The table of convictions of high-ranking New York government officials from 2009 to 2016 - why no prosecutors or judges are in it?

On May 12, 2016, two days ago, The New York Times published the table of New York's 12 high-standing public officials criminally convicted for corruption and sentenced in the years of 2009 to 2016.

I wonder why New York Times inadvertenly omitted two recent convictions, 

1. of New York Senator and former Chairman of Committee for the Judiciary (approving judges to the New York State top court, the Court of Appeals) John Sampson convicted in July of 2015 and who is not yet sentenced, but is facing up to 20 years behind bars; and 

2.  New York Senator Thomas Libous who was convicted in 2015 and sentenced to a 60-month "house arrest" and $50,000 fine - because he had cancer, which does not usually prevent "defendants from the street", not state Senators, from going to prison.  

I, as a defense attorney, personally handled cases in New York criminal courts where I had to argue that a diabetic, a person on kidney dialysis (for years), a person who just underwent a quadruple bypass, a person who is legally blind - those people are better left outside than sent to prison, sometimes successfully, many times unsuccessfully.  

Judges often claimed that there is medical care in prison, so there is no reason not to sent there people with disabilities, even disabilities requiring ICU-type care.

In a case I did not represent, but where a lawsuit against the judge was filed by a pro se defendant, the criminal defendant claimed that the now-former Judge Carl F. Becker told him (and I checked the court records, the account was correct) that he allegedly invented his back pain to undergo SURGERY in order to forego sentencing, and that they have good medical care for him in prison, so he should be sanctioned for not appearing at sentencing because he was undergoing a back surgery.

That was the case of Nicholas Mitchell v Carl Becker, filed a couple of years ago in Delaware County Supreme Court, New York.

So, courts are lenient to disabled individuals with medical problems only when such disabled individuals are former Senators.

Libous was convicted for lying to the FBI about using his influence to get his son a job in an influential law firm in Westchester County.

Former Senator Dean Skelos was sentenced for 5 years, as well as his son was sentenced for 6.5 years for the same thing - for using Dean Skelos' influence as a Senator to get his job a sinecure job.

Thomas Libous recently died, and his published obituary in the local press in Binghamton, NY, was named "A Towering Legacy".

Towering, indeed.

To die while being under a house arrest as a convicted felon.

But - you know what is conspicuously absent in the list of these convictions?

Prosecutors and judges.

Does Preet Bharara avoid prosecuting judges because they regulate his own law license, and does he avoid prosecuting corrupt prosecutors because the majority of judges regulating Bharara's law license are former prosecutors?

In a state where corruption in courts runs rampant, and wrongful convictions are a problem for decades, to prosecute only legislative and city officials for actions not concerning court corruption appears just - too cautious to me for the allegedly independent prosecutor Preet Bharara.

Don't you think?

What is a criminal act for a judge in Tennessee, is a suspendable offense for attorney to report about a judge in New York and Louisiana. The case of #JudgeAmandaSammons.

A judge may not be a prosecutor - that much is supposed to be clear.

A judge is supposed to be neutral, and should not act as an advocate.

That much is also supposed to be clear.

It is not clear in, let's say, attorney disciplinary proceedings where prosecutors are claiming to be part of the adjudicating court (that also legislates the rules), but in child protective and especially criminal proceedings, that much is supposed to be clear.

Well, it was not so clear in Tennessee where the Campbell County General Sessions Court Judge Amanda Sammons, this kind-eyed amiable-looking woman here:

reportedly "ordered Campbell County Sheriff's Office jailers to elevate a child neglect charge filed against Krista Leigh Smith for failing to buckle up her children to aggravated child abuse, the toughest abuse law on the books".

In other words, Judge Sammons acted as part of prosecutor's team on the case.

Of course, Judge Sammons denied she ever did anything like that.

Yet, why would the Campbell County Sheriff's Office (I would give them credit on that for not bending to the judge's will) have to hire an attorney - "sought legal representation from attorney Charles C. Burks Jr. who told the News Sentinel the jailers intended to testify Sammons was lying"?

So, reportedly, "LaFollette mother Smith, 26, sat in jail two days in January, first under no bond, then under a $250,000 bond — unaware of any change to the charge she faced or why her bail was so high"

And, "Sammons then altered a record of the increase in Smith's charge by marking through it with a pen, jail records showed".

This is what Judge Phyllis Keaty likely did recently in Louisiana - altered court records - and had an attorney who brought a motion to recuse addressing that issue (where tampering with audio tapes was confirmed through testimony of technical experts and the person who did the altering), Christine Mire, suspended for making that motion to recuse.

In New York, I reported criminal forgery of public documents by, first, the now-former and then-illegitimate Delaware County Judge Becker - who sanctioned me for raising the issue of his illegitimacy and forgery of certificate of elections when I pointed out the lack of such a document on file, and then by the disciplinary referee and disciplinary prosecutor in the New York State Appellate Division 4th Department - and was suspended for two years my efforts.

So, in Tennessee, when a judge alters court documents, it becomes the subject of a criminal investigation - while in Louisiana and New York reporting of such a crime becomes the subject of a disciplinary investigation and prosecution against the whistle-blower.

Judge Sammons reportedly elevated the charges from the initial E Felony (carrying the maximum sentence in Tennessee of 2 years) to a B Felony (Haley's law) designed for "child torturers", with a maximum LIFE SENTENCE.

Baby Haley, the victim of a crime of aggravated child abuse in whose name the law was named, "was burned with cigarettes, beaten with a coat hanger on her ears, had acid put in her eyes".

Mother Smith allegedly did not buckle up her child, an act of negligence, not intentional torture - and Judge Sammons, not being a prosecutor in the case, charged her with Baby Haley's law.

Not to mention that Judge Sammons refused to recuse from the case, even when her role in altering the charge and acting as a prosecutor in the case became known.

Moreover, as is uncovered in the same probe, Judge Sammons recently ordered the court clerk to charge citizens a "drug-testing fee", without the required approval of the State Legislature.

Moreover, when Judge Sammons was informed that the clerk refused to assess such a drug-testing fee, because it was illegal, Judge Sammons did not back down, but instead, in March of 2016 issued an order requiring that such a fee be assessed, law or no law.

It is the same exercise of "raw power", law or no law, by the judge ("because I said it, Counsel") as I recently discussed regarding the case of Judge Manuel Real - and that particular behavior was most sharply criticized by the 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski in his blistering dissent in Judge Real's disciplinary case, where Judge Real was only reprimanded, but allowed to remain on the bench.

As to Judge Sammons of Tennessee, her shenanigans as an advocate in child abuse proceedings were not restricted to defendant Smith's case.

In January of this year, another judge reportedly had to overrule Judge Sammons, returning two children, ages 15 and 3, back to their parents, after Judge Sammons removed the children from home without a hearing or legal grounds.

Also, Sammons, a former prosecutor, reportedly refused to dismiss charges against an innocent woman unless the indigent criminal defendant would pay $50.00 assessed by the judge for the help of the supposedly free (as required by the U.S. Constitution) public defender.

Judge Sammons did the same thing in yet another case, to another poor criminal defendant, ordering him to pay $200.00 for unused services of public defender after criminal charges were dropped against him by the prosecution, as a condition of issuing an order of dismissal, and was later overruled by another judge, stating that the poor do not have to pay legal fees for unused legal services, and especially where such services were supposed, under the U.S. Constitution, to be provided for free in the first place.

Apparently, Judge Sammons required that a criminal defendant who the prosecution no longer wanted to prosecute, pay for an order of dismissal, $200.00.

Same as in the buckling-as-torture case, court records were reportedly altered to show that the fee charged for the order of dismissal is not the fee that was actually charged (and not authorized by law).

Judge Sammons also reportedly refused to issue expungements of criminal record after dismissals of cases, and ordered late-comers to the court to be arrested for contempt of court for not coming at all.

So, this kind-eyed woman thinks that she is not only a judge, but also a prosecutor, and a legislator - she is the omnipotent government, the local Queen - literally, without any constraints on her power.

Let's see if any constraints will come, or whether the "special" prosecutor will let Judge Sammons go without criminal charges.

And - here is the election campaign website of Judge Amanda Sammons.

A judge calls herself in her own election campaign "a blue-eyed assassin".  Implicating that (1) she is merciless as a prosecutor and (2) her personal appearance.

Stressing that she is "blue-eyed" is, by the way, stressing that she is also white - in a Southern state, I guess, that means a lot for a judicial candidate.

It is as racist plea as one can imagine - elect me, I am a white girl!

Here is what she said next on her campaign website in 2014:

This is Judge Sammons' motto, loud and clear:

"if elected county judge, Mandy's goal is to make the entire criminal justice system in Campbell County, at sessions and juvenile levels much more efficient and more respectful of the VICTIMS - NOT the criminals".

Wait a minute - mustn't a judge pledge be to be neutral and impartial and to uphold the laws and the Constitution of the State and of the United States?

And, isn't it true that there are no "victims" and "criminals" until the conviction - which is at the end of SOME, but not ALL criminal proceedings?

If "Mandy" had such a mentality - that all criminal defendants she prosecuted were "criminals" before they were convicted - that is only a basis for those criminal defendants to file motions to vacate their convictions because they were deprived of their due process right to an impartial prosecutor, on the basis of "Mandy"'s statements in her judicial election campaign.

Of course, after branding complainants in a criminal case as "victims" and defendants as "criminals", "Mandy" immediately attempts - unconvincingly - to pay lip service to her alleged adherence to the Constitution:  

" As a prosecutor Mandy has always strived to remember that she serves the People, not herself, and that she is sworn to uphold the Constitution, not the whims of persons pulling political strings."

And that would include her own whims.

The "rebirth" "blue-eyed assassin" campaign ad was paid-for by the - blue-eyed assassin, that is, of people's rights:

Quite a "rebirth" "Mandy" brought into the court system.

I will continue to cover this story, as the special prosecutor announced the case is "85% ready", and the decision whether "Mandy" will be criminally prosecuted will be made within 2 months.

Remember, "Mandy" was a prosecutor herself for 10 years before coming to the bench.

Will Tennessee criminally prosecute a former prosecutor and a current judge for repeat alteration of court records and abuse of office?

Stay tuned.

In Omaha, Nebraska, pillow-talk case-fixing between Chief Judge Marcela Keim and the local City Prosecutor Matt Kuhse is going to be business as usual

I wrote yesterday about a case where a federal judge refused to recuse from a criminal case where the defendant claimed he used heroin for 14 months with the judge's brother in the presence of the judge's minor nephew, and where the defendant was supposed to testify in an unrelated criminal trial involving the judge's nephew.

The judge simply claimed that he is "estranged" from  his brother, did not see the nephew for a long time - and for that reason he is not biased.  While the judge, of course, kept the defendant in question in pre-trial detention after the defendant asked the judge to recuse himself, lifted the stay he initially imposed on the proceedings while a writ of mandamus to remove him involuntarily was pending in the appellate court, when the defendant asked for as much as a bond hearing (to get out of the pre-trial detention) - and the judge, in the absence of a prohibition from the appellate court, scheduled a trial date, forcing the defendant to file a motion to speed up the prohibition.

The judge, John Adams, was  involuntarily removed from the case by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit on May 9, 2016.

What does that story have to do with what is happening in Omaha, Nebraska?

Well...

Let's see.

The mayor of Omaha, Nebraska, "chose" to appoint a City Prosecutor - a man whose office is supposed to bring criminal cases in front of the local County Judge.

The trick is that the chosen City Prosecutor is "coincidentally" the husband of the County Judge in question, which presents a conundrum - either the judge should recuse and all local criminal cases should be referred to another judge, or a special prosecutor must be appointed for all local criminal cases.  In both situations, there will be additional (huge, and unnecessary) expenses for taxpayers.

So, what were the reasons Mayor Jean Stothert and City Attorney Paul Kratz who "selected" attorney Matt Kuhse to be the City Prosecutor prosecuting cases in front of Matt Kuhse's wife, Douglas County Judge Marcela Keim (a different last name, you see) despite the obvious, and irreconcilable, conflict of interest?

And why would the husband Matt Kuhse accept a position for his office to prosecute cases before his own wife/judge Marcela Keim?  Which will obviously involve at least an appearance and a possibility of a peculiar type of ex parte communications in every case his office will handle in front of the judge - pillow-talk?

And, by the way, Judge Keim is reportedly one of 12 Douglas County judges - and, "coincidentally", the presiding judge of the 4th Judicial District of Nebraska?

Of course, where Matt Kuhse works now is also a conflict of interest with his wife's job - he works for the Douglas County Attorney's Office, while his wife is the Chief Judge of the 4th Judicial District overseeing the Douglas County Court - so, at least theoretically, Douglas County may not be prosecuted for any crimes because of the relationship.

And, the Douglas County attorney Don Kleine already reportedly noted that "Kuhse oversees other lawyers in the County Attorney’s Office, and there are no restrictions on those lawyers appearing in Keim’s courtroom", and that

“[t]hey’re both extremely, highly ethical people who I know will do nothing to jeopardize anyone’s fairness on any side.”

By the way, Matt Kuhse worked in this capacity, as a Douglas County prosecutor, since 1999:

And Keim is on the bench since 2011:

Keim is the presiding judge of the 4th Judicial District, not just the County Court, since 2016, and, "coincidentally", in the same year Keim is elevated to the position of Chief Judge of the 4th Judicial District, her husband is being promoted to the position of City Prosecutor where his salary nearly TRIPLES, see the current salary of the City's "interim prosecutor" Thomas Mumgaard:

And, of course, such a promotion of the Chief Judge's husband has nothing to do with the wife's position as a Chief Judge.

Because everyone involved in making the appointment, accepting the appointment and then presiding over and "supervising" cases handled by the husband and wife team, are all very highly ethical people.

One highly ethically person oversees attorneys under his supervision who appear in cases presided over by the other highly ethically person, his wife-judge - which is ALREADY a basis to REMOVE the judge, FIRE the husband and VACATE all cases so decided, for violation of due process and APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY reasons.

By the way, what Kuhse already supervised as an attorney in Douglas County was FELONY cases prosecuted in front of his wife - so both Kuhse and Keim should be already impeached and disbarred for that, and convictions so drummed up reversed.

Relationship through 1st degree affinity (marriage) between a prosecutor and a judge is a complete disqualification and a taboo, whether the actual prosecutor appears in the courtroom himself, or supervises the case remotely.

Talking about wrongful convictions!

The wife, of course, same as Judge John Adams in Ohio federal court, does not recuse - because her husband is "removed" from the case by "only" supervising those attorney who appear in front of his wife/judge, and not personally appearing in front of her.

And, in view of sanctions that the judge can impose upon attorneys for opponents who obviously can lose their livelihoods if they move to recuse (I was suspended in New York in November of 2015 for making motions to recuse a judge, attorney Christine Mire was suspended for making motions to recuse in Louisiana in 2016, the list of such attorneys is actually very long), attorneys for opponents prefer to sell out their clients not to jeopardize their own livelihoods.

And, since these appearances of husband-supervised attorneys in front of wife-judge continued, as I understand, for quite some time, the local governmental officials decided to secure their position even more, protecting themselves from possible prosecution, and to promote one of their own, a supervising attorney from the Douglas County Attorney's office, to the position of the City Prosecutor, a person who has an absolute discretion to bring or not to bring criminal prosecutions in the City.

And, the people involved in such an appointment, which clearly qualifies as a "criminal enterprise" under RICO, claim that there is no conflict of interest still, because the husband and the wife are both "highly ethical people", and "they would never".

So, the wife, as a Chief Judge, will supervise appointments of judges to criminal cases, or preside over such cases herself.

The husband will (1) decide which criminal cases to bring or not to bring - obviously sparing the local officials who were his prior bosses or colleagues - and (2) will supervise attorneys in his City Prosecutor's office to appear before either his wife as a judge, or in front of judges assigned to cases by his wife.

Beautiful.

And now, every single criminal defense attorney in the City of Omaha, Nebraska will be facing a dilemma whether to make a motion to recuse the entire court and disqualify the prosecutor, or sell the attorney's client and allow the appearance of case-fixing, to preserve the attorney's livelihood.

Lovely.

All of those highly ethical people in Omaha, Nebraska.

And - the attorney disciplinary committee in the State of Nebraska, reportedly supported the appointment of husband to supervise criminal cases in front of wife:

"[Nebraska counsel for discipline Mark Weber] said in an interview that this type of situation has come up in other states, and courts have 'resoundingly' said that a judge’s spouse can’t practice in that courtroom but that colleagues of the spouse can.


'We give people, especially our sworn judges and our attorneys, the benefit that they’ll be objective and remain objective,' Weber said."

Well, here the Nebraska "counsel for discipline" stretched the truth a little bit - Matt Kuhse is not a "colleague" of attorneys who are appearing and will appear in front of Judge Marcela Keim.  

Matt Kuhse is their BOSS, who has an obligation to DIRECT them, and where all prosecutions are done in his name, under his authority and with his signature.

The Nebraska disciplinary counsel and the state courts apparently "resoundingly" overlook this inconvenient detail.


As the situation stands now, we and, most importantly, defense attorneys defending cases against the City Prosecutor/husband sending attorneys he supervises to prosecute cases in front of his own wife, can be assured that, should a motion to recuse be brought in such a situation, the disciplinary committee will go after the defense attorneys and not after the prosecutor and the judge.

And, if you remember, attorney licensing and attorney discipline exists because it is declared by the government attorney licensing protects consumers of legal services.

THIS is how consumers of legal services in Nebraska are "protected".

In my view - as an expert in criminal defense - all criminal convictions already obtained under Matt Kuhse's supervision, and all criminal convictions that are going to be obtained under his supervision in  his capacity as a City Prosecutor, will be void because of the relationship.

The taxpayers of the State of Nebraska, as well as criminal defendants are interested in finality and fairness of the criminal convictions in their state.

Surely there are enough attorneys in the City of Omaha, Nebraska, to fill the position of the City Prosecutor other than the husband of the Douglas County's Chief Judge.

And, it doesn't help that Judge Keim has been an Assistant City Prosecutor in the same office where her husband was now appointed, from 2004 to 2011, when she came to the bench.

Here is the husband Matt Kuhse who obviously uses his familial connection to a high-ranking judge to get a promotion and salary increase:

Not to mention that Judge Keim will FINANCIALLY BENEFIT from that particular salary increase, and is FINANCIALLY INTERESTED in her husband getting that position and keeping that position, so Judge Keim has a financial interest in drumming up convictions for her husband's office.

Judge Keim already had financial interest in the outcome of every criminal conviction prosecuted by her husband's office, from 2011, when she came to the bench, to date, for 5 years so far.

In the city where gang violence and racial tension are still very much a problem, citizens must be assured that people locked up are the criminals, and not innocents framed by a case-fixing husband-and-wife team of Matt Kuhse (in his capacity as the Douglas County assistant attorney - and now City Prosecutor) and Marcela Keim (presiding judge or Chief Judge of the entire 4th Judicial District).

I request my readers from Nebraska to watch the conviction rate in the City of Omaha and whether it is higher than in the neighboring cities and/or counties since 2011, the enthronement of the wife of a local prosecutor to the bench.

I will report how this disgusting and shameless story about misconduct of the "highly ethical people" unfolds.

Stay tuned.

A conceptually new challenge against occupational licensing and discipline by organized bars was launched in Florida

Occupational licensing, as was recognized by President Obama, is stifling the U.S. economy, where over 1/3 of work force in the United States is licensed or certified, thus blocking entries into those professional markets and preventing labor mobility and provision of competitive services.

Attorney regulation is part of occupational licensing.

I have posted many articles on this blog showing that attorney licensing does not protect consumers, does not guarantee good levels of education, training or integrity of members of the bar, monopolists in court representation, and does not ensure protection of people's constitutional rights.

In fact, dependence of court representatives upon the government that those court representatives may have to challenge to protect their clients' constitutional rights, guarantees the opposite, that attorneys will sell out, with few exceptions, their clients' interests in the name of self-preservation.

Therefore, I view any efforts to undo the monopoly of the entrenched legal profession from its monopolistic position that hurts the economy and hurts people's access to justice in this country, is a good thing.

I was recently alerted to a conceptually new challenge on attorney regulation, made in Florida.

Florida, as the majority of jurisdictions in the United States has what is called an "organized bar".

That means that the local state bar association, a labor organization, usually a non-profit, comprised to protect interests of its members, is also "vested" by the state government with state power to regulate occupational licensing among its members.

Well, that is exactly what was the basis of the challenge.

In a motion filed on May 12, 2016, an attorney in Florida asserted that Florida Bar is a Labor Organization under a federal statute, National Labor Relations Act (NRLA), 29 U.S.C. 152(5).

The argument then goes that the Florida bar does deal with employers regarding conditions of work of its members - thus discharging its functions as a labor organization under 29 U.S.C. 152(5).

If the Florida Bar is a labor organization under NRLA, the argument then goes, the NRLA prohibits labor organizations to "threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, whether in either case an object thereof is forcing or requiring any person to cease doing business with any other person".

But, the argument goes, suspension or revocation of a law license is specifically "forcing or requiring any person to cease doing business (law business - T.N.) with any other person".

The lawyer next raises the issue of federal pre-emption of inconsistent state law:

Since, as the lawyer argues, National Labor Relations Act pre-empts inconsistent state law, specifically, regulation of attorneys by a labor organization, Florida State Bar, when Florida State Bar attempts to disbar the attorney, it violates NLRA:

And, since there is a pre-emption of actions of the Florida Bar through NRLA, the disciplinary court has no subject matter jurisdiction over attorney disciplinary proceedings, and the case should be dismissed.

The challenge, which appears to be logical and sound, presents a complete bar to jurisdictions of state courts in attorney disciplinary proceedings, and in all other proceedings regarding revocation of occupational licenses where the petitioner is the labor organization that is allowed by the state to act as the regulator of that particular market.

Thus, nearly at the same time, in two states, Tennessee and Florida, there emerged two new ways to attack validity of occupational licensing - 

• through a State Constitution prohibiting monopolies without exceptions, which precludes a state legislature from enacting laws legalizing such monopolies, even if the states are allowed to do so by federal law (Tennessee, the Tennessee State Constitution, Article I Section 22) and through 

• the federal National Labor Relations Act, and a federal pre-emption doctrine in the 32 states with "organized bars" (bar associations allowed to act as regulators of its own profession):

1. Alabama, 
2. Alaska, 
3. Arizona, 
4. California, 
5. Florida, 
6. Georgia, 
7. Hawaii, 
8. Idaho, 
9. Kentucky, 
10. Louisiana, 
11. Maine, 
12. Michigan, 
13. Mississippi, 
14. Missouri, 
15. Montana, 
16. Nebraska, 
17. Nevada, 
18. New Hampshire, 
19. New Mexico, 
20. North Dakota, 
21. Oklahoma, 
22. Oregon, 
23. Rhode Island, 
24. South Carolina, 
25. South Dakota, 
26. Texas, 
27. Utah, 
28. Virginia, 
29. Washington State, 
30. West Virginia, 
31. Wisconsin, and 
32. Wyoming.

Since jurisdictions that do not have organized bars, usually have reciprocity agreements with jurisdictions that do have organized bars, the innovative challenge currently brought in Florida may affect all attorneys practicing law in the United States.

I will follow the progress of both the Tennessee lawsuit and the motion to dismiss in Florida and will report about it on this blog.

Stay tuned.

A solution of how to undo the Gordian knot of occupational licensing has been offered in Tennessee

A major breakthrough in civil rights and, believe it or not, in rendering boost and help to the U.S. sagging economy, as well as in attorney regulation, may have come from Tennessee.  

In Tennessee, an unusual lawsuit regarding monopoly in occupational licensing was filed several days ago.

The issue in the lawsuit is state monopoly in occupational licensing on the right to shampoo people's hair for pay.

The State of Tennessee requires a license and 300 hours of training in "theory and practice of shampooing" in a government-approved school.

Naturally, people who add to their income through shampooing other people's hair, do not have money to undergo this rigorous "training".

Of course, a child can shampoo her own, and her siblings' hair quite expertly without any license or training.

But, here the quirk is, and that is what the lawsuit alleges - that the Tennessee State Constitution, Article I Section 22, prohibits existence of monopolies, and protects its citizens from monopolies.

If that is true, occupational licensing, including attorney licensing, is unconstitutional in Tennessee under the State Constitution - which every judge is sworn to uphold.

Yet, every judge in the State of Tennessee is a licensed attorney and PART, the judiciary is the REGULATOR of the monopoly, and thus the PROMOTER of the monopoly, which, under the Tennessee Constitution, is a violation of Tennessee judges' constitutional oaths of office.

Since occupational licensing is stifling this country's economy by stifling mobility of this country's work force upwards (from low income to higher income) and across state borders (where state and even municipality-restricted licensing raise prices and prevent competition), and even President Obama recognized it recently in a report issued in the summer of 2015, the Tennessee "shampooing lawsuit" may prove as a major breakthrough.

But, don't expect help from the feds in this situation.

The recent decision in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v FTC stripping disciplinary boards consisting of market players of antitrust immunity, proved so far to be a toothless tiger and gave states a hint how to perpetuate the monopoly in occupational licensing that is stifling the U.S. economy (over 1/3 of the U.S. labor market is licensed, according to North Carolina Dental and the Obama Report of 2015).

Immediately after the North Carolina Board came out, there were articles hopeful that the North Carolina Board will actually help the situation and strip the bar of the monopoly in court representation.

I was part of those who held those hopes, and I still do think that the North Carolina Board case can be used to undermine the bar monopoly somewhat - but not completely, because, even if they were stripped of antitrust immunity, they will be asserting other immunities, sovereign immunity, quasi-judicial and prosecutorial immunities, and still win, despite engaging in anti-competitive activities.

The North Carolina Board is actually a dangerous precedent for freeing the U.S. labor market from the stifling grip of occupational licensing, as it created an alternative for the states as to how to comply with federal antitrust laws:

either 

1) active state supervision by a neutral body over market players overpowering the disciplinary boards - and thus acting in their anti-competitive interests rather than the interests of the consumers;

or

2) create statutes on state level that legitimize the monopoly as it is.

No state supervision was provided so far in any states for occupational licensing, but state legislatures are getting together to invent means of legalizing the monopolies.

For example, I was recently alerted by a reader to a presentation created by the National Conference of State Legislatures, discussing North Carolina Board in detail, and what the legislatures "can do about it".

The Tennessee lawsuit points out at the way of making the loophole of North Carolina Board unavailable to states who enhance their citizen's protection through a state referendum amending their state Constitutions - if protection from monopolies are not yet in those state Constitutions, as it obviously is in the Tennessee Constitution, Article I, Section 22.

So, for the entire time that the Tennessee state government regulated professions - as well as the legal profession, as a monopolist, it did it in violation of State Constitution.

Meaning that all state regulations and criminal statutes for unauthorized practice of - from shampooing to braiding to law - are unconstitutional under the State Constitution.

People and attorneys of the State of Tennessee, rejoice, you have a protection against the grip of occupational licensing in your own State Constitution, and whatever the court says, it cannot change that Constitution.

As to people whose State Constitutions do not have a prohibition on monopolies yet - that's the work in progress, we need to hold state referendums and amend state Constitutions to include such a prohibition.

If monopolies - any monopolies, including state-established monopolies - are all extinguished, the country's economy will benefit, we all will benefit.