A criminal complaint was filed against #DelawareCountyClerkSharonODell and the #DenningTownJusticeJonathanSFollender for knowingly entering a false, fabricated multi-thousand dollar judgment contrary to a court order

In New York, judges of local justice courts are allowed to practice law part time.

So, attorney Jonathan S. Follender practices law, and is a judge in the Town of Denning, Ulster County.

Yet, off the bench conduct of judges is reviewable by the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, and it is a relatively frequent occurrence that judges of justice courts are taken off the bench because of their conduct as private individuals, if that conduct reflects on their fitness as judges.

Criminal conduct of judges, whether on or off the bench, certainly reflect on their fitness, and the Delhi Village Police, as well as the Delaware County Sheriff's Department (in New York) received yesterday, by certified mail, my sworn criminal complaint against the #DeningTownJustice  #JonathanSFollender and against the #DelawareCountyClerk #SharonODell and her personnel - for filing a fraudulent judgment contrary to a court order.

The court order allowed Jonathan S. Follender to enter a money judgment against me of $1,750.61 plus "allowable costs".  Follender claimed that his costs are $740.  I will appeal legality of that judgment, but that's not the point here.

The point is that attorney Jonathan S. Follender was allowed by the court, by order of July 18, 2016, to enter only a money judgment for $1,751.60 plus "allowable costs", and the costs claimed by Follender were $740, so the total of the judgment that Follender could enter was $2,491.60.

Follender offered for filing a judgment, and Delaware County Clerk Sharon O'Dell or personnel working under her supervision accepted and entered, with Sharon O'Dell's signature, a money judgment of $10,961.60, plus 9% interest, $8,470.00 plus 9% interest more than the court authorized.

That judgment was knowingly entered despite the fact that another $8,470.00 judgment plus 9% interest remained docketed against me by Follender in the same case, while Follender just received satisfaction of that judgment out of the court's escrow.

Sharon O'Dell personally took that money from me and put it into escrow, and Sharon O'Dell had on file, when entering the SECOND judgment for $8,470, not authorized by court, both the first judgment for the same amount, already satisfied from the escrow, and the "Turnover Order", releasing the amount of the first judgment from the escrow.

So, now instead of one outstanding judgment of $2,491.60 authorized by the court (with the first judgment for $8,470 satisfied out of escrow), Follender, in collusion with Sharon O'Dell, has THREE judgments filed and pending against me for the total amount of $19,431.60 plus 9% interest, nearly 10 TIMES MORE than the court authorized.

The fraudulent judgment was filed by Follender and entered by O'Dell on September 26, 2016 in the office of the Delaware County Clerk's office in the case Neroni v Follender, Index No. 2013-331, in defiance of the court order of July 18, 2016 in the same case.

That is a crime of fraud, fraud upon the court (for Follender, who is an attorney), and of knowingly filing a false public document.

I also filed an impeachment demand against the Delaware County Clerk Sharon O'Dell with the Chairman of the Delaware County Board of Supervisors James Eisel,

and, against Jonathan S. Follender, I filed, in addition to the criminal complaint,

an attorney grievance complaint - because padding a judgment authorized by the court with an additional amount not authorized by the court is a fraud upon the court and a disbarring offense, and

and a complaint to the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, asking to suspend Follender from the bench immediately, pending investigation and prosecution (the documentary evidence of his fraud is irrefutable), and to ultimately take him off the bench and prohibit him to ever be a judge again.

I will announce how these complaints are progressing.

Attorney Follender also sent the fraudulent judgment to another state, which is a federal crime of mail fraud, so if the State of New York does not prosecute him because he is a judge and has other judges in his pocket, the feds might.

Stay tuned.

The artist sued for denying that he is the author of a painting, won the lawsuit - but on the "alibi" evidence, not on the law, which is a dangerous trend

An update on a previous blog - Peter Doig, the artist who was sued to force him to admit, or to have the court declare that a certain painting was Peter Doig's work, when he denied it (and thus, the value of it went down), won the lawsuit.

The claim was made by the initial alleged buyer of the painting that he allegedly bought it from Peter Doig when he was incarcerated in Canada for possession of LCD.

Peter Doig provided "alibi" evidence that he was in school, not in prison, in 1976, the time of the alleged purchase.

More evidence was provided that the painting was made by a now-deceased Canadian carpenter Peter Doige.

Yet, what is scary is that the lawsuit was not dismissed outright, simply because the artist denied he painted the picture - and had to go to an evidentiary hearing.

That means, that more of such lawsuits are possible, and that is an extremely dangerous trend.

If a person denies that a certain work of art is his, that should be the final word in any "determinations" of authorship.

Good faith enactments turned into nightmares based on money interests - and the need of citizen panels for statutory retention reviews

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 introduced for the noble purpose of fighting terrorism, is now precluding the claims of actual innocence, contributed to mass incarceration in the U.S.,  and is precluding release of people kept in prisons on convictions based on old laws that were repealed or changed.  In order to preclude re-trying of these cases (and ostensibly saving taxpayers money), more money is spent on litigation of appeals and civil rights lawsuits, and grave injustice is done by keeping in prison individuals put there with gross constitutional violations, and especially to prevent release of people who are in jail because of convictions based on old changed or repealed laws, and people who are innocent.

But, there are people, including judges, who consider it ok to follow that law.

Adoption and Safe Families Act, introduced in 1997 to allegedly help children not to linger in foster care for too long without permanent families and provided money to terminate parental rights in child protective proceedings faster, and that allows payments to the states of thousands of dollars per each child for the increased number of adoption of foster care children,

caused not only

• increased removal of children from parents on fabricated charges, especially in areas where there are less children - and thus less "cash cows" to grab, but also, as it appears
• increased infant mortality FOUR TIMES - after a steady decline in infant mortality that was, before enactment of Adoption and Safe Families Act,  the lowest in the world - on par with Canada, at around 7 infant deaths at birth per 100,000 births;

Money talks, and if the money incentive is given to rip a family apart and to separate a newborn from his mother, do not expect social services to instead "make reasonable efforts to reunite the family", as state laws also require them to do.  Money talks louder.

Here are words out of Section 201 of Public Law 105-89, "Adoption Incentive Payments", that funds for "technical assistance" will be provided to the states (50% of those funds to the courts) for:

‘‘(E) Models to encourage the fast tracking of children who have not attained 1 year of age into pre-adoptive placements.

 ‘‘(F) Development of programs that place children into pre-adoptive families without waiting for termination of parental rights.

While state laws do not make a distinction in the child's age in the procedural speed of termination of parental rights, and parental rights are constitutional rights not to be easily severed, federal law specifically provides for payments for doing just that - making separation of newborns from parents faster.

Of course, newborns and babies under 1 year old, with no memory of their parents yet, are the best "adoption material".

So, under the guise of protecting unborn babies, pregnant women are arrested and kept in detention across the U.S. on charges of "fetal neglect" - and in reality, to keep them in jail until delivery so that they would not escape, and so that the state can snatch the child from the mother at birth, get the federal grant money for fast-track adoption, and give the child to adoptive (richer than the mother) parents - all while claiming that all "procedural protections" for the mother and the child are observed.

While federal money buys fast-tracking adoptable babies into the hands of adoption parents, in reality it means that mothers are discouraged from getting prenatal care and hospital delivery, mortality rate of mothers and infants rises, and there is, of course, no fairness in snatching babies from the poor and giving it to the rich-er adoption parents.

Actually, adoptive parents who adopt children out of foster care receive benefits to feed and clothe the child as if the child is still kept in foster care by special "agreements". 

Here are the rates for such maintenance in Delaware County, New York, according to the County's response to my FOIL request.

Yet, that same amount of money is denied birth mothers to support her child and prevent separation with the child.  And, separation with the birth mother of a newborn or a baby under 1 deprives the baby of mother's breast milk, too - and undermines the buildup of the child's immunity, which does not concern CPS. 

Once again, money talks louder.

So, in criminal law we have the blunder of AEDPA.

In child protection we have the blunder of ASFA.

Now we have a emerging blunder of "end of life" legislation.

Introduced, same as AEDPA and ASFA for noble reasons of protection of safety and human rights, the end-of-life legislation is declared to allow people who suffer intolerable pain and/or have incurable diseases severely undermining their quality of life, to make a CONSCIOUS DECISION to end their lives.

Of course, such a decision must be the person's OWN decision.

Many people, on religious grounds, may not end their own life no matter what kind of pain they are experiencing.

There were concerns when such legislation was introduced, that such legislation will lead to ration healthcare and cleanse the elderly and the disabled, as a cheaper solution, instead of treating them or providing chemo and hospice care.

A case was reported as early as in 2008 when, in Oregon, instead of authorizing a $4,000-a-month cancer treatment for a terminal patient, the insurance company instead authorized $50 for a physician-assisted death.

Some time ago, a terminally ill mother of four, Stephanie Packer, wants to stay with her four children for as long as she can.

Yet, in June, her home state of California has passed the assisted suicide law ALLOWING her to CHOOSE THE OPTION of assisted suicide.

Well, her insurance company tries to make it less than an option and more of a mandate: it denied Mrs. Packer money to cover her treatment, but approved, same as in Oregon in 2008, a suicide pill, with a co-payment of $1.20.  The pill that Mrs. Packer does not want and did not ask for.

Moreover, Mrs. Packer is reportedly a devout Roman Catholic, and for her a suicide is not an option on religious grounds.

Mrs. Packer did get approval for her treatments - but only after she threatened to go to the media about the "choice" she was offered.

What happened in Oregon in 2008 and what happened in California in 2016 - denying money for treatment because an option for physician-assisted suicide exists - should be legislatively prohibited.  I doubt though that legislatures, lobbied by insurance companies, will do that change on their own, without being prodded by grass-roots movements and volunteer citizen review panels.

And the same applies to the "Effective Death Penalty Act", which came to mean the opposite because of prosecutorial ambitions towards conviction, because of prosecutorial and judicial careers already made - and easily made -  with the help of this statute.  Advancement from prosecutor to a state judge, from a state judge to a federal judge means more money and more power.  To turn that extra money and power down for the mere "fairness" to criminal defendants? Let's not be naïve. 

There are also prison officers unions that are interested in keeping all their jobs, which would require to keep the incarceration rates at present level.

There are also private prison complexes who benefits from slave labor.

There are also all of us, let's face it, who benefit from prison slave labor - from cheaply produced, and thus, sold for low prices, household goods and even "organic", "whole foods" - to inmate-produced disaster relief items, such as sandbags recently produced by inmates in South Carolina, according to daily announcements by the State Governor, at 10,000 sandbags a day, I am sure, for no pay or minimal pay to the inmates.

Lobbies in the U.S. Congress will prevent any changes to AEDPA without a grass roots movement and without volunteer citizen retention review panels for statutes. 

Existence of such panels is not prohibited by the law. 

Establishing them may help greatly in bringing about necessary changes in the law - peacefully, by legal means.

And the same applies to review of effectiveness (or harm) or "Adoption and Safe Families Act" - which rips and harms families instead of keeping them "safe". 

According to various sources, a child in foster care produces revenue from $85,000 to $250,000 to various government actors and "providers of services" they hire.

That is OUR, taxpayer money.

Much less of that money, a fraction of it, given to the parents in terms of maternity leave and job-preservation assistance, housing assistance, transportation assistance, food assistance, daycare costs assistance - will what will make families safe, not the gestapo proceedings happening in Family Courts around the country nowadays.

But, legislators will not listen unless there will be a lot of evidence collected by citizen groups.  Citizen review panels.

Such panels may review whether the already enacted legislation - local, state and federal - fulfils purposes for which it was enacted, or, whether it operates contrary to such purposes, or in harmful ways.

Our legislators, for whom their Senatorial seats have become something of hereditary boons where Senators "serve" for 30-40 or more years and then pass their seats from father to son, do not seem much interested in looking at any enactments or at changing any enactments that lobbyists did not pay them for.

And I mean citizen review panels which are NOT appointed by the government, which are self-organized, grass-roots entities unaffected by conflicts of interests.

Once again, it's our money that is being poured down the drain to enact and enforce harmful legislation.

It's time for us to act and change that.

To first enhance the oath of office for lawyers - and then to break it: that's what you can expect from the "honorable" organized bar. The case of Arizona Bar's loyalty amendments and "Public Service Center"

In 2014 Princeton university conducted a study asking people which professions (and representatives of those professions) they trust more and which they trust less.

A chart from that study shows that the public considers lawyers as a variety of competent prostitutes:

Yet, lawyers continue to claim themselves to be "the honorable profession", and judges (who are also lawyers) continue to put the "Honorable" as a required job title, claiming a "presumption of integrity", at the same time as they claim absolute immunity for their malicious and corrupt acts on the bench.
Lawyers were some of the least-trusted professionals, according to the public opinion.

In June of this year I wrote about the joint letter written by the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice, this letter.

In that letter the FTC and the US DOJ said this:

referencing their former comments to the American Bar Association back in 2002-2003:

And, in the ABA Comments in 2002-2003, FTC & US DOJ said, among other things (you can read the full comments of FTC & US DOJ to ABA here), the following:

So, the American Bar Association, a non-profit that participates in regulation of the legal profession by imposing educational standards of lawyers upon the states through certification of law schools, acknowledges, as FTC and US DOJ does, that "defining the practice of law has been a difficult question for the legal profession for many years".

Now, even if lawyers find it difficult - for many years - to define what the hell it is that they are doing for money -

1. how can an average citizen, untrained in the law (but presumed to know the laws - remember, lack of knowledge of the law is no defense in a criminal prosecution for unauthorized practice of law), know what the practice of law is, so that not to engage in "prohibited conduct" and so that not to commit a crime of unauthorized practice of law (UPL);

2.  How can the government regulate and issue licenses for the practice of law - if nobody can clearly define what is regulated; and

3. How can the government prosecute anybody for unauthorized practice of law - and UPL is vigorously prosecuted across the United States, and such prosecutions are driven, predictably, by LAWYERS, those same people who have a monopoly to practice law without knowing what the hell the practice of law means.

Which brings us back to the chart where people believe that lawyers are somewhat like competent prostitutes - but, if lawyers cannot even say what it is that they have the monopoly for and what it is that they are practicing and what it is that they are charging people for - the "competency" part goes out the door, too.

In the United States, lawyers are regulated either directly by the government (states with voluntary bar associations, New York is one of them), or by non-profit corporations, mandatory state bar associations to which state government delegate authority to regulate and license the practice of law.

Arizona is a state with a mandatory bar association.

Here is what the trustworthy and competent management of this non-profit corporation did recently - which, no doubt, greatly enhances public trust in the integrity of the legal profession.

First, the Arizona State Bar introduced amendments into the "Oath of Admission to the Bar" and the "Lawyer's Creed of Professionalism".

The changes the Arizona State Bar introduced are:

1) that it exposed attorneys in Arizona to discipline for challenging constitutionality of laws by requiring them to swear a loyalty oath to laws that may be unconstitutional and subject to THEIR challenge on behalf of clients:

2) it exposed attorneys in Arizona to discipline for maintaining lawsuits or defenses which the lawyer honestly believes to be debatable under the laws of the land - otherwise, it exposed attorneys in Arizona to discipline for CONSITUTIONAL CHALLENGES to laws:

3) allowed lawyers to discriminate against clients on personal grounds, and not to be disciplined for delaying cases for greed of malice:

As part of amended Lawyer's Creed, the Arizona State Bar:

1) mandated attorneys to allow adjournments of cases, even over opposition of their own clients

2) mandated lawyers to voluntarily exchange information, whether that information exchange is required or not by the formal rules of disclosure, and whether their client agrees to such exchange or not:

3) mandated lawyers to stipulate to facts for which "there is no genuine dispute" - again, without consent of client, and while what constitutes "genuine dispute" may be in itself an issue of fact; such a pledge is a violation of the client's state and federal constitutional right to try ALL, not just SOME issues of fact before a jury:

4) The new "Creed" exposed lawyers for discipline for "disrespect" to courts, where disrespect is usually loosely interpreted as any attempt at criticism of appearance of impropriety or misconduct of the judge or court personnel.  In other words, the lawyer must sign his or her own death sentence by signing this "Lawyer's Creed" in exchange for permission to earn a livelihood.

Both the oath and the creed also say a lot of lofty words about supporting "fair administration of justice" and providing services to those who cannot afford legal representation.

After saying all of that, the Arizona State Bar established a Public Service Center - while allowing, reportedly, only 2 minutes of comments from lawyers BEFORE the program was announced, and without any public bidding for the service that the third-party provider, Legal Services Link, LLC, was allegedly providing through that Public Service Center.

The Public Service Center was established - as declared by the Arizona State Bar  - for the noble cause of connecting the lawyers with the clients, and promoting pro bono service.

Yet, the "Public Service Center"

1) replaced a similar service of Arizona State Bar already in place, for which previously lawyers' money was expended (and, surely, all lawyers' costs were passed to clients in fees); and

2) competed with county lawyer referral services.

Moreover, while Arizona State Bar claimed that it will cost $300,000 for the Arizona State Bar to run the Public Service Center through the 3rd party provider, Legal Services Link LLC, Legal Services Link LLC reportedly announced on the website of the Public Service Center that, on the contrary, the "service" is free to Arizona State Bar and that Arizona State Bar will actually be paid revenues from operation of the Public Service Center, here is a comment about it by a reader of the Irreverent Lawyer blog:

So, with all the pandering to its members for candor and enhancing their trustworthiness, reinforced by "oaths" and "creeds", the management of Arizona State Bar demonstrated that it is a group of crooks, out to scam the ordinary members of the association.

The "public trust" chart was correct, it appears. 

With the exception of competence.

Taxpayer funded research should be accessible for the public for free - at EveryCRSReport.com

A lot of taxpayers' money is given out in various grants, for various types of research.

If you pay for something, you own it.

Right?

Wrong.  Many times, the government, or those third parties who do research based on government-funded grants, still either claim copyrights to the work, or, if research was made for the government, the government denies access to results of research or tries to charge people seeking access a fee for such access.

A group of individuals with support of undisclosed "Republican and a Democrat member of Congress" claims to have made federal taxpayer-funded research public. 

Publications on EveryCRSReport.com are reportedly split into 31 categories, with RSS feed available on them, so that people who want to follow Congressional research of a certain topic have an ability to follow reports on that research.

Whether all of such research was made public, and whether it any special interests are involved in such publication, I do not know.

Yet, it may prove a valuable information resource to the public, and such a publication is a yet another step towards transparency of the government.

Did Indiana Judge Michael Hensley deny an arrest warrant of a dangerous stalker (that resulted in the victim's death) because the victim was the stalker's estranged wife? $500.00. That's how much Laura Russell's life was valued at by an Indiana court.

In August, a man in Indiana was arrested and criminally charged  with "with strangulation and domestic battery for allegedly attacking his wife".

A stay-away order of protection was issued at that time.

The man violated the stay-away no contact order of protection by continuing to stalk his estranged wife.

The estranged wife reported his stalking to the police.

When court orders are violated, that is contempt of court, a separate crime.

When a stay-away order of protection is violated, that is a separate crime, and is especially dangerous in view of the August charges - strangulation and battery.

Imagine that the man strangled and hit somebody other than his wife - a stranger, a co-worker, a neighbor.

And, that the man would have violated the order of protection and continued to stalk that co-worker or neighbor.

He would be immediately arrested and brought before court.

But here, the victim was his wife.

And the male judge decided to go easy on him - and simply issue a "summons" to appear in court, based obviously on the wife's report.

That brought the man over the edge - and he stabbed his estranged wife to death.

That blood is on the hands of #JudgeMichaelHensley.

Judge Hensley did not apologize, but he issued a statement expressing condolences to the victim's, Laura Russell's, family, and stated that in the future he will hold a hearing as to the arrest warrant the same day the application is made, to prevent similar tragic consequences.

Those condolences will not bring the 44-year-old mother of a young daughter back to life, to her child, her family and her friends.

On August 20, 2016, a month and a half before her death, Laura Russell reportedly escaped the strangulation attempt and beating at the hands of her abusive husband, fled to neighbors and reported the crime.

Criminal charges were brought against the husband.

It is a wonder why the husband was not kept in jail in view of dangerousness of his behavior.

Allegations were made by the victim already then indicating that the husband was a dangerous control freak:

" The woman also told police she called 911 for help, but Anthony Russell disconnected the call. When dispatchers called back, Anthony Russell said everything was fine.

Laura Russell told police that morning that she attempted to use someone else’s phone, a second phone she owned and attempted to get her car keys to leave during the incident, but her husband took away the phones and keys."

It was unlikely that a "no contact" order of protection would deter such a determined control freak who obviously looked upon Laura Russell as his property.

Of course, the husband claimed that the wife was drunk, came home late and was the aggressor.  The question is, why would a "drunk aggressor" run away to neighbors trying to escape from the husband?

The husband was released on a $500 bond and a no contact in August of 2016.

In September of 2016, "a Level 5 felony count of criminal confinement and misdemeanor counts of interference with reporting a crime and battery were added to the case by prosecutors."

And, the husband was still not arrested and was not kept locked up to protect the victim.

Laura Russell specifically asked the court "that Anthony Russell not be allowed to possess guns, knives or other weapons that could cause bodily injury."

That is the usual requirement for an order of protection.

I am not sure whether that request was granted or not, but for some relentless control freaks, such as Anthony Russell showed to be, an order of protection, and even an order not to possess knives or guns, is nothing but noise.

In June of 2016, the husband filed for divorce, but then quickly withdrew his filing, and the divorce case was dismissed.

After the strangulation episode on August 20, 2016, Laura Russell reportedly filed for divorce on August 24, 2016 - which also was not taken into consideration for purposes of protecting her from her stalker and abuser.

There were multiple witnesses who saw Anthony Russell, on multiple occasions, violating the no-contact court order of protection - following Laura Russell from lunch with friends, from the school where she picked up her daughter, to the gym - and Anthony Russell left before the police arrived, so the police did the right thing and applied, through prosecution, for an arrest warrant - which Judge Michael Hensley denied without a hearing.

Here is what the prosecutor reportedly said about what happened:

If everybody knew that Laura Russell was at risk of BEING KILLED, for God's sake, because she was leaving her abusive partner - why didn't the police start surveillance of Anthony Russell, even if the arrest warrant was denied?

Wouldn't that have saved Laura Russell's life?

Now everybody involved can "express condolences".

But the woman is dead.

And I cannot shake the nagging feeling that she is dead because everybody involved did not exercise the same amount of caution which they would have if Laura Russell was not Anthony Russell's wife.

The perception remains that our court system, especially male judges, like it was in this case, continues to act on implications that

• wives are husbands' property,
• husbands can do whatever they want with them, and that
• wives are not to be believed when they are claiming physical abuse and danger of death at the hands of their abusive husbands.

Just like it was not so long ago - when women were, in fact, the husband's property.

While prejudices die hard, one thing can be done about the situation - and that is not "changing procedures".

Judge Michael Hensley should be removed from the bench.

He would not have denied that arrest warrant, without a hearing, had the alleged victim been male, and a stranger to the defendant.

And that bias is not just a simple lapse of judgment.

How occupational licensing can turn a democracy into a theocracy: Great Britain yanks a medical license for dissemination of the "wrong scientific belief"

In a religion, adepts of that religion are expected to believe doctrines of their religion blindly.

That's again, in a religion.

Science progresses by putting to the test of proof-by-evidence any hypothesis offered in any specialized field of knowledge.

In a democratic society, people supposedly have freedom of speech on issues of public concern, and nobody is expected, much less mandated by the government to hold certain beliefs.

A requirement that a citizen must hold certain beliefs on the fear of penalty from the government is the feature of a tyranny, not a democracy.

Enters occupational regulation.

In the United States it has become routine to punish people for contents of their their opinions, whether professional or political, by yanking their occupational licenses - and depriving them of their ability to earn a livelihood for themselves and their families.

I wrote on this blog about the epidemic of sanctions against attorneys for their criticism of judges, including criticisms made as part of attorneys' professional opinions, in pleadings.

If you want to practice law in United States, you must keep your mouth shut as to judicial misconduct being committed in front of you, or you will be made to starve - because not only your law license will be yanked but, according to information that I have from various disciplined attorneys, you will be denied or made difficult to receive certification or licensing in other regulated professions, from taxi driving to insurance agents.

And, I wrote about the recent petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court of a financial advisor in Nebraska who was fired because of his political statements, so the Nebraska State Department of Banking and Finance put pressure on his employer to regulate his out-of-office political speech, or fire him.  He was fired, with no recourse from the courts so far.

So, if you want to earn a living as a financial advisor in Nebraska, you cannot hold political views such as Robert Bennie had, and especially you cannot express those views publicly.

Great Britain now jumped into the fray with a shameful decision to revoke license to practice medicine from a well-known and experienced doctor - because she dared to claim that the so-called "Shaken Baby Syndrom", the way doctors diagnose babies as having suffered from being shaken by their caregivers - is not based on evidence.

Of course, as of 2011, experts in the U.S. were still debating whether the "Shaken Baby Syndrome" as a diagnosis is, indeed, scientifically valid.

And, as of 2015, scientific evidence emerged that symptoms associated with the Shaken Baby Syndrome, the so-called "triad" of symptoms:

1. bleeding on the brain’s surface,
2. swelling of the brain and
3. bleeding behind the eyes -

may be caused not only by the Shaken Baby Syndrome, but also by other causes, such as:

• long-ago injuries;
• stroke in utero (before birth).

Yet, the SBS diagnosis, and expert testimony about it, has been cause of many convictions, child abuse adjudications and the resulting loss of liberty, parental rights, jobs of many parents in many countries, including the United States.

When there are doubts among experts as to causation of the "triad" symptoms, such symptoms cannot be definitively attributed to intentional misconduct of the caregiver - not beyond the reasonable doubt, not even by preponderance of the evidence.

That is what science says, using scientific methods: there is not enough proof to deem the "triad" symptoms attributable exclusively to the Shaken Baby Syndrome, and thus to convict or yank parental rights of parents whose children are diagnosed with such symptoms.

Now, can this "triad" of symptoms, in a specific case, actually be caused by shaking the baby, a definitely criminal conduct?

Of course, it can.

The only thing the experts say is that the "triad of symptoms" cannot, APART FROM ANYTHING ELSE, used as exclusive proof that the baby suffered from shaking.

All that is needed is more evidence, evidence other than the "triad" symptoms.

But more evidence is not what the lazy social services or criminal prosecutors want - they want easy convictions, or easy adjudications of child abuse and neglect, and for that they need experts rubber-stamping whatever "syndromes" that are necessary to bring about those convictions and child abuse adjudications, whether the "syndromes" are based on science or not.

Many careers of experts, budgets of social services are based on quick and plentiful adjudications of child neglect, yanking children from parents, placing them into foster care and then adopting them out of foster care.

The industry of child protective services is a big industry and it will not yield easily to somebody who want to undermine their livelihood - by, for example, putting in doubt the "sanctified snake oil" theory such as the Shaken Baby Syndrome.

And, when the government controls the livelihood of the expert through professional licensing, it is easy to at least try to put the unruly science into the necessary grove.

But wait, didn't the government, the religious government, try to control science this same way in the past?

In 1642, the great philosopher, astronomer and engineer, Gallileo Gallilei, died in prison at the age of 77, condemned by Catholic church for heresy.

The heresy was, among other things, denying the fact that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Not only Gallilei was condemned during lifetime and died in prison, but his body was not allowed to be buried where people wanted it - in the front of a cathedral - because of disapproval of the "heretic" by the Pope.

Yet, the Earth revolves around the Sun, whether the Catholic Church - or anybody else - disapproved of it, then or now, or not.

Eppur si muove (and yet it moves) - the words attributed to Gallileo - came to mean simply that scientific theories must be judged on the facts, not beliefs.

Yet, recently, Great Britain has yanked the medical license of a well-known and respected physician, Dr. Waney Squier, simply because she, based on 15 years of personal research, put in doubt that the "triad" of symptoms allow to exclude other causes and definitively diagnose the "Shaken Baby Syndrome".

Reportedly, 350 doctors, scientists and lawyers are protesting revocation of Dr. Squier's license.

The interesting part is that the license was revoked because of alleged "dishonesty" - meaning that the British government now claims to hold the ultimate truth on the scientific issue of whether the "Shaken Baby Syndrome" is or is not supported by scientific evidence.

350 experts say it doesn't.

The Medical Council in Great Britain says it does - and yanked Dr. Squier's medical license, so that she would not be able to look into the ACTUAL causes of the "triad" symptoms instead of rubber-stamping child protective and criminal investigations and prosecutions against parents.

And, the interesting part is that those experts who deny scientific validity of the Shaken Baby Syndrome no longer give evidence in court because they are "afraid of possible consequences" - which says a lot about impartiality of such court proceedings when the government requires a scientific expert to testify in the vein favoring the prosecution, or lose their licenses and livelihoods, as it happened to Dr. Squier.

It all boils down to three things:

1) the actual cause of the "triad" symptoms will not change because prosecutors want them to mean misconduct by parents or caregivers, and bringing about wrongful convictions will not help either the society, or the parents, or children who suffered such symptoms - possibly, not because of misconduct by parents or caregivers, but for other reasons;

2) occupational licensing is supposed to protect consumers of services, and channeling a doctor into having to diagnose a cluster of symptoms the way expected by criminal prosecutors in order for the prosecutors to win cases, does not help the patient to obtain the proper diagnosis - and proper treatment;

3) a government that mandates BELIEFS of any kind, including the belief in the validity of the Shaken Baby Syndrome (as the Catholic Church mandated belief that the Sun is revolving the Earth in Galilei's time), is not a democracy, it is a theocracy.