Will Judge Jonathan S. Follender the fraudster be taken off the bench, disbarred and criminally prosecuted for repeated and unrepentant fraud upon the court?

This is attorney Jonathan S. Follender, who is also a judge of the Town of Denning Justice Court, Ulster County.

This man is a fraudster.

I have a lot of documentary proof of it.

This is new proof that I learnt about just today.

This is the top of a Notice of Motion that Jonathan Follender filed with the Delaware County Supreme Court.

This is the top of the affirmation sworn by attorney Jonathan S. Follender upon which the motion above was made.  I received it some time ago.  In both the Notice of Motion and the Affirmation Follender makes statement that the motion is made on behalf, among other parties, of M & C Brothers, Inc., a corporation that he represented at the time he filed the motion - on March 8, 2016, the date when he made his sworn statement.

One correction - Follender calls himself and other Defendants in the action "petitioners".  Petitioner is an equivalent of a Plaintiff in a special court proceedings.

Here, I am the Plaintiff, and Follender is a Defendant.  He tries to impress the court by saying he is a petitioner and to obscure the fact that he is actually a Defendant.

Follender also says that the corporation Jonathan S. Follender, P.C. represents itself pro se - that is not allowed by New York law ("I appear pro se for Follender defendants").

Well, prior to this, Follender sued somebody for loss of companionship of a dog, a non-existent cause of action in New York ("loss of consortium is loss of companionship of a spouse, and a cause of action for loss of companionship of a dog does not exist), 

and made a motion to substitute a "dead client" "nunc pro tunc" when the dead individual was a corporate officer and the client was a corporation - in other words, Follender claimed that a corporation died with the death of its officer, a screaming act of incompetency for an attorney

(the motion was made in M & C Brothers, Inc. v. Torum, Delaware County Index No. 2007-280, to the now-retired Judge Eugene Pekham, partner in Levine, Gouldin and Thompson;  Judge Peckham granted that insane motion, obiously without looking, which tells you a lot about the competence of both Follender and Peckham).

So, this is the gem of an affirmation upon which Follender based his motion.

In this affirmation, under oath, attorney Follender states the following:

"1. I am the attorney for defendant M & C Bros., Inc." (the full name of the corporate client is "M & C Brothers, Inc., as the caption of the case which attorney/judge Follender is using clearly shows).

So, as of March 8, 2016, the date of the affirmation, Follender claimed, under oath, to Delaware County Supreme Court that he represented M & C Brothers, Inc. 

This is a snapshot from the New York State Department of Corporations database.  I looked it up today, Follender did not notify me of this interesting development in his FORMER client's status.

It shows that M & C Brothers, Inc. has dissolved as of May 2, 2014, nearly 2 years ago, and before the appeal in Neroni v Follender was filed on May 19, 2014.

So, as of May 2, 2014 all courts have likely lost jurisdiction over the case because of dissolution of one of the clients.

Jonathan Follender definitely lost his authority to represent a dissolved corporation, as of the date of dissolution, May 2, 2014, before the appeal was filed on May 19, 2014, Sinnott v. Hanan, 156 A.D.2d 323, 141 N.Y.S. 505 (2d Dept. 1913).

No disclosure was made by attorney/judge Jonathan S. Follender that M & C Brothers, Inc. dissolved as of May 2, 2014, and no disclosure was made to the Appellate Division 3rd Department or to me as a party Plaintiff in the litigation.

Instead, attorney (and judge) Follender continued to claim to Appellate Division 3rd Department in multiple SWORN statements, statements that he sent to me across state lines to South Carolina that he represents M & C Brothers, and is now claiming the same to the Delaware County Supreme Court.

That behavior constituted multiple counts of:

• perjury;
• fraud;
• fraud upon the court;
• mail fraud (a federal crime).

Follender's behavior may be also qualified, in my opinion, as several counts of federal wire fraud.

First, Follender caused a company to e-mail me his Respondent's brief on behalf of M & C Brothers, Inc. after the dissolution of M & C Brothers, and after Follender lost his authority to represent M & C Brothers.

Second, Follender sent this extraordinarily stupid and arrogant, not to mention fraudulent, e-mail to Appellate Division 3rd Department as of January 4, 2016, on behalf of M & C Brothers, Inc., a corporation dissolved two years prior.

In that e-mail, Follender 

(1) does not disclose the jurisdictional fact of dissolution of his FORMER client M & C Brothers, Inc. and 

(2) asks Appellate Division 3rd Department to make me come from South Carolina to New York to argue my own appeal that I wanted to submit on papers.

Follender made that claim, which was completely illegal under any circumstances, while Follender knew (but I didn't know until today) that the appellate proceedings were void and that he has no authority to represent M & C Brothers, Inc. because of that dissolution.

Note that in the e-mail, Follender requested the court to "take judicial notice" of my order of suspension - based on Follender's claim that I delayed satisfaction of a money judgment in the case that he calls "Torum".

The case was, in fact, M & C Brothers v. Bradley W. Torum, Samme Chittum-Torum, Tyler Harcott, Genevieve Gorder, Delaware County Index No. 2007-280.

While asking the 3rd Department, without disclosure that the appellate proceedings and Follender's representation of M & C Brothers have been rendered void due to M & C Brothers' dissolution, to take judicial notice of my suspension based on "Torum" - that's the above case, let's call it "Torum-I", Follender omits to mention that in Torum-I I was sanctioned by the now-quickly-retired Judge Carl F. Becker, on request of the same Follender -

for allegedly causing the delay in satisfaction of a money judgment.

Follender also omits to mention that, right after I was sanctioned in Torum-I, at his request, for, once again, allegedly causing the delay in satisfaction of a money judgment, Follender turned around and asked the same Carl Becker, in a case where I was not a party or attorney of record, to sanction me again - now 

for causing SATISFACTION of that same money judgement TOO SOON.

It is all part of court records in M & C Brothers v Bradley Torum, Samme Chittum-Torum (2 defendants instead of 4 as in Torum-I), Delaware County Index No. 2011-884.

What Follender does has many layers of fraud, and I think it's time to have him held responsible for it.

I will, of course, notify the State Commission for Judicial Conduct and other appropriate authorities with request to take, let's say, appropriate actions towards Follender because of his continuous, ongoing and brazen fraud upon several courts.

I will notify you of how this case develops.

I am posting this information for people to be beware of Jonathan S. Follender's tendencies to commit fraud and fraud upon the court when they deal with him as with attorney or with a judge.

The man is dangerous and should be taken off the bench, disbarred and criminally prosecuted.

Stay tuned.

Janet DiFiore ceremonial fraternity swearing-in gathering at taxpayers' expense - Part II

As promised, I am starting to publish the transcript of the swearing in ceremony of Janet DiFiore into her position of the Chief Judge of the NYS Court of Appeals.

I will go slow.

It's a lot of work - and, as you will see - a lot of information to digest.

I am trying to not just provide a transcript, but to interlink information about each introduced person.

This blog covers only 5 minutes and 16 seconds of the 47 minute 31 second's video of the swearing-in ceremony.

I will transcribe the video further and provide the transcripts, by parts, in my later posts.  

Now, for the transcript (with comments and background information for introduced individuals).

==

This is the NYS Court of Appeals' judge Eugene F. Pigott, Jr., the chief sycophant at Janet DiFiore's swearing-in ceremony held on February 8, 2016 in Albany, New York, at taxpayers' expense.

In the transcript of the swearing-in ceremony of the now-Chief Judge of New York State Court of Appeals Janet DiFiore that will follow, note how many extolling epithets this man lavishes upon those invited by DiFiore to attend her swearing-in ceremony.

I will highlight the epithets in color. 

Judges and lawyers are supposed to use the strict and sometimes boring language of the law.

You do not expect such an outpour of verbal embellishments and flattery from the lips of a hardened trial lawyer and longtime judge.

But here it is.  Nothing like greasing your way into your bosses heart, I guess.

I will highlight Judge Pigott's flattery in pink - an appropriate color for flattery, I think.

Here is the transcript of the swearing-in ceremony:

==
Judge Piggott:  

It's now my duty to call this wonderful session to order.

We are just overjoyed at the thought of having Judge DiFiore as our Chief Judge.

As you can see, Judge DiFiore invited a host of members of her family, a few friends (laughter in audience) to come to this.

She asked me to, please, introduce everyone (laughter in audience, see facial expressions of Pigott, DiFiore and Cuomo at that statement, they are laughing, it's obviously intended to be funny, please, also note that in this COURT "session", Cuomo is sitting on the bench, as part of the court - while he has cases litigated in front of that court as an attorney and a party).

Everyone who needs to be introduced, please stay seated (laughter).

Ok.

First of all, let me acknowledge the family of our new Chief Judge, her husband - and I ask you to, please, stand because we want to see you - husband Dennis Glazer, Dennis, welcome to the Court of Appeals.

(Long applause).

Daughter Alexandra and son-in-law Matthew, please, stand and be recognized (applause).

(Applause).

The handsome groom...

And sons Joseph and Michael (the sons stand).  Welcome.

Your hands are going to wear out, I am telling you, you people applaud like that...

We obviously also have the great Governor of the State of New York here on the right Andrew Cuomo, thank you, Judge .

(Applause).

My favorite Lieutenant Governor ... Judge... Lieutenant Governor Kathy Hochul, Kathy, would you, please, stand and be recognized (she does stand, applause).

Also from the Governor's office we have his counsel Alfonso Davis... David, excuse me (applause).


(Alfonso David is reportedly "the 3rd most powerful person in Cuomo's office, after Cuomo and Hochul - T.N. ).

And William Munrow, Secretary of the Governor.

William, thank you for coming (applause).

Before I get to the other big people there (points into the courtroom), I want to introduce my colleagues up here.

First of all, from the Big Apple, we have Jenny Rivera, Judge Rivera 

(applause, Cuomo turns around to Judge Rivera, and casually stretches out his hand for a handshake with her, which Judge Rivera accepts, Judge Rivera is New York State Attorney General's former attorney, and thus, a former attorney of Andrew Cuomo (who was also an Attorney General), his  former subordinate, and Judge Rivera is also a former law clerk of the now-U.S. Supreme Court justice Sonya Sotomayor, the appellate court to the New York State Court of Appeals, and a former clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit - which, for the court, covers all bases in lawsuits and appeals, through personal connections).

Judge Rivera is our law professor.  

She keeps tryin' a-drag the law into everything we're doing (laughter).  One of those (laughter)...

Also from New York City, from the 1st Department, the Honorable Sheila Abdus-Salaam, Judge Abdus-Salaam (applause; Judge Abdus-Salaam is Cuomo's recent appointee - T.N.).

Not to worry, we have somebody from Albany, the Honorable Leslie Stein (Cuomo's recent corrupt appointee - T.N.):

Judge Stein... (applause)

And weird or not, we have another Eugene from Buffalo, the Honorable Eugene Fahey, Judge Fahey (applause; Judge Fahey is a recent Cuomo's corrupt appointee - T.N.):

Now a little bit of CLE here, continued legal education...

As most of you, I think, know, the Court of Appeals, is the Administrative Board of the courts, runs the entire court system.

And the Administrative Board is made up of five people:

• our Chief Judge (familiarly and condescendingly taps Janet DiFiore on the shoulder);

• and the four PJ's (I guess, that's the jargon standing for "Presiding Justices of the 4 intermediate Appellate Divisions - T.N.), and I would like them to stand and be recognized.

From the 1st Department, the Honorable Peter Tom, Justice Tom (Justice Tom is one of the judges that did not award back pay to retired judges in the lawsuit where an appeal is currently pending before the Court of Appeals - T.N.).

From the 2nd Department, Justice Randy Eng,  Judge Eng (Eng is Cuomo's appointee as the Presiding Justice of the 2nd Department - T.N.).

From our 3rd Department, our Senior Presiding Justice Karen Peters, Judge Peters.

And our shining new PJ from the 4th Department the Honorable Gerald Whalen, Justice Whalen.

Now, you may have noticed, when I introduced my colleagues up here, I introduced them as "judges".

When I introduced people over here (points at presiding justices of the 4 Appellate Divisions), PJ's, they are "justices".  

Now, one of the people that I sat with for along time was Judge Samuel Green who was constantly reminding me that there is no justice in the Court of Appeals. (Laughter).

They are the justices, we are the judges.

He also used to say that we were not last because we were right, we are right because we are last. (Laughter).

But, the four PJ's, as you know, they preside... They get 2 000 a year.  

We get 200 and...  (technical glitch in the video ate some words at 4:04).

2000 apiece... 

We get to pick our cases (not true - T.N.), they don't.

They are very tired, and they are very hard-working people.  

And they then work with Judge DiFiore in running the entire court system.  

Now when you have a Board of Directors, an Administrative Board like that, you need somebody who execute (Judge Pigott pronounced the word "execute" with an emphasis and a lop-sided smile, a very funny word, I guess - T.N.) those,

and we have the Chief Judge of the Office of Court Administration, who is also with us this afternoon.  

Judge Larry Marks, Judge Marks.

People who work with the Chief Judge in our Court Administration, we have a number of Administrative Judges, one of them is a former Administrative Judge of the 9th District is with us today, and I would like to recognize Judge Frank Nicolai, Judge Nicolai (smiling and stretching his hand out to "Judge" Nicolai).

(Francis A. Nicolai was not a judge at the time of the ceremony, he was a private practicing attorney working for a law firm that has a large appellate practice division that appears in front of the NYS Court of Appeals - T.N.).

We also have some...

This is a great honor for you (taps Janet DiFiore again)

We also have some former members of the Court of Appeals with us today.

The Honorable Joseph Bellacosa is with us.  That's Judge Bellacosa!  (Applause). 

(Bellacosa is apparently a friend of Cuomo's recently deceased father Mario Cuomo, and at the time Judge Pigott addressed him as a Judge, Bellacosa was as much a judge as you and me, he was a private attorney and a professor of law, he retired from the bench 17 years ago - T.N.).

I told you your hands are going to get tired.

Judge Howard Levine is with us.

(At the time Judge Pigott called Howard Levine "Judge Howard Levine", Howard Levine was a private attorney and a retired judge, appointee to the NYS Court of Appeals by Andrew Cuomo's father Mario Cuomo; 

Howard Levine, as a private attorney working at Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, LLP, where he handles, among other things, appellate practice;  

Levine also admits on the website of his law firm, as part of his and his law firm's attorney advertising, that he was the Chair of the New York State-Federal Judicial Council in 2000-2002, while the New York State Court Administration refuses to satisfy my FOIL request about records of that shadow quasi-governmental organization
by claiming they do not have them.

Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna also appears to be a law firm of choice for the New York Commission for Judicial Conduct - it hires its own attorneys out of that firm:

and has its "founding partner" Michael Whiteman appear for 14 consecutive years from 2014 to 2000 /see the Commission's annual reports/ as a referee of the Commission for Judicial Conduct where his former employee Cheryl L. Randall is the "senior attorney" - not too crooked, right? And I just got the review of referee lists of the Commission of Judicial Conduct until 2000, I have over 30 more years' worth of those lists to go - T.N.).

Judge Levine, thank you so much for coming!

===

Really, thank you for coming - and we will see  how "Judge Levine" and other "honorables" who get to be invited to the swearing-in ceremony of Chief Judge DiFiore, fare with their business in that same court.

I will keep posting transcription, with comments and background information, of the swearing-in ceremony.

JUST FIVE MINUTES:

• of relentless brown-nosing;
• sycophanting to DiFiore, and at the same time male-shauvinist condescension (repeatedly tapping DiFiore, stressing Karen Peters' "senior" age - now, I am far from being a friend of Karen Peters, but I cringed when I heard that she is a "Senior" judge, where there was nothing "Senior" about her position, but her age);
• vulgar jokes about justice;
• "celebrating" private attorneys who practice before the court as "judges";
• celebrating the appointing Governor and his 2nd and 3rd people-in-chief, as well as people appointed by Governor's late father.

JUST FIVE MINUTES of the "cream" floating to the top.

Judge Pigott obviously was in his glory, and was obviously not seeing anything bad in how he was behaving, on video, for the whole wide world.

You might see now why the New York State courts resist so fiercely against videotaping of court proceedings.

Those idiots cannot even behave in a civilized manner for 5 minutes.

There will be more, I will keep transcribing this 9-day wonder.

I would like to end this post with the statement that can be put on top of each court of the New York State "Unified Court System":

"We were not last because we were right, we are right because we are last. (Laughter)."

Stay tuned.

Janet DiFiore's ceremonial swearing-in fraternity gathering at taxpayers' expense - Part I

Being a Russian American who immigrated to the U.S. from the recently-dissolved Soviet Union and whose youth was spent in the Soviet Union, where we were forced to watch endless "ceremonial" speeches of various public officials, at work, at the college and on TV, I am very wary of official ceremonies.

Not only they are a tremendous waste of time and money.

In my opinion, they also should not be taking place in a democratic society, because all there is to such gatherings is forging and reinforcing connections, establishing for the future conflicts of interest and tainting the celebrated public official with appearance of corruption.

If a person has been appointed to a public office, that's it.  

You've been appointed, good for you, you need to be sworn it, it's two minutes to do that - now get over with it and start doing your job.

There is no need for people to sit in "panels", make speeches, congratulate each other on coming, on being appointed, on "serving" the taxpayers, the same taxpayers the whole gathering is robbing by attending an unnecessary ceremony instead of doing their taxpayer-paid jobs.

You do not need to pluck (oops, invite) a courthouse full of people from their jobs, and you especially do not need to invite them to travel across a large state that is larger than several European countries, to a lengthy "swearing-in" ceremony.

As I said, just be sworn in in two minutes and get to doing your job.

Not so with Janet DiFiore, who was recently appointed as Chief Judge of the State of New York.

I wrote about DiFiore's background, her unfitness to be a judge and a lawyer, and the likelihood that she committed multiple crimes, and that the appointment by Governor Cuomo to the position of Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals was payment to DiFiore for covering up Cuomo's corruption at the time DiFiore was the Chairwoman of New York Joint Commission on Public Ethics.

You can read my prior blogs about DiFiore's nomination here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

I also filed a complaint against DiFiore with the Judicial Conduct Commission, requesting to investigate what the Senate refused to investigate, possible criminal activities of DiFiore and her misconduct as Westchester County District Attorney, and to take her off the bench.  

The complaint is now under review, but DiFiore, at this time, is still on the bench, and this blog is about the disgusting start of her career as the Chief Judge, through an unnecessary and costly gathering of taxpayer-paid "public servants".

After getting appointed the Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals by fraud - while opponents of her appointments were blocked from testifying before the New York State Senate and while the requested and necessary investigations into DiFiore's likely criminal activities that should have her disbarred and locked up for the rest of her life, instead of elevated to the position of Chief Judge of the huge New York State were not done by the sycophanting Judiciary Committee of the New York Senate, consisting of attorneys - Janet DiFiore wanted to celebrate her newly acquired power.

And so she did.

Look at the full courthouse of people she invited to the ceremony.

I could not shake off parallels in watching the "swearing-in ceremony".

This is what I grew up with, the Soviet Union's Leonid Brezhnev giving a speech, the sycophants' gathering around, with rounds of applause celebrating The Chief:

This is Janet DiFiore's swearing in ceremony this year, the sycophants' gathering around, with applause at the ready, celebrating The Chief-ess

Both gatherings are useless.  Both gatherings are at people's expense.  Both gatherings are at the time when majority of the respective state's residents are struggling financially - not that the sycophants or the celebrants cared.

I will publish in separate blogs, the transcript of the gathering, and then the names and salaries of the people who attended the gathering, at public expense - at least those whose attendance can be confirmed by the video.

Stay tuned.

Identity theft from litigants through New York Family Courts? You don't tell...

Whenever a litigant comes to Family Court in the State of New York, the litigant is required to fill out a sign-in sheet where s/he is required to put in his or her:

1. full name
2. employment address
3. home address AND
4. Social Security number

S/he then hands the sheet in to the court attendant - and it is an identity theft waiting to happen.  I doubt that anybody keeps those sign-in sheets under lock and key, or that there is any significant oversight over who has access to this information.

In fact, identity theft using people's Social Security numbers is on the rise - and even led to creation of a federal President's Theft Task Force in 2006.

Of course, when you go to the links that are supposed to lead to recommendation of that Theft Task Force, you get this:

But the 2008 report of the Theft Task Force is available elsewhere.

The report, back in 2008, recommended to various federal agencies to reduce the use of Social Security numbers, which the report calls "the most valuable commodity for identity thieves".

Apparently, administrators of New York State Family Courts are too busy to be bothered with such trifles as exposure of Family Court litigants to identity theft - through requirements of disclosure of Social Security numbers in the court sign-in sheets.

I remember the timidity of litigants who fill out those sheets as if they are criminals.

I remember the insistence of security guards who take in the filled-out sheets that the sheet is filled out in full, that no "required" information would be missed.

I understand the reluctance of litigants to do anything or say anything against the way they are required to act, for fear that their insistence on non-disclosure of certain personal information may affect their case, which can be from child support to child custody to child neglect to family offense proceedings, and can have drastic consequences for the litigant if the case is decided against him or her.

But, New York Courts that, under its new Chief Judge DiFiore are now pledging to aim for "excellence" (I will run a separate blog about this "excellence" plan) should at least start with not exposing people who come to Family Court, sometimes on their own, sometimes sued by others, to identity theft coming from within the court system.

Statistics of such identity theft is, of course, not known, and, I bet, is unavailable through FOIL.

I will try a FOIL request on this subject, but I predict the answer will be - "there are no records responsive to your FOIL request".  

That does not mean that identity theft does not happen because of loose - or no - oversight of who and how handles litigants' information on sign-in sheets.

I am sure all people working in Family Courts, from clerks to judges to security officers, know what I am talking about.

They know for years.

They know how wrong, how dangerous for litigants this little rule is, also for years.

And they do nothing to change it, also for years.

Yet, I am sure they will keep their own Social Security numbers intact and will not disclose it every time they come to the courthouse.

And the same rule should exist for litigants.

What is the sign-in sheet for?

Why should the Family Court litigant (not the Supreme or County court litigant) disclose all that information, every time the litigant comes to court?

There is no such requirement in the Family Court Act.

There is no such requirement in the court rules.

This "sign-in sh*t" rule is completely illegal - and is going on for years in New York Family Court.

Maybe, eliminating this rule will start New York court system on its long and unlikely road to excellence?

The only "substantial" constitutional question for NYS Court of Appeals is judicial pay raises?

It was reported that the newly-populated New York State Court of Appeals is handling on appeal the issue of judicial pay raises.

That is an extraordinary event, because New York State Court of Appeals has a very limited jurisdiction, and it is usual for that court to reduce even appeals "as of right" to appeals "by the court discretion" and dismissing such "as of right appeals" because a SUBSTANTIAL constitutional right was not violated, even though the jurisdictional "as of right" state only mentions a constitutional right, without delimitation of "substantial-insubstantial".

In other words, NYS Court of Appeals has a policy indicating that to violate the U.S. Constitution is ok, only not "substantially", and what is "substantial" and "insubstantial" is for the court to decide, without any guiding criteria for such a distinction existing, nor does a state court have authority to establish criteria distinguishing which provisions of the U.S. Constitution may or may not be violated.

There is a scholarly article dating back to 2011, on this topic indicating that a constitutional appeal "as of right" to NYS Court of Appeals was rendered "illusory" by the court's (ultra vires) amendment of its own jurisdictional statute, arbitrarily making discretionary appeals that are mandatory for the court to take and review.


Actually, there is a very strong dissent in a case dismissed by the NYS Court of Appeals on "substantiality" of constitutional argument involved, written in 2010 by the now-retired Judge Robert S. Smith.

It is practically impossible to reach New York State Court of Appeals with a constitutional appeal, the court always rejects such cases, from "mere mortals" at least, raising constitutional issues.

Yet, the court accepted now, as it accepted before, an appeal on issues of constitutionality of denying judges retroactive pay raises.  

And, one of the presiding judges, Michael Garcia, has been a recent counsel for the Legislature, while the case claims the Legislature did something unconstitutional.

It appears that, once one becomes a judge, one loses any moral compass as to "appearance of impropriety", sense of civility and fairness, and mere decency as to their actions.

One accepts cases in which one has personal interest as a member of the class to which the decision will apply.

And, one rejects cases that, by law, one must hear - because one can abuse his power this way, and there is no power to control that abuse of the New York State Court of Appeals in rejecting proper constitutional appeals as of right on "insubstantial constitutional question" issue.

We remain the state where its highest court, sworn to protect the U.S. Constitution, blatantly violates that same U.S. Constitution by arbitrarily and unlawfully deciding, without any authority to decide that question, which constitutional violations are SUBSTANTIAL and which are INSUBSTANTIAL - and to reject appeals "as of right" on that principle.

So, we will hold our breath now to see what the Court of Appeals will decide about retroactive judicial pay raises, a very substantial constitutional question - for the presiding judges.

Will SDNY Judge Shira Scheindlin STILL be criminally prosecuted for practicing law on the bench, even if she is running off the bench?

I recently blogged about large law firms that use employment of judicial law clerks as "live shields" to protect and drum up their business, mentioning that one of the law clerks employed by BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, a large law firm that employes law clerks apparently from all courts where it practices - is #SDNYJudgeShiraScheindlin's law clerk.

I also blogged about Judge Scheindlin's outrageous misconduct on the bench and raised the question, on January 6, 2016, why Judge Scheindlin was not criminally prosecuted under the applicable federal statute making it a high misdemeanor, an impeachable offense for a judge, to practice law - while Judge Scheindlin was removed from a case for giving legal advice to one party as to how to file a new lawsuit against the other.

On March 23, 2016, it was reported that Judge Shira Scheindlin announced that she is "resigning" from the federal bench of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, effective April 29, 2016, in order - allegedly - to work in private practice for an undisclosed New York City law firm.

Now, Judge Scheindlin is now paid $203,000 a year, with full benefits and tremendous power she is weilding.

If she is leaving that position, that means that either the "undisclosed law firm" which she is ready to join on April 29, 2016, offered her more - and the question is, for what - for fixing cases in her court with her fellow judges?

Or, that Judge Scheindlin was simply booted for her misconduct that the 2nd Circuit did not want to acknowledge in the order of removal of Scheindlin, but that is clear from the description in that order of removal of what she did, as compared to the text of the criminal statute, 28 U.S.C. 454, see also my blog about it here.

Whatever the reason for Judge Scheindlin's hasty departure from the bench - good riddance.

And, by resigning, I do not believe that Judge Scheindlin removed herself from the reach of criminal investigation and prosecution under 28 U.S.C. 454.

In my opinion, she must be criminally investigated and prosecuted under 28 U.S.C. 454 to show to the public that the law equally applies to judges, as it applies to us mere mortals.

UPL in its glory - a Pennsylvania woman is convicted for providing unlicensed, but good legal representation to clients for 10 years

Remember, law licensing, as any occupational licensing, is meant to protect consumers of services from bad providers.

Therefore, following that logic, if the provider provides GOOD services, he or she should not be blamed for it.

Especially that what constitutes the practice of law, is not clearly defined in the statutory law of any state within the United States.

Yet, in the glorious state of Pennsylvania, the state where:

• licensed attorneys are so afraid to do their duty to their clients and confront judicial misconduct to such a degree that they rather allowed the "Kids for Cash" scandal to happen rather than to expose it;
• the Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania Kathleen Kane's law license was suspended with participation of the very judge (Eakin) who was the target of her investigation;  Judge Eakin "resigned" (keeping his pension), his disciplinary case was prosecuted by the subordinates of his friend (who ultimately recused, but still remained the prosecutor's boss), and subordinates of Judge Eakin's friend successfully asked the court for leniency for Judge Eakin, to allow Judge Eakin to keep his pension - while Judge Eakin's decision to suspend Kathleen Kane's law license was not vacated -

in THIS glorious state of Pennsylvania, where the duty of the attorney in order to keep his license is not to do a good job for his or her clients, but to keep mum about misconduct of public officials the attorney is witnessing - a woman, Kimberly Kitchen, was just convicted for providing, for 10 years, legal services as a real estate attorney, while being not licensed as an attorney.

There is no indication in the article about the conviction that the woman did a bad job or that her clients were injured in any way.

The problem is only that she shared her GOOD expertise, and shared it, apparently, well, for 10 years, without permission of the state government and without permission of the lawyers' cartel that operates attorney licensing in the State of Pennsylvania, for their own benefit, and not for the benefit of their clients.

Yes, it is wrong to forge public documents, as she is claimed to have done with her law license.

But, forging public documents, as far as I understand, is not what she was charged for.

The main charge was unauthorized practice of law.

UPL is a "strict liability" offense, which, in my view, is presumptively unconstitutional as an offense where harm to the public does not have to be proven, and it is even more unconstitutional where what constitutes the practice of law is not clearly defined by statutory law of the State of Pennsylvania.

Instead, as in other jurisdictions, Pennsylvania courts tinker ex post facto with particular situations verifying whether this or that act constituted "the practice of law".

Think about it.

Real estate transactions - as every honest lawyer knows - are handled by secretaries, legal assistants and paralegals, often without any participation from an attorney.

It is not even a secret.

Yes, yes, there are "ethical opinions" (like this one, by Florida bar) that a paralegal may prepare documents for a real estate transaction under a lawyer's supervision, but may not do the actual closing.

But, this rule is simply not followed - and especially if closings are done by mail, which happens all the time, and everybody knows about it.

The woman was caught only because, as I understand, times are tough, lucrative real estate business is declining, together with the economy, and the woman was singled out to eliminate her as a competitor, most likely because she was doing a GOOD job.

By the way, in other countries, such as France and Russia, real estate transactions do not require a lawyer at all, they can be done by notaries.  

In our United States of America, the land of the free, the home of the brave, a woman was convicted of a felony for doing a good job for her clients for 10 years.

Which, to me, once again exposes the sham of occupational regulation.

People should not be convicted of a felony for doing a good job for their clients.