While India invalidates its bar exam for violating a fundamental right to practice law, the U.S. imposes upon its consumers of legal services a limited set of providers who were never taught or tested in areas of laws they are allowed to practice

I did not see this news announced by the American Bar Association somehow.

While this is a piece of news very relevant to the legal profession anywhere in the world.

Because on March 1, 2016 the Supreme Court of India invalidated the bar examination requirement to become licensed to practice law - as violating attorneys' fundamental right.

I know, I know.

In the U.S. the already-licensed attorneys fighting for survival in the ever-shrinking market of paid legal services, will say - "no, without a bar examination, how will the consumers know that the attorney representing them knows the law?"

My question is - how do they know now?

Let's look at the laws of different states and see what the already licensed attorneys are expected to know.

My overseas friends often assume that law licenses in the U.S. are nationwide.

Yet, they are not.

They are state-wide only, and some states have "comity agreements" with some limited number of states to admit attorneys from participating states without an examination, and other states do not have comity agreements and require all individuals, including attorneys already licensed by other states, to take their bar examination.

Let's look at the requirement of bar examination from the point of protection of the consumer - the declared purpose of attorney regulation in the U.S. and in the states.

A bar examination is a culmination of law school education.

To get licensed in the state, an individual should have:

• a high school diploma (usually K to 12, 13 years);
• a bachelor's degree (usually 4 years);
• a Juris Doctor degree (usually 3 years) from a law school accredited with the American Bar Association, all in all 20 years of formal education.

And, the law school graduate must pass the state bar.

State law licenses cover ALL TYPES of laws.

In other words, when a law school graduate gets a law license, that means that on the day the license was issued he or she is entitled to go into any state court and represent any person on any issue of state law.

And, the license and the education process is supposedly needed to guarantee quality of such representation to consumers of that person's services.

But, let's look at the set of state laws.

For example, let's look at the laws of the State of New York, here they are in open access.

When printed in books, these laws occupy a wall in a lawyer's office.  An entire wall.

Of course, there is not enough time to teach all those laws in the 3 years of law school.

And, of course, knowledge of all of those laws is not tested in the New York State bar examination.

But, nevertheless, the law license in New York permits any licensed attorney to practice any of the above mentioned laws - even if that attorney never read those laws in law school, was never taught about the content or intricacies of application of those laws, and was never tested on knowledge of those laws.

Now - where is the protection of clients here?

And where is the guarantee of knowledge by a licensed attorney?

What if a trusted individual without a law degree, a neighbor, read enough of a particular law to apply it better than a lawyer who never read that law, but is licensed to practice it?

The result will be counter-productive for the consumer.

The knowledgeable person will be criminally prosecuted for unauthorized practice of law if that person attempts to help a consumer of legal services with a problem that the knowledgeable person knows how to resolve and can provide real help with.

On the other hand, the licensed attorney who knows nothing about that area of law, will be allowed to present the case to the court - and botch it - and the only feeble way or protection against such an attorney, after the case was already botched because of the attorney's incompetence, will be a disciplinary complaint filed by the consumer or a malpractice lawsuit.

A disciplinary complaint will most likely be rejected, with no real mechanism to appeal (even the new rules of attorney discipline introduced in New York on December 29, 2015 do not provide for a strong right to appeal dismissals of meritorious complaints).

A malpractice lawsuit means more litigation, more money spent on attorneys, a difficulty finding an attorney who would be willing to sue another attorney, and an uncertainty of winning, where it is very difficult to prove a negative - lack of knowledge by a licensed attorney.

So, is the consumer of legal services protected by the process of attorney licensing?

The answer is apparent.

The answer will be even more apparent if, as part of an experiment, my readers can call their attorneys and ask off-the-top questions regarding some areas of law randomly chosen from list of statutes above.

Most attorneys would tell them that they do not "specialize" in such area of law, and they "specialize" only in a few narrow areas.

But, their license does not restrict their practice to those areas, so technically, an attorney who is desperate to get money from clients, can accept cases where he has absolutely no competence.

Actually, that is the case with the so-called "pro bono help".

I think I already told the story on this blog of some of my law professors not specializing in criminal law nevertheless boasting of accepting "pro bono" criminal cases.

My hair stood up when I heard that.

There are so many itty-bitty details in New York criminal law and procedure that taking a criminal case without knowing the law nearly guarantees that the case will be botched.

When I then was licensed to practice law, I heard many times from judges who were asked by indigent criminal defendants for assignment of a certain criminal defense attorney some quite cynical statements, such as that he is entitled to "an" attorney, not to an attorney of his choice, and not to a competent attorney either.

The same "protection through licensing" exists when one state blocks an attorney from another state from practicing within the state.

Please, tell me, how are legal consumers protected by requiring an attorney to have a physical office within the licensing state - that's what the 2nd Circuit recently ruled as "constitutional" for New York.

And how legal consumers are protected by allowing to practice, without an additional bar examination, attorneys who have agreements with the licensing state that they will do the same for that state's attorneys - license them without a bar examination?

New York has "comity" agreements with 39 states:

I will repost the list of states that entered the comity licensing agreement with New York so that the number of state is visible:

1. Alaska

2. Arizona

3. Arkansas

4. Connecticut

5. Colorado

6. District of Columbia

7. Georgia

8. Idaho

9. Illinois

10. Indiana

11. Iowa

12. Kansas

13. Kentucky

14. Maine

15. Massachusetts

16. Michigan

17. Minnesota

18. Mississippi

19. Missouri

20. Montana

21. Nebraska

22. New Hampshire

23. New Mexico

24. North Carolina

25. North Dakota

26. Ohio

27. Oklahoma

28. Oregon

29. Pennsylvania

30. South Dakota

31. Tennessee

32. Texas 

33. Utah

34. Vermont

35. Virginia

36. Washington

37. West Virginia

38. Wisconsin

39. Wyoming

Do you think Albany Law School and other schools in New York teach laws of these 38 states and the District of Columbia?

Nope.

Do you think law schools in these states teach New York law?

Equally - nope.

Yet, you do not know how big is the horde of attorneys from those states who were admitted "on motion" in New York without having a clue of New York law, and the same applies to attorneys admitted in those 39 jurisdictions having not a clue about the laws of those states.

HOW does that protect legal consumers and HOW does that guarantee quality of representation and HOW does that guarantee that the licensed attorney knows the law?

By the way, if you check out attorney registration pages of New York attorneys, those pages DO NOT reflect how the attorney was admitted - after a full bar examination.

In New York bar exam, conducted in 2 days (testing state and federal law on separate days), there is a "New York State" testing day, with a 6-hour rigorous examination of at least some areas of New York law, and the same applies to other states checking knowledge of their own state laws, at least some of them, in their own bar examinations.

Yet, if you are represented by a licensed attorney, with this extensive comity agreement that New York has with 39 jurisdiction, you have no guarantee that your attorney was EVER taught New York law, any of it, or EVER sat for a New York bar examination.

A lot of protection, isn't it?

Isn't it true that waiver of a bar examination does not guarantee that the states who are parties to mutual "comity" agreements teach laws of participating states?

So, such comity agreements between states are none other than turf-sharing agreements that have nothing to do with protection of the consumer, right?

By those agreements, an attorney admitted in the State of New York and who knows NOTHING about MOST of the laws of his or her own state (see list above), is accepted without a bar examination to be licensed in yet another state where he knows NOTHING about MOST of the laws of that state either, and a horde of lawyers from 39 jurisdictions are similarly accepted in New York, by simply paying a $400 motion fee.

It's a matter of revenue, nothing more, nothing else.

Not a matter of consumer protection.

And, despite the fact that the attorney was never taught or tested on knowledge of laws of the state where he is licensed, he will be licensed to practice in ALL of areas of law in both states, including in the areas he knows nothing about, was never taught about it and was never tested about.

Supporters of such arrangements can, of course, say - but, that attorney can read and self-teach him/herself about the new law!

He or she can certainly self-teach.

And he or she can hopefully read.

But - so can everybody else, every other unlicensed individual.

Yet, the declared purpose of licensing of the practice law is a guarantee of quality of service through education and testing, and that guarantee goes out the door when licensing covers areas of law which were neither taught nor tested.

And in that respect, India is ahead of the U.S. to simply recognize it and cancel the bar examination as an unconstitutional encroachment upon a right to earn a living.

Bar examinations are money-makers for the states and for bar-prep companies facilities where such examinations are held.

Yet, bar examinations - which are also known as a rapid brain-dump where quickly-learned bar prep course is as quickly forgotten after the bar exam - are useless to assure any guarantees of quality of service for legal consumers, and should be abolished, same as India has wisely done.

And, attorney licensing should go the way of the bar examination, too, protecting nobody but the legal establishment, and hurting those who it is claiming to help - consumers of legal services.

Consumers of legal services are hurt when they are restricted by the government (by the way, that same government which consumers may want to sue controls who consumers can choose to represent them to sue that government - a direct and irreconcilable conflict of interest) as to who they may choose to represent themselves in court, through attorney licensing.

And yet, as it is described here, because law schools do not teach or test knowledge of all laws of the licensing state, and because bar exams do not test all areas of laws in which the attorney is licensed, and licenses cover areas of law not taught, tested or even known by the licensed attorney, and because comity agreements allow licensing of attorneys who were never taught or tested on knowledge of ANY of state laws where they are being licensed - there is NO protection of legal consumers in attorney licensing, and it makes NO sense.

Because law licensing excludes people who know the law and can help from being able to help, and instead allows people who have no clue and can hurt instead of help, to have exclusive right of such "helping" - which makes no sense at all and contributes to the "justice gap" crisis in the United States.

ABA has a policy of non-support of civil rights attorneys suspended for criticism of the government

In preparation of my testimony for Congress as to Dr. Teng Biao's case, I just checked out whether ABA has a policy of non-support for attorneys suspended or disbarred for criticizing the government - just like NYSBA does.

And I mean - any attorneys, from any country, and those who are criticizing any government.

It does have such a policy - actually, it has TWO such policies, both for the attorneys within the United States and outside of the United States.

When you go to the website of ABA, here, first, you see only 5 categories of who can join the association.

The top right category is "Associates" - "individuals interested in the legal profession but not U.S.-licensed attorneys or students".

Ok, I am not a "U.S.-licensed attorney or student".  I am suspended for criticism of the government.

So, I am a non-lawyer, for purposes of joining the ABA, and a member of the public "interested in the law".

And, ABA indicates in answer to the Frequently Asked Questions this:

Non-lawyers (paralegals, law librarians, economists AND OTHERS interested in the ABA) may join.

I am "others".  

I may join the ABA, because I am interested in the ABA.

Right?

Wrong.

When you press the "join" button, the following screen pops up:

I am "none of the above", and I pressed on "See More Details".

The "more details" is actually the policy that the ABA refused to admit they had - of not supporting attorneys who suffered any oppression for criticizing the government.

Here it is.

Actually, you may not join the ABA as a member of the public if you are a suspended or disbarred attorney.

The language pretends at neutrality, but it is not neutral, because the ABA does not CARE what are the reasons for suspension or disbarment.

It PRESUMES that the suspension or disbarment is constitutional, even if it is not so, even if the suspension or disbarment was a sanction for criticism of the government - and I am sure that ABA has enough resources to learn about that tendency in the United States.

Here is the salary of its executive director and some officers for the year 2013.

Here is ABA's top "contractor" expenses for the same year - taken out of their IRS form.

$1,009,746 a year's salary of the Executive Director.

$2,910,000 a year spent on shipping.

$1,706,475 a year spent on telemarketing.

Surely such an organization has resources to figure out about corruption and oppressions against civil rights attorneys trying to defend clients which are not wealthy enough to be members of the American Bar Association?

Those clients whose interests - as consumers of legal services - ABA claims it is promoting, as well as the interests of its paying members, including judges and foreign LICENSED attorneys.

Now, in connection with Dr. Teng Biao's case, the question arises - is Dr. Teng Biao "licensed" in China?

And, if not, why not?

Because he criticized the government too much?

Then he MAY NOT join the ABA.

And, consequently, ABA WILL NOT support Dr. Teng Biao's book - as well as it will not support any American attorney suspended for criticizing the government while doing his or her job for a client.

I understand, under the same policy ABA will admit an attorney "licensed" by a horribly corrupt or tyrannical regime, but will not admit an attorney who is ostracized or cast out of the profession and stripped of his/her attorney status as a political repression in retaliation for the attorney's criticism of the government, as part of the attorney's political or professional activity.

That's the ABA's true policy.

And that's the ABA's true face.

Money talks.

Even if it is foreign money.

And you know what?

And, the ABA has the audacity to earn money on advertising articles about the so-called "legal rebels", those within and without the profession who are "rebelling" within the boundaries of the taboo on criticizing the government, of course.

And ABA is advertising those "legal rebels" while snubbing the real people, who are engaged in a real civil rights struggle and are defending real human rights of real people while necessarily criticizing the U.S. and state governments and the international governments. 

Support of such "legal rebels" is too dangerous for the ABA's bottom line.

10 major points of testimony in the U.S. Congress

I am currently drafting my written testimony/request for oral testimony before several Committees of the U.S. Congress, including the Congressional-Executive Committee on China and the U.S. House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary on the issues related to access to justice, availability of effective legal remedies and political repressions against civil rights attorneys which hurt the entire population.

Here are the main points of the argument - I will publish the full testimony when I complete it.

I.                     ABA’s withdrawal of its book deal for a Chinese civil rights attorney is a continuation of ABA’s policy of non-support of politically oppressed civil rights attorneys in the United States.

II.                   The U.S. Constitution has become largely unenforceable through the Civil Rights Act because of the court-invented rules and doctrines.  The lack of effective legal remedies for violations of human rights is a major problem in the U.S. which ABA refuses to address – and that refusal is directly related to ABA’s position on rescinding its book offer to Dr. Teng Biao. Analysis of court-created rules, doctrines and practices and explanation why they undermine enforcement of constitutional violations is included.

III.                 Antitrust problems, conflicts of interest in regulation of the legal profession, including control by the ABA, and control by the government attorneys are contrary to the declared purpose of attorney regulation, protection of consumers of legal services.  Such problems are undermining access to justice of indigent population for enforcement of their constitutional rights against encroachment by the government.  Analysis of legal concepts involved, facts and links to documents in support is provided.

IV.                Control of a non-profit corporation ABA over governmental licensing through certification of legal education as a pre-condition of such licensing, and thus control by a corporation with foreign membership and financing over independence of court representatives and over access to court is a major problem.  Consumers of legal services must be given a right to choose their court representative themselves, and not out of a government-vetted pool, especially when the government is opponent in litigation.

V.                  Secret-membership organizations with participation of attorneys and judges providing opportunities for fixing cases through ex parte communications behind closed doors and providing attorney-sponsored benefits to judges (free meals, free trips, scholarships etc.).

VI.                Unavailability of strong whistle-blower protection for attorneys raising federal constitutional issues.

VII.               Use of court rules and sanctions as a means of political repression against attorneys raising constitutional issues on behalf of their clients in the United States, impact of such sanctions upon the independence of the bar and upon access to court and the rule of law for all Americans.

VIII.             Unavailability of discipline for judges and prosecutors as the majority pool of judicial candidates.  Analysis, facts and links to documents in support are provided.

IX.                 Unavailability of a legal remedy for violation of human rights outside of the country – through the U.N. Convention on Political and Civil Rights.

X.                   The needs for reforms, and proposed reforms.



I request feedback from my readers, if they would like me to cover any other points related to the above topics in my testimony.

I appreciate and will review all suggestions.

Thank you.

The Younger abstention died, and the right to sue in federal court was restored - in the bathroom in North Carolina

I already wrote on this blog, numerous times as to how easy it is to derail a federal civil rights lawsuit - for example, here and here.

The Younger abstention, a doctrine by which federal courts refuse to review civil rights lawsuits, instead imposing upon the litigant the choice of forum in the state court, the choice of forum that is not allowed by the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983.

Since federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction governed under Article III of the U.S. Constitution which does not allow federal courts to change the U.S. Constitution or statutes enacted by the U.S. Congress - including the U.S. Civil Rights Act or the U.S. Congress's determination of jurisdiction of federal courts to hear civil rights lawsuits - any "doctrines" presenting a bar to federal civil rights lawsuits are unconstitutional as outside the power of federal courts within Article III and usurping exclusive power of Congress to legislate under Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

That said, in a paroxysm of sycophancy, the legal profession and scholars parade the doctrine as a doctrine based on "comity" and "equity".

There is no equity in blocking a victim of civil rights violation by the STATE government by dismissing a properly filed federal civil rights lawsuit (without compensation of court costs spent on filing and prosecuting it) and directing the victim of constitutional violation by STATE government to argue that issue before a STATE court.

That doctrine has nothing to do with equity, but everything to do with caseload control - because such cases, and the federal court dismissing the lawsuit knows it very well - will die a violent death in state courts, often with sanctions for "frivolous conduct" - which sanctions the federal court then will refuse to review, now under a Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Nor does Younger abstention have anything to do with "comity".  Comity is DEFERENCE.

Deference to the state government that is a DEFENDANT in a civil rights action is called BIAS.

Bias is a constitutional problem tainting jurisdiction of the particular presiding judge.

When comity=deference is asserted on a doctrinal level, then bias against a particular class of plaintiffs in favor of a particular class of defendants is asserted on an institutional level in federal courts.

The pretense justification for the Younger abstention is that state courts are "capable" or "competent" (nobody is concerned whether they are willing or unbiased) to hear federal constitutional claims.

Yet, as of March 23, 2016 the Younger abstention simply died in the state of North Carolina.

Specifically, this "scholarly" doctrine has died in North Carolina bathrooms, or was flushed down the toilet - whichever you prefer.

Literally.

A very fitting end.

Why?

Because on March 23, 2016 the North Carolina Legislature has issued the "transgender bathroom bill" which also included, reportedly, a prohibition to sue in state courts for ANY kind of discrimination.

Is it bad?

No!

It is most glorious.

Now, no federal court in North Carolina may state, as a matter of law, that a state court in North Carolina is fully capable and competent to review federal constitutional issues of discrimination.

Nope.

Now, by statute, North Carolina state courts are precluded from doing so.

And thus, federal courts may not use the pretense of the state North Carolina courts being allegedly capable and competent to review federal constitutional claims.

They will have to actually do their jobs.

And, civil rights litigants will actually have a possibility to get their civil rights lawsuits into federal court (unless more restrictions on civil rights litigation are invented by federal courts located in North Carolina districts) - and prosecute it in their chosen forum.

As the old saying went - every cloud has its silver lining.

Here, the silver lining unexpectedly came out of an overzealous bigotry of state legislators.

I wonder - maybe other states would join North Carolina in prohibiting their courts to review federal constitutional questions (it will not alter the current status quo much anyway, since courts across the country review federal constitutional questions raised in front of them as sanctionable conduct)?

I am just hopeful. 

Then, across the country, people will finally be able to sue for human and civil rights violations the way the U.S. Congress planned for them in an enacted Civil Rights Act all along.

Testimony of American attorneys, including my own, is planned (in writing or orally if permitted) before the U.S. Congress at the next month's hearing as to whether ABA has a policy of non-support of human rights attorneys criticizing the government for political or business reasons

Ok.

So when ABA and the local state bar associations tried to distance as far away as it is possible from supporting, siding with or even associating with attorneys within the United States who are suspended or disbarred, or targeted for discipline for criticizing misconduct in the government, that is NOT mainstream media news.

That is news for social media only, for blogs like mine and several others, mostly by attorneys who "Felt the Burn" themselves.

But, such cowardice DID just become international news - with the help of Chinese dissenter attorney, and a prominent attorney, Teng Biao.

Yesterday, on April 29, 2016 the very-mainstream Wall Street Journal published an article about attorney and prominent legal scholar Teng Biao accusing ABA of backing out of a book offer to him for corruption in the Chinese government.

The ABA reportedly claimed they "bowed to the market reality, not to the Chinese government" by pulling the plug on the book offer.

Market reality?

What market reality?

First of all, ABA is not a for-profit organization, it is a non-profit that was created to allegedly pursue worthy causes.

The cause of supporting a lawyer who criticizes corrupt government in order to help protect his people's civil rights, is a very worthy cause.

Moreover, the "market reality" in the U.S., if ABA is to be honest with the public, is that corruption in the government - Chinese and U.S. - is a very hotly discussed topic.

And, Dr. Teng Biao is a prominent scholar, and his name alone may sell the book, if marketing is the real consideration.

Here is Dr. Teng Biao's credentials published on the site of the Harvard Kennedy School/ Carr Center for Human Rights and Policy.

It is the ABA that pretends the topic does not exist and is not "marketable".

In fact, had the ABA endorsed the book and the topic of resistance to corruption in the government - any government - the book would have instantly become a best-seller.

So, it IS bowing to political considerations.

In fact, back in February of this year, a question was raised in the press that:

"Over the past year the American Bar Association has faced a dilemma over how to respond to China’s repression of human-rights lawyers as well as some public-interest and criminal-defense lawyers."

Not only ABA.

And not only how to "handle" of "human-rights lawyers as well as some public-interest and criminal-defense lawyers" in China.

And there is no dilemma.

I wrote this very month as to how the New York State Bar Association is treating attorneys suspended or disbarred for criticism of the government.

I tried to join NYSBA to attend a CLE (continued legal education) course, free for members.

NYSBA specifically advised me that it is their "policy" to consider ANY suspended or disbarred attorney - no matter for what reason - not an "attorney in good standing", and because of their "internal policy" (no government act prohibits them from accepting a suspended attorney, and I am still an attorney for purposes of CLE obligations) they would not admit/associate with a suspended attorney.  

Including an attorney suspended for criticizing corruption and misconduct in the government, like I am.

For NYSBA, an attorney suspended by the government for any reason - including for criticizing that same government - is not an attorney in good standing "by definition".

So, there is no "dilemma".

There is a policy, in the ABA and the local state bar associations of non-support of "human-rights lawyers as well as some public-interest and criminal-defense lawyers" who are suffering and have suffered political repressions from the state and U.S. government in retaliation for criticizing the state and U.S. government.

Because, if ABA and local state bar associations start to side and support these rubble-rousers, they will lose their privileged status in the government of all branches and all levels, as well as in the private practice of the legal establishment - and that is bad for business.

So, it is also a business policy.

=

Of course, that business policy is being cloaked in lofty reasons - as to China, at least.

According to a human rights expert, director of Amnesty International,

"The episode underscores the difficult decision facing the ABA between continuing to work to advance the rule of law in China and criticizing the repression of civil rights under Mr. Xi, said Nicholas Bequelin, East Asia director for Amnesty International.

'For a long time, ABA could argue that their presence in China was worth the cost of muting their criticism of issues in China’s legal system,” Mr. Bequelin said. “I wonder, and I think many legal analysts wonder, whether that point has passed.'"

So, the pretense dilemma (which was not expressed by the ABA, by the way - ABA only claimed that the book will not sell well, and not in the initial reasons for rescinding of the book offer, there were no reasons given when the offer was rescinded) is:

• should ABA abstain from criticizing the devil for hurting people
• in order to try to teach the devil adhere to the rule of law

As I said above, that "dilemma" is non-existent in the U.S., as to "their own" attorneys similarly deprived of human rights on the U.S. soil.

They simply do not see them and do not associate with them.

To the "proper" ABA and the "proper" NYSBA and the "proper" other state bar associations ANY suspended or disbarred attorney, even if the suspension or disbarment by the government was for criticizing governmental misconduct, is "by definition" not an attorney "in good standing".

They will NOT associate with such attorney.

They will NOT offer their support to him in the press, by book offers or otherwise.

They will stay squeaky-clean of any shadow of accusation that they even might support a critic of the government of the United States or of the states.

And that is not because they are deciding how to "work with the devil" better to persuade the devil to change his ways, reform and adhere to the rule of law.

It is, as I said before, a strictly business decision and policy.

What is the most interesting, though, in this story that the U.S. Congress suddenly stirred some interest - undoubtedly because of the international resonance of the story - and even called ABA and the belligerrent Chinese attorney to a hearing next month.

I am going to write to that particular Committee and ask permission to testify at that hearing, and will urge attorneys in the U.S. similarly sanctioned by our own government here, to seek permission to testify that ABA's behavior is part of its business policy of non-support of civil rights defenders - within or without the U.S. borders, if it is bad for business of its members connected with the government and deriving financial benefits from the connection.

There are a lot of us, attorneys sanctioned for criticizing governmental misconduct in the United States.

We are uniting.

And it is time to act.

Thank you, the MaryGSykes blog, for alerting me to the news about the controversy.

I will post my written testimony forwarded to the U.S. Congress for the next month's hearing, with a request to allow my oral testimony on the subject of political repressions against human rights attorneys in the U.S. and the cowardly position of the ABA and state bar associations on this subject.

Stay tuned.

Keep your head low, don't whistle-blow - or feel the Burn

As I promised earlier, I am publishing some documents from a civil rights case filed by 4 female corrections officers from Ulster County in 2009.

The officers alleged sexual harassment and whistle-blower retaliation called "the burn" when no matter what the "guilty" officer does, she cannot escape petty picking that inevitably results in discipline.

See the full text of the lawsuit here.

In 2013, Northern District of New York rejected some of the claims, but allowed several claims to proceed to trial.

Three officers prevailed at the jury trial as to hostile work environment claims and were given a verdict in their favor, and the pregnancy discrimination claim of the fourth officer (refusing to give her lighter duties and making her work, with a high-risk pregnancy, with inmates and having to break up inmate fights) was rejected by the lower district court, see the jury verdict sheet here.

Recently, the federal appellate court reversed the dismissal of the pregnancy discrimination claim and sent it back to the district court for trial.

I encourage my readers to read the text of the initial lawsuit.

The callousness.

The cruelty.

The vulgarity.

Putting a "urinal tablet" on the "heating coil" in order to make a woman with a long-awaited high-risk pregnancy feel sicker than she was.

Those are all public officials.

They have their own wives, daughters, mothers and sisters.

I am sure most of them are church-going men claiming they are God-fearing and pious.

How could they?

Obviously, they could.

And you know why?

Because they thought they are untouchable.

And they are.

Because, out of all claims that these women brought, only "hostile environment" survived.

Not the 1st Amendment retaliation.

Not the sexual harassment.

Only the amorphous "hostile employment environment".

Don't look that the jury rejected some claims.  That happened because of how instructions as to the law were given, how the previous motions were decided.

We don't know the gender composition of that jury either.

As it is now, as a result of this lawsuit, sexual harassment in Ulster County jail and in other jails across the State of New York, against female CORRECTIONS OFFICERS may continue.

If female corrections officers are not safe from sexual harassment by their male colleagues and supervisors, inmates are simply doomed.

And the same can be said about the fate of whistle-blowers, especially female whistle-blowers.

A great message was sent by how courts decided this lawsuit as to the whistle-blower retaliation claims, to all whistle-blowers in New York, and especially to female whistle-blowers. 

Keep your head low, don't whistle-blow.

Or feel the burn.

Delaware County: pet projects, pass-through grants, robbing children in foster care and compensation of foster parents

When a child is removed to foster care in the State of New York, there are several sources of support for the child:

1) compensation paid for the child's board and care directly to foster parent;

2) support obtained from parents, if they are alive, reachable by support petition and have ability to pay;

3) the child's SSI payments through Social Security, if available.

I had some individuals come to me in Delaware County, NY  when I was practicing last year and tell me that Delaware County Social Services is misusing foster children's SSI payments that must be used only for the children's care.

The allegation was that the Delaware County puts such monies in the general fund and uses it for its own needs, not for the child's, while at the same time suing parents for support.

I was also told that the Social Security administration was notified and was conducting an investigation.

I am not aware how that alleged investigation turned out, but misuse of federal funds by the County is a concern, especially in view of the fact that the County funnels millions of dollars, including state and federal aid into its pet satellite business - Delaware Opportunities Inc. (and the two affiliate corporations, see audit report posted by Delaware Opportunities, Inc.), while prosecuting two women from Deposit for being down on their luck and applying for food stamps.

By the way, Delaware Opportunities Inc. had a grant "passed through" from the Town of Deposit for "community development" - for $14,657 in 2014.  

A "pass through" grant, by the way, is a grant for which the non-profit corporation employing 279 people in 2014, Delaware Opportunities, Inc., must APPLY to the pass-through authority.

Here, Delaware Opportunities, Inc., had to apply to the Town of Deposit to give Delaware Opportunities, Inc. a grant of $14,657 for "community development" benefiting the Town of Deposit residents.

Therefore, the Town of Deposit residents, including Tammy Stanton and MacKenzie Stanton, are entitled to know (1) why the grant funds were given to this non-profit and not to needy residents directly; and (2) how Delaware Opportunities, Inc. is benefiting "community development" of the Town of Deposit - other than, possibly, receiving some kick-backs to the Town council people, of course.

By the way, I asked in the FOIL request with Delaware County for the list of employees of Delaware Opportunities, Inc. working on county-funded projects - we will see if those lists will be released, and if they are, how many relatives of the local county and town government officials are working in that non-profit.

And, I also filed another FOIL request today verifying whether the Delaware County District Attorney's office has a contract with Delaware County Department of Social Services, similar to what Otsego County DA's office has with Otsego County DSS, for additional compensation in exchange for prosecution of DSS-targeted criminal cases.

What kind of community development a non-profit corporation handled FOR the Town of Deposit that is located within 40 minutes' drive away over the mountains that could not be given directly to the Deposit residents, so that Tammy Stanton and McKenzie Stanton would not have to apply for food stamps, I am exploring through separate FOIL and FOIA requests.

As to Delaware County and foster parents, I sought information about county-set rates of compensation for foster parents.

Since the former DSS Commissioner Moon announced in the press a couple of years ago that at any given moment there are more than 100 children in foster care in Delaware County, county-set rates of compensation of foster parents are a financial concern for taxpayers.

I will report the response to the FOIL requests in this blog.

Stay tuned.