February 13, 2016 for DWI.

Here is the "hero":

Moreover, the judge was charged with driving drunk TO COURT, to "oversee criminal arraignments".

Audacity of this country's judges in thinking they are above the law is amazing.

The judge reportedly caused a "single car accident" on Interstate 490, and refused a breathalyzer test.

Here is a judge who, like other judges caught before her drunk at the wheel, brazenly put not only their own lives, but other people's lives in jeopardy by getting behind the wheel drunk, and driving - in this case - on a winter highway that requires heightened attention.

This particular judge was also going to "do her duty" and arraign people accused of committing a crime, including crimes of DWI, I am sure - while being drunk herself.

And, I am sure that, had she not been stopped by the police, no attorneys or parties would have dared to accuse her of being drunk on the job, which begs a question - how many more times did that happen before? While judge Astacio was simply not caught?

I wonder whether Judge Astacio will be REALLY prosecuted - or allowed to escape with an "AI" (ability impaired violation) and no judicial discipline, or no real judicial discipline, as it happened so many times to drunk-driving judges in New York.

An expert's reaction on investigation into the death of #AntoninScalia: "I almost fell out of my chair"

That was the reported reaction of a Bill Ritchie, a retired police chief and chief of criminal investigations of D.C. police to how the investigation into the death of Antonin Scalia was handled, or, rather, mishandled.

Ritchie who reportedly taught in a homicide investigation school, indicated that any death is considered a homicide until homicide is ruled out through an investigation. 

So.

It is not some much maligned "conspiracy theorist" raising questions I've been raising from the first time when Scalia's death, and how it was investigated, was reported in the press and social media.

It is a homicide expert.

As I said in my previous post on this subject, while the body was hastily embalmed without an autopsy, and some evidence is irreversibly destroyed, a lot of people who were around the place, remained.  Years and greed will do the job of disclosure.  People will come forward selling their stories.  Of course, it could be the right way - the way of government investigation into the death of a sitting U.S. Supreme Court justice under suspicious circumstances.  

Yet, if the government - as always - wants to quash embarrassing or potentially criminal information about rich and well-connected individuals who may be involved in this whole situation, we will have to rely upon greed and time to reveal the truth.

"Americans in Danger" report points out political persecution of human rights defenders in the U.S. and unavailablity of efficient remedies for human rights violations

The legal abuse syndrome, where the government undermines enforcement of human rights and targets human rights defenders, in violation of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), is not something new.

It existed for a long time, but started to be brought to the surface with the advancement of the Internet and the social media, and thus availability of non-mainstream media sources, including individuals, to address large audiences directly.

I have been writing extensively on this blog about the erosion of the rule of law in the U.S. by judges, unlawfully self-gifted with impunity, and acting in collusion with other branches of the government, thus undermining the "checks and balances" written into the U.S. Constitution, by far an idealistic document that government officials are sworn to uphold, but instead disregard and undermine.

Some efforts are being made by various grass roots movements to systemize knowledge about the pattern utilized by various government officials in the U.S., on state and federal level, separately and in collusion with one another, to carry out the goals of legal abuse, keeping the non-elite citizenry of the U.S. under governmental control and quashing any criticism of misconduct in the government, and especially criticism of misconduct of well-connected individuals.

Today, a grassroots movement OPT IN USA issued a press-release about its report, AMERICANS IN JEOPARDY: When Human Rights Protection Becomes America’s Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branch Shell Game”. 

The report points out the existence in the U.S. of the so-called "The Third Degree", or TTD,  a “persistent pattern of persecution and mental torture imposed through U.S. legal system abuse” on some Americans, and specifically on human rights defenders.

The press-release mentions "in a September 15, 2015 letter to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a coalition of 38 NGOs (non-governmental organizations)

described TTD as “unchecked judicial misconduct” and claimed “the ineffectiveness of domestic remedies is an integral part of its pathology.”

 

I encourage my readers to read the report "Americans in Jeopardy" interlinked above.  

 

Yet, here is the full description of TTD from the report:

 

 

 

 

I wonder how many of my readers were subjected to each and every point of TTD described in the report.  I know a lot of people who was.

 

The existence and further emerging of grass-roots movements that are addressing this issue is certainly encouraging.

 

I wonder whether the United Nations and the international community will take notice and apply international pressure to the U.S. to stop political persecution of human rights defenders and start giving its people real effective remedies for violations of human rights.

Races with the corpse of #AntoninScalia and equality under the law

I recently wrote a blog post about unequal treatment under the law of attorneys who were busted in a sting against international money laundering as opposed to how the results of stings against pedophiles are handled.

Specifically, I pointed out that mistake of fact of lay people who not lawyers (that undercover cops are not minor children) is no defense in prosecution for attempted sex with a minor, yet mistake of fact of prominent attorneys who gave money laundering advice while being given to understand that the potential client is a corrupt public official from another country who wants to bring bribe money into this country, remained free and clear without any criminal charges.

Significantly, one of the lawyer in that sting bragged on video that lawyers run the country, make laws in their favor and befriend judges who are then "courteous" to them.

When such a judge, while - allegedly - being in the process of being befriended by a multimillionaire and his business friends, drops dead, 

so many rules of ethics, laws and procedures were violated and so many inconsistencies are reported in 

• how and why the judge appeared at that ranch, 
• how his security was forfeited, 
• how he was allegedly "found" dead, 
• how his death was certified,
• how his autopsy was thwarted,
• how investigation into his death was thwarted - that it becomes apparent that there are, indeed, two systems of laws in this country - one for the "men from the street" and another for "brilliant jurists" and public officials, the country's elite.

I am trying to reconstruct events from information that is publicly available, using my 17 years of experience in reviewing and analyzing materials of criminal investigations, both as a legal assistant and then as an attorney.

I will first announce two major principles guiding my investigation of the facts known from the press and my analysis.

1) I will not reject any leads or avoid any issues based on anybody's status or the issue's sensitivity or perceived "propriety" or "impropriety", because such issues are irrelevant to journalistic (and criminal) investigations into the death of a human being. 

Any criminal investigator and any investigative journalist worth their salt will follow all leads, including and especially the sensitive one, the ones considered "improper" and the so-called "unlikely" leads.   

Even though the mass media and the legal elite is trying to portray Scalia as royalty or deity, he is not.  He is a human being, and laws of this country apply to him, and to investigation of his death, as much as to any other death.   Moreover, investigation of Scalia's death was supposed to be MORE, not LESS thorough because of who he is, because of the stakes involved in his death and replacement, and because of what such an investigation may reveal of potential misconduct of Scalia himself and of other people, likely rich and influential people who are still alive.

There is no "presumption of integrity" or "presumption of propriety" or "presumption of no foul play" when a person who suddenly turn up dead at a luxury resort happens to be a U.S. Supreme Court justice.

And, what we judge as "unlikely" may well be what has actually happened, after 17 years involved in helping with or handling criminal cases, even though on the defense side, where I was seeking out potential alternative explanations for what happened in the criminal cases I was working on, there is no such thing as an unlikely lead to me.

2) I do not pretend to know the Texas law, and I will apply it as it was reported in news accounts. 

So, the questions I would ask, investigate and that I would analyze separately, in separate blog posts:

1. Did Scalia arrive to the ranch alive or already dead?
2. If Scalia came to the ranch alive, what was the purpose of the visit?  Who were the other guests?
3. Who was Scalia's lawyer-companion who arrived with him, and who was claimed to be a "mutual friend" with the owner of the ranch John Poindexter? Why did John Poindexter and not that "friend" got alarmed at the absence of Scalia and found him?
4. Why the law enforcement was not provided with the use of a landline telephone on the ranch and instead had to use faulty cell phone connection to obtain a justice of the peace to certify the death?
5. What are room service procedures at the ranch?  Why was it John Poindexter and not the room service that found Scalia?  Usually room service starts cleaning rooms at around 10 am, in hotels that are far from luxury, I would presume that housekeeping had to exist for a 1,100 square feet "presidential suite" of a luxury resort going at $700 and more per night;
6. What was the reason not to call in a coroner to certify the death that occurred less than 24 hours since an allegedly healthy guest's arrival to the ranch?
7. Why the unseemly haste to skip the autopsy, embalm the body and whisk the corpse out of the state of Texas, all within a span of 24 hours?
8. Why didn't the ranch's owner insist on autopsy to eliminate any questions of wrongdoing on his luxury resort that can potentially mar his own and his business' reputation? 
9. If Scalia had chronic health problems that were ascertained on Wednesday and Thursday through an MRI, problems of such seriousness that could explain "death from natural causes" within a day of that MRI, why did he go to that remote location at all, without his spouse, without a doctor in attendance or in the vicinity, and with a "lawyer companion"?
10. Why did the justice of the peace that certified Scalia's death over the phone without seeing his body and without ordering an autopsy insists that he died of "natural causes", but specifically not of a heart attack?  How does she know?  What does she know?
11. How could it be that the U.S. Marshals "responded immediately" to the ranch AFTER Scalia's death (while not accompanying him to the visit, as they were supposed to) when the ranch was 200 miles from the nearest city
12. Why did the U.S. Marshals not bring with themselves a physician, justice of the peace, a coroner or a forensic expert to verify that the death as from natural causes?  What were their qualifications to verify whether there was or was not "foul play" involved?
13. What was done with Scalia's pajamas?  Were his belongings analyzed for presence of condoms and pajamas and bedclothes for presence of sperm and female bodily fluids? The evidence that may be derived from the body may be destroyed by embalment, but did anybody care to analyze the pajamas, bedclothes and Scalia's personal items to see if there was another in that room at night?

There are all kinds of speculations and conspiracy theories (to the point of involving aliens in Scalia's alleged murder) - as well as mockeries of such conspiracy theories - brewing over the Internet about #AntoninScalia's death.

The problem though is that the reason for such theories is that was the government's job to investigate the death of Antonin Scalia, the circumstances of the death, including the "pillow over his head", raise questions whether the death was from natural causes, while the law requiring an autopsy was not followed in determining the cause of death, and at this time possibility to determine the real cause of death of Antonin Scalia is made, probably, impossible by hasty embalment and whisking the body out of state.

While most conspiracy theories point a finger at president Obama and democrats, in view of the fact that it was known that "Scalia will do anything to go hunting", there could me other reasons for wanting him dead.  

Or, his death could be as trivial as, let's say, not being able to cope with the energy levels needed for sexual performance.  

After all, let's face it, Scalia arrived to the ranch on the even of Valentine's Day, with a companion who was not his wife, who did not check on his well-being when he did not show up in the morning, the companion's name is kept secret.

Answers to at least some of the questions asked above will be given, if not immediately, then over time (maybe, after some considerable time passes and people start selling their stories and writing memoirs).

The answer that is readily available now is that the homicide investigation into the death of Antonin Scalia was screwed, and appears to be screwed intentionally.

The death of #AntoninScalia highlights usurpation of power to change the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court

Oh, it was quite an eventful weekend.

Not because it was a Valentine's Day weekend so much, but because of the death of one 79-year-old man, a U.S. Supreme Court justice #AntoninScalia and the resulting mainstream and social media frenzy and the "political turmoil" in the country.

As soon as the news of Scalia's death came out on Saturday, Feb. 13, 2016, a storm in the media and in the U.S. political arena started.

In the press and the social media, 

• lawyers and judges were mourning the passing of the "brilliant jurist", 
• ordinary people expressed relief that a racist, mysoginist and supporter of torture and executions of the innocent finally left the court (I sum up comments in social media that I collected and have on file), and 
• politicians made instant announcements as to plans for Scalia's replacement.

Why such an attention to the death of one 79-year-old man, of allegedly natural causes?

An inadvertent answer came from presidential candidate and #SenatorTedCruz.  

Before quoting Ted Cruz, I would like to first refer to some fundamental principles of law.

First.  The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (which all government officers are sworn to uphold in its entirety) does NOT include decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

It says the following:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Once again, what the Supremacy Clause includes into the Supreme Law of the Land is:

1) The Constitution itself;

2) the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance of that Constitution - where the phrase "shall be made" points laws (a) that are "made" - laws can be "made" only by the U.S. Congress, Article I of the U.S. Constitution;
(b) laws that "shall" be made - covering future laws, and laws that are made lawfully, "shall" has a grammatical meaning denoting both the future tense and the mandate;

3) all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

Three whales - the Constitution, the statutes, the Treaties.  Nothing else.

Second.   

From the same Supremacy Clause - "The Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."

This is the rule of construction of the Supremacy Clause and of the U.S. Constitution, written into the Supremacy Clause.  

#AntoninScalia was heralded as the founder of the "originalist" theory, or interpreting the U.S. Constitution exactly as it was written and understood by its founders.  The Supremacy Clause is written quite clearly and unambiguously.

If "the judges in every state shall be bound thereby", federal judges, naturally, should be bound by the U.S. Constitution, too.  The U.S. Constitution does not include any exceptions as to who is absolved from complying with it.  And, federal judges, including the U.S. Supreme Court judges, personally take an oath of office to comply with the U.S. Constitution.

Third 

The U.S. Constitution contains in itself the procedure of how it can be changed (amended), and that procedure does not include authority of the U.S. Supreme Court to change the U.S. Constitution by interpretation.

Fourth

The authority of the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret the U.S. Constitution does not derive itself from the U.S. Constitution, it was self-given by the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v Madison 213 years ago, in 1803.

By the way, in Marbury v Madison the U.S. Supreme Court said the following: "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it."

Nothing in the Supremacy Clause requires declaring its restriction to the three written laws - the U.S. Constitution, the statutes and the treaties - as an "inadmissible construction".

The U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v Madison agrees that "a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." 

"Courts and other departments" is a definite reference to the federal government.

The U.S. Supreme Court has no authority to amend the U.S. Constitution through the interpretation.

#AntoninScalia was, first, sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and, second, as an "originalist", declared his super-loyalty to the U.S. Constitution as it was written and understood by the founders.

Now comes Senator Ted Cruz with his statement: "We are one justice away from the Second Amendment written out of the U.S. Constitution".

That's at the core of the media frenzy, the social media frenzy, the Senate filibustering threats.

Everybody in the country appears to assume that judges of the U.S. Supreme Court have authority to change the U.S. Constitution at their whims.

They do not, but, once again, everybody appears to assume that - because all judges of the U.S. Supreme Court, including the "originalist" Scalia, have demonstrated to the people and to the politicians that they do not care what the Supremacy Clause says and they will continue to change the U.S. Constitution at their whims, as they want, whenever they want it.

And, Senator Cruz who is supposed to IMPEACH AND REMOVE justices of the court who engage in acts that are outside of their authority, enables such behavior by making statements that legitimize the unlawful usurpation of the power to change the laws and the Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court.

If we have the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, with its Supremacy Clause that says NOTHING about decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, what is this nonsense with who will appoint the 9th Supreme Court justice when, which president, present or future, a Democrat or a Republican, what is this nonsense with the "balance of power" on the U.S. Supreme Court?

Aren't all U.S. Supreme Court justices, no matter who appointed them, a Republican or a Democratic president, have just ONE point of loyalty - to the popular sovereign, the People, and to their Constitution?

Why these ridiculous lies about how Scalia died, attempts to hide evidence, races with the corpse to the embalmers and whisking the corpse out of the state of Texas where he allegedly died?

Why do we make a mockery out of this country's democratic institutions, laws and the Constitution before the entire world by practically admitting that it is not the "three branches of the government", controlled by the U.S. Constitution and its checks and balances, but 9 old and apparently corrupt men and women who control this country at their whims and at the whims of parties who pull their strings?

I will run a separate blog about inconsistencies in how Scalia's death was announced and how the investigation was handled - judging from available news reports - and that is not an unimportant thing, because it shows how the principle of equality under the law is turned into a mockery whenever embarassing or criminal evidence about some high-standing government official needs to be hidden.

The question that I ask here is - why don't we change how the U.S. Supreme Court operates, by a Constitutional Amendment if the currently existing Supremacy Clause does not seem to be working?

Why don't we do this:

1) significantly expand the number of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, so that 

        a)  the death of one does not affect the work of the court in such a dramatic way;  and

        b)  there are enough justices to handle all cases coming for their review

2) make review by the U.S. Supreme court mandatory, not discretionary.  

When lawyers, law firms and rich landowners and business owners strike "friendships" with U.S. Supreme Court justices, either by offering them what they like to do very much (like hunting trips to Scalia) or paying their way to luxury resorts or helping them in any other tangible or intangible ways, there is an appearance that such "friends" secure for themselves, their family, friends and businesses, a preference in the judge's mind to give them and not others, the right of "discretionary" review by the court where the court picks only 70 cases per year out of the entire country, 12 federal appellate circuits and 50 states.

3) Make service on the U.S. Supreme Court short, like a year's term, thus removing treatment of such justices as royalty, and opportunities for forming "lifetime friendships" with the only purpose to pursue mutual personal benefits for justices and powerful and rich parties, politicians and lawyers;

4) Legislatively strip all judges of judicial immunity -  since other ways to impose accountability upon judges do not work, and actions of judges of the highest court of the country indicate that they disregard the rule of law they themselves are supposed to uphold, especially when it concerns personal gifts and benefits to themselves; otherwise judges will continue, as they do now, to find immunity for themselves for any corrupt and malicious acts that undermine integrity of judicial proceedings, as if it is "implied" in the U.S. Constitution;  we need to do a collective lobotomy otherwise, if we think that it benefits us to allow judges to escape with shenanigans like Scalia was pulling off throughout his judgeship in being openly bought by hunting trips - and who knows what else, and remain on the court, deciding cases in favor of whoever bought him;

5) Introduce strict mandatory rules governing misconduct and conflicts of interest of U.S. Supreme Court and other federal judges and simplify impeachment of such justices;  remove judicial discipline from federal judges themselves;

6) introduce legislation allowing direct referral of all judges to grand jury investigations by the aggrieved parties, bypassing prosecutors, since prosecutors are attorneys whose licenses and livelihoods are regulated by courts, and who have a conflict of interest in not criminally prosecuting judges;

7) allow prosecution of judges by lay individuals who have no law licenses regulated by judges, thus eliminating the conflict of interest.

Then, ridiculous situations like races to the embalmers with the corpse of #AntoninScalia and snake-pit fights in the Senate as to who to appoint as a U.S. Supreme Court justice will stop happening, the rule of law in this country will become possible, and we will stop being the laughingstock of the civilized world.

Lies about deceased government-employed "loving family men"

A horrible tragedy happened several days ago in a suburb of Albany, NY.

A police officer used his government-issued gun to kill his wife and 10-year old child, set the house on fire (with the family dog trapped in the house) and shot himself.

The obituary of Israel J. Roman reportedly calls him a "decorated police officer" and a "loving family man".

The "loving family man" had a wife and two sons, a 10-year old and a 15-year old.  

And a family dog.

The only person who survived the killing spree of the "loving family man" is the 15-year old.  

Because he was not at home or because the father did not plan to kill the 15-year old, only a 10-year old?  At least, it is reported that evidence was found that the police officer planned the killings,  packed his 15-year-old belongings neatly in a car in a separate garage unaffected by fire, and killed the rest of the family while the 15-year-old was at a basketball game.

The wife and son were shot from the government-assigned pistol, by the officer who was out in the street, armed by us and at our expense, in order for him to protect us.

"Police said after shooting his wife and son, Roman wrapped them in blankets and carried them to the master bedroom upstairs, where he then shot himself with his police-issued handgun. As a result of the intense fire, the bodies had to be identified through dental records."

A loving family man.

Apparently, the "loving family man" harbored a hope that the evidence of his murders will be obliterated by the fire and his face will be saved in death, and, since all three corpses will be obliterated by an "intense fire", it will be impossible to find out what happened.  Honest even in the afterlife.

Apparently, the "loving family man" did not care whether the fire of his burning house would spread to other homes and that other people would also die.  

Apparently, not only he did not care about taking the lives of his wife and 10-year-old child, he did not care that his animal will die in that fire either - and the family dog did die in that fire. 

Reportedly, the fire was already visible outside in the street 37 minutes after his 10-year old got off the school bus.  The wife worked as an elementary school teacher, so likely she and the 10-year-old son came home at about the same time.  To the loving family man, who was already waiting for them, having prepared not only the means to murder them, but also to stage those murders to appear as if all three of them fell victims of accidental house fire.

A childhood friend of the murdered wife of the "family man" Deborah Roman, reported that 5 years ago (!) Deborah Roman told her about the "oppressive life that she had at the hands of her husband".  5 years ago.  

Nothing was done since then to protect Deborah Roman or her children, and, apparently, she was afraid to come forward because of who her husband was.  And for a good reason, it now appears.


The obituary is trying to save the officer's face - but lying about a murderer of an entire family for the sake of proprieties only hurts his victims.  And it hurts us.

We need to know the truth as to how our police officers are trained and screened.

We need to repeal the shameful Civil Rights Law 50-a that prevents disclosure of history of police misconduct.

Because the obituary may be lying more than we know when it says he was a "decorated police officer".

Maybe, he had a disciplinary record before - but it is concealed from the public by the law that is, mockingly, called a "civil rights law" when it is designed to violate our civil rights.

Lies that "dearly deceased" government officers and/or employees were in fact monsters do not help anybody, and especially because such deceased were public officials.

And the question remains about the living police officers - how many more monsters are out there, armed by us, funded by us, roaming the streets trigger-happy?  With the Civil Rights Law 50-a continuing to guard their dirty pasts - until they murder somebody and do not stage the murders as accidents well enough?

And, if Officer Roman attempted to stage the evidence of his own crimes, how many crime scenes did he fabricate against other people?

Will there be any meaningful investigation of that?

We will see.


 

 

What was Scalia doing on a ranch in Texas?

It was reported an hour ago that U.S. Supreme Court judge Antonin Scalia, the leader of the court's "conservative wing", the one of two of our famous "duck hunters" died.

Died on a ranch in West Texas is a luxury resort, with historic "on-site forts", where rooms are going for $535 to $565 a night, 

where he was with a "private group of 40 people", doing (allegedly) this:

At 79 years of age.  Hiking through mountains and canyons, horseback riding, exploring Indian Caves and photographing elks and red stags.

Right.
 
I, as a taxpayer, want to know, what "private group of 40 people" this Supreme Court judge was with before he died.

Especially because it is him who put Bush the Second on the throne, and now, when Bush the Third is contending for the same throne, it is important what kind of "groups of people" a U.S. Supreme Court justice was socializing with, on the verge of Jeb!'s assault upon Nevada and South Carolina caucuses.