Experiences of #JudgeGonzaloCuriel, Part II - is #JudgeGonzaloCuriel fixing the case of the Trump University behind the doors of the American Inns of Court, over dinner with wine with Trump's opposing counsel?

I am continuing to report on my research regarding the "experiences" of federal judge Gonzalo Curiel, who was nearly sainted by the mass media after Donald Trump dared to raise the issue of his bias because of his background.

I was especially interested in reporting on "experiences" of the Latino judge Gonzalo Curiel since recently the "wise Latina woman" Justice Sonya Sotomayor publicly announced that judicial out-of-court "experiences" somehow matter to judicial decisions.

So, I continue describing "experiences" of Judge Gonzalo Curiel which may affect his judicial decision-making - at least, those "experiences" description of which I can obtain from open sources, and reasonable inferences I can make from those "experiences".

Any person in the U.S. is guaranteed a 1st Amendment right to criticize our government - and any member of it, in the executive, legislative or judicial branch, at the federal, state and local levels.

It is an open secret nowadays that judges retaliate severely against critics against them, and especially against those who dare to investigate their personal backgrounds to verify the bases of potential bias and raise those issues publicly.

So, when the media talking heads and, especially, privileged members of the government, jumped on the bandwagon trying to protect federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel from criticism - fair or unfair - by the presidential candidate Donald Trump, my instincts told me to do my own background check, to begin with, as much as is available from public sources on the Internet - and much is available.

Whenever the official mainstream media (heavily financed by corporate businesses and depending on advertisements), claims that a certain public figure is untouchable by criticism - it should only enhance people's desire to look at the background of that public official.

So, I did start to put two and two together as to information available about Judge Gonzalo Curiel - and what I so far uncovered, shows that Donald Trump had more than enough basis to claim bias, appearance of bias and even appearance that Judge Curiel may be fixing his court case through ex parte communications.

This blog is about Judge Curiel's participation in a secret-membership organization American Inns of Court financed by attorneys and free for judges where Judge Curiel can meet with unknown attorneys appearing in his court behind closed doors and, over dinner with wine, agree how to fix court cases - I am not saying he is DOING it, I am saying that ex parte communications are prohibited because of its potential for case-fixing.

What I am revealing in this blog did not require me to use any resources other than time - which raises questions as to why the "talking heads" and media sources that collectively thumped on Trump and idolized Judge Curiel as the all-American hero, an impartial judge beyond reproach and a victim of a racist attack by a demented bully, did not do a proper investigation that showed that not only Curiel is not an angel with a halo, but, very likely, Judge Curiel has been engaged, for a long time, in corruption and fixing of court cases - and doing it now, too.

Judge Curiel is a member of a secret-membership club,  American Inns of Court, William B. Enright Chapter (called after Judge Curiel still-serving colleague on the bench judge William B. Enright) that can very well include Trump's opponent's lawyers - and it is unverifiable without an extra lawsuit.

Here is the link to that particular chapter of the American Inns of Court.

I encourage my readers to go the website of Judge Curiel's chapter of the American Inns of Court and then to go to the "members" page and to the "meetings" page.

You will be denied access to both the membership database or meetings schedule.

So, you will not be able to discern from the Inn's webpage whether Trump's opposing counsel is a member of the Inn, along with Judge Curiel, nor will you be able to discern whether or when Judge Curiel was meeting with attorneys-members of the Inn, with which attorneys in particular, and whether attorneys Judge Curiel met with were or are appearing in front of him in court.

You will also be denied access to the composition of the "teams" of the Inn.  Information about "teams" contains, necessarily, information about the judge as a "mentor" of the team and of attorneys who are part of the judge's "team".

The Inns' "teams" (the judge and attorneys) meet, according to available descriptions of the Inns' practices, at least once a month and end up or start with receptions with alcohol that attorneys pay for through their steep membership fees, and judges are attending for free.

By the way, Judge Curiel's court has a "gift policy" prohibiting soliciting or accepting gifts of any kind from people who may seek benefits from the judge's court:

But, when gifts are provided through a secret-membership, secret-meeting organization, that's, apparently, ok.

"Committees" of Judge Curiel's Inn are also secret.

Information about officers of the Inn is public.

President

Hon. Barbara L. Major
US District Court Southern District of California
p: (619) 557-7372
e: Send Mail

Secretary

Angela Mullins, Esq.
Office of the SD City Attorney
p: (619) 533-5883
e: Send Mail

Treasurer

Gregory A. Post, Esq.

p: (619) 557-4401
e: Send Mail

Program Chair

John J. Freni, Esq.
John J Freni A Professional Law Corporation
p: (619) 557-9128
e: Send Mail

Membership Chair

Susan Moriarty Hack, Esq.
Higgs Fletcher & Mack LLP
p: (619) 236-1551
e: Send Mail

Program Chair

Hon. Judith L. Haller
California Courts of Appeal 4th District Division 1
p: (619) 645-2751
e: Send Mail

Immediate Past President

Nancy L. Stagg, Esq.
Foley & Lardner
p: (858) 847-6700
e: Send Mail

Board Member

Hon. Kevin A. Enright
San Diego Superior Court
p: (619) 450-5000
e: Send Mail

Brian P. Funk, Esq.
Law Offices of Brian P Funk
p: (619) 233-4076
e: Send Mail

Charles R. Grebing, Esq.
Wingert Grebing Brubaker & Juskie LLP
p: (619) 232-8151
e: Send Mail

John D. Kirby, Esq.
John D Kirby Law
p: (619) 557-0100
e: Send Mail

John D. Kirby, Esq.
John D Kirby Law
p: (619) 557-0100
e: Send Mail

Craig R. McClellan, Esq.
The McClellan Law Firm
p: (619) 231-0505
e: Send Mail

Michelle Pettit, Esq.
US Attorneys Office
p: (619) 546-7972
e: Send Mail

Hon. Joan P. Weber
San Diego Superior Court
p: (619) 450-5051
e: Send Mail

Executive Director

Laura Vest

p: (858) 414-1113
e: Send Mail

Web Administrator

Laura Vest

Let's go through the 15 known officers of Judge Curiel's Inn of Court one by one.

1. Nancy L. Stagg, Esq, a partner at Foley & Lardner

Nancy Stagg is a white female, and a specialist in class actions, an attorney appearing in Judge Curiel's court and, moreover, an attorney hand-picked by Judge Curiel's court to select judges for that court.

  "Affiliations" listed on her own website are:

• co-chair for the Lawyer Representative Committee for the Southern District of California; 
• lawyer representative for the Southern District of California to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference; 
• master, director, and president of the William B. Enright Chapter, American Inns of Court; 
• director for the San Diego County Bar Foundation (member, Governance Sub-Committee); 
• member of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Merit Selection Panel (of judges);
• panel member for Appointment and Reappointment of Magistrate Judges; 
• member of the San Diego County Bar Association Leadership Outreach Council; 
• board of governors for the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, San Diego Chapter; and as a 
• member of the board of trustees for the California Western School of Law (1992 – 1993). She is a 
• fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, and 
• a founding charter member of the IP Institute.

As you understand, the potential of use of the behind-the-doors meetings with judges of Judge Curiel's court, including Judge Curiel himself, are staggering for attorney Nancy Stagg, a practicing attorney who nevertheless gets to pick and promote judges.

And, the whole idea that a practicing attorney appearing in front of a judge finances a judge's participation in her organization, including wining and dining at secret meetings behind closed doors - is a breeding pool for corruption.

Judge Curiel is presumably participating in those wining and dining activities, as a member of that secret club.

2.  Attorney John Kirby is a white male, and a criminal defense attorney specializing in "state and federal criminal law".

John D. Kirby describes himself on the website of his own law firm as a former federal prosecutor with 10+ years of prosecuting experience.

According to John D. Kirby's LinkedIn profile, John D. Kirby worked in the U.S. Attorney's office from June 1995 to June 2005, and "prosecuted individuals involved in major drug and money laundering conspiracies, including members of the Arellano-Felix drug trafficking cartel."

Arellano-Felix drug trafficking cartel is what Judge Curiel prosecuted when he was a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's office and who put a hit on the then-prosecutor Gonzalo Curiel requiring him to live on a naval base under government protection for a year.

John D. Kirby is, according to his LinkedIn profile, a former law clerk for Judge Curiel's colleague Judge William B. Enright, in whose honor the Inn of court is named.

John D. Kirby is admitted in Judge Curiel's court since 2008 and is thus appearing in front of the court with which attorney Kirby has multiple connections:

1. as a former brother-in-arms of Judge Curiel in his fight against the Arrellano-Felix cartel that nearly took Judge Curiel's life;
2. as a former law clerk of the much-honored Judge Curiel's still-sitting colleague judge William B. Enright (in 1990-1991);
3. as an officer of the secret-membership Inn of court that likely is providing regular wining and dining (if only) benefits to judges of Judge Curiel's court, likely including Judge Curiel himself.

In 2005, according to his LinkedIn profile, John D. Kirby left the U.S. Attorney's office and started his private practice, which includes criminal defense.

In 2-years' time, in 2007, Judge Curiel was appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger to the Superior Court in San Diego.  

In 2008 John D. Kirby is admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, the court where he previously worked as a law clerk to a still-sitting Judge William Enright.

In 3 years' time, in 2011, John D. Kirby's brother-in-arms Gonzalo Curiel makes his way to the same court as a judge.

At the same time, the "brothers-in-arms" are members of the same secret-membership organization that meets behind closed doors.

Only a blind person would not see a suspicious pattern here.

There is at least an APPEARANCE, from the information available in open access, that the "brothers-in-arms" have a business going on here - that Judge Curiel has been appointed first in state, and then in federal court to help out his brother-in-arms John Kirby, and is now doing it behind the closed doors of the American Inns of Court.

3.  Attorney Gregory A. Post is a white male also an attorney admitted in Judge Curiel's court.

Attorney Gregory Post has a background of a Stanford athlete - not a good recommendation nowadays.

Now attorney Post's practice concentrates on arbitration (alternative dispute resolution).

ALL civil rights cases in federal court are required to be turned into paid ADR (paid by the parties) unless the court allows them not to do that, which rarely happens.

So, I wonder whether ADR Gregory A. Post gets assignments from Judge Curiel's courts for the mandatory ADR in civil rights cases based on their discussions behind closed doors at the Inn of Courts.

Gregory Post is the Treasurer of the Inn, having an immense power of rewarding judges who rule his way and bring him business.


4.   Attorney John J. Freni, a "Program Chair" is admitted in Judge Curiel's court. and is a white male.

John J. Freni's passion is hunting and fishing - a valuable "hobby" when you are dealing with American judges in view of the history of hunting trips of U.S. Supreme Court justices, such as Antonin Scalia, with the litigants appearing in front of them.

5.  Judge Judith L. Haller of California's 4th District Court of Appeal.  Judge Haller is a white female.

Judge Haller was a defendant in Judge Curiel's court (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California) numerous times, including in five lawsuits since Judge Curiel was appointed to that court.

I wonder whether defendant judge Judith Haller influenced the court's decision in lawsuits filed against her through ex parte communications with Judge Curiel at the Inn behind closed doors.

6.  Magistrate judge Barbara Major of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge Curiel's colleague, is the current President of Judge Curiel's Inn of Court.

Magistrate Barbara Major is a white female.

Magistrate Major is also a former colleague of Judge Curiel in the U.S. Attorney's office, and a former law clerk to a judge in the same court.  Magistrate Barbara Major was appointed in 2004, just before her colleague John D. Kirby left the same U.S. Attorney's office and started a private law practice.

It is interesting that Magistrate Major is a member in the same secret-membership organization as Nancy Stagg, an attorney who is a member of "Merit Selection Panel" of that court selecting magistrates.   Names of any other members other than officers of the "Inn" are secret, so other magistrates or candidates for magistrates can also be secret members of the Inn - and the selection could be taking place right over a dinner with wine between the magistrate and Nancy Stagg as member of the panel.


7.  The Inn's past president, attorney Susan Moriarty Hack, of Higgs, Fletcher & Mack LLP is yet another "officer" of Judge Curiel's Inn of Court.

Attorney Susan M. Hack is a white female.

Attorney Susan M. Hack, according to her law firm's website, is also a current president of another Inn of Court - the San Diego Inn of Court.

According to the description of her activities in the Inns of Court on her law firm's website:

"One purpose of the American Inns of Court is to create an atmosphere of camaraderie among lawyers and judges, and to provide attorneys with the opportunity to learn from other attorneys and judges at the monthly meetings."

So, on her law firm's website attorney Hack admits that the Inn of Court members meet on a monthly basis and that the purpose of the organization is to "create an atmosphere of camaraderie among lawyers (members of the Inn - T.N.) and judges".

Naturally, the "camaraderie" is being developed not with pro se parties appearing before judges and not with attorneys who are not members of the Inn (where membership is by invitation only), but only with those attorneys who pay for judges' monthly wining and dining.

Attorney Hack is also a member of the "Lawyers' Club" of San Diego where judges, lawyers and law students participate.  The website of that organization also does not provide public access to its members' list.

When you hit "Membership Directory" on that website, a page opens with information about what the club allegedly does and with links of how to join it, but does not provide access to member lists.


8.  The eighth known officer of Judge Curiel's Inn is Judge David J. Danielsen of California Superior Court

Judge Danielsen is a white male.

Judge Daneilsen is a Supervising judge of California Superior Court.

Pacer.gov shows 16 lawsuits filed against Judge Danielsen as a defendant in Judge Curiel's court from 1990 to 2012, including 4 lawsuits after Judge Curiel was appointed as a member of the court, and several lawsuits filed at the time when Judge Curiel was a colleague of Judge Danielsen, a California state court judge.

9.  Hon. Kevin A. Enright, of San Diego Superior Court, is a white male judge for the State of California, and the son of the still-sitting colleague of Judge Curiel, Judge William B. Enright, the Inn of Court is named after him.

The whole idea that a state judge is a relative of a federal judge whose court may be reviewing cases against state judges, Kevin Enright included, as defendants, smacks of potential for corruption.

When the son is an "officer" of a secret-membership attorney-funded organization named after his still-sitting judge father, and his father's colleagues, judges, are also "officers" of the same organization, the appearance of corruption is only enhanced.


10. The next "officer" of Judge Curiel's Inn of Court is Brian P. Funk, Esq., of the Law Offices of Brian P Funk.

Brian P. Funk is a white male, a criminal lawyer from San Diego, California.

Since Brian P. Funk defends federal criminal cases, he is an attorney who may or does appear in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge Curiel's court, which is a direct appearance of impropriety and a potential for ex parte communication and case-fixing behind closed doors.

11. Charles R. Grebing, Esq., of Wingert Grebing Brubaker & Juskie LLP, is a white male.

Grebing is admitted in Judge Curiel's court, which is yet another conflict of interest.

Moreover, Grebing is the Inn of Court "lecturer on jury selection", so, while practicing in state and federal courts, he also has the potential of influencing judges sitting on his cases as to how pick juries so that to win cases - and judges-members of the Inn to whom he may have been lecturing is Judge Curiel.

As a member of the Inn of Court, he is also paying for wining and dining of judges he is lecturing, and since the "membership benefits" are secret, and the meetings are secret - it is a perfect breeding atmosphere for corruption. 

12. Michelle Pettit, Esq., is an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the San Diego, California, and a member of Judge Curiel's former office.  Michelle Pettit is trying cases in Judge Curiel's court.  The potential for corruption, ex parte communications and case fixing is clear.  

There are 649 records on Pacer.gov as of today of cases tried by Michelle Pettit - attorney admitted only in 2007.

So, Michelle Pettit is in federal court, and in Judge Curiel's court, constantly, while having a potential to meet, talk with the judge behind closed doors in the Inn of Court, as well as wine-and-dine the judge.

13. Hon. Joan P. Weber is a judge of San Diego Superior Court, and a recent respondent in Judge Curiel's court.

The potential for corruption and case-fixing is clear.

14. Laura Vest

15. Angela Mullins, Esq., of the Office of the San Diego City Attorney, regularly litigates cases in Judge Curiel's court:

I understand that the whole idea of the onslaught upon Donald Trump for even raising the issue of potential bias of Judge Curiel is to prevent further digging into Judge Curiel's connections and background.

Once Judge Curiel was all but sainted by the mass media, to criticize him in any way became anathema.

Information that I provided above is available from open public sources.

Obviously, Trump's well-paid attorneys had access to that information.

That they did not raise those issues, speaks a lot about the fear instilled into attorneys, even and especially well-paid attorneys, not to rattle their golden cage in any way, not to upset the judiciary that controls their law licenses and livelihoods in any way - even if that inaction hurts their clients.

The logic is simple - you sell out one client, but you save your law license to be paid by other clients.

You protect one client, stepping on the toes of those who control your law license - and you are out on the street, and you will not be able to get any "licensed" or "certified" employment, which is nowadays nearly any more or less well-paid job in the United States.

So, in that respect, of access to honest legal representation, Donald Trump is on par with an average American - attorney regulation makes sure he is being sold out in the same way as poor clients are.

And, ay lawsuit seeking disclosure of membership in the American Inns of Court is an illustration that the issue of the American Inns of Court and of other secret-membership organization is a taboo in the legal industry.

In May of 2014, I filed a lawsuit in federal court to verify the membership of ALL American judges and ALL American attorneys in the American Inns of Court and any other secret-membership organizations.

The lawsuit was dismissed by a judge who I now have a reasonable basis to suspect, since March of 2016, that the dismissing judge was and, possibly, is, a member of at least one of such a secret-membership organization himself, was a hostile witness in the proceeding he dismissed, and dismissed the proceedings to protect himself and members of his secret-membership club from exposure.

At this time, the court that dismissed that case and the supervising appellate court, stall my Freedom of Information Act request regarding membership in yet another secret-membership behind-the-scenes organization - the State-Federal Judicial Council, and, since membership in that organization that seeks to "relieve tension" (fix cases) with state public officials.

My lawsuit is directly related to Judge Gonzalo Curiel - because it is confirmed that Judge Curiel is a member of one of these secret-membership organizations, and Donald Trump can thus question whether the opposing counsel in his lawsuit pays for Judge Gonzalo Curiel's travels, whether those opposing counsel wine and dine Judge Curiel behind closed doors, or provide monetary and non-monetary benefits to the judge's personnel, friends and family members.

Because, otherwise - why keep the membership of attorneys and judges (with few exceptions) in such organizations secret?

And, once again, here is Judge Curiel's court's "gift policy" - which provides lip service to what judges of that court are doing through American Inns of Court and similar secret-membership attorney-funded organizations:

#JudgeGonzaloCuriel, his life experiences, and the right to impartial judicial review of those we do not like - Part I

The "wise Latina woman" U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor just made yet another public blunder, by claiming that the U.S. Supreme Court needs more diversity - now not "by appearance, but by experience", which, in Justice Sotomayor's opinion, is the equivalent of the need of a Protestant judge.

That is the same judge who, back in 2001, endorsed herself as a "wise Latina woman" who will enrich a federal appellate court with the "richness of her experience" - even though appellate judges may only base their decisions not on their experiences, whoever rich they are, but on the record on appeal and the applicable law.

Apparently, to Justice Sotomayor her race-related experiences - and now religion-related and other experiences - matter in judicial decision-making.

From that point of view, let's look at the experiences of Judge Gonzalo Curiel - the one judge who was criticized by Donald Trump for an appearance of bias based on, specifically, the judge's race and experiences.

"Gonzalo, the youngest of four children, was born at an East Chicago hospital in 1953.  His mother was a devout Catholic, and their family was active in the St. Patrick parish, where the children attended school. Before Gonzalo reached high school, however, his father died. And the cost of the parochial education became a greater burden. “I think it was a financial hardship,” said Greg Vega, who has been close friends with Gonzalo since the ninth grade."

So, no diversity here - Judge Curiel was not a pagan, not an atheist, not a Muslim, he was from a devout Christian family.

And, Judge Curiel was brought up in an immigrant community - which, at the time of his birth, could be more fairly characterized as an immigrant ghetto.

"It was a thriving blue-collar town, and also ethnically diverse, with Mexicans, African-Americans and an assortment of immigrants from Poland, Serbia, Croatia and Lithuania."

Why ghetto?

Why only immigrants lived in that location?

And why only blue-collar immigrants (not highly qualified and highly paid workers) lived in that location?

Obviously because blue-collar immigrants either could not afford, or were not allowed to live in more integrated communities.

There is a reason to believe that Judge Curiel's parents came to the U.S. illegally, and his mother obtained citizenship in the 60s, after the birth of Judge Curiel and after the death of his father.

Since Judge Curiel's mother did not obtain citizenship through marriage to a U.S. citizen father, but after the birth of her American-born children and after the death of her husband, there is a reason to believe that Judge Curiel is an "anchor baby" - and that his early life experiences were shaped not only by poverty, but by illegal status of his parents.

Whether Judge Curiel's parents were or were not illegal immigrants, is easily proven or disproven - through public records.  Apparently, with all the money that was poured into the campaign to brand Donald Trump as bigot when he raised the issue of appearance of bias because of Judge Curiel's background, the media was unable to produce documents proving legality of Judge Curiel's parents' presence in the United States.

But, since there is a clear implication that, since Judge Curiel's mother only became a citizen in 1960, even though his father came to the U.S. in 1920s, and only after the birth of her children within the U.S. and after the death of his father - it is likely that Judge Curiel's parents were both illegal parents when they came, and thus the comparison with Donald Trump's mother who came to the U.S. through marriage to a U.S. citizen - Donald Trump's father - is not appropriate.

It is also apparent that, under these circumstances, survival and education came at a hard price to Gonzalo Curiel.

Under the circumstances of such "experience", anybody who would be rich enough to set up a private university, and who would then be accused of cheating students, can expect an "experience-based" bias from such a judge.

Here is a picture of Judge Curiel as a young man.

   

Moreover, unlike the spoiled rich kid Donald Trump, Gonzalo Curiel had to give up his true calling - music - in order to earn a living.

"He played football but seemed to have a greater affinity for music, playing the guitar, keyboards and even the organ. He was in a number of bands and, after graduation from Bishop Noll in 1971, his brother Raul remembers that Curiel initially hoped to study music at IU. Eventually, his brother said, “he didn’t think he was going to earn a living out of it.”

So, unlike the rich kid Donald Trump, Gonzalo Curiel, after the death of his immigrant father, when his immigrant mother with only elementary school education was struggling to raise the children and give them education, gave up his dream for his true calling in music because of money issues.

All the more reasons for Judge Curiel to hate Trump and be biased against him.

Trump is a bully - and that is clearly visible in his speeches as a presidential candidates, and in how he handles his campaign, where anybody who appears to be non-white can be expected to be thrown out of a campaign rally.

Yet, "for many of Curiel’s friends and acquaintances, what comes through most clearly are the stark differences between the Hoosier-born judge and the presidential candidate who now criticizes him.

“You couldn’t find two people with a sharper contrast,” said Warren, the California lawyer."

And that's exactly the point - these two people are very different, and Judge Curiel's background prepared him to hate Trump and people like Trump, rich white kids who had no problems with advancing their careers that were smoothed by parents' money.

Gonzalo Curiel himself had to forgo his dream of a career in music because he had no money to pursue that career or survive in it.

"Instead, Gonzalo followed an older brother, Antonio, into law, entering the IU law school in 1976. In a class of about 100 students, he was one of a handful of Latino students. Curiel was an able student, but he also had other interests. He performed in the IU Soul Review, a rhythm and blues band. He wore his hair in a big Afro, and he caught the eyes of women he was around. “He looked like a fair-skinned African-American,” said Sherma Wise, who attended Ball State with Curiel’s girlfriend."

So, Gonzalo Curiel was longing for his forfeited calling even in law school, and he was longing for a musical career even long after graduation from law school.  In fact, reportedly Gonzalo Curiel graduated from law school in 1979 and worked in Illinois for 7 years, but then moved from Illinois to California, because he was still hopeful at that time for a career in music.

"For a time, after his law school graduation in 1979, Curiel worked in a law firm in Dyer, about 12 miles south of East Chicago. But by 1986, he was lured to Southern California by the warm sun and the lingering hope of a musical career."

"Even as he sometimes questioned whether the law was for him, he stuck with it. As his friend Greg Vega put it, “I guess somebody must have told him, ‘Don’t quit your day job.’ ” It wouldn't prevent him, though, from keeping a guitar in his office the rest of his career."

So, we have a judge presiding over Donald Trump University's case where the judge himself grew up in poverty and, likely, fearing deportation of his parents during his childhood, and forfeiting a calling in music because of lack of money - a heartfelt loss judging by the fact that Curiel keeps having a guitar in this office throughout his career as a lawyer/judge.

Moreover, when Trump got his seed money the easy way, from his father, and never had a problem in career advancement, because of coming from a rich family, Gonzalo Curiel tried 7 TIMES to get into the U.S. Attorney's office - where his brother already worked, and was turned down 6 TIMES despite his brother working in his office - meaning that his brother was not a connection enough to secure that job for Gonzalo Curiel.

Thus, Gonzalo Curiel had a long history of overcoming discrimination against him clearly based on his background of a son of poor Mexican immigrants without connections - contrary to Donald Trump who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

"Throughout the 10 years he spent in private practices, Curiel had been inspired by his brother to work for a U.S. attorney, but he kept getting turned down. On his seventh try, he succeeded. Vega, who by then was a California resident himself, already worked in the southern district of California as an assistant U.S. attorney. He became U.S. attorney in 1999."

Gonzalo Curiel then dedicated himself to a career in drug enforcement, and eventually became a chief of narcotics division in 10 years - fighting crimes pertaining to money, not violence.

"For about a decade, Curiel paid his dues in the office, eventually gaining an appointment as chief of the narcotics enforcement section. “He was hardworking. He was street smart. He resolved turf battles between the various agencies,” Vega said. “He was a leader.”"

Curiel's persistence as a prosecutor, including the situation where he had to be put into a witness protection program because he was put on a hit list, helped him get a judgeship.

"Curiel was known as an aggressive prosecutor, and his work on drug cases and money laundering no doubt helped bring him to Schwarzenegger’s attention for the judgeship, in 2007, and for the federal bench in 2011."

Reportedly, Governor Schwarzenegger appointed Judge Curiel to the Superior Court of San Diego in November, 2006, and he was
reelected to that position in 2008, and then proceeded to the federal bench within 3 years of his election in 2008.

"During his tenure he has been exposed to a wide variety of cases, assigned to domestic violence, criminal cases, family court cases, civil cases, presiding over more than 40 that have gone to verdict or judgment.

In confirmation proceedings of Judge Gonzalo to the federal bench, it was stressed that "He's the son of immigrant parents from Mexico, who came to this country with an elementary school education."

Once again, Judge Curiel's humble background and the humble educational background of his parents were paraded.

It is apparent that Judge Curiel's "experiences" could form nothing but an in-built bias against Donald Trump, simply because of the hardships that Judge Curiel's family and he himself had to overcome - while Donald Trump had an easy road to money and success paved by his father's wealth.

It is also apparent that the fact that he has reportedly "tried over 300 cases, the vast majority of
them Federal criminal jury trials where he served as the sole or lead counsel" and was
"the lead attorney on the Presidential Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force in 1999 to 2002" defined and sealed his Judge Curiel's prosecutorial mentality - a big concern as to how judicial experiences (praised by Justice Sotomayor) may have shaped Judge Curiel's outlook on cases like the civil case for fraud against the Trump University.

Even without more, Donald Trump would have had concerns about how Judge Curiel's "experiences" as a prosecutor shaped his pro-plaintiff views in a fraud case, and how his experiences of hardship, as a child of likely illegal and barely literate immigrants from Mexico, a child who had to forego his dream of a career in music to go into law in order to earn a living would shape his biased attitude against a rich son of rich parents and a founder of a private university sued for fraud.

But, Donald Trump had much more to be concerned about - and, naturally, his lawyers did not dare to raise those concerns for fear to lose their law licenses, which are in the hands of the judiciary, so lawyers' criticism of judicial misconduct in this country is, as we all know, silenced.

As I said before on this blog, if we do not afford Donald Trump his right to an impartial judge (see my blogs about it here, here and here) - because we do not like Donald Trump - we are shooting ourselves in the foot, because whichever precedent we are creating for those who we do not like, will be equally applicable to everybody else.

For additional description of Judge Gonzalo Curiel's "experiences" and dubious connections that raise the appearance of his bias against Donald Trump that should have disqualified Judge Curiel from presiding over Donald Trump's case - stay tuned.

To pot or not to pot?

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court decided  case  Gonzalez v Reich, where it claimed that, even where states legitimize production and distribution of medical marijuana, the U.S. Congress still has the right to criminalize the same under federal laws.

As a result, production and distribution of medical marijuana in the U.S. was stifled, under the threat of federal criminal prosecution.

Still, since that time, more and more states legitimize production and distribution of medical marijuana, many with great results in tax revenues.

Yet, people who engage in marijuana industry in states that allow growing and distributing medical marijuana, through properly enacted state statutes, are still operating under the threat of a federal criminal conviction.

Recently, two interesting decisions were made in Ohio and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit regarding medical marijuana - two diametrically opposite decisions, I must say.

In Ohio, the so-called Board of Professional Conduct for Lawyers prohibited attorneys to give advice as to how to set up the growing and distribution business.

While that was obviously content-based regulation of speech which is, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment unless it meets the so-called "strict scrutiny" test, in 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the 9th Circuit and ruled that it is legitimate for the federal government to prohibit, through criminal laws, the giving of legal advice on certain issues - and that such a prohibition somehow meets the so-called "strict scrutiny", the top layer of the artificial review standards invented by the U.S. Supreme Court for constitutional violations, event though the U.S. Constitution, through its text, does not allow to treat some constitutional provisions as more important than others.

Now that the Board of Professional Conduct prohibited to lawyers to advise what the State Legislature stated is legal conduct, the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio is looking into whether to overrule the Board or not. 

At about the same time, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit pronounced a ruling that runs in the face of U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Gonzalez v Reich - it has held that the federal government may not prosecute individuals who grow and sell medical marijuana in compliance with state laws.

Of course, the easiest way to resolve all of that conundrum is for the U.S. Congress to repeal statutes criminalizing marijuana, or to specifically introduce a statute providing that medical marijuana is exempt from the reach of criminal laws.

But, that would be too easy, wouldn't it be?

Too many interests are vested in drug forfeiture laws, in private prison industry housing inmates convicted for selling pot, in "drug counselling" ordered by the court for using pot etc.

But, with the idiotic decision of the Board of Professional Conduct in Ohio - which matches the no less idiotic decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 that legal advice on a certain subject can be not only deemed a disciplinary violation, but also criminalized, and with the feisty 9th Circuit opposing the U.S. Supreme Court precedent allowing to criminally prosecute people who grow or sell marijuana in compliance with state law - apparently, the interests supporting criminalization of marijuana are waning.

We may see a quick development of the federal law in this area, and soon, and that movement is pushed by parents of sick children who need access to medical marijuana to reduce pain and seizures.

Let's see who wins - the money interests or medical needs of patients.

Justice Sotomayor's stomach as the Law of the Land in the United States

The U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor, as part of her summer vacation, has been touring various states of the United States and giving lectures, at invitation of attorneys' associations.
 
Apparently, a question arises who pays for those tours - transportation, hotels, meals, and whether Judge Sotomayor gets speaking fees for those tours.
 
The next question that readily arose is that Justice Sotomayor claimed that the U.S. Supreme Court should be more diverse in "experience, not appearance" - and then claimed that there are no Protestants on the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
Not atheists, not Muslims, not other religions, such as pagans, Satanists (why not?) - but, specifically, Protestants.
 
And, the peculiar issue arises - why does religious experience, or any other experience, matter for a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, in the eyes of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice?
 
Shouldn't the only thing that matters for a U.S. Supreme Court Justice is fairness and competency in the law?
 
After all, justices may not venture outside of the record and should not, actually must not, act as "experts in all fields", as Justice Sotomayor claims a U.S. Supreme Court Justice has to be.
 
The U.S. Supreme Court is an APPELLATE court - and, if the record in the courts below, including issues that should have been highlighted through expert testimony, is not developed, the ONLY thing that an appellate court can do is REVERSE, not act as experts in their own right.
 
The next disturbing issue reflected in the speech of Justice Sotomayor is that criticism of her competence and the issue that she has been picked for the court only for her gender and race, and not on the merits, "got to her stomach".
 
When a judge admits that, anybody who openly criticized that judge, or who comes before the U.S. Supreme Court with a case involving criticism of a judge, should worry about Justice Sotomayor's impartiality.
 
And, how many attorney disciplinary cases brought before the U.S. Supreme Court for criticism of the judiciary have been ditched on Justice Sotomayor's watch?
 
I know of several such cases in the past few years, I know of several others either already in front of the U.S. Supreme Court or heading there, and one of them is mine.
 
My disciplinary case was when my own law license was suspended for 2 years for motions to recuse a judge (that was not even claimed as an official version, the official version only mentioned sanctions for frivolous conduct - but sancitons were imposed for motions to recuse a judge).  Recently, a disclosure was made by a disgruntled "insider" that my license was suspended for civil rights lawsuits - my own and my husband's for suing political figures in the State of New York an din the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
 
Justice Sotomayor's former law clerk Andrew Ayers in 2005-2006 participated in opposing the removal of my disciplinary case to federal court and fraudulently claimed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in an appellate brief that I was correctly charged for not appearing - as an attorney for clients - at a deposition in 2008 and for not opposing a motion filed against allegedly my clients in 2008.   
 
While asserting those claims, Ayers knew they were not true.
 
The events in Charge I Specification I occurred in 2008, I was admitted in 2009, so I was prohibited by criminal laws to act in 2008 as an attorney - and could not be charged for misconduct for NOT acting as an attorney in 2008, and Andrew Ayers had a record in front of him submitted by me to the district court below and that was part of the record on appeal, court documents of the deposition where I was claimed not to have appeared (in 2008) and the motion I allegedly did not oppose on behalf of clients (also in 2008), but brazenly claimed to the court that those fraudulent disciplinary charges were legitimate.
 
I wonder if Judge Sotomayor taught Andrew Ayers to disregard the record and the law during his clerkship for her in the same 2nd Circuit.
 
Now that my case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, I am learning that only 66 lawyers, most of them former clerks or friends or former associates of U.S. Supreme Court justices, are granted review in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
Apparently, when such a "tradition" of judicial bias exists - and has been in place for years - anybody who goes in front of the U.S. Supreme Court who does not have money or clout to hire those 66 "chosen" lawyers, or who goes against former clerks of the U.S. Supreme Court justices (as I am doing, claiming Justice Sotomayor's former law clerk Andrew Ayers committed fraud upon the court, a crime and an offense warranting disbarment, and still remains a licensed attorney, is screwed, right?
 
Moreover, now I hear that Justice Sotomayor openly admits that public criticism against her "gets to her stomach".   
 
Well, I did criticize Justice Sotomayor's competence, very recently, on two occasions.
 
I criticized Justice Sotomayor for pushing her race as a factor in her judicial decisions, for endorsing slavery of lawyers by the government for a "good cause", and for drawing on her "experiences", in other words, for her unlawful unsworn testimony on behalf of parties to the appeal.
 
And, I criticized Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Steven Breyer of the same court, and openly called for a criminal investigation of possible corruption of those judges through the American Inns of Court - and that was, "coincidentally", 2 months BEFORE my suspension in November of 2015.
 
Now that in the summer of 2016, through a sworn statement of an attorney filed in federal court, my suspension was repeatedly claimed to have been caused by my lawsuits against political figures in the State of New York and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, I must be wondering now whether my criticism of the U.S. Supreme Court justices also played a role in my suspension.
 
And, with a lawsuit challenging participation of judges in secret-membership organizations, such as the American Inns of Court and the State-Federal Judicial Councils, both organizations formed with a blessing of a U.S. Supreme Court justice, both meeting behind closed doors and thus providing unlimited opportunities for ex parte communications and case-fixing, and while my lawsuit is about to be revived through new evidence - I wonder if any judge in this blessed country will dare to rule in my favor, even though the law is squarely on my side.
 
Actually a motion to recuse another Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Ruth Ginsburg, was just made, by another attorney from New York State suspended for his criticism of judicial misconduct, Leon Koziol who testified in front of the Moreland Commission about judicial corruption in New York and whose law license was not reinstated because of that testimony.

Attorney Koziol's motion was based on Justice Ruth Ginsburg's recent public statements that indicated that Ruth Ginsburg might not be impartial in deciding cases.
 
Since Justice Sotomayor openly made a statement that lawyers are, in fact, slaves to the government and must provide free legal services as a condition of being allowed to earn a living - unlike any other professions in the United States - how can any attorney disciplined for challenging constitutionality of any disciplinary proceedings against him or her can count on fairness from Justice Sotomayor?
 
How can any critic of Justice Sotomayor, a judge who openly admitted that criticism of her competence "got to her stomach", be assured of her fairness in deciding the critic's cases and the cases of those who criticizes judicial misconduct, or misconduct of any other public official?

And, since decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are now claimed - without any legal basis - to be the Law of the Land, to the point that even state judges, such as Alabama Chief Judge Roy Moore, are prosecuted for disregarding SOME of the U.S. Supreme Court cases (not those relating to 1st Amendment right to criticize the government) - I guess, the stomach of Justice Sotomayor becomes the Law of the Land in this country.

If arguments of any critic who had the misfortune of having his civil rights violated and having to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, get to the stomach of Justice Sotomayor - and if that person or his lawyer do not pay for Justice Sotomayor's law clerk's foreign trips through the American Inns of Court, or for Justice Sotomayor's summer vacation travels and speeches, or criticize judicial misconduct, or criticize actions or public statements of Justice Sotomayor - then the stomach of Justice Sotomayor will rule to deny review for that person.

Right?
 
Didn't Justice Sotomayor just talk herself into an impeachment charge?

Or do we now consider U.S. Supreme Court Justices as Gods who can do whatever they like and are not subject to public scrutiny - as any public servant paid by taxpayers should be?

Documentary evidence suggesting that suspension of my law license is the result of retaliation of the purported magistrate of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York David Peebles and other political figures of New York State and NDNY for suing them

Proof that the purported NDNY Magistrate David Peebles had a hand in my suspension in state court in retaliation for suing him.

In the case Argro v Osborne in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, attorney Woodruff Carroll submitted a Memorandum of Law where he claimed:

1) that MY suspension in state court was the result of my own AND MY HUSBAND's civil rights lawsuits against political figures of The State of New York and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (including David Peebles):

First, you will not find any lawsuits of political figures as the basis of my suspension in the order of suspension though, raising a question - how Mr. Carroll came upon such interesting knowledge, coincidentally after an ex parte hearing before David Peebles (one of the political figures I sued), who sealed the transcript of the ex parte hearing?

Such a suspension would raise clear political persecution and motivation and would be a 1st Amendment issue that I would immediately addressed - but my civil rights litigation against the "political figures" in the State of New York and NDNY was NOT mentioned as the basis for my disciplinary proceedings or suspension, so I had no notice that the underlying cause of disciplinary proceedings against me is political.

Second, my husband filed several lawsuits pro se, without my participation - Neroni v Coccoma, Neroni v Mayberger, so Mr. Carroll's claim that I was suspended for my husband's civil rights litigation raises clear due process issues.

Mr. Carroll also married me to another man - a Frank Neroni.

2) that, even though Attorney Carroll characterized my civil rights lawsuit that were allegedly the basis of my suspension as "crackpot", "sour grapes" and frivolous, attorney Carroll never read those lawsuits and doesn't know what is in those allegedly frivolous lawsuits: 

3) That the settlement in Argro v Osborne was in reliance upon my suspension, and the Plaintiffs will be severely damages if my suspension is vacated:

4) that David Peebles would have been very upset if the Plaintiffs did not settle the case (and instead proceeded to trial)

5) Moreover, attorney Carroll submitted to the court an Affidavit where he listed issues discussed by David Peebles in an ex parte hearing on June 3, 2016 (after his term expired), and those issues included issues of Peebles' misconduct that I put into my motion to recuse (which is still pending):

And, David Peebles quickly sealed the evidence of David Peebles discussing two motions involving me,

1) Dkt. 112 - my motion to recuse, with a returnable date of June 17, 2016, which was NOT referred to Peebles by court order, and

2) an ex parte motion of Defendants for an anti-filing injunction against me personally

by sealing the transcript of such an ex parte oral argument -



while attorney Carroll who the press claimed "lacks a filter" emerged out of that ex parte hearing in front of David Peebles who I sued in 2014, with a wealth of knowledge, not derived from reading the cases (because Carroll claimed under oath he did not read those cases) that I was suspended because I sued political figures of the State of New York and of the NDNY court - and that includes Peebles himself.

Where else the no-filter attorney Carroll could get the knowledge that my suspension was based on my lawsuits against political figures in New York and NDNY court?

Certainly not from my order of suspension in state court - it has not a word about it.

Certainly not in any records of the disciplinary proceedings - the prosecutors did not bring this issue, the court did not mention that issue, and prosecutors denied political motivation of my disciplinary proceedings when I raised that issue.

The only reasonable source is David Peebles.

And, of course, this new evidence gives me a basis to seek re-opening of my disciplinary proceedings.

Which, of course, I will do.

And will report it on this blog.

Stay tuned.