The curiously timed birth of the #Del-Chen-OWomen'sBarAssociation at the time of dwindling business - and the opportunities for its members to fix cases behind closed doors

I recently wrote about the newly-born "women's bar association" of the three rural counties of upstate New York - Delaware, Otsego and Chenango.

Interestingly, while my husband was practicing in that area for 37 years, and when there was enough private business for everyone, there was no need for a women's bar association.

Once economy became bad, and the paying client base all but disappeared, the need for a "women's bar association" somehow arose, with an invitation to "network", for money, with judges, prosecutors and disciplinary attorneys.

The Del-Chen-O is a "chapter" of a larger women's bar association that is selling "lunches with judges" without any scruples, the practice that in Arizona, has recently resulted in a disciplinary complaint against a judge who was selling tickets to "Breakfast with a Judge" "events".

When a bar association is selling such tickets, corruption remains the same.

Here is the list of members of Del-Chen-O Women's Bar Association which I obtained from the association's website - and added information from attorney registration website of the State of New York's Court system:

MaryJo Long	1978	Chenango	Afton	Private disabilities attorney	no appearances
Nancy Deming	1979	Delaware	Delhi	Law clerk to Family Court Judge Gary Rosa
Patricia Pantaleoni	1979	Otsego	Oneonta	Mother and law partner of Judge Lucy Bernier	no appearances
Lucy Bernier	1981	Otsego	Oneonta	Judge of Otsego City Court, in private practice with her mother, former prosecutor of 12 years
Nettie Jean Scarzafawa	1981	Otsego	Cooperstown	former Otsego County Surrogate Court judge who "retired" from the bench before the end of its term after she decided the case in favor of retired Judge Robert Harlem sued by NY Attorney General for ethical misconduct and misappropriation of over half a million dollars in estate money	no appearances
Anne Payne	1984	Otsego	Oneonta	?	no appearances
Dolores Fogarty	1988	Otsego	Unadilla NY	Assistant Public Defender in Otsego County	Assigned by Judges Rosa, Northrup and Burns as attorney for the child and for parties
Diana Goldberg Adams	1989	Otsego	Cooperstown	?	no appearances in Family Court
Samantha Holbrook	1991	Chenango	Norwich	Former law partner of appellate judge Elizabeth Garry; former longtime member of Attorney Grievance Committee of 3rd Department	no appearnces in Family Court
Jhilmill Jill Galeb	1991	Otsego	Richfield Springs	Legal Aid Society, former Otsego County Supreme Court Justice, wife of member of 3rd Department Attorney Disciplinary Committee member Dr Hany Ghaleb	no appearnces in Family Court
Anne O'Connell	1992	Otsego	Cooperstown	NO EMPLOYER IN REGISTRATION	no records
Larisa Obolensky	1993	Delaware	Delhi	Private practice	Assignments as attorney for parties and for the child by judges Northrup, Rosa and Labmert, predominantly Delaware County, some in Otsego County
Claudette Newman	1995	Chenango	Gilbertsville	Principal law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Kevin Dowd, judge	Gilbertsville is in Otsego County
Catherine Frey Murphy	1996	Chenango	Norwich	Chenango County Supreme Court Chambers of Judge Kevin Dowd
Kathleen S. Campbell	1997	Chenango	Norwich	Registered as attorney for NYS Insurance Fund	no appearances
Sarah Fitzpatrick	1997	Chenango	Norwich	Social Services, member of Attorney Grievance Committee 3rd Department	appears in front of judges Frank Revoir, Kevin Dowd, and Support Magistrates Stephen Dunshee and Sarah Hinchcliff
Tahirah Clark	1997	Delaware	Deposit	Private practice	Assigned to a party by Judge Gary Rosa
Carol Malz	1999	Otsego	Cooperstown	Legal Aid Society, former law clerk to judge Ghaleb	not practicing in Family Court
Rosemarie Richards	2001	Otsego	Gilbertsville	Private practice	Assigned by Judges Revoir, Dowd, Lambert, Northrup, Rosa in Delaware, Otsego and Chenango Family Courts as attorney for parties and for the child
Lisa Natoli	2002	Chenango	Norwich	Partner, Natoli & Natoli, former Chenango County Public Defender, designated by Appellate Division 3rd Department's Office of Attorney for the Children as attorney representing children in Family and Supreme Court	Assigned as attorney for the child by Judges Kevin Dowd and Frank Revoir, and Judge Spero Pines (known misconduct), Chenango County Family Court
Patricia Lynn Canner	2007	Otsego	Oneonta	employee of former judge Walter Terry	NEVER Assigned, only appears as Retained Attorney
Erin Neale	2008	Delaware	Delhi	Private practice	Assigned counsel for parties, assigned by judges Northrup, Rosa, Burns and John Lambert
Renee Albaugh	2008	Delaware	Delhi	Erin Neale's law partner	Assigned counsel for parties, assigned by judges Northrup, Rosa, Burns and John Lambert
Willa Payne	2010	Otsego	Binghamton	Legal Aid
Sarah Cowen	2011	Chenango	Sidney	The Cowen Law Firm	Assigned as attorney for the child and as assigned counsel for parties in Delaware, Otsego and Chenango Family Courts by Judges Kevin Dowd, Frank B. Revoir, Richard Northrup, Gary Rosa, Brian D. Burns
Barbara Durkin	2012	Otsego	Oneonta	SUNY Oneonta Administration
Susan Lettis	2013	Otsego	Cooperstown	Social Services
Norene Palmer	2014	Chenango	Norwich	Ree, Emerson and Palmer	Assigned as Attorney for the Child by Judge Frank B. Revoir, Jr (Chenango County Family Court)
Carly R. Walas	2014	Delaware	Walton	Wood Law Firm	Assigned as Attorney for the Child by Judge Richard Northrup (Delaware County Family Court), Judge Gary Rosa (Delaware County Family Court)
Laura Parker	2015	Chenango	Norwich	Assistant District Attorney, Chenango County, but it does not show on her registration information

Out of 30 members of the Women's Bar association covering 3 counties, there are:

3 (every 10th member) are law clerks of sitting judges:

1. Nancy Deming, law clerk of Delaware County Family Court Judge Gary Rosa;
2. Claudette Newman, law clerk to Chenango County Supreme (and Family Court) judge Kevin Dowd;
3. Catherine Frey Murphy, also law clerk for Judge Kevin Dowd;

2 currently sitting judges:

1. Judge Lucy Bernier of Oneonta City Court, Otsego County and
2. Judge Claudette Newman, of Butternuts Town Court, Otsego County

2 former judges:

1. Jhilmill Jill Ghaleb - former Otsego County Supreme Court Justice;
2. Nettie Jean Scarzafava - former Otsego County Surrogate's Court judge, one of the anti-heroes of the Blanding saga, "famous" for helping retired judge Robert Harlem and his son attorney Richard Harlem get away with fraud on the Estate and the court of over $600,000 when they were caught by New York State Attorney General, who quickly retired from the bench before the end of her term, right after she, according to NYS AG, read the record of proceedings involving fraud of Judge Harlem and his son Richard Harlem contrary to its clear meaning in order to save the hides of a judge and his son; Nettie Scarzafava disappeared at that point to allegedly "take care of her aging mother".  Now she, apparently, reappeared after dust settled.

4 former and present employees or law partners of judges:

1. Patricia Pantaleoni - mother and law partner of Judge Lucy Bernier;
2. Patricia Lynn Canner - employee of the law firm of former Oneonta City judge Walter Terry III;
3. Carol Malz - former law clerk of Judge Jhilmill Ghaleb;
4. Samantha Holbrook - former law partner of Appellate Division 3rd Department judge Elizabeth Garry

Elizabeth Garry's biography lists private practice with "the Joyce Law Firm in Central New York from 1995 through 2006".

The "Joyce Law Firm" is now "Joyce and Holbrook", a personal injury law firm where Judge Garry's former law partner Samantha Holbrook worked and continues to work from 1991 to present time.

3 members or former members or relatives of members of New York 3rd Department Attorney Grievance Committee:

1. Samantha Holbrook - former recent member and Chair of AGC, member of NYS Commission on Attorney Discipline;

2. Jhilmill Ghaleb - wife of longtime AGC member Dr. Hany Ghaleb

3. Sarah Fitzpatrick - current member of AGC

3 criminal or civil prosecutors:

1. Laura Parker - Chenango County Assistant District Attorney;
2. Sarah Fitzpatrick - Chenango County DSS attorney;
3. Susan Lettis - Otsego County DSS attorney 

7 attorneys assigned as attorneys for the child - which requires a named designation for attorneys prior to such an assignment by the Appellate Division 3rd Department

See the full list of attorneys approved to being assigned as attorneys for children in the 3rd Department that I received the list on a FOIL request from New York State Office of Court Administration. 

I included assignments as attorneys for the children for the 7 members of Del Chen O from E-courts as of three days ago:

1. Dolores Fogarty;
2. Larisa Obolensky;
3. Rosemarie Richards;
4. Lisa Natoli;
5. Sarah Cowen;
6. Norene Palmer;
7. Carly R. Walas

6 attorneys who are assigned in Family Court as attorneys for parties

1. Larisa Obolensky;
2. Rosemarie Richards;
3. Renee Albaugh;
4. Erin Neale;
5. Sarah Cowen;
6. Dolores Fogarty

For the "induction" ceremony of Del-Chen-O 'officers' on June 9, 2016, a Thursday, during business hours of courts, Del-Chen-O invited, reportedly, the following "honorable guests":

1. Judge of NYS Appellate Division 3rd Department Elizabeth Garry
1. former law partner of member Samantha Holbrook; appointing judge for Attorney Grievance Committee member Sarah Fitzpatrick (members of AGC are appointed by Garry's court);
2. appointing judge for attorneys for children members Dolores Fogarty, Larisa Obolensky, Rosemarie Richards, Lisa Natoli, Sarah Cowen, Norene Palmer, Carly R. Walas;
3. Disciplining judge for all attorneys-members of Del Chen O - so Judge Garry is the one who giveth business and taketh away attorney livelihood, and who should be bribed with invitations, food and wine rather than upset with criticism
2. Chenango County District Attorney Joseph McBride, boss of member Laura Parker;
3. Judge Gary Rosa, boss of member Nancy Deming and judge who assigns attorneys in Family Court, and who actually made assignments of cases at $75/hr to Del Chen O members:
1. Renee Albaugh;
2. Sarah Cowen (Sarah Cowen also receives a lot of assignments from Kevin Dowd, boss of Del Chen O co-members, judge Dowd's law clerks Catherine Murphy and Claudette Newman, who is a Facebook friend of Sarah Cowen's husband Brett Cowen);
3. Carly R. Walas;
4. Dolores Fogarty (even though Dolores Fogarty is a full-time public defender in Otsego County, she receives assignments as a private attorney in Delaware County, and has a private business in the Supreme Court on the side, doing cases that have nothing to do with her job as Otsego County Public Defender on Otsego County Public Defender time;
   
5. Larisa Obolensky;
6. Tahirah Clark - an attorney who reportedly has recently moved to the area, and is already assigned cases by Judge Gary Rosa:
   
7. Rosemarie Richards;
8. Erin Neale;
4. Hon. Molly R. Fitzgerald, Administrative Judge of the Sixth Judicial District; 
5. Hon. Lucy P. Bernier, Oneonta City Court Judge - member of Del Chen O and daughter of member Patricia Pantaleoni;
6. Monica Duffy - Chief attorney for member Sarah Fitzpatrick, husband of member Jhilmill Ghaleb and former chief attorney for member Samantha Holbrook;
7. Michael K. Creaser, Principal Attorney of Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC);
8. Alison M. Coan, Principal Attorney of AGC;
9. Anna E. Remet, Principal Attorney of AGC;
10. Sarah A. Richards, Principal Attorney of AGC.

The "ceremony" was held in the Oneonta City Performing Arts Center where Lucy Bernier was on the Board of Directors at the time a racial discrimination lawsuit was filed against the Arts Center (the Center's Director, Oneonta's now-deceased mayor Richard Miller, according to the lawsuit, allegedly advertised for renting the Center, but refused to rent to African American entertainers - Miller committed suicide during the pendency of the lawsuit, and Oneonta sought to commemorate the memory of the racist by dedicating a park to him). 

The "honorable guests" of Del Chen O who were supposed to come to Oneonta on June 9, 2016, a Thursday, by 3:00 pm, work far away from Oneonta, and had to leave their taxpayer-paid jobs early.

• Judge Molly Fitzgerald works in Binghamton, NY, a nearly 1.5 hour trip to Oneonta, NY, so Judge Fitzgerald had to leave at 1:30 pm to arrive to the Center by 3:00 pm.
• Attorneys Duffy, Creaser, Coan, Remet, Richards of AGC, and Judge Elizabeth Garry work in Albany, NY, which is also over 1.5 hours' drive away from Oneonta, NY.  They also had to leave their taxpayer-paying jobs at 1:30 pm or earlier to arrive at the Arts Center in Oneonta by 3:00 pm on June 9, 2016;
• Judge Gary Rosa works in Delhi, NY, a 30 to 45 minutes trip to the Arts Center, depending on the traffic (it's over mountain one-lane roads);
• Chenango District Attorney Joseph McBride works in Norwich, New York, an over an hour's drive to Oneonta, NY.

I doubt that any one of these highly-paying officials asked anybody permission to leave their jobs and participate in entertainment served to the "honorable guests", I am sure, for free.

I will try to obtain time-sheets of the "honorable guests" for that day, but as to disciplinary attorneys, three attorneys out of Monica Duffy's committee, including Monica Duffy's predecessor, the former Chief Attorney of AGC Peter Torncello, already "resigned" in 2013 for fabricating time-sheets - and were never disciplined, because who will discipline them? Themselves or their colleagues? So, whatever timesheets are released to me, their authenticity is not guaranteed under the circumstances. 

Duffy's integrity is legendary in other respects, too.

Duffy refused, for several years so far, to turn over investigation and prosecution of herself, attorney Allison Coan, and former disciplinary attorneys Peter Torncello and Steven Zayas for investigation to a special investigation to investigate clearly documented fraud upon the court.

Duffy blocked my husband's and my own access to the disciplinary file she claimed to Judge Garry's court she had - for purposes of discipline, and then, claimed to the federal court she does not have my husband's disciplinary file and does not have to have it.

As to my disciplinary file, Duffy was supposed to transfer it to the 4th Department when the whole case was transferred (on her ex parte application to Judge Garry, the then-AGC Chairwoman Holbrook's former law partner).  Then, Duffy did not transfer my file, and refuses to release both my file and a copy of her ex parte application - even though the case is already decided (without a portion of the record) by the 4th Department.

So, Duffy has a lot to teach about the way her Committee operates.

And, two years ago I already raised the issue on this blog that attending and even teaching CLE courses - for money - is not a legitimate use of time for disciplinary attorneys.

The practice still continues. 

As I stated above, Monica Duffy claimed in federal court that she does not even have to maintain archive of attorney disciplinary complaints and their resolutions to rely upon them when bringing disciplinary cases in court.

Duffy's Committee still does not comply with federal antitrust laws (North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v FTC), being run without statutory authority or neutral meaningful state supervision by a super-majority of competitors of disciplined attorneys, but she still has the audacity to teach CLEs as to "model", or rather, "mock" (a good word she picked for her CLE) disciplinary proceeding.

Since AGC is run in violation of federal antitrust laws, it is run as a criminal anticompetitive cartel - once again, Duffy has a lot to teach attorneys about.

All-in-all, what can be readily discerned from the list of members and the list of guests at the induction ceremony:

1) many members of Del Chen O derive a considerable, if not the main income from judicial assignments in Family and criminal courts;

2) there are several judges and law clerks of judges assigning cases in criminal (Judge Bernier, Judge Newman) and Family and Criminal courts (law clerks of Judges Dowd and Rosa) who were, no doubt, invited to be members of Del Chen O;

3) among the invitees to Del Chen O are:

• Judge Garry who approves members of the attorney for children panel and presides over attorney disciplinary cases, and can thus give business or kill business and livelihood of attorney members of Del Chen O - and of their competitors or those against whom Del Chen O members have a grudge;
• Judge Molly Fitzgerald who assigns judges to cases - and can assign cases of "lucrative" parties, or parties where judges can 'excel' by ruling the way the administrative judge wants, and get a promotion;
• Judge Gary Rosa who assigns attorneys to Family Court and criminal cases, at $75/hr;
• Monica Duffy and her staff of disciplinary attorneys - who, if Del Chen O members get on their "good side", will disregard or whitewash complaints against Del Chen O attorneys and instead proceed against their enemies - as she already did when she refused to prosecute for attorney misconduct private clients of the Grievance Committee member attorney John Casey (Robert Harlem and Richard Harlem) and instead proceeded against the Harlem's "enemies", my husband and myself.

With dwindling population of the State of New York, and especially with dwindling younger population, with dwindling populations specifically of Delaware, Otsego and Chenango Counties, the client base of Del-Chen-O members, when schools and maternity hospitals are closing there for lack of children, it is very clear that attorneys in Delaware, Otsego and Chenango Counties whose livelihoods depend on Family Court cases must get on the "good side" of judges who can choose to assign, or not to assign cases paying at $75 an hour, including travel time - often preferring attorneys who are on the judge's "good side" to equally or better qualified attorneys who live closer - and thus will cost County taxpayers less. 

For attorneys who do not have business independent from court assignments, it is get those assignments through brown-nosing judges - or starve.  A good way to keep attorneys under control by the government, by controlling whether they eat or not.

That's what they are doing through Del Chen O.

Del Chen O is not an association for "excellency" of the legal profession.

Judging just by who their members are and who they invite, Del Chen O is a meal ticket for their members, and a possibility to fix cases with law clerks of judges behind closed doors.

Pro Se parties do not have an advantage of having regular casual meetings with judicial law clerks Nancy Deming, Claudette Newman or Catherine Murphy.

Yet, criminal prosecutor Laura Parker, and DSS attorneys Sarah Fitzpatrick and Susan Lettis have such an opportunity.

Attorneys

1. Renee Albaugh;
2. Sarah Cowen;
3. Carly R. Walas;
4. Dolores Fogarty;
5. Larisa Obolensky;
6. Tahirah Clark;
7. Rosemarie Richards;
8. Erin Neale;

who are regularly assigned in Family Court and derive a large, if not the main, portion of their income from such assignments, have an opportunity to talk to law clerks of judges in front of whom they appear, to discuss and decide cases, in an ex parte manner, as well as to talk to Sarah Fitzpatrick, member of a disciplinary committee, as to how to whitewash themselves and eliminate competitors.

The timing of appearance of Del Chen O is also telling - the need for a "women's bar association" was not so acutely felt when attorney business abound in these three counties.

That need arose only when, once again, population dwindled, the possibility to grab a paying client drastically reduced, and assignments by judges became the way to survive.

For litigants - the story of the birth of Del Chen O is a warning.

Do not expect attorney members of this organization who are in private practice to raise any borderline "sensitive" subject in court.

Do not expect to fight in a child neglect case for your parental rights and against fabrications by DSS attorneys.

Do not expect them to seek recusal of biased judges.

I already wrote on this blog how two of Del Chen O members, Rosemarie Richards and Sarah Cowen, sold out their clients in order not to step on the toes of a judge who committed misconduct right in front of them.

I already wrote on this blog about Sarah Cowen's husband Brett Cowen who was on the Facebook friend list of Judge Kevin Dowd's law clerk and judge in her own right Claudette Newman before Claudette Newman hid her friend list after the publication.

While assigned attorneys are notorious to not do much, and just steer their clients toward quick settlements - because assigned attorneys are paid at the end of the case, whichever is its outcome - this particular bunch of assigned attorneys is just too close to judges to maintain their independence of judgment and provide zealous representation of clients.

Del-Chen-O's recent endorsement of Delaware County Clerk Sharon O'Dell on her "retirement" right after a criminal complaint was filed against her (that is how I learnt of Del-Chen-O's existence) is just one display of loyalty-no-matter-what to the system.

By the way, by their endorsement of Sharon O'Dell, law clerks of judges, judges and prosecutors - members of Del Chen O - disqualified themselves and their judges (for law clerks) from handling Sharon O'Dell's criminal case.

That is the "law" in Delaware County - you bow low, you don't whistle-blow, or you starve. 

After all, an attorney who practiced in Delaware County, David Roosa, specifically stated in a federal lawsuit that he was not assigned cases because he provided quality representation to his assigned clients, engaged in discovery, made motions, proceeded to trials - which was not what the assigning judge expected of him.

After all, three attorneys out of tiny Delhi, NY, lost their licenses for criticism of judges within 10 years, all on contrived reasons:

1. David Roosa - after criticizing assigning misconduct of Judge Becker;
2. Frederick J. Neroni - after raising the issue of bribery of Judge Becker in a criminal appeal, and after being threatened by prosecutor John Hubbard (who at that point did not disclose that he was former law partner of Judge Becker) "not to burn all bridges";
3. Tatiana Neroni - after raising multiple conflicts of interest, and lack of evidence proving legitimacy of Judge Becker's 2002 election in motions to recuse.

After all, it has become well-known in New York in 2007, through a federal lawsuit by disciplinary attorney Christine C. Anderson, that whitewashing "connected" attorneys and targeting with discipline of whistleblower attorneys are routine occurrences in attorney grievance committees.

Judging by conduct of Judges Rosa and Northrup in several cases reported to me, Judge Rosa and Judge Northrup are no better than Judge Becker, so members of Del-Chen-O, who have learnt "their place" over the years well, have a reason to be in full survival mode.

They won't raise their voices for their clients against an assigning judge if he is committing misconduct right in front of them.

One does not bite the hand that feeds one.

Especially when there are not so many paying clients to maintain an independent law practice.

Assigned clients of Del Chen O members should be on a constant watch whether they are going to be sold out.

These attorneys will be Facebook friends of judges they say they hate - to drum up business, have income and survive.

They will be giggling around the corners of the courthouse with DSS workers they say they hate - again, to drum up business, have income and survive.

They will be holding parties, receptions, meetings behind closed doors with DSS attorneys, criminal prosecutors, judges and their law clerks, and you will be left wondering what they are discussing behind closed doors.

Clients appearing in front of Del Chen O member-judges or judges whose law clerks are Del Chen O members should be on constant alert for possibility of case-fixing, if opposing counsel is also a Del Chen O member.

There are just too little paying business to go around in Del Chen O counties nowadays, and too many incentives for members of Del Chen O, and too many opportunities, to fix cases and sell out their clients.

This is the comment somebody posted to my blog article about now-Del Chen O member and Kevin Dowd's law clerk Claudette Newman's Facebook friends:

Yet, the Del Chen O, with its tentacles encompassing judges, friends, families, former and present employees and law partners of judges, court-DSS-criminal prosecutor, assigning judges and their law clerks and their "collaboration" with attorneys-recipients of assignments out of court, with wining and dining public officials who are sources of income for attorneys and regulators of their law licenses.

Claudette Newman's Facebook friends network at least did not pretend (especially that Newman immediately hid it when I published it) that they are "networking" to enhance their legal knowledge and improve their legal ethics, as Del-Chen-O members did, while continuing to receive income from judges they wine and dine, and while they happily endorse criminals.

Litigants beware.

Breakfast with Judges = justice for sale. In Arizona, Alaska, Florida, Michigan - and in New York

Yesterday, I published a blog article about an Arizona judge who is the subject of a judicial disciplinary proceedings for hosting "Breakfast with a Judge" for a fee:

Yet, "off the record" "Breakfasts with Judges" - for a fee - are a routine practice of bar associations across the United States.

In Alaska, the State Bar Association sold such "off the record" Breakfasts with Judges for $45 for "early birds" and for $70 for "late birds", to meet with four judges of Alaskan Court of Appeals, and with the court's clerk:

Such "breakfasts with judges - for a fee" - were held also in:

• Florida, see also here;
• Virginia;
• Federal bankruptcy court in Massachusetts.

And, of course, New York could not step back from having its share of encouraging judges into making an impression that their office is for sale.

Of course, having a lunch with a judge is presented as something completely benign - discussing "procedures", or, as it happens when American Inns of Courts are wining and dining judges, "promoting excellence of the legal profession".

But, creating a potential for a judge to meet with attorneys, away from the courtroom, and without presence of pro se parties and opponents of attending attorneys in court cases before those judges is, in essence exactly the same as it is in Arizona.

Whether it looks this way.

Or presented as a "hunting trip", a "duck-shooting trip", or an "all expenses paid 'educational' trip".

It stinks the same way.

Florida announces its unconstitutional policy to #AttorneyErwinRosenberg and to all other occupational licensees: you have no right against unlawful takings of your livelihood by the government

Occupational licensing becomes pervasive in this country.

Last year, the President of the U.S. recognized that occupational licensing takes 25% of the U.S. labor market (while other sources put the number at 29% in 2006, 10 years ago), and that it may result in unfair labor practices and in stifling the U.S. economy.

The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the stifling effect of occupational licensing by undertaking last year an extraordinary step of withdrawing the so-called "state immunity" from licensing boards where licensed private professionals, allegedly on behalf of the state, license and discipline their own competitors, without state statutory approval and without state neutral supervision of their anti-competitive activities.

I filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission in April of 2015 and in September of 2015 requesting enforcement of the U.S. Supreme Court decision against New York State attorney regulating authorities - while the Commission assured me that it will investigate, and, so far, failed to come back with any results.  And that is, while FTC, in a joint letter with DOJ, publicly recognized this year, after my complaints to FTC were filed, that what constitutes the practice of law, is not clear - and thus that regulation of the practice of law is one big violation of the 5th and 14th Amendment, and a big sham.

I will, of course, follow up as to the investigation of the FTC against NYS attorney regulating authorities with a FOIA request and report on the outcome.

Yet, despite the lip service attempting to control its stifling effect from the U.S. President, from the U.S. Supreme Court, and from the FTC, occupational regulation in the U.S. continues to stifle the economy and hurt, rather than help consumers.

People are punished and even jailed for feeding the poor and homeless, like it happened in Florida this year, on the pretext that those poor and homeless need protection from bad food - while what they need is food.  Police was destroying good food distributed to homeless people by religious organizations under the guise of enforcing occupational regulation laws.

As a parallel example, Russia is slammed with criticism - from outside and within the country alike - for destroying good food as some kind of weird self-punishment (and, in reality, punishment of its own low-income and disabled citizens) as a response to Western sanctions against the Putin government for their actions in the annexation of the Crimea and for the war in the Ukraine.

Yet, at the same time, in Florida, police destroys good food in front of hungry people - and claiming to enforce laws seeking, allegedly, to protect those same people.

While in Russia the bizarre and criminal destruction of food instead of giving or selling it to people is openly made on political grounds, in Florida and other states of the U.S., occupational licensing and "protecting consumers" (protecting the hungry homeless people from food) is used as a pretext.


Occupational licensing is used not only as a pretext to destroy good food in front of hungry people, it is also used to create hungry people - by denial or revocation of occupational licensing for reasons that have nothing to do with protection of consumers.

Licenses are revoked or denied for reasons having nothing to do with protection of consumers, like criticism of authorities.

Licenses are required for occupations like hair-braiders, with ridiculous educational requirements that have nothing to do with the practice of the profession, thus driving providers out of states with such regulations and raising prices for services of the remaining practitioners.

Licenses are required for occupations like fortune tellers, where one must wonder how "protection of consumers" and "quality services" are assured.  Regulation of fortune tellers is seriously claimed by the government to be done to protect consumers from fraud.

Fraud from what?  When the government claims that there is "good faith fortune telling" and "bad faith (fraudulent) fortune telling", we are hitting the rock bottom of stupidity. 

Regulation of the legal profession is no better than regulation of tarot readers or fortune tellers.

First of all, none of the U.S. jurisdictions have a clear statutory definition of what the practice of law (PL) is.  It is like obscenity - you are supposed to know it when you see it - and the Federal Trade Commission, together with the U.S. Department of Justice, recently recognized just that - that what constitutes the practice of law, is not clear.

Yet, for purposes of governmental regulation of people's fundamental right to earn a living, guessing what PL is and relying on definitions by courts (themselves market players and licensed attorneys) made on an ad-hoc, in-arrears way, is not enough for a constitutionally sufficient notice to the public as to what is being regulated, under the 5th and 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Nor is it enough for purposes of criminal prosecution for unauthorized practice of law (UPL) where what is UPL cannot be clearly defined when what is PL is not clearly defined.

When there is no clear statutory notice as to what PL and UPL is, criminal prosecution of UPL laws across the country is patently unconstitutional and is done, same as regulation of law, on an ad hoc, in-arrears judicial definitions as to what UPL is.

The conceptual mess in occupational regulation in general and attorney regulation in particular results in bizarre decisions.

Several states claimed that it is not ineffective representation in criminal court for purposes of reversing convictions, to have the criminal defendant being represented by a suspended or disbarred attorney. 

While suspension or disbarment is claimed to be not a criminal punishment, but a "civil" measure of "protection of the public", apparently, when a criminal conviction is at stake, the courts reversed course and claimed that that measure of protection is meaningless and has nothing to do with effective representation of criminal defendants.

The U.S. Supreme Court allowed non-lawyers to represent people in court where the government cannot satisfy the need for legal representation of the indigent and the illiterate - in a "jailhouse lawyer" case.

Don't try though to bridge the "justice gap" that licensed attorneys/judges like to talk so much, offering services of non-lawyers in criminal court or in Family Court CPS proceedings, or in civil rights cases - the market players will quickly invoke UPL laws.

In Pennsylvania, market players/licensed attorneys, used attorney regulation to derail, convict, shame and shut up the elected public official, the Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, for doing her job and investigating and prosecuting misconduct among judges and prosecutors.

In the same Pennsylvania, the outrageous Kids for Cash scandal happened because market players were using attorney regulation to stifle reporters of judicial misconduct.

In the same Pennsylvania, market players actively seek to deny reinstatement of civil rights attorney Ostrowski who received an astounding public support recently when he ran for U.S. Congress on Judicial Reform platform, for what Pennsylvania admitted does not constitute the practice of law during suspension - representation of a client before an administrative board.

In New York, the New York State Court of Appeals, a panel of 7 market players, just several days ago, illegally usurped the power to legislate and criminalized as UPL paralegal activities for disbarred attorneys, but not for individuals who never had law licenses, and while NYS Court of Appeals does not have legislative power as to enacting or amending criminal laws in New York.

The bizarre due process violations in attorney regulation does not end with the lack of clarity as to what is being regulated.

It also concerns regulation by competitors, adjudication of discipline by competitors, appeals by competitors (licensed attorneys) - all deemed federal antitrust violations by the U.S. Supreme Court, the antitrust violations that continue to happen in regulation of attorneys in state courts, federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court itself that regulates its own "bar", while every single judge of the Court is a licensed attorney.

Competitors regulating competitors create rules precluding effective remedies for attorneys for wrongful revocation of licenses.

A revocation of professional license means a destruction of reputation and livelihood for even the most accomplished and well-known legal experts.

Law professors are afraid to file amicus briefs in support of appeals of attorney discipline.

Joel Brandes, a recognized expert in law and an author of books in Family Law in New York, was arguing to the New York State Court of Appeals that he needed to have his law license reinstated because otherwise publishers would not publish his books - books of a well recognized expert, rejecting knowledge a wisdom because Joel Brandes has a brand of disapproval of the government upon him.

Unlike other countries where the legal community vigorously opposes judicial control over independence of court representation, the legal community in the U.S., in its majority, hands such control over to the judiciary without much challenge - and keeps silent as a means of self-preservation, even when being silent causes grave harm to vulnerable people, and the harm can be prevented by reporting it.

Bar associations distance themselves from suspended and disbarred attorneys and refuse to have them even as their so-called "lay members", without regard to the reasons of suspension or disbarment - so, even if the disbarment or suspension was unconstitutional, bar associations do not care and still shun attorneys in order to protect their own licenses and businesses, and the "good graces" of the regulating judiciary.

Unlike other regulated profession in the United States, where discipline and license revocation is handled by administrative boards which are, even if populated by supermajorities of market players, are later reviewed by courts where judges are not plumbers, doctors, insurance brokers, real estate agents reviewing discipline of their own competitors.

Attorneys are denied such an impartial judicial review where the "court disciplinary proceedings" are done by judges-attorneys, competitors of the disciplined attorneys.

Occupational licensees other than attorneys can file a federal lawsuit without the risk of running into the judicially created "Rooker-Feldman" "jurisdictional bar" to a civil rights actions, one of many judicially created bars to civil rights litigation, because license revocation in an administrative proceeding is not subject to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Yet, since, attorney disciplinary proceedings are positioned as "court proceedings" instead of administrative proceedings, the same license revocation, as a "judicial proceeding", even though attorney disciplinary proceedings have the nature of an administrative proceeding, even though they are handled by courts.  The courts are acting as licensing agencies, and thus acting in an administrative capacity.

Yet, courts deny challenges to the nature of attorney disciplinary proceedings as administrative, and that allows courts to bar attorneys from the equal opportunity to file a federal civil rights action complaining about their wrongful discipline.

As an example, federal courts recently ducked the equal protection challenge to such a disparate classification of attorney disciplinary proceedings when the 2nd Circuit affirmed dismissal of that challenge in Neroni v Zayas, Case No. 13-127, by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York - thankfully, in a non-precedential summary order, so another equal protection challenge in another district can still be mounted.

But, of course, review in federal court is also a review by market players and competitors, because federal judges have, as a pre-requisite of remaining on the bench, to maintain their state attorney licenses, so the federal civil rights lawsuit, and judicial rules set for such lawsuits, are also decided by market players and competitors.

In the rigged system of attorney regulation, where market players permeate every level of review in all courts, state or federal, it is important to have some forum where a wrongfully disciplined attorney can raise the claim of violation of due process before a panel of non-attorneys, non-competitors.

I will cover in this blog article applications to 4 bodies:

1. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission;
2. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights;
3. The U.S. National Labor Review Board, and
4. The Florida State Treasury

As I mentioned above, I tried to submit the claim of wrongful attorney discipline to the Federal Trade Commission - and am still waiting for an answer from the Commission, even though the claim is procedural, straightforward, and is based on irrefutable documentary evidence:

1. there is no statute in New York authorizing even the existence, much less the anticompetitive activities of the so-called "Attorney Grievance Committees", thus violating the "clear statutory articulation" prong of North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v FTC (NC Dental);
2. all Attorney Grievance Committees in New York are populated by 21 members, where only 3 out of 21 members are not attorneys, which results in a super-majority of market players (competitors) on such boards regulating their own competitors
3. There is no active state supervision over the anti-competitive activities of such Attorney Grievance Committees by a neutral state body not populated and governed by attorneys.  Attorney Grievance Committees are deemed an "arm of the court", a body populated and governed by licensed attorneys, and a body that, by virtue of legislating, investigating and prosecuting (through its "arm") and adjudicating the disciplinary proceeding, defy the claim that attorney disciplinary proceedings are "judicial" in nature - because there is no neutral adjucator present and no true adversarial process present.

While FTC is mulling over whether to apply the U.S. Supreme Court precedent to the New York attorney disciplinary authorities in FTC investigations, other wrongfully disciplined attorneys

Wrongfully disciplined attorney Zena Crenshaw, of the State of Indiana, claims that denial of effective remedies in court against governmental misconduct, including prosecutorial and judicial misconduct a deliberate pattern of torture and demeaning behavior by the government prohibited by the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights, and continues to address that claim to national and international forums, including the United Nations.

In fact, other countries gave their citizens the right to sue them in international courts - European Court of Human Rights, the United Nations Court of Human Rights, while the U.S. prefers to preside over cases of people from other countries brought before the U.N. Court of Human Rights, while not allowing its own citizen to avail themselves of such a remedy.

In Florida, a wrongfully disciplined attorney, Erwin Rosenberg, tried two possible remedies for wrongful denial of livelihood, by addressing a wrongful disbarment to the U.S. National Labor Review Board and the Florida State Treasury.

Erwin Rosenberg went to NRLB and Florida State Treasury after a federal court, populated and run by judges who are all attorneys, licensed by the Florida State Bar, defendant in civil rights litigation that disbarred Erwin Rosenberg, denied his claim against the Florida State bar, the regulator of federal judges.

The federal court decision was based on an astonishingly dishonest claim that federal courts do not have power to expand their own jurisdiction for Erwin Rosenberg's benefit, while

1. the truth is that the prohibition is much broader - Article I gives the exclusive power to expand OR RESTRICT jurisdiction of federal courts only to U.S. Congress, not to federal courts, and
2. federal courts happily restrict without any scruples their own jurisdiction for the benefit of governmental defendants in civil rights, RICO and other actions based on violation of Federal Constitution and of federal rules and regulations;

Attorney Erwin Rosenberg who is a thorough an meticulous legal researcher, then mounted, as I stated earlier, two more conceptually new and thoroughly researched challenges to wrongful attorney discipline:

1. Before the National Labor Review Board, and - quite recently
2. Before the Florida State Treasury.

The National Labor Review Board challenge

In his NLRB challenge, Attorney Rosenberg pointed out the following:

Attorney Rosenberg referenced in the complaint that both the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit recognized that bar associations are similar to labor unions and to employers in regulating conditions of employment of regulated attorneys - and, thus, wrongful revocation of an attorney's license is challengeable before the NLRB.

NLRB, as far as I know, did not decide attorney Rosenberg's complaint yet.

The Treasury Challenge

Here is Attorney Erwin Rosenberg's full complaint to the Florida Treasury which I am publishing with his permission.

Erwin Rosenberg based his demand for payment from the Florida State Treasury on State Bar's violation of his 5th Amendment rights to due process and to a just compensation when the government took his property (his law license and livelihood).

Attorney Rosenberg pointed out to the State Treasury that courts do recognize revocation of a law license as a "takings" within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment:

Smith v. US, 709 F. 3d 1114, 1116-1117 (Fed. Cir. 2013): "Assuming arguendo that Mr. Smith's licenses to practice law qualify as property for purposes of the Fifth Amendment, the government actions depriving Mr. Smith of his property included the disbarment orders by the Tenth Circuit, the Colorado federal district court , and the Supreme Court of Colorado, entered respectively on February 13, 1996, April 29, 1996 and October 14, 1999. . . . Therefore, Mr. Smith's taking claim . . . became 'complete and present' no later than each court's final disbarment order, and the period of limitations started to accuse on those dates."

Attorney Rosenberg provided to the Florida Treasurer multiple citations to court decisions where courts directly recognized the right to practice law as a due process interest protected by the Takings Clause, such as:

"We fail to see any inherent reason why the practice of law is protected by the takings clause but the practice of a legal specialty could never be protected."  Family Div. Trial Lawyers v. Moultrie, 725 F. 2d 695, 707 (D.C. Cir. 1984)(emphasis added).

The Florida Treasury did answer attorney Rosenberg's claim.

Here is the Florida Treasury's answer, in full.

Essentially, the Florida Treasury claimed that:

1. it cannot decide 5th Amendment claims on the merits as to violations of due process of law, but
2. can decide 5th Amendment claims on the merits of takings clause violations.

Of course, the Treasury provided no legal basis as to why it can decide one of the 5th Amendment claims as to violation of one of 5th Amendment's subsections, but not the other.

And, of course, the Treasury necessarily decided the due process violation clause when deciding the takings clause claim.

Florida Treasury's letter decision shows yet another conceptual mess that exists in the area of "regulatory takings":

Here is the full text of the Filler case that the Treasurer is relying on in denying compensation to an attorney whose license was wrongfully revoked.

In that case, the Federal Claims court defied the U.S. Supreme Court's precedent recognizing due process property and liberty interests in occupational licenses.

So, the Florida Treasury claims that Attorney Rosenberg does not have a due process right to compensation for wrongful revocation of attorney license because such right is "non-assignable".

Yet, there is no such language, about "assignable" and "non-assignable" due process interests in the 5th Amendment, and neither courts, nor the Florida State Treasury can change the 5th Amendment by interpretation - which they surely did:

1. by saying that , and
2. by saying that a wrongfully disbarred attorney never had a "cognizable property interest" in his law license.

So, Florida attorneys, be very afraid - your government just stated that you have no cognizable interest in the law license into which you invested a lifetime of time, money and effort.

And, if the government claims you have no due process right in your law license, the government can take it from you on a whim.

So, there is a basis for Florida attorneys (and all other occupational licensees) to now file a class action against the state government for recognition of a due process right in their law licenses - because otherwise each and every one of Florida attorneys may have their law license wrongfully stripped, without due process of law, and without any just compensation, or any compensation at all, for the governmental taking.

Actually, since the Florida Treasurer claimed that ANY occupational licensee does not have a due process property interest in their occupational license entitling the licensee to just compensation as a matter of federal constitutional law.

The answer to attorney Rosenberg is an announcement of a policy of the Florida State Government in occupational licensing as a whole, which can readily be challenged with a class action not only by attorneys, but by any individuals who have ever had occupational licenses in the State of Florida.

When attorney Rosenberg filed his complaint for compensation with Florida Treasury, he made a great service to a great number of people working in Florida.

By statistics, which I quoted above, over 1/3 of the U.S. labor market is regulated.

So, 1/3 of Floridians work in regulated professions, professions where the state government of the State of Florida - the very same that claimed to attorney Rosenberg that he has "non-assignable" law license and thus no due process right to just compensation if the government yanks that license unjustly.

So, 1/3 of workers in the State of Florida has a reason for concern - because, in a system where occupational regulation was introduced to insure CONSUMER PROTECTION, it has become a measure of government control over citizenry.

When the Florida State Treasurer boldly announces, on behalf of the State of Florida, that no just compensation is due as a matter of law to an occupational licensee whose occupational license was unjustly revoked,

that means that the same can happen to ANY holder of occupational licenses at ANY time, for reasons that may have nothing to do with protection of consumers.

"Guided" by such a policy, the State of Florida may revoke an occupational license, and with it, the right to earn a living, from any holder of an occupational license, for reasons that have nothing to do with protection of consumers, because of:

• how the occupational licensee voted in elections, or
• whether the licensee's connected competitor wants to oust the licensee because he draws clients from the connected competitor; or
• because the occupational licensee criticized the government or any government official, or a friend, a relative, a colleague, anybody connected with the government, for any kind of wrongdoing.

Outrageous governmental policies are often revealed by the government inadvertently, when government officials get sloppy.

And, government officials get sloppy when they think that the person they are dealing with is so below the law that he has no recourse, whatever they do to him.

In Erwin Rosenberg's case, the government threw in some "arguments" without giving much thought whether such arguments may be regarded as a broad policy regarding the state of Florida's refusal to recognizes that occupational licensees in the State of Florida have any rights whatsoever in their livelihoods.  

Here, once again, is the policy announced by Florida Assistant General Counsel to the Treasurer Kelly M Behmke, on behalf of Florida State Treasurer:

Of course, Kelly Behmke has her own finger in the pie, and should have been the last person to answer a claim for compensation from the Treasurer becase the Florida State Bar wrongfully deprived attorney Erwin Rosenberg of his law license, because Kelly Behmke is part of the problem as a person who participates in running the Florida State Bar:

So, there is a huge appearance of impropriety that a person who is part of the management of the Florida State Bar was trying to fix a compensation case by adjudicating the compensation claim raising the issue of misconduct of the Florida State Bar in wrongfully disbarring attorney Rosenberg.

Remember, the value of attorney Rosenberg's even applying to compensation with the Treasury was to omit review of his claim by "market players", licensed attorneys.  And, not only a licensed attorney reviews his claim, but the one who has an irreconcilable conflict of interest as part of the management of the regulator, the Florida State Bar.

And, since Kelly Behmke is also Assistant Attorney General for the State of Florida, her pronouncements on behalf of the Treasurer amount, as I mentioned above, to State policy.

Of course, where the policy exists that the state of Florida does not recognize any rights of occupational licensees to earn a living, and in their licenses, in the context of law licenses that means that attorneys must walk on eggshells and satisfy any whim of the government in order not to be stripped of their ability to earn a living and starve.

The Treasurer announced that in her policy - there is no right against unlawful takings for an occupational licensee in Florida.

So, litigants in Florida cannot possibly expect honest and zealous representation from attorneys licensed in Florida - because such attorneys would be more concerned in walking on eggshells not to offend anybody in the government, then to do an honest job for their clients.

As I mentioned above, I believe that the policy announced by the Treasurer and Florida Assistant Attorney General to attorney Erwin Rosenberg, is challengeable through a class action of all past, present and future holders of occupational licenses in Florida, or, in other words, by over 1/3 of Florida State workforce.

Whether such a lawsuit will actually be filed, remains to be seen.

Yet, what is clear is that attorney Erwin Rosenberg did a great service to the people of the State of Florida by revealing the State's unconstitutional policy towards occupational licensees.

I will continue to cover the continuing conceptual mess in occupational licensing in general, and in attorney licensing specifically.

#JudgeClancyJayne and his #BigRig. #BreakfastWithAJudge "events" are targeted with a judicial disciplinary complaint in Arizona

Rules of judicial conduct as to ex parte communications are identical across the United States.

A judge must be impartial.

A judge must not communicate with a party or attorney on one side of the litigation without presence or approval of attorney and/or party from the other side.

A judge must not accept presents of any kind from a party or attorney representing a party in litigation, to avoid appearance of impropriety.

A judge must avoid appearance of impropriety of any kind, in order to guarantee to litigants not only justice, but also appearance of justice - which is a requirement of due process, according to 2 U.S. Supreme court decisions -

Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal Co. Inc. (2009) that dealt with contributions with judicial election campaign of a judge who decided a case in favor of a major contributor, and
Williams v Pennsylvania (2016), voiding a judicial decision where the judge participated both as a prosecutor and as a judge.

Yet, since enforcement of rules against conflicts of interest of judges is loose if at all existent, and since judges invented for themselves

immunity from civil lawsuit and
are given authority to regulate the livelihood of attorneys who may want to report and prosecute them,

judges do not really care about any rules of disqualification or conflicts of interest, and engage in behavior that smacks of abuse of office and corruption to the high heaven.

And, only when the judge is finally voted out of office by the public, state disciplinary authorities finally decide to investigate and prosecute judges for egregious conflicts of interest - while, of course, such a prosecution will be thwarted before trial by the judge's resignation/retirement, and no attorney disciplinary proceedings follow.

This scenario happens all over the country, over and over again.

Yet, the fact that disciplinary proceedings are even brought because of certain conflict-of-interest behaviors, is in and of itself valuable for further exposing of public corruption and further investigation of other judges, not yet voted out of office, who remain engaging in that same behavior that was subject of a disciplinary complaint against an outgoing judge.

With that in mind, it is interesting to review the disciplinary complaint recently filed in the State of Arizona against a voted-out-of-office #JudgeClancyJayne 

who was reportedly a head judge of Desert Ridge District Court since 2008, for 8 years.

Here is some information from Judge Clancy Jayne's Twitter account:

In April of 2016, Judge Jayne reportedly received a "Super Nova Award" for blood and plasma donations:

Even if such blood and plasma donations were undertaken by Judge Jayne to fend of a disciplinary investigation, the donations in and of itself have an absolute value for those patients whose lives he may have saved.

Yet, Judge Jayne claims that donating blood is his lifetime habit

If that is true, Judge Jayne did something good in his life.

We can also see from Judge Jayne's tweets that he is fond of having breakfasts with public officials and attorneys:

And as to allegations in the currently pending ethical complaint that Judge Jayne invited people to his "Breakfast with the Judge" and "Big Rig" events sponsoring him, solicited information about "booking agents" for some speakers at such events, and advertised ticket sales for "Breakfast with the Judge" events - here is admission posted by Judge Jayne himself on his own Twitter account:

It was not THAT Bill Gates, it is this Bill Gates whose presence, endorsement and, likely, donation at "Breakfast with the Judge" Judge Jayne was soliciting:

Well, at least, Judge Jayne honestly put "Breakfast with a Judge" and the concept of "Big Rig" back to back.

Judge Jayne advertised his "Breakfasts with Judges" also through his Facebook page:

Here are a couple more of advertisements by Judge Jayne of Breakfasts with Judge Jayne - for a fee or a contribution to his re-election campaign:

Here is some information from Judge Jayne's own LinkedIn profile:

It appears from Judge Jayne's profile information that he lacks elementary literacy:  he describes his experience as the former State LegEslator, and claims he serves on Board of Directors of several "None Profite" groups.

Illiteracy in a judge who, since 2008, presided over people's cases and decided people's fates, is a big problem already.

And, it is not that I am just nit-picking on a couple of "slips of the finger", inadvertent misprints.  Reportedly, Judge Jayne was known even in his before-judgeship days in the State Legislature for his "poor spelling and grammar".  In other words, Judge Jayne is illiterate, and has been known to be illiterate for a long time.

But illiteracy appears the least of problems of litigants in the State of Arizona with Judge Jayne.

Judge Jayne, from what is alleged in the disciplinary complaint, lacks the very basic understanding of what human decency and integrity is.

Of course, judges in this country, and in the State of Arizona, have a "presumption of integrity" - even with self-given immunity for malicious and CORRUPT acts on the bench - and with that paradox, judges lose the sense of reality as to what is proper and what is not, and consider anything that a judge does to be "presumed proper".

In 2011, Judge Jayne was disciplined for "numerous" ex parte communications:

It did not help.  Judge Jayne still continued to advertise that he spoke to parties without presence of their counsel or the opposing counsel, on his Facebook page:

Judge Jayne has an entire blog dedicated to his misconduct, and was accused by the blogger back in 2012 of using his personal email to engage in an ex parte communication with a litigant.

And, the same blog, in the same 2012, reported that the Commission for Judicial Conduct of the State of Arizona started investigations of Judge Jayne's unethical behavior in the judicial campaign back then.

The complaint back in 2012 raises the issue of "Breakfasts with Judges" as violating Rules 1.2, 3.1(C) and 4.2(A)(3) of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct.

According to the blog, Judge Jayne already received a "warning letter" regarding his participation in "Breakfast with Judges" in 2012 or prior to that time.

And, in 2012 Judge Jayne received a "fourth informal sanction" from state judicial disciplinary authorities - for continuing to advertise as his BUSINESS presiding over wedding ceremonies as a justice of the peace, and featuring his corporate sponsors on his website.

Here is the official order of reprimand only - despite the fact that Judge Jayne received previous reprimands on the same subject, and continued with the same conduct anyway.

The reprimand did not help, Judge Jayne continued to advertise his wedding officiating business through his Facebook account:

Apparently, since other than "the fourth very last warning", no real discipline of any kind was imposed on Judge Jayne, he continued in his merry way. 

Remember, the Maricopa County Attorney Bill Gates publicly thanked Judge Jayne for the invitation to speak at one of the "Breakfasts with Judges" instead of reporting him for misconduct.

And, in 2013, Judge Jayne was publicly reprimanded by State judiciary discipline authorities - again, without taking him off the bench - for allowing a non-attorney sponsor of the judge's election campaign to represented his granddaughter in a court case.  Judge Jayne should have recused from that case, but he did not, allowed a non-attorney to represent his granddaughter (which he would not have allowed to anybody else) and presided over the case.

The order of reprimand mentions that Judge Jayne received "legal education" on "that same issue", which indicates that his misconduct was willful and arrogant, but only a reprimand followed.

Judge Jayne is not an attorney, and that prompted a defense attorney to state in advertisement of his legal services, that electing non-attorneys to judicial office is the same as selecting a surgeon on a popularity contest.

While I do not claim that judges should be attorneys, judges should be able to understand the law and apply it - and for that they need to be able to be at least literate (which Judge Jayne is not) and at least understand the substance of reprimands and remedial education - which he also, apparently, does or will not understand.

Qualifications for a justice of the peace in Arizona does include "English literacy" - a qualification that Judge Jayne obviously does not have, which did not preclude him from becoming a judge, and being a judge, for years, despite multiple sanctions.

The disciplinary authorities simply did not have the heart to take him off the bench - or, his sponsors applied some pressure on his behalf.

On November 3, 2016, the Arizona State Commission for Judicial Conduct announced yet another disciplinary proceeding against Judge Clancy Jayne.

Reportedly, there is a 74-page of public comments incorporated with the disciplinary complaint - which yet was not published by the Arizona State Judicial Conduct Commission.

What can I say.

An illiterate person gets into the legislature, then on the bench, and rules left and right for his friends, while everybody is afraid to take him off the bench - which should have been done a long time ago.

Multiple disciplinary proceedings were brought, with toothless results.

Multiple "remedial education" was ordered, which the judge disregarded - seeing that nothing will be done to him anyway, so why bother?

The problem is that all the while this obviously corrupt judge continued to decide cases - and who knows how many cases he rigged?

Judge Jayne was unique in how outspokenly he advertised his wedding officiating business in a black robe, sold tickets to his "Breakfast with a Judge" "events", solicited donations and then ruled for the donors.

While other judges may be more "refined", less outspoken and would not show the corruption - with the necessity to solicit private funding for judicial elections, such corruption is ever present in the American courtroom.

And, Judge Jayne is not alone in wining and dining - for a fee - with attorneys, creating a great potential for ex parte communications and case-fixing.

There are other, literate, refined, sophisticated judges and attorneys, doing the same.

I will continue to cover the topic how judges in this country are being wined and dined, and how the sale of justice then follows.

Stay tuned.

1.